JUST WHAT DID THE COMMON CRIMINALS OPERATING COURTROOM NO.1 AT THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE/MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION DELETE FROM THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT?

In the prior post at this blog. readers were treated to the basis upon which the COMMON CRIMINALS OVER AT THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE/MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION WERE INSPIRED TO TAMPER WITH AND ALTER THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT FOR THE UNLAWFUL PURPOSE OF DEPRIVING THIS DEFENDANT A FAIR HEARING ON HIS APPEAL.


SPECIFICALLY, THE HOLDING OF THE UNTIED STATES SUPREME COURT IN DAVIS v ALASKA (1974) COMPEL AUTOMATIC REVERSAL OF THIS DEFENDANT'S UNLAWFUL CONVICTION BEFORE LAPDOG MEDINA JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, WHO DELIBERATELY AND UNLAWFULLY PREVENTED DEFENSE COUNSEL FROM PROPERLY CROSS-EXAMINING THE STATE'S WITNESSES.


Upon the unassailable discovery that the COMMON CRIMINALS OVER IN COURTROOM NO. 1 AT THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE/MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION HAD TAMPERED WITH AND ALTERED THE "OFFICIAL" TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, DEFENSE COUNSEL FILED A BRIEF WITH THE HONORABLE ROBERT J. BROWN, WHO WAS APPOINTED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO REPLACE CORRUPT LAPDOG MEDINA COUNTY JUDGE COLLIER TO HEAR AND DECIDE THIS DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.


JUDGE BROWN, WHO APPEARS TO BE AN HONEST AND HONORABLE MAN, IS A BREATH OF FRESH AIR IN THE CORRUPT ENVIRONMENT OF THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTROOM NO. 1, LAPDOG COLLIER'S ASSIGNED COURTROOM.  


It was truly refreshing to observe that Judge Brown maintains proper order and decorum in proceedings before him, unlike LAPDOG COLLIER whose proceedings more closely resemble a circus sideshow.


In the prior post at this blog, readers were pointed to Defense Counsel's brief AUTHORITIES AND EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL; MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL; MOTION FOR ARREST OF JUDGMENT; MOTION TO SUSPEND EXECUTION OF SENTENCE; AND MOTION FOR BAIL PENDING APPEAL , which can be found at http://www.co.medina.oh.us/medct_epublicnodr/pages/viewdoc.aspx?case=09CR0229&p=1&a=77.

In that brief Defense Counsel drew to LAPDOG COLLIER'S attention to the holdings of the United States Supreme Court in Davis v Alaska, virtually assuring LAPDOG COLLIER that he would be overturned and reversed by the 9th District Court of Appeals because he had deliberately deprived this Defendant of his right to effective cross-examination of the State's witnesses, thus intentionally denying this Defendant his rights accorded by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  

The United State Supreme Court, in Davis v Alaska, has held that denying a defendant of the right to effective cross-examination, as LAPDOG COLLIER so deprived this Defendant at trial, is a "CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR OF THE FIRST MAGNITUDE" REQUIRING AUTOMATIC REVERSAL!


For those who have an interest in reading the complete text of Davis v Alaska, that case can be found at http://supreme.justia.com/us/415/308/case.html  .


Defense counsel filed her brief PETITIONER'S MOTION TO CORRECT TRANSCRIPTS on August 4, 2011.


On August 29, 2011, CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR filed RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S MOTION TO CORRECT TRANSCRIPTS AND MOTION TO HAVE DEFENSE COUNSEL RECUSED FROM CASE.  The brief filed by HOLMAN'S OFFICE is not displayed for public viewing at the website of the Medina County Clerk of Court, for reasons that are all too obvious to readers of this blog.


CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN DOES NOT WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THAT HE OPPOSES CORRECTING THE CORRUPTED TRIAL TRANSCRIPT.  HOLMAN DOES NOT WISH THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THAT HE CONTINUES TO OBSTRUCT THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE!


In reply to HOLMAN'S OPPOSITION TO CORRECT THE CORRUPTED AND TAINTED "OFFICIAL" TRANSCRIPT, Defense Counsel filed a subsequent brief.  Defense counsel filed her brief PETITIONER'S REPLY TO STATE'S OPPOSITION TO CORRECT THE RECORD; OPPOSITION TO STATE'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PETITIONER'S COUNSEL found at http://www.co.medina.oh.us/medct_epublicnodr/pages/viewdoc.aspx?case=09CR0229&p=1&a=129


At Pages 19 - 26 of Defense Counsel's Reply to State's Opposition to Correct The Record, Defense Counsel has pointed out some, but not all, of the testimony unlawfully removed from the trial transcript by the COMMON CRIMINALS OVER AT COURTROOM NO. 1 IN THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE/MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION.


PERTINENT PORTIONS OF THE BRIEF, IDENTIFYING SPECIFICALLY THE TESTIMONY THAT HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY AND UNLAWFULLY REMOVED FROM THE CORRUPTED TRIAL TRANSCRIPT BY THE COMMON CRIMINALS OPERATING IN COURTROOM NO. 1 ARE EXCERPTED HERE:

In the Additional Authorities brief, Trial Counsel pled:

           For example, the defendant was prejudiced when defense counsel was not permitted to fully cross-examine Deputy Frank Telatko regarding the exculpatory statements of Matthew Hartman, made immediately after his arrest.  The Court also prevented defense counsel from cross-examining Telatko concerning his lack of knowledge of the law for making an arrest without a warrant, and his failure to accurately include in his report his observations, which were exculpatory to Matt and contradictory to Kim Leighton’s 911 call, thus revealing her call was a false alarm.  Full cross-exam would have impeached not only Telatko’s credibility, but also the credibility of Kim Leighton.

            Curiously, the transcript fails to include the line of questioning from Defense Counsel concerning Telatko’s knowledge, or lack thereof, “of the law for making an arrest without a warrant, and his failure to accurately include in his report his observations, which were exculpatory to Matt and contradictory to Kim Leighton’s 911 call, thus revealing her call was a false alarm.”  Further, the transcript mysteriously fails to reflect that the trial judge prevented Defense Counsel from pursuing that line of questioning.  The State can offer no plausible innocent  explanation for this omission from the transcript, which omission certainly does not benefit Petitioner.

            In her Additional Authorities brief, Defense Counsel pled:

             

              The Court prevented defense counsel from cross-examining Al Leighton regarding the statements he made to sheriff’s deputies at his home, the scene of the alleged offense on May 27, 2009.  Specifically, Mr. Leighton informed sheriff’s deputies that Matthew had not burglarized his home and that he did not wish to pursue criminal charges against Matthew.  The defense was also stifled from eliciting additional exculpatory testimony from Mr. Leighton regarding information he provided to Deputies Clinage and Telatko on May 29, 2009, when they conducted an additional interview of him at his home.  Despite numerous written and oral requests by the defense for the tape recording of that interview, the assistant prosecutor refused to provide it.  Not only did the defense not have the tape recording prior to its cross-examination of Mr. Leighton, it still has not been turned over to the defense.

              The Court also prevented defense counsel from cross-examining Mr. Leighton as to his known prior traumatic brain injury and the manner in which such injury may have affected his sensory abilities to perceive and process events and information.  Such cross-examination was relevant for the jury to assess Mr. Leighton’s ability and inability to remember events and conversations accurately.

            The trial transcript fails to contain Defense Counsel’s line of questioning regarding statements made by Mr. Leighton to sheriff’s deputies on May 27, 2009 that the Petitioner had not burglarized his home. Further, the transcript mysteriously fails to reflect that the trial judge prevented Defense Counsel from pursuing that line of questioning.  The State can offer no plausible innocent explanation for this omission from the trial transcript, which omission certainly does not benefit Petitioner.

            The trial transcript fails to include Defense Counsel’s line of questioning with regard to statements made by Mr. Leighton to sheriff’s deputies during a subsequent interview of him on May 29, 2009.  Further, the transcript mysteriously fails to reflect that the trial judge prevented Defense Counsel from pursuing that line of questioning.  The State can offer no plausible innocent explanation for this omission from the trial transcript, which omissions certainly does not provide any benefit to Petitioner.

            The transcript fails to include Defense Counsel’s line of questioning regarding Mr. Leighton’s known traumatic brain injury.  Further, the transcript mysteriously fails to reflect that the trial judge prevented Defense Counsel from pursuing that line of questioning.  The State can offer no plausible innocent explanation for this omission from the trial transcript, which omission certainly does not benefit Petitioner.

            A particularly noteworthy and compelling  purported “anomaly” appears in the transcript at the purported close of the cross-examination of Al Leighton. (Tr. 265)  As the State well knows, Defense Counsel, as an experienced Federal prosecutor, subscribed to appropriate protocol by informing the trial judge that she had no further questions at the conclusion of her examinations and cross-examinations of the respective witnesses.  (Tr. Suppression Hearing 64, 119, 217, 288; Tr. 171, 210, 333,  338, 416, 467, 546, 591, 649, 669, 815, 890)  The transcript at the purported conclusion of the testimony of Al Leighton ends abruptly during an incomplete line of questioning by Defense Counsel, and lacks her usual and customary notice to the trial judge, “I have no further questions.”

            Further, in her Additional Authorities brief, Defense Counsel pled thusly:

            Additionally, defense counsel intended to cross-examine Mrs. Leighton as to the basis of her animus toward Matthew, which long predated May 27, 2009, and which colored and motivated both her inflammatory and prejudicial remarks made to the 911 dispatcher and her subsequent, perjured testimony at trial.

            The transcript fails to include Defense Counsel’s line of questioning as to Mrs. Leighton’s animus toward petitioner.  Further, the transcript mysteriously fails to reflect that the trial judge prevented Defense Counsel from pursuing that line of questioning.  The State can offer no plausible innocent explanation for this omission from the trial transcript, which omission certainly does not benefit Petitioner.

THESE ARE SOME, BUT NOT ALL, OF SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE STATE'S WITNESSES THAT HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY REMOVED FROM THE CORRUPTED TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS BY THE CRIMINALS OPERATING IN COURTROOM NO. 1 AT THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE/MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION!

MUCH, MUCH MORE TO COME ....