FOLLOWING IS AN EXCERPT TAKEN FROM A DECISION RENDERED BY THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAII, REFERENCING OHIO LAW, WHICH LAPDOG COLLIER EITHER DOES NOT KNOW OR, IN THE REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE, INTENTIONALLY DISREGARDED IN FAVOR OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN:
STATE v. OKUBO
STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter T. OKUBO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 23637.
-- July 11, 2002
In Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 100 S.Ct. 906, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980), the Supreme Court held:
Our consideration of the foundations for the privilege and its history satisfy us that “reason and experience” no longer justify so sweeping a rule as that found acceptable by the Court in Hawkins [v. United States, 358 U.S. 74, 79 S.Ct. 136, 3 L.Ed.2d 125 (1958) (the testimony of one spouse against the other barred unless both consent) ]. Accordingly, we conclude that the existing rule should be modified so that the witness-spouse alone has a privilege to refuse to testify adversely; the witness may be neither compelled to testify nor foreclosed from testifying.
445 U.S. at 53, 100 S.Ct. at 914.
Okubo relies on State v. Adamson, 72 Ohio St.3d 431, 650 N.E.2d 875 (1995), for its holding that a testifying spouse is incompetent to testify unless the spouse elects to waive that privilege. In Adamson, the Supreme Court of Ohio, in finding the trial court committed reversible plain error when it failed to inform the spouse that it was her choice whether or not to testify and that the court could not force her to do so, stated:
[T]he trial court ignored the level of protection the Rules of Evidence provide. While Evid.R. 601 was amended in 1991 to allow the spouse the decision as to whether to testify against the accused spouse (the decision formerly lay with the accused), the rule still contains important protections for the accused, since it deals with the competency of persons testifying against him.
The rule requires that the testifying spouse elect to testify against her spouse. An election is “[t]he choice of an alternative[;][t]he internal, free, and spontaneous separation of one thing from another, without compulsion, consisting in intention and will.” Black's Law Dictionary (5 ed.1990) 517. Thus, under Evid.R. 601(B), a spouse remains incompetent to testify until she makes a deliberate choice to testify, with knowledge of her right to refuse.
72 Ohio St.3d at 434, 650 N.E.2d at 877 (emphasis in original).
Ohio does not have spousal privilege analogous to HRE Rule 505. The Adamson court addressed spousal testimony pursuant to the Ohio Rules of Evidence Rule 601, which provides in relevant part:
EVID R 601 GENERAL RULE OF COMPETENCY
Every person is competent to be a witness except:
(A) Those of unsound mind, and children under ten years of age, who appear incapable of receiving just impressions of the facts and transactions respecting which they are examined, or of relating them truly.
(B) A spouse testifying against the other spouse charged with a crime except when either of the following applies:
(1) a crime against the testifying spouse or a child of either spouse is charged;
(2) the testifying spouse elects to testify.
Under Ohio Rules of Evidence Rule 601, the spouse testifying against the spouse charged with a crime is first presumed incompetent. Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence Rule 505 does not have this presumption.
This case can be found and read in its entirety at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/hi-intermediate-court-of-appeals/1321384.html
You will note that the Adamson case was decided 16 years ago! You might think that LAPDOG COLLIER might be aware of this decision by now, wouldn't you, before compelling the wife of the defendant to testify AFTER SHE ASSERTED HER SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE?
The question that now arises is simply:
IS LAPDOG MEDINA JUDGE COLLIER IGNORANT, CORRUPT, OR MORE LIKELY, BOTH?
JUST ONE MORE REASON WHY THE MEDINA COURTS NEED TO BE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED BY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE!
MUCH MORE TO COME ....
No comments:
Post a Comment