Smith v. Warden Ross Correctional Institution

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, OVERRULING Petitioner's Objection. This action is dismissed. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter Final Judgment. Signed by Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 1/19/2016. (cw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL P. SMITH,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 2:14-cv-02018
Judge Marbley
Magistrate Judge King

WARDEN, ROSS CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION,
Respondent.
ORDER
On November 16, 2015, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this action for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be dismissed. Report and Recommendation (ECF
No. 16). Petitioner objects to that recommendation. Objection (ECF No. 19). For the reasons
that follow, Petitioner’s Objection is OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation is
ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This action is hereby DISMISSED.
Petitioner was convicted, following a jury trial in the Guernsey County Court of Common
Pleas, of murder, with specifications, and attempted murder, with a specification, grand theft,
and having a weapon under a disability. He argues in this habeas corpus action that he was
denied a fair trial by the admission into evidence of photographs and testimony by a law
enforcement officer regarding a re-enactment of the shooting using a laser beam. Petitioner
specifically argues that the officer was not qualified to engage in crime scene re-enactments
using laser sight technology, and that no reasonable trial court could accept the use of laser sight
technology for the purpose of crime scene re-enactments. In recommending dismissal of the
claim, the Magistrate Judge reasoned that Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509
U.S. 579 (1993), upon which Petitioner bases his habeas claim, did not set a constitutional
standard, and that the trial court’s evidentiary ruling did not contravene or unreasonably apply

federal constitutional law as determined by the United States Supreme Court. Report and
Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
Petitioner argues that, because Ohio courts refer to Daubert in determining the
admissibility of scientific evidence, an unreasonable application of Daubert may constitute a
basis for federal habeas corpus relief. He insists that the admission of the challenged evidence at
his trial violated Daubert and therefore resulted in the denial of his right to due process.
This Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the issue of the admissibility of the
challenged evidence involves state evidentiary rules and rulings. The fact that the state courts
considered Daubert in resolving the issue, or that Petitioner claims prejudice by virtue of the
admission of the evidence, does not mean that he is necessarily entitled to federal habeas corpus
relief. As discussed by the Magistrate Judge, Daubert concerns the Federal Rules of Evidence
and does not apply to the states. See Adams v. Bradshaw, 484 F.Supp.2d 753, 790 (N.D. Ohio
April 24, 2007)(citing Norris v. Schotten, 146 F.3d 314, 335 (6th Cir. 1998)).
This Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner has failed to establish
that he is entitled to relief under the standard of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Further, the record does
not establish that the admission of the challenged evidence deprived Petitioner of a
constitutionally fair trial so as to warrant federal habeas corpus relief.
Petitioner’s Objection (ECF No. 19) is OVERRULED.
Recommendation (ECF No. 16) is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.

The Report and
This action is hereby

DISMISSED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter FINAL JUDGMENT in this action.
s/Algenon L. Marbley
ALGENON L. MARBLEY
United States District Judge

2