Monday, February 7, 2011

COLLIER SNOOZES AS CITIZEN LOSES!

Perhaps it is time to take a look at the Motion to Suppress, filed by the Defendant's attorney. The MOTION to SUPPRESS filed by Defense Counsel was 43 pages in length.


SALISBURY failed to file any opposition, containing any argument or case law, supporting any position he might have espoused.  That is a usual and customary practice, since he can rely on CORRUPT JUDGE COLLIER to deny any and all defense motions in order to convict and railroad an innocent citizen to prison!


Give the length of the Defendant's Motion to suppress (43 pages), it is not possible to publish the motion in its entirety here.


However, I will set out the various sub-headings in the Motion, each of which is supported by supporting and controlling case law.  In other words, an honest judge would have read the brief and the supporting law and concluded that the illegally seized evidence could not be properly admitted at trial.


HERE, THEN, ARE THE SUB-HEADINGS IN THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS:


I.  The Arrest of Defendant Without a Warrant Violated The Fourth Amendment, Because It Was Not Supported By Probable Cause. Therefore, All Evidence Seized, Obtained, Derived, or Flowing From the Unlawful and unconstitutional Arrest Must Be Suppressed.


  A.  WILMA FLINSTONE ADMITTEDLY WERE NOT PHYSICALLY ABLE TO OBSERVE            DEFENDANT AND FRED FLINTSTONE, OR ACCURATELY REPORT ANYTHING THAT WAS OCCURRING IN THE FLINTSTONE HOUSE.  WILMA'S 911 CALL WAS BASED SOLELY UPON DOUBLE HEARSAY AND THE RANTINGS OF AN ANGRY WIFE.


  B.  FRED PERMITTED DEFENDANT TO ENTER AND RE-ENTER THE HOUSE, UNESCORTED.  THIS EVIDENCE, COUPLED WITH DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT INSIDE THE HOUSE, REFUTES THE CHARGE OF AGGRAVATED BURGLARY.


  C.  THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE OFFICERS CONTRADICTED THE HEARSAY TIPSTER (WILMA), DID NOT SICLOSE ANY HINT OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT, AND FAILED TO PROVIDE PROBABLE CUASE TO SUPPORT AN ARREST.


  D.  THE OFFICERS ARRESTED DEFENDANT AT THE FLINTSTONE RESIDENCE.


II.  The Subsequent Arrest Warrant Cannot Cure the Initial Illegal Arrest, Because the Warrant is Constitutionally Defective On Its Face and Also Invalid, Having Been Issued in Violation of the Fourth Amendment's Requirements and the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure.


III.  The Unlawful Arrest, the Deficient Complaint, and the Invalid Arrest Warrant Cannot Be Cured By the Subsequent Indictment, Which Also Suffers Fatal Constitutional Flaws.


IV.  The Arresting Officer Never Advised Defendant of His Constitutional Rights.  Regardless, the Lengthy Lapse of Time From the Initial Arrest Until the Subsequent Custodial Interrogation Required that the Interrogator Advise Defendant of His Miranda Rights Again Before Beginning the Interrogation.  Interrogated Without Miranda Warnings, Defendant's Will Was Overborne By the Officer's Interrogation Techniques.  Defendant Never Knowingly, Voluntarily and Intelligently Waived His Fifth Amendment Rights.


V.  The Tape Recorded 911 Call, Nearly An Hour in Duration, Consists of Unreliable Double And Triple Hearsay, Mostly Irrelevant, and Inflammatory.  If Admitted Into Evidence, It Would Violate Defendant's Rights Under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause.  The Officers' Direct Observations Contradicted the Civilian Caller's "information."  Thus, the Very Minimal Probative Value of the 911 Call is Substantially Outweighed By Its Highly Prejudicial Effects.


FOLLOWING ARE THE CONTROLLING CASE AUTHORITIES CITED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL IN THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS:


Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 346 (1966)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 479 (1963)
California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 625 (1991)
Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 101 (1959)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230-41 (1983)
Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (1959)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968)
Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14 (1948)
Whiteley v. Warden Wyoming State Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560, 564 (1971)
Spinelli V. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969)
United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965)
Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964)
Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U.S. 528 (1964)
Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (1960)
Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480 (1958)
McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 305 (1967)
Hodgson v. Butts, 7 U.S. 140, 154-157 (1805)
Garmon v. Lumpkin County Georgia, 878 F.2d 1406 (1989)
Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 119 (1997)
In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 365 (1970)
United States v. Hart, 640 F.2d 856 (6th Cir. 1981)
Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478

All of the above-cited cases, with the exception of the Garmon and Hart Cases (decided in the U.S. Court of Appeals) were decided by the United States Supreme Court with respect to specific points of law.


COLLIER, who likely failed to read the Defendant's Motion to Suppress at all, obviously failed to yield to the authority of the United States Supreme Court, whose rulings are construed to be the LAW OF THE LAND.


The only authority to whom COLLIER actually looks is CORRUPT COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN.  After all, it's the only way that COLLIER can keep a firm grip on his lifetime, uncontested appointment to the Medina County Court of Common Pleas.


SET OUT BELOW ARE THE CASE AUTHORITIES CITED BY SALISBURY IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS:


                                       (NONE)


Apparently COLLIER was guided by SALISBURY, outside the parameters of the law, to DENY DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS!


MUCH MORE TO COME ....



No comments:

Post a Comment