UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 23, 2009
JAMES BRADLEY HAAG, PETITIONER,
JAMES TILTON, DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REGARDING PETITIONER'S MOTIONS FOR DISCOVERY [Docs. 52, 53,54, 70, 73]
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. This case is ready for review on the merits.
Petitioner has filed various motions objecting to the fact that the voir dire and opening statements were not transcribed and have not been provided to him for use in challenging his conviction. Petitioner's complaint appears to be legitimate.
First, the Court has previously ordered and received a copy of the transcript of the voir dire proceedings. However, Petitioner has not received such copy. (Court Doc. 73, Petitioner's Motion.) Second, the opening statements were reported but not transcribed. (See Reporter's Transcript, Master Index, at 703-709, July 3, 2002.) This Court cannot say that such transcripts are not relevant to the instant proceedings. See Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court will direct Respondent to obtain the transcript of the openings statements made during Petitioner's criminal trial. Upon receipt of all the transcripts, including voir dire, the Court will forward a copy to Petitioner. Accordingly, to the extent Petitioner's motions request copies of all recorded but not transcribed trial court proceedings, his request is GRANTED.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Respondent shall present an application to the state court for transcription of the opening statements made by counsel; and,
2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Respondent shall provide the Court with the status of such request.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.