Hall v. Russell, 073109 FED6, 08-3411
|Party Name:||FREDRICK HALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. HARRY RUSSELL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.|
|Case Date:||July 31, 2009|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Petitioner Fredrick Hall appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
In 1999, an Ohio jury convicted Hall of felonious assault and attempted murder. The charges pertained to the shootings of Kevin Davis and Johann Hart.
Lolita Moore and Jimmie Martin claim to have at least partially witnessed the shootings. Both were interviewed at the scene by responding Officer Stephen Fromhold. According to Moore, she and Martin told police that the shots came from a moving vehicle containing three clean-haven males in their early twenties. That version contradicts the testimony of the victims, both of whom identified petitioner (middle-aged, not clean-haven, and sitting in a stationary car) as their shooter.
Although subpoenaed by both sides, neither Moore nor Martin testified at either of petitioner's trials.1 Hall was aware of the content of Moore and Martin's potential testimony, however, because his attorney cross-examined Officer Fromhold extensively during the first trial regarding those witnesses' identities and oral statements.
Soon after Hall's conviction, defense counsel located Moore via an arrest records search. Hall then learned of Moore's claim that after the shooting both she and Martin were taken to the police station where each produced a handwritten statement.2 The police deny the existence of those documents, or that the two witnesses were ever even taken to the station. No written statement by Moore or Martin was turned over to the defense.
Alleging in part that the purported withholding of Moore and Martin's written statements violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Hall moved for a new trial. That motion was denied. The Court of Appeals of Ohio subsequently affirmed the conviction, State v. Hall, No. C-990639, 2000 WL 1162000 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2000), and the Supreme Court of Ohio denied leave to appeal.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP