Cox v. Warden, Madision Correctional Institution

Filing 7

DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING re 6 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 08/02/13. (pb1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
MICAH ALAN COX,
Petitioner,

:

- vs -

Case No. 3:13-cv-200
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

ROD JOHNSON, WARDEN,
Madison Correctional Institution,
.
Respondent.

:

DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING

This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Discovery and an
Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. No. 6). The substance of the Motion is a request that State’s Exhibit
1 and the entire trial transcript be filed with the Court or that an evidentiary hearing be granted.
Petitioner does not describe State’s Exhibit 1 but says it is needed
to support my claim that Exhibit #1 was played in it’s [sic] entirety
un-redacted, to show that my criminal history was talked about in
full detail, not just a mere passing statement. Also to show that my
trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to Exhibit #1
admission and how I was prejudiced by Exhibit #1.

(Doc. No. 6, PageID 164).
Because Petitioner had pled an insufficient evidence ground for relief, the Court will
require the entire trial transcript to be filed. This Court assumes from Petitioner’s partial
description that State’s Exhibit #1 is a recording of some type, video or audio. The Respondent

is ordered to furnish this Court with the original or a certified accurate copy of State’s Exhibit #1
and to furnish Petitioner with the same. Petitioner claims that State’s Exhibit 1 was played unredacted and is presumably asserting that the playing took place in the presence of the jury.
Respondent’s counsel shall ascertain whether or not this is reflected in the trial transcript.
Petitioner’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing is DENIED without prejudice to its
renewal when it is determined what was the true state of the record transmitted to the Second
District Court of Appeals.
August 2, 2013.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge