COLLIER DETESTS SPEED, UNLESS IT'S LUNCH TIME!

      At the conclusion of the fourth and final segment of the suppression hearing, conducted on or about October 9, 2009, COLLIER stated on the record, “You’ll have my decision in a week.”  COLLIER permitted no oral argument at the conclusion of the suppression hearing.

         No ruling was forthcoming from COLLIER. COLLIER did not issue a written opinion, setting out findings of fact and conclusions of law, primarily because he was unable to cogently reconcile his denial of the motion to suppress with the facts and the law. 

         In fact, since COLLIER never issued a written ruling, at the pre-trial conference called by COLLIER on November 6, 2009, COLLIER casually stated to defense counsel, “I’m going to overrule your motion.”  

         COLLIER’S unnecessarily protracted conduct of the suppression hearing over several weeks and his failure to timely rule on the suppression motions, as he initially offered from the bench, had the intended effect of depriving the Defendant of a speedy trial by tolling the time of the unwarranted delay to the Defendant, and thus purposefully circumventing the requirements of the law with respect to speedy trial. 

         Had COLLIER ruled within a week, as he offered from the bench, he would have been required to try the Defendant at an earlier time than the scheduled trial date of November 9, 2009.

         Rather than complying with the requirements of the law, COLLIER, acting deliberately contrary to law, knowingly and willfully deprived the Defendant of a speedy trial.

        

         Further, COLLIER overruled the Defendant’s motion to suppress the illegally seized evidence in spite of the fact that Salisbury failed to meet his burden under the law.

         COLLIER then, contrary to the prevailing case law and well-established legal precedent, permitted Salisbury to introduce tainted evidence at trial with the specific intention of prejudicing the Defendant. 

         In 1969, more than forty years ago, the United States Supreme Court decided Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, holding there is no exception to the rule that evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible at trial.

         Further, way back in 1886, more than 120 years ago, the United States Supreme Court decided Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S 616, and held “Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. *** It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.”

COLLIER SEEMS TO BE A BIT BEHIND IS HIS READING, THAT IS IF HE CAN READ!

BASED UPON HIS PERFORMANCE IN THE COURTROOM, I AM FIRMLY CONVINCED THAT THE ONLY BRIEFS COLLIER READS ARE LABELED "JOCKEY!"

MUCH MORE TO COME ....