COLLIER SUPPRESSES JUSTICE, BUT NOT ILLEGALLY SEIZED EVIDENCE!

On August 20, 2009, defense counsel filed yet another motion in support of the Motion to Suppress, specifically a motion captioned Supplement to Motion to Suppress.

         Defense counsel filed such motion, with supplemental case law, to challenge the admissibility of any of the Defendant’s statements on the basis of the violation of the Defendant’s Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment protections, including but not limited to the State’s Miranda violations and denial of the Defendant’s request for counsel.

         During the first segment of the suppression hearing on September 4, 2009, Assistant County Prosecutor MATTHEW RAZAVI was seated in the audience. As the defense investigator offered his testimony, RAZAVI was smiling, laughing, and repeatedly signaling COLLIER with “thumbs-up.” 

The collegial relationship between COLLIER and the prosecutors was all the more evident when COLLIER made absolutely no attempt to restrain RAZAVI'S jubilant displays.

The state produced only two witnesses at the suppression hearing, Medina County Sheriff’s Deputies Frank Telatko and Douglas Clinage, the lead “investigator.”  Neither Telatko nor Clinage, the State’s only two witnesses, were able to testify as to the essential facts that led to Matthew’s arrest. 

FUNDAMENTALLY, EVEN AFTER THE PASSAGE OF A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME, THESE DEPUTIES WERE UNABLE TO TESTIFY AS TO ANY FACTS WHICH WOULD LEAD ANY REASONABLE PERSON TO CONCLUDE THAT THEY HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST THE DEFENDANT AT ANY TIME FOR ANY CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

         COLLIER conducted the suppression hearing in four separate and distinct sessions, over a span of approximately eight weeks.  COLLIER, given his proven credentials as a "C" student, "more or less," obviously has a limited attention span. 

         The suppression hearing, which might have otherwise required an estimated four hours to complete in toto, commenced before COLLIER on August 21, 2009. After hearing approximately one hour of testimony, COLLIER continued the hearing to a time approximately two weeks distant, since he was unable to prevent Defense Counsel from administering a sound thrashing to SALISBURY in all matters pertaining to the law.

         The further significance of COLLIER’S continuance lies in the fact that SALISBURY had not called and had available any witnesses to offer testimony and was not prepared to meet his burden under the prevailing case law (as if the law holds any sway with COLLIER).

         Rather than moving forward, as any proper judge would do, COLLIER rewarded SALISBURY by continuing the proceedings in order to afford Salisbury the opportunity to prepare and present evidence, which he should well have been prepared to accomplish on August 21. The case was continued by COLLIER solely to benefit the unprepared prosecutor. 

MUCH MORE TO COME ....