Summary
This United States District Court opinion reviews a state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his murder conviction and sentence. The court addresses multiple claims, including procedural default, the adequacy of jury instructions on self-defense, and the defendant's right to be present during jury communications. After de novo review of the petitioner's objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, the court adopts the recommendations, denies the petition, and issues a certificate of appealability.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court should overrule petitioner’s objections and adopt the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
- Whether a certificate of appealability should be issued on grounds four and thirteen concerning the petitioner’s right to be present.
- Whether the habeas petition should be dismissed.
Holdings
- The court overrules petitioner’s objections and adopts the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
- The court issues a certificate of appealability on ground four and ground thirteen.
- The petition is dismissed.
Key quotations
“A leading principle that pervades the entire law of criminal procedure is that, after indictment found, nothing shall be done in the absence of the prisoner.”
“The right to personal presence at all critical stages of the trial and the right to counsel are fundamental rights of each criminal defendant.”
Factual background
In April 2013, Randy Thomas and Anthony Smith fought after a dispute outside a drug sale. Smith produced a gun; Thomas seized it and shot Smith, who later died. The incident was witnessed by a neighbor who testified to the shooting.
Procedural history
Petitioner was convicted of aggravated murder in Ohio state court, appealed, and after state appellate and Ohio Supreme Court proceedings filed a federal habeas petition. The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation; the district court reviewed the report de novo.