 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State3/5/1991
NAHRA, Presiding Judge:
In 1982, relator, Joseph Pontius Martinelli, was convicted of the murder of Gary Andrew Buchwald and sentenced to fifteen years to life. After exhausting his direct appeals, Martinelli commenced this mandamus action on November 2, 1989, against Judge Daniel O. Corrigan, who was the presiding judge at the murder trial, Cuyahoga County Sheriff Gerald T. McFaul and Coroner Elizabeth Balraj. The purpose of this action is to force the county defendants to produce their records relating to the death of Buchwald and thsmurder trial. Martinelli intends to use these documents to aid his efforts to contest his conviction.
The county defendants have filed both a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment against the complaint. Martinelli has responded to both of these motions. For the following reasons this court grants the motion for summary judgment as to Judge Corrigan and the county coroner, and it grants the writ of mandamus as to Sheriff McFaul.
From Judge Corrigan, Martinelli seeks to obtain all judicial records relating to the murder of Buchwald and the underlying murder case. These judicial records fall into one of two categories: the official record, including the pleadings, transcript and exhibits, or the judge's own personal notes.
As to the official record, Judge Corrigan is not the person responsible for such records. The General Assembly has specifically made the clerk of courts the responsible person for the records of the common pleas court. R.C. 2303.14 provides that the clerk shall keep the journal, records, books and papers appertaining to the court and record its proceedings. Similarly, R.C. 2303.09 mandates that the clerk shall "carefully preserve in his office all papers delivered to him for that purpose in every action or proceeding." See, also, R.C. 2303.08 (the clerk shall make a complete record), and R.C. 2323.23 and 2323.24 (the contents of the record and the clerk's duty to make a complete record). In State, ex rel. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, v. Gosser (1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 30, 33, 20 OBR 279, 282, 485 N.E.2d 706, 710, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that " hen statutes impose a duty on a particular official to oversee records, that official is the `person responsible' under R.C. 149.43(B)." Accordingly, the clerk of courts, not the judge who presided at the trial, is the proper person from whom to obtain the court record under the Ohio Public Records Act.
The judge's personal notes are not subject to disclosure. In Gosser, supra, the relators sought comprehensive records from the clerk of courts relating to driving-while-intoxicated cases. Their requests included the court records for such cases and notes by the judges taken in connection with DWI trials or hearings. The court affirmed that most of the disputed documents were public records, but specifically held that a judge's personal notes and pre-sentence reports are not public records. Gosser, 20 Ohio St.3d at 32, 2sOBR at 280-281, 485 N.E.2d at 709. Accordingly, because either Judge Corrigan is not the person responsible for the requested records or the records requested from the judge are not subject to disclosure, summary judgment for Judge Corrigan is granted.
From the county coroner, Martinelli especially seeks the autopsy records and the records of forensic tests which the coroner may have in her possession. Martinelli admits that he has seen most of these records from his inspection of the court record, the trial transcript and the exhibits. He claims that subsequently he has learned from a variety of sources that those records are not "truthful" and that the corone
Page 1 2 3 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|