Cox v. Warden, Madision Correctional Institution, No. 3:2013cv00200 - Document 7 (S.D. Ohio 2013)

Court Description: 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)

Download PDF
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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.