At the suppression hearing, Deputy Clinage testified that
he had not sworn to the criminal complaint. He did not know whose signature appeared on the complaint as the administrator of the oath and before whom, on face, he purportedly swore to the complaint.
You may recall from an earlier segment at this blog that an Ohio Appellate Court has ruled that, to be in accord with the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Rule 3 of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, an officer must swear an oath to a criminal complaint to be valid. I refer once again to State v. Green (1988), 48 Ohio App. 3d 121 -- holding "Where a charging officer signs a complaint but fails to execute the jurat (oath), such complaint is void and any conviction resulting therefrom is also void. (Crim. R. 3, applied.)”]
Based upon these facts, as the defense investigator testified at the suppression hearing, and complemented by the testimony of Deputy Clinage who conceded in sworn testimony that he had not sworn an oath to the already constitutionally defective criminal complaint, the arrest warrant is further fatally flawed and any physical evidence flowing from the arrest is tainted by this violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any such evidence seized pursuant to the fatally flawed arrest, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, is inadmissible at trial.
COLLIER, a lawyer for more than thirty years, should have sufficient knowledge to be able to rule in accord with the prevailing case law in this regard, were he an honest judge, which case law was provided to him fully briefed in the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress.
On November 6, 2009, COLLIER informed defense counsel that he intended to deny the Motion to Suppress on the basis that the Fourth Amendment violation was “cured” by the return of an indictment in this case, contrary to the holdings of the United States Supreme Court more than fifty years ago.
You may wish to GOOGLE the following cases to verify to yourselves the state of the law:
Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948)
Mapp v Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)
Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 724 (1969)
Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560 (1971)]
As you can see from the years in which these cases were decided, the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in the above cases confirm that VIOLATIONS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT ARE NOT CURED BY A GRAND JURY INDICTMENT.
This not some revolutionary new precept in the law, since the controlling body of law dates back more the 60 years.
Interestingly, but not particularly amusing, when the defense investigator testified at suppression hearing that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution required a criminal complaint to set out a statement of essential facts, COLLIER and SALISBURY laughed openly.
This conduct alone demonstrates the level of contempt that COLLIER and SALISBURY hold for the protections that should be afforded by the United States Constitution, BUT ARE DENIED TO CITIZENS IN THE KANGAROO COURT ADMINISTERED BY COMPLETELY CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER.
However, notwithstanding the Fourth Amendment violations by law enforcement officers, and contrary to the prevailing case law, TOTALLY CORRUPT COLLIER permitted introduction at trial of physical evidence seized from the Defendant incident to an unlawful arrest. COLLIER admitted the physical evidence at trial, in spite of law to the contrary, solely and unlawfully to the intended benefit of the prosecutor, thus intentionally prejudicing the Defendant.
SALISBURY, as always, failed to file any opposition to the Defendant's Motion to Suppress. More substantial evidence that SALISBURY and HOLMAN rely upon COLLIER's corrupt rulings, no matter the state of the law.
MUCH MORE TO COME ....
No comments:
Post a Comment