The Medina County Prosecutor and/or the Trial Court Colluded With Medina Court Reporters to Produce a Tainted “Official” Transcript of the Proceedings, in Their Entirety, by Tampering With, Altering, and Amending the Transcript, Thus Violating the Laws of the State of Ohio, Specifically ORC §§2913.42(A)(1), 2913.42(A)(2), and 2913.42(B)(4), Felony Offenses of the Third Degree.
Medina Court Reporters, a Medina County firm, is under contract with the trial judge Collier to provide court-reporting services. Defense counsel and her investigator have detected, and continue to detect, material alterations to the “official” transcript of proceedings, all calculated and designed to deprive Petitioner of a fair hearing on his direct appeal and his Petition for Post Conviction Relief. The level and degree of misconduct by the Medina County Prosecutor, however, was so pervasive that, by excising all of that misconduct from the transcript, there would be no transcript at all. Nevertheless, the tampering, material alteration, and amendment to the “official” transcript was carried out, in part, with the specific intent of depriving Petitioner of his claim that he was deprived of his constitutional rights under the Confrontation Clause in that the trial judge prohibited defense counsel from fully and fairly cross-examining the State’s witnesses. Such prohibition effectively emasculated Petitioner’s right to confront and examine his accusers. Denial of the “right of effective cross-examination” is “constitutional error of the first magnitude” requiring reversal. Davis v Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315-318 (1974).
In Petitioner’s post-conviction Motion for Acquittal, filed with the court on November 23, 2009, defense counsel attached her sworn declaration enumerating the court’s “errors” at trial, and pointing to issues, expected to be raised on appeal. A copy of defense counsel’s sworn declaration, as attached to Petitioner’s Motion for Acquittal, is appended hereto as Exhibit 9.
On December 17, 2009, Petitioner filed his Additional Authorities and Exhibits in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Acquittal, once again pointing to issues, expected to be raised on appeal, in greater detail. One of many issues identified was the trial court’s denial of Petitioner’s constitutional rights to effective cross-examination of the State’s witnesses, accorded to him under the Confrontation Clause and buttressed by Davis v Alaska, Id.
On December 27, 2010, after receiving no fewer than eight extensions of time, the court reporter filed the tainted “official” transcript of the proceedings with the Clerk of the Ninth District Court of Appeals. Attorney Robert Dixon was appointed by the trial court to represent Petitioner on his direct appeal. Subsequently, at a much later date, Mr. Dixon made the tainted “official” transcript of the proceedings to Petitioner’s trial counsel who, under time pressures and constraints, prepared and timely filed the Petition for Post Conviction Relief as provided by ORC §2701.03(D)(1).
Following the timely filing of the Petition for Post Conviction Relief, defense counsel and her investigator more thoroughly reviewed the “official” transcript of the proceedings and discovered the transcript had been tampered with, materially altered, and amended, with the obvious intent to deny and deprive Petitioner a fair hearing on appeal and on his Petition. Petitioner’s counsel briefed this Court with respect to the manifold inaccuracies and omissions in the “official” transcript in Petitioner’s Motion to Correct Transcripts, filed on August 4, 2011, and in Petitioner’s Reply to State’s Opposition to Correct the Record; Opposition to States’ Motion to Disqualify Petitioner’s Counsel, filed on September 8, 2011, which provide examples of specific portions of testimony that are curiously and suspiciously missing from the “official” transcript.
More recently, Petitioner’s counsel has detected even more suspicious omissions for the transcript of the suppression hearing, at Pages 180 and 243 of the suppression hearing transcript, discussed at Section V (C) of this brief, supra.
Further, Petitioner has filed sworn proof of certain omissions from the “official” transcript in the form of the Affidavit of Paul M. Hartman, previously attached to Petitioner’s Motion to Correct Transcripts, and appended hereto as Exhibit 10.
Also, defense counsel has attached to Petitioner’s Reply to State’s Opposition to Correct the Record; Opposition to States’ Motion to Disqualify Petitioner’s Counsel Page 56 from the Formal Complaint of Judicial and Prosecutorial Misconduct filed by Petitioner’s father with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Ohio Supreme Court on or about January 11, 2011, well prior to the time that defense counsel had access to the “official” transcripts. In his complaint, Petitioner’s father makes reference to comments made on the record at the time of Petitioner’s sentencing on January 29, 2010. The well-remembered comments from the trial judge are curiously missing from the “official” transcript. A copy of Page 56 of the Formal Complaint of Judicial and Prosecutorial Misconduct, as attached to Petitioner’s brief filed on September 8, 2011, is appended hereto as Exhibit 11.
While Petitioner has advanced proof, including sworn proof that the “official” transcript has been tampered, materially altered, and amended, the prosecutor has failed to advance any countervailing evidence to challenge or dispute Petitioner’s evidence.
SINCE THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT HOLMAN THE CORRUPT, LAPDOG COLLIER AND MEDINA COURT REPORTER DONNA GARRITY HAVE TAMPERED WITH AND MATERIALLY ALTERED A TRANSCRIPT, THEY DO NOT WANT ANY OTHER INNOCENT CITIZENS WHOM THEY RAILROADED TO RAISE SIMILAR ISSUES. BESIDES, THEY MOST CERTAINLY WISH TO AVOID THE FEDERAL PRISON TERMS WHICH THEY ARE DESERVEDLY DUE.
MUCH MORE TO COME ....
No comments:
Post a Comment