The prosecutor in the case, of course, was none other than SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR whose ongoing pattern of egregious misconduct, is endorsed and promoted by CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN.
This distraught parent remarked that the innocent son's trial was marked by LAPDOG COLLIER'S usual and customary Vaudevillian theatrics, and SALISBURY'S typical misconduct, WHICH MISCONDUCT WAS ENABLED AND FACILITATED THROUGHOUT BY LAPDOG COLLIER.
While all of this came as no surprise to the blogger, it raised an interesting issue that the blogger decided to investigate further: JUST HOW LONG HAVE LAPDOG COLLIER AND SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, TEAMED UP TO VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF INNOCENT CITIZENS IN ORDER TO RAILROAD THEM INTO PRISON?
The answer to that question, as the blogger has discovered, is that LAPDOG COLLIER AND SALISBURY THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, HAVE BEEN ENGAGING, IN TANDEM, IN THEIR UNETHICAL AND UNLAWFUL CONDUCT FOR A LONG, LONG TIME.
WHEN LOOKING AT THE HISTORICAL RECORD OF LAPDOG COLLIER'S UNETHICAL AND UNLAWFUL CONDUCT, IT COMES AS NO SURPRISE THAT CORRUPT DEM PROSECUTOR AND THE MEDINA COUNTY DEM PARTY HAVE REFUSED TO RUN A CANDIDATE OPPOSING "REPUBLICAN" LAPDOG COLLIER.
FOR CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN, IT CAN'T GET ANY BETTER THAN BEING ABLE TO CONTROL THE OUTCOME OF TRIALS THAN BY HAVING A STOOGE LIKE LAPDOG COLLIER TO TAKE HIS MARCHING ORDERS DIRECTLY FROM HOLMAN AND HOLMAN'S CRIMINAL ASSISTANTS, WITHOUT FAIL.
At this juncture, it is worthy of a stroll down memory lane to discover that no fewer than 20 appellants have raised issues of SALISBURY'S PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, ALL OF WHICH HAS BEEN ENABLED AND FACILITATED BY LAPDOG COLLIER.
This fact, of course, is by no means to suggest that the MISCONDUCT OF SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR AND LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE. Rather, these are just the cases where the OBVIOUS MISCONDUCT WAS RAISED AS AN ISSUE ON APPEAL!
LET'S GO STROLLING:
State v Aaron Gatt, 2011-Ohio-5221, tried by Salisbury before Collier
"... the prosecutor made numerous inappropriate comments throughout the course of this trial. In addition to the threat Mr. Gatt has assigned as error, the prosecutor repeatedly expressed his personal belief regarding the credibility of witnesses (during direct-examination of his own witness, cross-examination of the defendant, and closing argument) and frequently introduced facts not in evidence via his “questions” to various witnesses."
"This Court has previously addressed this prosecutor’s tendency to engage in “widespread improper conduct” in the courtroom. State v. Johnson, 9th Dist. No. 09CA0054-M, 2011-Ohio-3623, at ¶62, 42-70."State v Brian Johnson, 2011-Ohio-3623, tried by Salisbury before Collier
(SENTENCE VACATED/REMANDED)
found at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2011/2011-ohio-3623.pdf
found at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2006/2006-ohio-6330.pdf
LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, WAS LOOKING DOWN FROM HIS PERCH ON HIGH, COMPLETELY COMFORTABLE THAT HE WILL NEVER HAVE TO FACE A DEMOCRAT CHALLENGER IN ANY OF THOSE FUTURE RIGGED MEDINA COUNTY ELECTIONS DUE TO HIS COMPLICITY WITH CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN, CHEERING ON SALISBURY FOR AN UNTOLD NUMBER OF YEARS!
THE CASES CITED HERE, AND OTHERS, ARE SINGULARLY COMPELLING EVIDENCE OF THE LONGSTANDING CORRUPTION THAT PERVADES COURTROOM NO. 1, AND PERMEATES THE COMMON CRIMINALS WHO OPERATE WITHIN IT, AT THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE/MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION.
THESE CASES ARE MORE UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE THAT COMPELS AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTS BY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE!
MUCH MORE TO COME ....
"The prosecutor in this case did engage in a pattern of improper conduct."
"The prosecutor’s “cross-examination” of these women was improper, and the trial
court should not have allowed him to get away with it."
"The prosecutor was argumentative, asked improper questions, made testimonialassertions, referred to facts that were not in the record, misrepresented the evidence, and expressed his personal opinion of Mr. Johnson’s credibility."
State v Riffle, 2010-Ohio-2812, tried by Salisbury before Collier
"In his first assignment of error, Riffle contends that he was denied a fair trial due
to prosecutorial misconduct."
"Riffle takes issue with statements made by the prosecutor during opening and closing statements as well as on cross- examination."
"Riffle points to the prosecutor’s statements regarding the fact that S.R. had
no reason to lie and that she was testifying against Riffle because it was the truth."
"Riffle points to two specific instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct that
occurred during Riffle’s cross examination."
"Mr. Maynard’s second assignment of error is that the trial court incorrectly
prevented him from questioning witnesses about Mrs. B.’s and B.M.’s veracity."
State v Peter Riffle, 2008-Ohio-4155, tried by Salisbury before Collier (REVERSED)
found at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2008/2008-ohio-4155.pdf"Mr. Johnson’s second assignment of error is that the prosecutor engaged in a pattern of improper conduct that deprived him of a fair trial."
"In his first assignment of error, Riffle asserts that his constitutional rights were
violated: ... (3) when the State referenced Riffle’s decision to cease interrogation with police during closing argument."
“Questioning regarding post-Miranda silence is improper.” State v. Gales (Nov.22, 2000), 9th Dist. No. 00CA007541, at *4, citing Doyle, 426 U.S. at 619. With regard to a defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights, the Supreme Court of Ohio had held that “the use of pre- arrest silence as substantive evidence of guilt is an impermissible burden upon the exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege.”
"If references to post-Miranda silences are permitted under the guise of establishing “background information,” it would be futile for a defendant to ever effectively invoke his right to remain silent. We, therefore, hold that the evidence of, and the State’s references to, Riffle’s silence were improper."
"In his third assignment of error, Riffle asserts that the State engaged in misconduct
by: (1) stating in opening argument that the defense would likely use a “built-in” defense thereby implying the defense is false or illegitimate; (2) imputing that defense counsel was insincere during closing argument; (3) asking the jury during closing argument to compare S.R.’s veracity with that of their own teenage daughters; (4) giving a personal belief as to the veracity of the evidence during closing argument; and (5) implying during closing argument that the jury had a duty to convict Riffle because of S.R.’s courage in coming forward."
State v Robert Morris, 2008-Ohio-3209, tried by Salisbury before Collier (REVERSED)
“The trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenseof criminal trespassing and in failing to properly instruct on a necessary elementof criminal trespass as required for a conviction of burglary in violation of[Defendant’s] rights to due process and fair trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Ohio and United States Constitutions.”
“If under any reasonable view of the evidence it is possible for the trier of fact toState v Anthony Divincenzo, 2006-Ohio-6330, tried by Salisbury before Collier
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 defendant.”
found at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2006/2006-ohio-6330.pdf
"In his fifth assignment of error, Appellant argues that the trial court
erred in permitting the State to introduce testimony that Appellant invoked his
right to counsel during his interview with police."
State v Michael Scheck, 2006-Ohio-647, tried by Salisbury before Collier
"In his first assignment of error, Appellant argues that the trial court
committed reversible error when it prohibited the defense from cross- examining T.D. regarding her prior sexual activity with the co-defendant."
"In his second assignment of error, Appellant contends that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct when it authorized the destruction of crucial evidence prior to trial. "
"In Appellant’s sixth assignment of error, he contends that the State also committed prosecutorial misconduct when it referred to Appellant as a “rapist” during trial."
State v Henry Smith, 2005-Ohio-1001, tried by Salisbury before Collier
"In his fourth assignment of error, Appellant has argued that he was
not afforded a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct. Specifically, Appellant
has argued that the State made prejudicial statements during its closing arguments,
and that such statements prevented Appellant from receiving a fair trial."
State v Bryan Nelson, 2004-Ohio-4967, tried by Salisbury before Collier
"In his final assignment of error, Appellant argues that he was denied
a fair trial due to the misconduct of the prosecutor."
State v Samuel Cutlip, 2004-Ohio-2120, tried by Salisbury before Collier
"In his first assignment of error, Appellant maintains that the trialALTHOUGH BUT A FEW OF THE CASES IMPLICATING THE UNCHECKED, LONGSTANDING, ONGOING PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT OF SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, HAVE BEEN CITED HERE, SALISBURY'S MISCONDUCT DID NOT SIMPLY OCCUR IN A VACUUM.
court erred by admitting certain statements in violation of his Confrontation
Clause rights."
LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, WAS LOOKING DOWN FROM HIS PERCH ON HIGH, COMPLETELY COMFORTABLE THAT HE WILL NEVER HAVE TO FACE A DEMOCRAT CHALLENGER IN ANY OF THOSE FUTURE RIGGED MEDINA COUNTY ELECTIONS DUE TO HIS COMPLICITY WITH CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN, CHEERING ON SALISBURY FOR AN UNTOLD NUMBER OF YEARS!
THE CASES CITED HERE, AND OTHERS, ARE SINGULARLY COMPELLING EVIDENCE OF THE LONGSTANDING CORRUPTION THAT PERVADES COURTROOM NO. 1, AND PERMEATES THE COMMON CRIMINALS WHO OPERATE WITHIN IT, AT THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE/MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION.
THESE CASES ARE MORE UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE THAT COMPELS AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTS BY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE!
MUCH MORE TO COME ....
No comments:
Post a Comment