IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 5, 2008
JOSEPH SHERMAN, PETITIONER,
CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner's request to lodge a video and audio in support of his petition (Doc. 22).
Respondent filed an answer to the petition for a writ of habeas corpus on August 13, 2008 (Doc. 20). Respondent also lodged documents, which were received by the court and routed to the file room in Sacramento, California, on August 21, 2008. In the answer, respondent states that a video-only tape of the incident at the state capitol was shown to the jury at petitioner's trial. The videotape was thus part of the record below, and should have been lodged with this court. There is no indication in the record that an audio tape was used at petitioner's trial, nor part of the record in the state court.
Respondent was required to lodge with this court a complete record from the state court proceedings. However, in the notice of lodging respondent filed, there is no indication that a video tape was included in the records that were lodged. Accordingly, respondent is directed to file a response to petitioner's request within 30 days. In his response, respondent is to address the following issues:
(a) whether an audio tape was part of the state trial court record;
(b) whether respondent has lodged any and all audio and/or video tape(s) which were played to the jury during petitioner's trial; and
(c) if not, why was such audio and/or video tape(s) was not included with the lodged trial court record.
Finally, if respondent agrees that a video and/or audio tape(s) should be lodged, they are requested to do so with their response to this order and petitioner's request.
IT IS SO ORDERED
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.