The trial record is replete with unfounded claims by Salisbury, The Pathological Liar, that Defense Counsel “misleads the court,” and “misstates the law,” when, in fact, it was Salisbury, The Pathological Liar, who perpetually misled the court and the jury and misstated the law in the most general terms, since he failed to cite even one case during the entirety of the proceeding.
Admittedly it was difficult, if not impossible, for Salisbury to mislead LAPDOG COLLIER, who was complicit with Salisbury throughout the proceedings.
As the Defendant more than adequately set forth, it was the Assistant Prosecutor who affirmatively misled the LAPDOG COLLIER by claiming that criminal trespass was not a lesser included offense of aggravated burglary, despite having been reversed and counseled otherwise by the 9th District Court of Appeals in State v. Morris, 2008-Ohio-3209 (9th Dist. App. 2008), tried before LAPDOG Judge Collier, Morris, 2008-Ohio-3209, ¶ 14. LAPDOG Judge Collier also should have remembered that the Appeals Court reversed him in Morris for not charging the jury with the lesser-included offense instruction in an aggravated burglary case. Yet, in this case , the same Assistant Prosecutor Salisbury, The Pathological Liar, affirmatively misled the same LAPDOG Judge Collier into not giving the lesser-included criminal trespass instruction.
The level of complete dishonesty of Salisbury, The Pathological Liar, and the corrupt trial judge LAPDOG COLLIER is exemplified in an exchange between Salisbury and the trial judge on the merits of properly instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of Criminal Trespass.
SALISBURY: Judge?
COURT: Yes?
SALISBURY: If I could just address that point, Judge. My position – and I think there are cases that back this up – that a criminal trespass -- the criminal trespass would not be appropriate.
(BRIEF INTERRUPTION IN THE PROCEEDINGS)
SALISBURY: The State’s position is, the criminal trespass could not be an appropriate lesser included offense on an aggravated burglary, because the specific facts of the case are that he trespassed into a habitation….
The trespass into a habitation, Judge, is a burglary. It can’t be a criminal trespass.
COURT: And a trespass into an unoccupied structure is a criminal trespass. Is that your point?
SALISBURY: Right, not into a habitation…. I believe there are cases that say it is fact specific, and under these facts that have come in front of this jury, criminal trespass does not apply.
We are not seeking a lesser included offense.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: I did some research to be absolutely sure, but it’s my understanding that criminal trespass is a lesser included offense ….
COURT: Can I tell you what I think he’s arguing? And I’ve heard it before. I guess that criminal trespass can, in certain situations, be a lesser included. He’s (sic) arguing that, according to the facts of the case, because it’s a trespass into a habitation, that it’s different. In other words, I think that you’re going to find that there are criminal trespass instructions given, but factually it would require them - - he’s arguing factually it wouldn’t. So if you can find some cases, I’d love to look at them.
(Tr. 762 -765)
COURT: Okay. Here’s what I’m going to do. I’m giving the (A) (1) and (A) (4). I’m not giving the criminal trespass
(Tr. 949)
Apparently the corrupt trial judge LAPDOG COLLIER overlooked the very basic fact that he had been overturned by the 9th District Court of Appeals on the very issue of failure to instruct the jury of the lesser-included offense of criminal trespass in a burglary case tried before him by Salisbury, The Pathological Liar, on August 9, 2006, Medina County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 06CR0124.
Quoting verbatim from the 9th District Opinion, at ¶ 2:
Defendant was indicted on one count of burglary in the Medina County Court of Common Pleas in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(3), a third-degree felony for his unlawful entry into the home of Brenda Roberts and assault of Ms. Roberts’ guest, Allan Leach, on January 29, 2006.
State v Morris, 2008-Ohio-3209, ¶ 2
The facts in Morris are such that Defendant Morris entered the habitation of Brenda Roberts, which, at the time of the alleged offense, was occupied by at least Allan Leach.
The facts in Morris are strikingly similar to this case at bar insofar as Morris had frequently entered the home of Roberts on prior occasions, just as the Defendant had entered the Flintstone home on numerous prior occasions. Further, in both Morris and this case , privilege came at issue.
Ultimately the 9th District Court of Appeals, in overturning LAPDOG COLLIER, held:
Criminal trespass is a lesser included offense of aggravated burglary.
State v. Morris, ¶ 5, Id.
If under any reasonable view of the evidence it is possible for the trier of fact to find the defendant not guilty of the greater offense and guilty of the lesser offense, the instruction on the lesser included offense must be given. The evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the defendant. (Emphasis added) State v Deimling (Dec. 20, 2000), 9th Dist. No. 99CA007496 at *1 quoting State v Wilkins (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 382, 388.
State v. Morris, ¶ 6, Id.
LAPDOG COLLIER HAD A CONVENIENT LAPSE OF MEMORY, AFTER HAVING BEEN CHASTISED BY THE 9TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS FOR ABUSE OF DISCRETION, IN HIS PURSUIT OF RAILROADING THIS DEFENDANT, AN INNOCENT MAN!
MORE PROOF THAT MEDINA COUNTY NEEDS AN INDEPENDENT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF ITS CORRUPT COURTS BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
MUCH MORE TO COME ....
No comments:
Post a Comment