NEWBY KERN TRIES TO HIDE SALISBURY'S LONGSTANDING, EXTENSIVE HISTORY OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, ALL OF WHICH HAS BEEN FACILITATED BY LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER

In the prior post at this blog, readers learned that CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN has added a rookie attorney to his staff, Newby attorney Matthew Kern.  HOLMAN THE CORRUPT has assigned Newby Kern to oppose the Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, motivated in no small measure to conceal the unlawful and unethical conduct of his office and LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE.


Toward the end of attempting to conceal the illegal conduct of LAPDOG COLLIER and MEDINA ASS PROSECUTOR SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, Newby Kern filed a brief in opposition to this innocent Defendant's Motion for Bond.  Further, HOLMAN THE CORRUPT HAS INSTRUCTED THE MEDINA COUNTY CLERK OF COURT TO WITHHOLD THIS INNOCENT DEFENDANT'S REPLY BRIEF SO AS TO WITHHOLD FROM PUBLIC VIEW AND SCRUTINY THE EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THE ILLEGAL AND UNETHICAL CONDUCT OF HIS OFFICE.

In his Brief in Opposition to Bond, rife with misrepresentation of material facts and unsupported claims (much as if SALISBURY THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR had significant input, even though SALISBURY in incapable of composing an intelligible legal brief), Newby Kern moved to strike from the record evidence of the longstanding extensive patter of prosecutorial misconduct by Salisbury, all of which misconduct was deliberately facilitated and enabled by LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER,
HOLMAN'S "PAVLOV DOG."


FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF CASES PRESENTED TO THE NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS IN WHICH SALISBURY'S MISCONDUCT WAS RAISED AS AN ISSUE:

State v Aaron Gatt, 2011-Ohio-5221, tried by Salisbury before Collier

  
-  "This Court has previously addressed this prosecutor’s tendency to engage in “widespread improper conduct” in the courtroom." 


State v Brian Johnson, 2011-Ohio-3623, tried by Salisbury before Collier 

 -  " The prosecutor in this case did engage in a pattern of improper conduct. "
  -  " The prosecutor 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."
  -  “While an attorney’s [SALISBURY'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.” 
  -  "The prosecutor’s “cross-examination” of these women was improper, and the trial court  [LAPDOG COLLIER] should not have allowed him to get away with it."

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."

State v Craig Maynard, 2009-Ohio-282, tried by Salisbury before Collier

 -  "

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

-  "In his first assignment of error, Riffle asserts that his constitutional rights were violated: (1) when Police Chief Sivard testified that once given his Miranda warnings, Riffle exercised his right to remain silent; (2) when a social worker testified as to the circumstances of her interview with Riffle and noted that Riffle had told police that he wanted an attorney; and (3) when the State [SALISBURY] referenced Riffle’s decision to cease interrogation with police during closing argument."

  -  "We, therefore, hold that the evidence of, and the State’s [SALISBURY'S] references to, Riffle’s silence were improper.

State v Robert Morris, 2008-Ohio-3209, tried by Salisbury before Collier

  -  “The trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of criminal trespassing and in failing to properly instruct on a necessary element of 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.”

  -  " Defendant maintains that the trial court agreed that criminal trespass was a lesser included offense of burglary, but refused to instruct the jury on the offense based on State v. Fontes (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 527."

  -  "Defendant maintains that the trial court simply got confused between the charged crime (the (A)(3) burglary) and the State’s suggested lesser included, the (A)(4) burglary, when it made its decision on how to instruct the jury."   [LAPDOG COLLIER WAS NOT "CONFUSED," BUT ACTED DELIBERATELY TO RAILROAD MR. MORRIS]

 -  “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 defendant.” 

State v Anthony Divincenzo, 2006-Ohio-6330, tried by Salisbury before Collier

  - " In his fifth assignment of error, Appellant argues that the trial court [LAPDOG COLLIER] erred in permitting the State [SALISBURY] to introduce testimony that Appellant invoked his right to counsel during his interview with police."

State v Ricardo Almazan, 2006-Ohio-5047, tried by Salisbury before Collier

  -  “The trial court abused its discretion and erred to the prejudice of [Defendant] by allowing the state to introduce, over defense objection, irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial and misleading testimony by a sheriff’s deputy...."

State v Michael Scheck, 2006-Ohio-647, tried by Salisbury before Collier

  -  "In his first assignment of error, Appellant argues that the trial court [LAPDOG COLLIER] committed reversible error when it prohibited the defense from cross-examining

  -  "In his second assignment of error, Appellant contends that the State [SALISBURY] committed prosecutorial misconduct when it authorized the destruction of crucial evidence prior to 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."  

  -  "Appellant next has argued that certain comments by the State in closing argument were racially motivated."   [ See SALISBURY'S racist remarks at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/03/salisbury-continues-to-lie-claims-he.html and also at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/03/salisbury-although-slow-learner-is.html ]


READERS HAVE BEEN SHOWN ONLY 10 OF THE MOST RECENT 20 CASES PRESENTED TO THE NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS RAISING THE PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT OF SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.  THERE ARE CERTAINLY MANY, MANY MORE.


NOW, TO THE POINT OF THIS DEMONSTRATION OF THE PATTERN OF EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT BY MEDINA ASS PROSECUTOR SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR:


Newby Kern, in his Opposition to Bond, objects to the presently assigned judge having been presented with the full list of the 20 most recent cases raising the issues of SALISBURY'S PATTERN OF EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT, claiming that SALISBURY'S PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT IN THE PRIOR MOST RECENT 20 CASES IS "IRRELEVANT" TO SALISBURY'S PATTERN OF EGREGIOUS PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT  IN THE CASE OF THE INNOCENT CITIZEN BEING PROFILED AT THIS BLOG.


Specifically, Newby Kern has argued:

It is the position of the State that this [list of cases documenting SALISBURY'S misconduct] is entirely irrelevant to the proceedings as the Opinions of the Ninth District Court of Appeals whether a prosecutor erred in other cases is irrelevant to the determination whether a prosecutor erred (in this case)....Frankly, whether the prosecutor committed misconduct in some other case is irrelevant to whether there was misconduct in this case.

Setting aside the fact that Newby Kern appears to have a problem constructing a proper sentence, his argument is based upon the faulty premise that SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, SIMPLY "ERRED" WHEN HE ENGAGED IN AN EGREGIOUS PATTERN OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WHEN HE JOINED TOGETHER WITH LAPDOG COLLIER TO RAILROAD AN INNOCENT CITIZEN INTO PRISON.

To believe that SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, simply "erred" can only be concluded by an individual of significantly diminished mental capacity to the level of LAPDOG COLLIER. 


The purpose of the list of 20 recent cases of prosecutorial misconduct by SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR is to demonstrate unequivocally that SALISBURY ENGAGED IN A DELIBERATE PATTERN OF EGREGIOUS PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, AS HE HAD DONE SO MAY TIMES BEFORE OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS.


THAT PATTERN OF EGREGIOUS PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT BY SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, HAS GONE UNCHECKED FOR MANY YEARS, PROVING THAT SUCH MISCONDUCT IS CONDONED AND PROMOTED BY CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN.


MUCH MORE TO COME ON THIS SUBJECT ....