Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Everson v. Bracy
United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
July 15, 2019
REGINALD EVERSON, Pro Se, Petitioner
WARDEN CHARMAINE BRACY, Respondent
SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8, 2017, Pro Se Petitioner Reginald Everson
(“Petitioner” or “Everson”) filed a
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“2254
Petition”) (Pet., ECF No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 in the above-captioned case, challenging his
conviction and sentence on one count of aggravated murder
with a firearm specification (Count 1), and one count of
having a weapon under disability (Count 2). As a result of
the conviction, Petitioner was sentenced to 30 years to life
for the aggravated murder with a consecutive term of five
years for the firearm specification, and three consecutive
years for having a weapon under disability, resulting in an
aggregate term of 38 years to life
imprisonment. He argues that his § 2254 Petition
should be granted based on the following grounds for relief
and supporting facts:
GROUND ONE: The trial court committed reversible error when
it allowed evidence of an out of court statement of the
victim in violation of the Confrontation Clause set forth in
the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Supporting Facts: The trial court allowed the out of court
statement of the victim that “Reg shot me.” The
statement was not determined to be a dying declaration. The
court improperly allowed the statement implicating Petitioner
as the person who shot the victim, when the victim was under
the influence of drugs and the statement was hearsay.
GROUND TWO: Petitioner was denied his constitutional right to
confront and cross-examine the witness against him when the
court permitted impermissible hearsay testimony and where
such testimony was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Supporting Facts: Trial court improperly admitted the false
out of court statement of Petitioner's uncle that
Petitioner had access to a car similar to the one used in the
crimes involved in this case. The evidence was false and
prejudicial and improperly admitted, depriving Petitioner of
a fair trial.
GROUND THREE: The trial court committed reversible error by
excluding relevant and proper cross-examination evidence.
Supporting Facts: The trial court granted the State's
motion in limine to prevent autopsy evidence that there were
drugs in the victim's system at the time of the shooting.
This violated the Petitioner's right to confront his
accusers. The jury is entitled to all information that might
bear on the accuracy and the truth of a witness's
testimony. As the victim's “dying
declaration” was [used] to convict the Petitioner, the
accuracy of that statement and credibility of the statement
would be affected by the intoxication of the declarant.
GROUND FOUR: The trial court committed reversible error by
admitting 911 recordings under the excited utterances
exception to the hearsay exclusion rule which prevented
Petitioner from receiving a fair trial.
Supporting facts: Petitioner was denied the right to confront
the witnesses against him when the 911 testimonial recordings
of witnesses that were recorded on the day the crimes were
committed; but the witnesses were never called to testify at
trial. The State did not mention in its motion in limine that
the statements were non-testimonial. Petitioner was prevented
from receiving a fair tria1 by playing the highly emotionally
charged recordings to prey upon the passions of the jurors.
No. evidence was present in the recordings to implicate
Petitioner in the crimes.
GROUND FIVE: The introduction into evidence of the findings
of the autopsy report by the testimony of the State's
expert medical witness violated Petitioner's rights under
the Confrontation Clause as set forth in the Sixth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.
Supporting Facts: The State's expert medical witness was
allowed to testify on evidence from the autopsy report when
he was not the one who performed the autopsy nor any tests
that were part of the autopsy. Petitioner was prevented from
confronting the actual person who generated the examination
and test findings.
GROUND SIX: Petitioner was denied Due Process and Equal
Protection under the law when the trial court failed to
render a decision with regard to the Petitioner's
Motion to Suppress Eyewitness testimony, said motion to
suppress being based on Petitioner's Fifth Amendment
right to Due Process and Sixth Amendment right to counsel
under the U.S. Constitution made applicable to the States
under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Supporting Facts: No. decision based on the Motion to
Suppress, written or otherwise, resolving the issues of
making essential factual findings can be found on the record
of this case. The trial court never decided or ruled on the
Motion to Petitioner's prejudice, depriving him of a fair
trial as the trial court failed to make any determinations on
Buy This Entire Record For