The Akron Legal News

Court rejects murderer's argument that court’s transcript is fictitious

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: December 10, 2013

The 6th U.S. District Court of Appeals recently affirmed the decision of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas denying a defendant’s motion for a new trial 18 years after he committed a double homicide.

The defendant, Steven Redd, shot and killed Robert Trexler and Andrea Heron-Trexler on Aug. 27, 1993 outside of a convenience store in Toledo.

On Nov. 1, 1994, a jury convicted Redd of two counts of aggravated murder with death penalty and firearm specifications and two counts of aggravated robbery with firearm specifications.

He was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences.

Redd appealed after his trial but the 6th District affirmed the conviction in 1996.

In 2001, Redd filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the trial court denied.

Then, in 2012, almost 18 years after his conviction, Redd filed a number of new motions with the trial court including a motion for a new trial and a motion for leave to file for a new trial.

Both motions were filed pro se and subsequently denied.

Redd proceeded to appeal pro se arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motions without conducting an evidentiary hearing, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his trial counsel abused its discretion.

“Crim.R. 33 provides the circumstances under which a new trial may be granted,” wrote Judge James Jenson, writing on behalf of the district’s three-judge appellate panel.

According to statute, a new trial may be granted under several circumstances including irregularities in the proceedings, misconduct of the jury, prosecuting attorney or witnesses, accident or surprise, insufficient evidence, an error of law or newly discovered evidence which the defendant could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at trial.

“Application for a new trial shall be made by motion which, except for the cause of newly discovered evidence, shall be filed within 14 days after the verdict was rendered unless it is made to appear by clear and convincing proof that the defendant was unavoidably prevented from filing his motion for a new trial,” the statute states.

If a motion for a new trial is filed on the ground that there is newly discovered evidence, a defendant is required to file the motion within 120 days after the verdict.

If not, he is required to file a motion for leave, which Redd did but the trial court denied when it found that Redd did not offer any convincing evidence for the delay.

“An abuse of discretion standard is applied when reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion for leave for a new trial,” wrote Jenson. “Likewise, the decision whether to grant or hold an evidentiary hearing on a defendant’s motion for leave falls within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.”

The appellate panel found that Redd failed to articulate on which section of Crim.R 33 his motion was based.

Instead, Redd claimed in his appellate brief, “The appellant’s entire appeal is based on fraudulent transcripts that omitted, rearranged and created false testimony, arguments, evidence, jury instructions and prejudicial actions committed by the courtroom authorities, officials and homicide detectives.”

Essentially, Redd claimed that the entire 1,724 page transcript of the court proceedings was a “totally fictitious document.”

“We hasten to note that appellant offers no evidence to support his hyperbolic claims, other than his own self-serving affidavit,” wrote Jenson. “Likewise, he offers no motive as to why a court reporter would act with such bias, much less, how a court reporter could conceivably carry out such a massive fraud.”

Instead, Jenson noted that Redd used his 12-page, 101-paragraph affidavit to recreate “the omitted and the incorrect portions” of the transcript based on the “best of (his) recollection” 18 years after the fact.

“Appellant offers no corroborating statements to substantiate his alternative view of events,” wrote Jenson.

According to the court of appeals, Redd also failed to present proof that he was unavoidably prevented from filing a motion for a new trial on a timely basis.

Redd claimed that he attempted to obtain the transcript of the trial proceedings in 1996, but it was not until 2012 that the public defender’s office allowed him to access the documents.

He admitted that he did not try to obtain the transcript since his failed attempt in 1996.

“Setting aside the unavoidable conclusion that appellant’s allegations do not fall squarely under any of the grounds set forth in Crim.R. 33, he has also failed to make a case of unavoidable delay,” wrote Jenson.

In addition to his other claims, the appellate panel proceeded to overrule Redd’s remaining assignment of error alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.

The trial court’s decision was affirmed and Redd’s consecutive life sentences were left standing.

Presiding Judge Arlene Singer and Judge Mark Pietrykowski joined Jenson to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Redd, 2013-Ohio-5181.

[Back]