COLLIER REFUSES TO REVIEW GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE INDICTMENT PRESENTED BY THE CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR

            During the suppression hearing, Medina County sheriff's deputy Douglas Clinage, on cross-examination, was unable to articulate any conduct of the Defendant which might constitute evidence of and give rise to the unspecified underlying “criminal offense” as charged in the indictment. Clinage was the only witness to offer testimony in support of the defective indictment in this case.

         Defense Counsel requested COLLIER to review the transcript of the grand jury testimony of Douglas Clinage to determine what testimony he gave, if any, as to the Defendant’s conduct which might be considered to have given rise to the unspecified “criminal offense” which Defendant intended to commit within the premises of the Leighton residence.

         COLLIER emphatically and unequivocally denied defense counsel’s motion, stating, “I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT.”

         COLLIER, who should be expected to comprehend the guaranties of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution, refused to review Clinage’s grand jury testimony knowing full well, based upon Clinage’s testimony, that the Defendant was being tried for a criminal offense for which he had not been indicted by the grand jury.

         COLLIER refused to review the grand jury transcript thereby knowingly subjecting the Defendant to an unlawful prosecution for an offense not indicted by the grand jury, and over which TOTALLY CORRUPT JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER presided.

         On October 21, 2009, Defense Counsel filed Defendant’s Opposition to Prosecutor’s Alleged “Notice of Underlying Crimes,” fully briefing the trial judge on the issues and the law.  In part, Defense Counsel cited to State v Robertson, 2002-Ohio-6824, wherein the Ohio Supreme Court held:

Section 10, Article 1, of the Ohio Constitution provides that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury ***.”  We have held that this provides an inalienable protection to the defendant that he will be tried on the same essential facts on which the grand jury found probable cause. State v Vitale (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 695.  

Cases cited by Defense Counsel in support of the Defendant's Opposition to Prosecutor's Notice of "Underlying Crimes": 


State v. Robertson, 2002-Ohio-6824
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004)
Caldwell v. Texas, 139 U.S. 692 (1891)
State v. Foust, 2004-Ohio-7006
Groppi v. Leslie, 404 U.S. 496 (19720
United States v. Wane Pump Co., 317 U.S. 200 (1942)
Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S 196 (1984)
United States v. Opsta, 659 F.2d 848 (1981)
United States v. Panzavecchia, 421 F.2d 440 (1970)


SET OUT BELOW ARE ALL THE CASE AUTHORITIES CITED BY SALISBURY :


                                                           (NONE)
    

TIME FOR ANOTHER QUICK TALLY:


Briefs Filed:  Defendant  =  1
                       Salisbury    =  0


Pages Filed:  Defendant  = 19
                        Salisbury   =   0


Cases Cited:  Defendant  = 10
                        Salisbury   =   0


Once again, SALISBURY was a COMPLETE ZERO!

COLLIER was not persuaded by either the Constitution of the United States or the prevailing case law, including decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and did not dismiss the fatally flawed indictment despite defense counsel’s brief informing him of the law.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....