Hill v. Franklin Parish Detention Center

Filing 35

ORDER denying 31 Motion Request for Tape Recording, Ouachita Parish Sheriff Offense Report and for Discovery and Expansion of Record. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 10/3/12. (crt,DickersonSld, D)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
GENE AUTRY HILL

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-0292
SEC. P

*

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

*

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

VERSUS
WARDEN FRANKLIN PARISH DETENTION
CENTER
ORDER
Before the undersigned Magistrate Judge, on reference from the District Court, is
Petitioner Gene Autry Hill’s Motion for Discovery and Expansion of Record [doc. # 31].
Movant is a prisoner at the River Bend Detention Center Lake Providence, Louisiana, and has
filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [doc. # 1]. Petitioner
specifically requests: (1) the original tape recordings of the trial held on March 31, 2010, and the
hearing held on March 29, 2010; and, (2) the “original Ouachita Parish Sheriff Offense report . . .
prepared by Corproal [sic] Kottenbrook . . .” on September 6, 2009. [doc. # 31, P 1]. The Court
will take Petitioner’s requests in turn.
Petitioner requests the original tape recordings of the aforementioned proceedings. This is
not the first time Petitioner has requested these tape recordings – Petitioner actually requested
the tapes on his direct appeal to the Louisiana State Appellate Court. See State v. Hill, No.
46,050–KA (LA. App. 2 Cir. 4/20/11); 64 So.3d 801, 806-07. There, he argued that the court
reporter added words to the transcript, in violation of his due process rights. Id. However, the
appellate court found that the court reporters signed all transcripts, attesting to their accuracy,
that petitioner’s subsequent cross-examination of another witness supported the accuracy of the
record transcript, and that the trial court conducted an in camera review of the recording and
found it to be “a verbatim dictation of what was said at trial.” Id. The Court observes that
Petitioner seeks to use these tape recordings to prove his ongoing contention that prosecution
witness Corporal Kottenbrook perjured himself. See [doc. # 23, P 15-17]. With regard to

Petitioner’s request for the tape recording of the March 31, 2010, trial proceedings, this Court
notes the state appellate court’s findings on the issue that there is simply no factual basis for
Petitioner’s argument that the transcripts were in any way altered, and denies Petitioner’s request.
Furthermore, this Court finds that the March 29, 2010, hearing is irrelevant to these proceedings.
That hearing, held on the original date set for trial, dealt with the failure of the victim to appear
as a witness. The government was prepared to proceed without her, but petitioner insisted that
the trial in his case be delayed so that the victim could be located and brought to court to testify.
Thus, it is completely irrelevant to the issue raised by Petitioner herein, which is limited to his
claim that his conviction was obtained through the use of perjured testimony. In any case, there
is no evidence that the hearing was not correctly transcribed, so even if the hearing itself were
relevant to these proceedings, the transcript of the hearing would be sufficient. Therefore,
Petitioner’s request for the tape recording of the March 29, 2010, hearing is also DENIED.
Finally, Petitioner requests the “original Ouachita Parish Sheriff Offense report . . .
prepared by Corproal [sic] Kottenbrook . . .” on September 6, 2009. [doc. # 31, P 1]. However,
the offense report was included in the state court trial record at page # 000079, and Petitioner’s
request is therefore MOOT.
Accordingly, Petitioner Gene Autry Hill’s Motion for Discovery and Expansion of
Record [doc. # 31] is DENIED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED at Monroe, Louisiana, this 3rd day of October , 2012.

2