# Csehi v. Smith

> District Court, N.D. Ohio · August 13, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11120007

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** August 13, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11120007

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

NICHOLAS CSEHI, CASE NO. 1:25-cv-00046

Petitioner, DISTRICT JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT

vs. MAGISTRATE JUDGE AMANDA M. KNAPP

WARDEN SHELBIE SMITH, ORDER

Respondent.

Before the Court are the following motions filed by pro se Petitioner Nicholas Csehi
(“Petitioner”): (1) Petitioner’s Motion to Expand the Record (ECF Doc. 9 (“Motion to
Expand”)); and (2) Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Traverse (ECF Doc. 10
(“Motion for Extension”)). Respondent filed a response to the Motion to Expand (ECF Doc. 12)
and supplemented the state court record to include the requested jury verdict forms (ECF Doc.
11). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the
Motion to Expand (ECF Doc. 9) and GRANTS the Motion for Extension (ECF Doc. 10).
I. Procedural Background
Petitioner filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”) on
January 10, 2025, relating to his 2023 murder conviction.1 (ECF Doc. 1.) The Petition is before
the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to Local Rule 72.2.
Mr. Csehi raised the following 12 grounds for relief in his petition:

1 “Under the mailbox rule, a habeas petition is deemed filed when the prisoner gives the petition to prison officials
for filing in the federal courts.” Cook v. Stegall, 295 F.3d 517, 521 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.
266, 273 (1988)). It is not clear from the record what date the Petition was placed in the prison mailing system.
(See ECF Doc. 1, p. 18.) Thus, the Court considers it filed on January 10, 2025, the date it was docketed. (Id.)
Claim No. #1: The state court’s decision on the state law review of the manifest
weight of the evidence claim was error that amount [sic] to a fundamental
miscarriage of justice and violation of the right to due process in violation of the
United States Constitution. Therefore, review of the state law claim is warranted
pursuant to Floyd v. Alexander, 148 F.3d 615, 619, (6th Cir.), Cert. Denied, 525
U.S. 1025, 119 S.Ct. 557, 142 L. Ed. 2d. 464 (1998).

Claim No. #2: The trial court and court of appeals finding of no discriminatory
intent on Batson challenge is clearly erroneous, and was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence.

Claim No. #3: The court of appeal denied the appellant due process right to fair
appellate review and equal application of the law where it failed to evaluate the
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims pursuant to the standard set forth
in Henness v. Bagley, 644 F.3d 308 (6th Cir. 2011) which mandates the
determination whether the issues presented was [sic] clearly stronger than the issues
counsel raised on direct appeal.

Claim No. #4: Appellant was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel
where counsel failed to raise on direct appeal ineffective assistance of trial counsel
where trial counsel failed to adequately cross-examine the coroner who performed
the autopsy regarding the toxicology report on the deceased.

Claim No. #5: Appellant was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel
where counsel failed to raise on direct appeal ineffective assistance of trial counsel
where trial counsel failed to request an expert witness to testify to the effect of
alcohol and drugs found in the decendent’s [sic] system.

Claim No. #6: Appellant was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel
where counsel failed to raise on direct appeal ineffective assistance of trial counsel
where trial counsel failed to introduce evidence of the violent character of the
decendent [sic], of his reputation for violence, and of specific instances of prior
violence.

Claims No. #7: Appellant was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel
where counsel failed to raise on direct appeal ineffective assistance of trial counsel
where trial counsel failed to object to the introduction of autopsy photographs
which were highly inflammatory and prejudicial.

Claim No. #8: Appellant was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel
where counsel failed to raise on direct appeal the trial court committed plain error
in issuing certain jury instructions on self-defense were [sic] not supported by the
evidence in two instances.

Claim No. #9: Appellant was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel
where counsel failed to raise on direct appeal ineffective assistance of trial counsel
where trial counsel failed to object to the trial court’s jury instruction on fault and
retreat.

Claim No. #10: Appellant was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel
where counsel failed to raise on direct appeal ineffective assistance of trial counsel
where trial counsel failed to obtain qualified expert to testify that violent behavior
increases during periods of alcohol and drug use.

Claim No. #11: Appellant was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel
where counsel failed to raise on direct appeal the trial court erred and denied
appellant due process of law and a fair trial when it failed to properly charge the
jury and provide a separate verdict form on the issue of self-defense. Thus, trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to object.

Claim No. #12: Appellant was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel
where counsel failed to raise on direct appeal all of the issues collectively amounted
to cumulative error.

(ECF Doc. 1, pp. 12-17.)

The Respondent filed his Return of Writ on May 13, 2025. (ECF Doc. 8.) On May 28,
2025, Petitioner filed his Motion to Expand (ECF Doc. 9), asking the Court to order Respondent
to supplement the state court record with the following documents:
(1) Juror No. 12 questionnaire;

(2) Pictures taken by Detective Palinkas at the Ashtabula Medical Center
documenting abrasions of Petitioner showing evidence that the victim
attempted to strangle him during the incident;

(3) Trial exhibit 14, the Petitioner’s statement;

(4) The victim’s toxicology report;

(5) The photos taken by the coroner of the victim and shown to the jury; and

(6) The jury verdict form.

(ECF Doc. 9, p. 2.) At the end of his Motion for an Extension, Petitioner included a “Motion for
an Evidentiary Hearing.” (Id. at p. 6.)
Respondent supplemented the state court record with the jury verdict form (ECF Doc.
11), but otherwise opposes expanding the record to include the other requested documents (ECF
Doc. 12). Petitioner filed a reply on July 1, 2025. (ECF Doc. 13.)
On June 10, 2025, Petitioner also requested an extension of time to file his Traverse,

stating that he will need more time to review any new evidence before filing his Traverse if the
Motion to Expand is granted. (ECF Doc. 10.)
II. Motion to Expand
A. Legal Framework for Expansion of Record
Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that “the Court may direct
the parties to expand the record by submitting additional materials relating to the petition.” Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2010). “The decision of whether to expand the
record, however, is within the sound discretion of the district court.” West v. Bell, 550 F.3d 542,
551 (6th Cir. 2008). Because “[i]t would be strange to ask federal courts to analyze whether a
state court’s adjudication resulted in a decision that unreasonably applied federal law to facts not

before the state court,” a federal habeas court may only review evidence that was in the state
court record at the time of the state court proceedings. Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 182
(2011); Black v. Bell, 664 F.3d 81, 91 (6th Cir. 2011).
B. Petitioner’s Requests for Specific Documents
Petitioner offers only limited arguments as to why the Court should expand the record to
include the requested documents. He claims generally that the Court should expand the record
“to alleviate any factual disputes in the regards to Petitioner’s Constitutional claims” and “to
facilitate a full and fair review of Petitioner’s Constitutional claims.” (ECF Doc. 9, p. 1.) He
also asserts that “an expansion of the record in the present matter is warranted because the
Government relies on evidence not currently in the habeas record to support its arguments in the
return of writ.” (ECF Doc. 9, p. 2.) But he does not identify what factual disputes the requested
evidence would resolve, nor does he identify what pieces of requested evidence were allegedly
relied upon by Respondent in the Return of Writ but not included in the state court record.

More specifically, Petitioner asserts that the requested documents are necessary to decide
Grounds Two, Four, Seven, and Eleven of the Petition and to decide his “Actual/Factual
Innocence Claim Relating to Self-Defense Claim presented in the State Court.” (Id. at p. 4.) He
does not identify which documents pertain to which grounds/claims or how they would affect the
Court’s analysis of those claims. The Court will address each piece of evidence in turn.
1. Juror No. 12 Questionnaire
Petitioner asks first that the state court record be explained to include the “Juror No. 12
questionnaire.” (ECF Doc. 9, p. 2.) This request apparently relates to Ground Two of the
Petition, which alleges error in the handling of Petitioner’s Batson challenge. (ECF Doc. 1, p.
12; see ECF Doc. 8-2, pp. 80-85.) During the voir dire prior to Petitioner’s trial, the prosecutor

used a peremptory strike to remove juror number 12, and defense counsel objected under Batson
v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), that the strike was based on race. (ECF Doc. 8-2, pp. 80-83.)
The trial judge overruled the objection, stating he could not determine from the record whether
juror number 12 was the same race as Petitioner, and noting that the juror indicated in her
questionnaire that she would have issues with transportation to the trial. (Id. at pp. 81-85.)
Respondent argues that Petitioner’s Batson claim is clearly meritless—making the
submission of the jury questionnaire unnecessary to these proceedings—because the stricken
juror must be the same race as the petitioner to support a Batson challenge, and the trial judge
found that juror number 12’s race was not stated in her questionnaire. (ECF Doc. 12, pp. 2-3
(citing U.S. v. Odeneal, 517 F.3d 406 (6th Cir. 2008)); ECF Doc. 8-2, pp. 82-84).) A review of
the trial transcript reveals that the trial judge reviewed the questionnaire in making his ruling on
the Batson challenge and read certain portions into the record. (ECF Doc. 8-2, pp. 83-84.)
The undersigned finds that the Juror 12 Questionnaire was relevant to the proceedings

giving rise to the Petition, was part of the record before the state court, and may assist this Court
in deciding the merits of Petitioner’s claims. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s
request to supplement the record to include the Juror No. 12 Questionnaire.
2. Pictures of Petitioner’s Abrasions Caused by the Victim
Petitioner next seeks to supplement the record to include pictures taken by Detective
Palinkas, which reportedly document abrasions Petitioner sustained when the victim attempted to
strangle him. (ECF Doc. 9, p. 2.) Respondent argues that these photographs are not necessary to
adjudicate Mr. Csehi’s Petition because “it is not disputed that he had abrasions on his person.”
(ECF Doc. 12, p. 3.) Indeed, the state court’s factual findings, which are presumed correct, see
28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1), include a finding that the victim choked Petitioner during their

altercation. (ECF Doc. 8-1, p. 84.) Petitioner has offered no explanation as to why the Court
must view the specified photographs to properly consider his self-defense claims, and the
undersigned finds the existing record sufficient for the Court to consider the legal import of the
victim choking Petitioner, without the submission of additional photographic evidence.
The Court also notes that it is not clear from the trial transcript that these photographs
were before the state courts. While Detective Palinkas testified that he took photographs of Mr.
Csehi’s abrasions (ECF Doc. 8-2, pp. 421-22), it is not clear they were submitted as a trial
exhibits. A federal habeas court may only review evidence that was in the state court record at
the time of the state court proceedings. Cullen, 563 U.S. at 181 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 2254).
While there are some limited exceptions to this general rule, the Court need not discuss these
here, as Petitioner has not made any substantive arguments as to why the requested photographs
must be considered. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s request to supplement the
record to include photographs of his abrasions.

3. Trial Exhibit 14, the Petitioner’s Statement
Petitioner next seeks to supplement the record to include a copy of “Trial Exhibit 14, the
Petitioner’s Statement.” (ECF Doc. 9, p. 2.) Respondent contends that it is not clear what
document Petitioner is referencing. (ECF Doc. 12, p. 3.) The trial transcript does not contain an
exhibit list (see ECF Doc. 8-2), but the transcript suggests State’s Exhibit 14 was a picture of
item number 2, a spent shell casing from the crime scene (id. at 249). Respondent confirmed this
after consulting the State and Clerk’s Office. (ECF Doc. 12, p. 3.)
Plaintiff does not specify in his Motion, nor does he clarify in his reply brief, what
“Statement” he is seeking to have included in the record. (See ECF Docs. 9, 13.) He also has
not explained why he believes it is necessary for the Court to consider that statement when

reviewing his Petition. (Id.) Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s request to
supplement the record to include “Trial Exhibit 14, the Petitioner’s Statement.”
4. Victim’s Toxicology Report and Autopsy Photographs
Petitioner also seeks to supplement the record to include copies of the victim’s toxicology
report and autopsy photographs. (ECF Doc. 9, p. 2.) These requests apparently relate to
Grounds Four and Seven in the Petition, which allege that appellate counsel was ineffective for
failing to raise trial counsel’s failure to cross-examine the coroner regarding the toxicology
report and his failure to object to “highly inflammatory and prejudicial” autopsy photographs.
(ECF Doc. 1, pp. 13-14.) Mr. Csehi does not explain in his Petition, the Motion to Expand, or
his reply brief how this additional evidence would assist the Court in deciding the merits of his
Petition. (See ECF Docs. 1, 9, 13.)
Respondent objects to inclusion of both the toxicology report and the autopsy photos.
Regarding the toxicology report, Respondent does not dispute that the victim was under the

influence of certain substances and notes that the state courts made factual findings about the
victim’s erratic and aggressive behavior. (ECF Doc. 12, p. 4.) Regarding the autopsy photos,
Respondent asserts that the Court should defer to the “reasonable state court opinion” that found
the photographs “were not gruesome or inflammatory.” (Id. (quoting ECF Doc. 8-1, p. 143).)
Both the toxicology report and the autopsy photos were submitted as exhibits at trial.
(See ECF Doc. 8-2, pp. 276-77 (identifying State’s Exhibit 51 as containing an autopsy report
and toxicology report), 278 (identifying State’s Exhibits 52-68 as autopsy photos).) They were
also reviewed and summarized by the state appellate court in deciding Petitioner’s application to
reopen his appeal. (See ECF Doc. 8-1, pp. 141-43.)
While the Sixth Circuit expects district courts to review the state court trial transcript in

habeas cases, this Court is not required to review trial exhibits. See Hopson v. Horton, 838 F.
App’x 147, 157 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing Adams v. Holland, 330 F.3d 398, 406 (6th Cir. 2003)); see
also Rule Five of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (stating requirements for filing of trial
transcripts). In a case such as this, where Petitioner has not argued that a review of the trial
exhibits will demonstrate an error in the trial transcript or the factual findings of the state
appellate court, the Court finds Petitioner has not sufficiently supported his request to expand the
record to include those trial exhibits. See Hopson, 838 F. App’x at 158 (noting district court
need not examine trial records where “(1) the state court opinions summarize trial testimony or
relevant facts, and (2) the petitioner does not dispute those summaries” (quoting Kraus v. Taylor,
715 F.3d 589, 596 (6th Cir. 2013)). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s requests to
supplement the record to include the toxicology report and autopsy photos.
5. Jury Verdict Forms
Petitioner also requests that the record be supplemented to include the jury verdict forms

from his trial (ECF Doc. 9, p. 2), but that request is MOOT because Respondent has since
supplemented the record to include the jury verdict forms (ECF Doc. 11).
C. Petitioner’s Request for Evidentiary Hearing
Petitioner has also moved for an evidentiary hearing, but without identifying the type of
evidence he seeks to obtain or making any argument as to why a hearing is necessary. (ECF
Doc. 9, p. 6; ECF Doc. 13, p. 4.)
While evidentiary hearings are not precluded in federal habeas proceedings, they are
permitted only in limited circumstances. As set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2):
(2) If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court
proceedings, the court shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim unless the
applicant shows that—

(A) the claim relies on—

(i) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral
review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or

(ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through
the exercise of due diligence; and

(B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and
convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder
would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) (emphasis added); see also Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Habeas
Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 (addressing evidentiary hearings). Even where a petitioner “is
not disqualified from receiving an evidentiary hearing under § 2254(e)(2),” the Sixth Circuit has
recognized that mere fact “does not entitle him to one.” Bowling v. Parker, 344 F.3d 487, 512
(6th Cir. 2003). Indeed, the Sixth Circuit has recognized even in death penalty cases that “‘bald
assertions and conclusory allegations do not provide sufficient ground to warrant requiring the
state to respond to discovery or to require an evidentiary hearing.’” Id. (quoting Stanford v.

Parker, 266 F.3d 442, 460 (6th Cir. 2001)) (alternations in original).
Petitioner has done no more than generally request an evidentiary hearing. (ECF Doc. 9,
p. 6; ECF Doc. 13, p. 4.) The Court finds he has not met his burden to support the extraordinary
relief of an evidentiary hearing, and his motion for an evidentiary hearing is therefore DENIED.
D. Motion for Extension of Time to File Traverse
Petitioner seeks an extension of time to file the Traverse, arguing that he will need time
to review any supplements to the record. (ECF Doc. 10.) The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s
request for an extension of time. His Traverse shall be filed within 30 days of the date that
Respondent supplements the record as ordered below.
E. Conclusion

For all the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion to Expand
(ECF Doc. 9) in part and DENIES it in part. The Court also GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion for
Extension of Time to File the Traverse. Respondent shall have 15 days from the date of this
order to supplement the state court record with the Juror Number 12 Questionnaire. Petitioner
shall have 30 days from the date any supplemental evidence is filed to file a Traverse.

Dated: August 13, 2025

s/ Amanda M. Knapp
AMANDA M. KNAPP
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11120007. Public record. Not legal advice.