COLLIER RULES DEFENDANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO KNOW THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE WITH WHICH HE WAS CHARGED, AND WHICH HE HAD TO DEFEND

As the reader may recall, during the September 4, 2009 session of the protracted suppression hearing, defense counsel raised the issue of the unspecified “criminal offense” SALISBURY charged in the indictment of the Defendant.


During the hearing, CORRUPT JUDGE COLLIER ordered Salisbury to provide the defense with “a list of underlying criminal offenses” which Salisbury intended to present to the jury no later than September 11, 2009.


SALISBURY failed to comply, knowing full well that he could defy any "Order" from COLLIER with impunity, since COLLIER has been bought and paid for by CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN. In fact, an "Order" from COLLIER to SALISBURY carries all the force of a request, and nothing more.


Finally on October 8, 2009, nearly two full months after COLLIER ordered Salisbury to provide Defense Counsel with the "LIST" of underlying offenses, at long last SALISBURY turned over his laundry list of alleged underlying offenses, none of which had been presented to the Medina County grand jury for consideration and deliberation.


FOLLOWING IS SALISBURY'S "LIST" OF MULTIPLE-CHOICE UNDERLYING CRIMINAL OFFENSES WHICH HE "MAYBE" INTENDED TO PROVE AT TRIAL:


1.   Aggravated Menacing
2.   Menacing
3.   Domestic Violence
4.   Assault
5.   Criminal Mischief
6.   Disorderly Conduct
7.   Felonious Assault
8.   Kidnapping
9.   Abduction
10. Child Endangering
11. Possessing Criminal Tools
12. Intimidation
13. Unlawful Restraint
14. Using Weapons while Intoxicated
15. ANY OTHER CRIME WHICH MAY BECOME KNOWN TO THE STATE


Setting aside, for the moment, that SALISBURY had no competent, probative evidence to prove any of these alleged underlying alleged offenses SALISBURY alleged that Defendant intended to commit, there is a very strong Constitutional violation in this "list."

In State v Robertson, 2002-Ohio-6824, the Ohio Supreme Court held that a defendant has the inalienable right to be tried on the same essential facts on which the grand jury found probable cause.

Based upon Salisbury’ laundry list of “underlying crimes,” it was and is clear that the Medina County Grand Jury was not offered any evidence as to Defendant's conduct which would lead to the inference that he intended to commit an identifiable and specified criminal offense within the Flintstone residence.


MOST CERTAINLY, THE GRAND JURY DID NOT INDICT THE DEFENDANT FOR SOMETHING THAT MIGHT LATER BECOME KNOWN TO THE STATE.  DUH !!!! 


Failure to present evidence of any underlying crime, upon which the grand jury decided and deliberated, constitutes a violation of the Defendant’s protections guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.


THIS MUST CERTAINLY COME AS A SHOCK AND COMPLETE SURPRISE TO CORRUPT JUDGE COLLIER, WHO FOUND IT PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE TO DEPRIVE THE DEFENDANT OF NOTICE OF THE OFFENSE AGAINST WHICH HE WAS REQUIRED TO DEFEND.


IT'S JUST ONE OF THE MANY WAYS IN WHICH COLLIER HAS DEPRIVED THIS DEFENDANT, AND MANY OTHER DEFENDANTS, OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED PROTECTIONS!


MUCH MORE TO COME ....