COURT OF APPEALS CHASTISES SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, FOR PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, ALL TO NO AVAIL !!

In a matter unrelated to the the proceedings being profiled at this blog, the 9th District Court of Appeals at Akron, Ohio took particular note of the misconduct of Medina Assistant Prosecutor SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR during a trial conducted before LAPDOG MEDINA COUNTY JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE.


In his usual and customary manner, LAPDOG COLLIER permitted and facilitated the MISCONDUCT BY SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.


The specific matter involves the trial of Brian Johnson, Medina Common Please Case No. 08CR0282, tried on or about June 8, 2009.  The case can be found at the online docket of the Medina County Clerk of Court at http://www.co.medina.oh.us/medct_epublicnodr/pages/DetailForm.aspx?case=08CR0282


Brian Johnson appealed his case, which was overturned, in  part, on the illegal sentence imposed by SALISBURY and HOLMAN through LAPDOG COLLIER.


THE APPELLATE DECISION CAN BE FOUND AT http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2011/2011-ohio-3623.pdf and is well worth the read, particularly at Pages 16 through 40, where the Court of Appeals addressees the PERVASIVE MISCONDUCT OF SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL!


THE COURT OF APPEALS OFFERS A SCATHING ASSESSMENT OF THE PERVASIVE MISCONDUCT OF SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.


HERE ARE SOME EXCERPTS FROM THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:

"An embarrassing amount of (SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR'S) cross-examination reads more like the script of a television drama than the type of cross-examination that is expected of a prosecutor." [Paragraph 44].

"That cross-examination included numerous improper references to what the fourth woman ... testified at  her deposition.  During the cross-examination of Maryann Toney, for example, (SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR) repeatedly asked questions framed to improperly put before the jury what the (fourth woman) supposedly testified...." [Paragraph 46]. 

LAPDOG COLLIER, AS ONE WOULD EXPECT, OVERRULED A PROPER OBJECTION LODGED BY THE DEFENSE AND PERMITTED SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, TO CONTINUE TO OFFER HIS PERSONAL TESTIMONY.

"During his cross-examination of Erin McPherson, (SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR) again improperly put before the jury what the (fourth woman) has allegedly said...."  [Paragraph 47]

"(SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR'S) ""cross-examination" of these women was improper, and (LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE) the trial court should not have let him get away with it."  “In the first place, it is highly improper for any lawyer in the trial of any jury case, civil or criminal, to make what amounts to testimonial assertions under the pretext that he is merely ‘asking a question.’ Secondly, it is unprofessional to put before a jury, under the pretext of asking questions, information that is not in evidence.” State v. Daugherty, 41 Ohio App. 3d 91, 92-93 (1987) (citing 1 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice (2 Ed. 1980 and 1986 Supp.) 3.91, Standard 3-5.9 and DR 7-106(C)(1) of the Code of Professional Responsibility).  [Paragraph 49].

"By repeatedly referring to what (the fourth woman) supposedly testified at her deposition, the prosecutor was attempting to introduce testimony that was not properly before the jury. “While an attorney’s lack of familiarity with the Rules of Evidence may affect the question of whether misconduct was intentional or inadvertent, ignorance of the Rules of Evidence does not render questioning allowable where it would otherwise be improper.” City of Sidney v. Walters, 118 Ohio App. 3d 825, 829 (1997)." [Paragraph 49].

"During his cross-examination of Dr. Raggio, the prosecutor argued with her aboutwhether she had refused to talk to him before trial and whether she had canceled a scheduled telephone conference...."  [Paragraph 50]

AT THIS JUNCTURE, LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, OVERRULED ANOTHER PROPER DEFENSE OBJECTION.  THIS IS HOW LAPDOG COLLIER PRESERVES HIS UNCONTESTED LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY BENCH, COMPLIMENTS OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN AND THE MEDINA COUNTY DEMOCRAT PARTY!

"The prosecutor’s final “question” in the above quoted exchange was not a question, it was a statement. Statements are appropriate for closing arguments. They are not appropriate cross-examination. Further, although the prosecutor repeated his claim during close, his statement was not true, or at least not supported by the record. Dr. Raggio testified, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that N.J. had a Vitamin D deficiency that caused him to have abnormal bones and that his fractures were “consistent with a non-abuse situation.” Although some of the doctors who testified for the State disagreed with Dr. Raggio’s opinion, it was not true that all six of the doctors “brought in” by the State did."  [Paragraph 51].

Typically, SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, was lying to the jury with the full approval of LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE!  HERE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF LAPDOG COLLIER FACILITATING THE MISCONDUCT OF SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR:

“Q And I guess I’m a little unclear. I guess I don’t know. It’s a little unclear to me. Have you seen the x-rays or not?

A Yes, I have. ... .

Q Both the one from June and the one from January?25

A Correct.

Q  And is that the reason that you keep saying that that’s a poor indicator for telling bone fragility, because the bones upon x-ray appear absolutely normal?

A No.

Q That is not the reason, or they don’t appear normal?

A No, that’s not the reason.

Q They do appear normal?

A Correct.

Q And would it surprise you to learn that the two radiologists who testified for the State of Ohio disagree with that opinion that you have, that x-rays are not a good way to tell bone density?

Objection, you Honor.

THE COURT: Basis

[MR. JOHNSON’S LAWYER]: Dr. Skoblar did not say that. He said the opposite.

THE COURT: I’m going to overrule that objection. You can continue, if you know.

  

WHAT YOU HAVE JUST WITNESSED HERE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF LAPDOG COLLIER RAILROADING A DEFENDANT! 

"Although Dr. Fleissner testified that N.J.’s injuries “were consistent with childabuse, he never used the phrase “classic child abuse” that (SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR) attributed to him.Again, therefore, (SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR) was either mischaracterizing Dr. Fleissner’s testimony or relying on a conversation that took place outside the record. Either of which was inappropriate. (SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR) repeated his improper statement during his closing argument."  [Paragraph 57].

"Another example of improper conduct occurred later in the prosecutor’s cross- examination of Dr. Raggio...." [Paragraph 58].

"Again, the prosecutor was arguing, not asking questions. Further, by stating that everyone he talked to disagreed with Dr. Raggio regarding the effect of a Vitamin D deficiency, the prosecutor could have lead the jury to believe he had had conversations with experts who did not testify."  [Paragraph 59]. 

"The prosecutor’s improper conduct continued during his cross-examination of Mr. Johnson...."  [Paragraph 60]. 

"The prosecutor also committed improper conduct during his closing argument by expressing his personal belief about Mr. Johnson’s credibility and by suggesting that his lawyers were insincere :

[Mr. Johnson’s lawyers] have done a fantastic job of confusing you, and if I didn’t know what I knew and if you didn’t know what you knew, you’d be thoroughly confused. Now, I would love to be able to interact with you, because I would ask, ‘Do you think that they think the fractures happened, or didn’t they?’ Because from those closing arguments, you certainly can’t tell, right? You kept hearing that the fractures weren’t there in the photos that you saw. ‘The kid’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with the boy.’ That’s what [one of Mr. Johnson’s lawyers] just said. Dr. Oehlenschlager would never know it because he didn’t have those fractures. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. We know that he did. We know that he did. Arethey disputing the fact that he has fractures? It seems that way, doesn’t it? But you can’t dispute that, you cannot dispute that, but they are disputing it, andthat’s, allegedly, the reason they are showing you those photos.

 [ONE OF MR. JOHNSON’S LAWYERS]:  Objection. 

THE COURT: Overruled. 

 [THE PROSECUTOR]: They are talking about Dr. O. as if he went to Dr. O.and he didn’t have any fractures. That’s what they’re saying to you. That’s what they said over and over and over again, both of them.Well, how ridiculous is that? They’re trying to confuse you. Did he have the fractures or not? ‘Yes, he did,’ or ‘No, he didn’t. That really sounds kind of like his client up there. Which is it?”  [Paragraph 61].

ONCE AGAIN YOU SEE LAPDOG COLLIER FACILITATING THE MISCONDUCT OF SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, BY PERMITTING HIM TO CONTINUE WITH AN IMPROPER ARGUMENT TO THE JURY!

"Lawyers are forbidden from stating a personal opinion about the credibility of awitness. State v. Smith, 14 Ohio St. 3d 13, 14 (1984). Despite that, the prosecutor in this case told the jury that he could have predicted that Mr. Johnson would lie on the witness stand and that he, in fact, did so. And in State v. Keenan, 66 Ohio St. 3d 402, 405 (1993), the Ohio Supreme Court wrote that imputing insincerity to defense counsel was improper. By suggesting to the jurors that Mr. Johnson’s lawyers were trying to confuse them, the prosecutor suggested that his lawyers did not believe in his innocence. That was improper."  [Paragraph 62].

"In Fears, former Chief Justice Moyer noted that courts often comment on the misconduct of prosecutors, but declare their conduct to be nonprejudicial in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. State v. Fears, 86 Ohio St. 3d 329, 350 (1999) (Moyer, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). He noted that, despite the Ohio Supreme Court’s admonitions about misconduct, “our protestations have failed to change the advocacy of some prosecutors. It is as if they intentionally engage in improper conduct, safe in the belief that this 

court will continue to protest with no consequences.” Id. at 352. He recommended that reviewing courts, “[i]n the interest of the integrity of the criminal justice system in this state, . . . demonstrate that our protestations are more than utterings of frustration.” He also warned that “[r]efusing to address the fundamental unfairness of a trial riddled with prosecutorial misconduct because . . . [the reviewing] court deems the evidence of guilt to be overwhelming creates the perception that we protect the right to a fair trial only when we believe that the defendant is not guilty.” Id. at 353; see also United States v. Antonelli Fireworks Co. Inc., 155 F.2d 631, 661 (1946) (Frank, J., dissenting) (“If we continue to do nothing practical to prevent [prosecutorial mis]conduct, we should cease to disapprove it. For otherwise . . . [t]he deprecatory words we use in our opinions on such occasions are purely ceremonial. . . . The practice . . . breeds a deplorably cynical attitude towards the judiciary.”). "  [Paragraph 69].

"....we note a suggestion from the Eighth District that, “[i]f we are to stop short of punishing the State for a prosecutor’s misbehavior by refusing to overturn otherwise valid convictions, perhaps such cases should routinely be referred to disciplinary counsel so that individual prosecutors can be impressed with the need for ethical behavior.” State v. Cody, 8th Dist. No. 77427, 2002-Ohio-7055, at ¶38."  [Paragraph 70]

IN THE MATTER OF THE CASE BEING PROFILED HERE AT THE BLOG, THE INNOCENT MAN, RAILROADED BY SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, AND LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, HAS TAKEN THE ADVICE OF THE 9TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS AND  FILED A 350 PAGE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL AND PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WITH THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL OF THE OHIO SUPREME COURT AGAINST LAPDOG COLLIER, HOLMAN, AND SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR!!!

"(SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR) was argumentative, asked improper questions, made testimonial assertions, referred to facts that were not in the record, misrepresented the evidence, and expressed his personal opinion of Mr. Johnson’s credibility."  [Paragraph 73].

Certainly the Johnson case, cited above, should add impetus to the 350-page complaint of Judicial & Prosecutorial Conduct, filed against LAPDOG COLLIER, CORRUPT COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN, and SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, because it, and other cases, unequivocally demonstrate an ongoing and longstanding pattern of corrupt practices and misconduct by LAPDOG COLLIER, HOLMAN, AND SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. 

SO THE MISCONDUCT GOES ON AND ON, UNABATED.  THE ONLY REMEDY TO THIS LEVEL OF CORRUPTION IS TO DISBAR COLLIER, HOLMAN, AND SALISBURY, AND SEND THEM ALL PACKING TO THE UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY TO ATONE FOR THEIR CRIMES.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....