Griffin v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
MICHAEL GRIFFIN,
Petitioner, 	: 	Case No. 1:25-cv-793
- vs - 	District Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
WARDEN,
Chillicothe Correctional Institution,
:
Respondent.
DECISION AND ORDER
This habeas corpus case, brought pro se by Petitioner Michael Griffin, is before the Court
on Petitioner’s Motion to Expand the Record (ECF No. 9). The Warden opposes the Motion (ECF
No. 10), and Petitioner has filed a Reply Memorandum in Support (ECF No. 12).
Rule 7 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases authorizes the Court to expand the record by
directing the parties to submit additional materials relating to the petition. Petitioner asks the Court
to add a document labeled State’s Ex. 7J which he describes as an “authenticated Amazon Purchase
History of the Petitioner.” (ECF No. 9, PageID 875). He asserts “This evidence is necessary for
this Court to review in the adjudication of the Petitioners claim that his Constitutional right to Due
Process was violated by the use of insufficient evidence.” Id. Challenged by Respondent as to the
necessity of including this document, Petitioner responded:
The Amazon Purchase History is relevant to Griffin’s claim that he
is held based upon insufficient evidence. Griffin claims the Amazon
Case: 1:25-cv-00793-JPH-MRM Doc #: 14 Filed: 02/17/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Purchase History led to testimony which was conjecture, so it stands
to reason that this Court would need to review the document to
compare it to the testimony of the detective in determining whether
his testimony was conjecture in regards to the Amazon Purchase
History.
(Reply Memorandum, ECF No. 12, PageID 906).
The Warden does not question the authenticity of the proposed addition as an exhibit
authenticated at trial, admitted in evidence, and considered by the jury. The Assistant Attorney
General notes, however, that is it not usual to include the trial exhibits in the State Court Record
filed in these cases and that a copy of Exhibit 7J is not in the possession of either the Warden or
the Attorney General’s Office (Memorandum in Opposition, ECF No. 10).
Analysis
Because the exhibit was part of the trial record and seen or available to be seen by the Ohio
Twelfth District Court of Appeals on direct appeal, its addition to the record is not precluded by
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011). Pinholster bars a federal court “from admitting new
evidence upon which to assess the reasonableness of a state court's constitutional analysis.”
Upshaw v. Stephenson, 97 F. 4th 365, 372 (6th Cir. 2024), quoting Mitchell v. Genovese, 974 F.3d
638, 647 (6th Cir. 2020).
Respondent correctly notes that while the Sixth Circuit requires District Courts to review
the trial transcripts in habeas cases, it does not require us to review trial court exhibits. Properly
storing such exhibits and maintaining the chain of custody would require extensive expansion of
District Court storage capacity.1 Adding a copy of the single document for which Petitioner
1 Picture murder weapons and bloody clothing in capital cases which frequently last for decades.
Case: 1:25-cv-00793-JPH-MRM Doc #: 14 Filed: 02/17/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
contends does not present these difficulties. The determinative question is whether the Court needs
the document to properly decide the case.
The relevant habeas claim is Ground Two:
Ground Two: Griffin’s right to due process was violated by the use
of legally insufficient evidence.
Supporting Facts: 	The other act evidence which was a pending
charge were unproven allegations which cannot support inferences.
Detective McAllister [ ’]s testimony in regards to the Amazon
business record is not supported by the Amazon business record,
which Griffin claims is conjecture.
(Petition, ECF No. 3, PageID 30).
Griffin presented this claim to the Twelfth District Court of Appeals which rejected it and
affirmed his conviction. State v. Griffin, 2025-Ohio-1403 (Ohio App. 12 th Dist., Apr. 21, 2025).
The Court has examined that decision and Griffin’s brief on appeal (State Court Record, ECF No.
7, Ex. 10). Having done so, the Court concludes there is no need to expand the record to include
State’s Ex. 7J.
Petitioner’s Motion to Expand the Record is DENIED.
February 17, 2026.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 1:25-cv-00793-JPH-MRM Doc #: 14 Filed: 02/17/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>