COMPLETELY WORTHLESS AND TOTALLY CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY "JUDGE" CHRISTOPHER COLLIER HAS BEEN A LAPDOG OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN FOR YEARS, CONTINUING UP TO AND INCLUDING THE PRESENT DATE.
Once again, we turn to the Ohio Rules of evidence, easily found at http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/LegalResources/Rules/
Ohio Rule 403(A) provides:
RULE 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Undue Delay
(A) Exclusion mandatory. Although relevant, evidence is not admissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of confusion of the issues, or of misleading the jury.
In conformity with Ohio Rule 403(A), the law imposes upon a real judge the obligation to conduct a balancing test, on the record. In other words, a real judge is obliged to weigh whether the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value of any such evidence at the time that the prosecutor seeks to admit such evidence.
In the matter of the forbidden evidence, which LAPDOG "JUDGE" COLLIER permitted SALISBURY to introduce the forbidden alleged "other acts" evidence, LAPDOG COLLIER failed to conduct the requisite balancing test. Not much of a surprise there, since LAPDOG COLLIER fully intended to convict the Defendant, an innocent man, of a crime that the Defendant factually DID NOT COMMIT.
Next, we turn to Ohio Rule of Evidence 404(A), which provides:
RULE 404. Character Evidence not Admissible to Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes
(A) Character evidence generally. Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion ....
Further, we also look to Ohio Rule of Evidence 404(B), which provides:
(B) Other crimes, wrongs or acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
Analyzing Rule 404(A), the prosecutor is FORBIDDEN from admitting evidence of other prior conduct, particularly prior misdemeanor arrest, solely for the purpose of suggesting “bad character” from which a jury might conclude that a Defendant likely committed the charged offense because of “bad character.”
THIS WAS THE SPECIFIC TACTIC USED BY SALISBURY, WITH THE COMPLETE CONCURRENCE OF LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, CLEARLY IN VIOLATION OF RULE 404(A) AND 404(B)..
Turning now to Rule 404(B), if a real judge has conducted a balancing test and determines that the “other acts” evidence, if not forbidden, is admissible, the prosecutor must make a contemporaneous affirmative statement, on the record, that the evidence is being admitted to show “ motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
When LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER permitted SALISBURY to introduce the forbidden “other acts” evidence, IN VIOLATION OF OHIO RULES 404(A) AND 404(B), SALISBURY failed to make a contemporaneous statement as to the reason otherwise “justifying” the admission of the forbidden “other acts” evidence, which in this case was an unrelated misdemeanor arrest of nearly five years previous which was CLEARLY INADMISSIBLE.
Needless to say, LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER did not enforce Rule 404(B), and did not require SALISBURY to make the declaration.
However, at the close of the trial as the defective jury instructions were being finalized, DEFENSE COUNSEL INSISTED THAT SALISBURY DECLARE HIS JUSTIFICATION FOR ADMITTING THE FORBIDDEN “OTHER ACTS” EVIDENCE, AND THAT LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER INCORPORATE SALISBURY’S RATIONALE INTO THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS.
LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER turned to SALISBURY, who stated, on the record, that he introduced the forbidden “other acts” evidence TO SHOW MOTIVE!
SALISBURY, who is not particularly quick on his feet, gave the stupid response when, in fact, there is no way on God’s green earth that a five year-old unrelated misdemeanor arrest could establish MOTIVE.
At a much later date, in a sham pleading that SALISBURY, A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, filed with LAPDOG COLLIER, SALISBURY wrote:
“In No. 2, she (Defense Counsel) complains of 404(B) evidence which was objected to and overruled by this Court at trial. It was properly admitted for the limited and permissible purpose of establishing MOTIVE AND INTENT.”
You will notice how SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, lied by trying to sneak into the record that he had admitted the forbidden “other acts” evidence for the purpose of establishing not only MOTIVE (as found in the trial record) but now falsely claims, rather belatedly, that he also admitted the forbidden “other acts” evidence for the additional purpose of also establishing “INTENT.”
SALISBURY, it seems, tried to rehabilitate the fact that he was a day late and a dollar short when he offered this lie in his sham pleading!
It can certainly be said, in this and other instances in the trial record, SALISBURY adhered to the office motto of CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN:
“Lie a little, lie a lot! What’s the difference?”
MUCH MORE TO COME ….
No comments:
Post a Comment