HOLMAN THE CORRUPT and LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, TWO PARTNERS IN CRIME (LITERALLY), just can't stand to reveal the longstanding and customary practice of withholding exculpatory evidence for persons accused of criminal offenses.
The Medina County Prosecutor Deliberately Withheld Exculpatory Evidence, Identified and Demanded by Petitioner, Thus Violating the Laws of the State of Ohio, Specifically ORC §2921.12(A)(1), Tampering With Evidence, a Felony of the Third Degree.
At the suppression hearing, Deputy Douglas Clinage testified that he took photographs of the purported “injuries” to Petitioner’s wife at the scene of the purported incident that led to Petitioner’s arrest. (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 226). Clinage further testified that he took an “oral statement” from Roy “Al” Leighton “two days later,” specifically on May 29, 2009. (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 256.)
Prior to trial, defense counsel viewed some, but not all, of the evidence in this case at the Medina County Sheriff’s Office. Ms. Beth Klinecht, the evidence custodian, reported that Medina County Assistant Prosecutor instructed her to deny access to certain items of the evidence, specifically the photographs of the purported “injuries” of Petitioner’s wife, the micro cassette recording of the taped “oral” statement of Roy “Al” Leighton taken by Deputy Douglas Clinage on May 29, 2009, and the audiotape of the dispatch 911 call. (Tr. Supp. At 88-89)
During the evidence view, Ms. Klinecht produced a copy of the evidence log upon which Ms. Klinecht placed asterisks beside the items that Salisbury instructed her to withhold from defense counsel. (Tr. at 723-724.)
Defense counsel’s investigator photographed the two-page evidence log. A copy of the photograph of the Medina County Sheriff’s evidence log, displayed to defense counsel and her investigator prior to trial, and previously attached to Petitioner’s Reply to State’s Opposition to Correct the Record; Opposition to Disqualify Petitioner’s Counsel, filed on September 8, 2011, is appended hereto as Exhibit 12.
Defense counsel filed her Rule 16 Discovery Demand on June 29, 2009. Included among the discovery sought, and expressly requested, were:
“Any…photographs…recordings… available to or within the custody or control of the State, which are material to the preparation of the defense….”
“All evidence known, or by exercise of due diligence may become known, to the prosecuting attorney, favorable to the Defendant, or discrediting to the State’s case (“Brady Material,” as defined in Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny), and material to either guilt or punishment, specifically including, not limited to the following: …
5. The existence and identification of each occasion on which each State witness has testified to, or otherwise provided as statement, or narrative purporting to describe the facts of this case, whether oral, transcribed, recorded, written, reported, or summarized, together with copies of all such testimony, transcripts, recordings, statements, narratives, reports, or written summaries of oral statement;
7. Any executed or unexecuted written, tape recorded or summarized oral statement(s) of whatever kind and description in the possession, custody, or control of the State, its agents, or the prosecuting attorney, made by or obtained from any person regarding the incident at issue;
8. All other mitigating and/or exculpatory materials.
The prosecutor refused to turn over the requested exculpatory evidence. Accordingly, on July 27, 2009, defense counsel failed Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery; and Renewed Motion for a Bill of Particulars. Salisbury filed no opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Compel. The trial court did not rule on the Motion to Compel and failed to compel the prosecutor to turn over the exculpatory evidence.
At the close of the September 4, 2009 segment of the four-part suppression hearing, defense counsel discussed discovery issues with the trial court. (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 123.) Defense counsel informed the trial court that she had received exculpatory information from Roy “Al” Leighton and specifically requested the tape-recorded interview of Mr. Leighton be turned over to the defense, further stating her belief that Salisbury was withholding Brady material. (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 124-125.) Salisbury stated to the Court, “… I don’t want to give her the tape.” Salisbury then turned over the audiotape of the May 29, 2009 interview of Roy “Al” Leighton to the trial judge. (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 143.)
Defense counsel then brought the matter of the photographs of the Petitioner’s wife, taken by Deputy Clinage at the scene of the purported incident, to the attention of the trial court. Salisbury denied he had any such photographs, even though they were specifically itemized on the report of Deputy Clinage. (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 145.)
Petitioner’s counsel then informed the trial judge that the Sheriff’s evidence custodian had been instructed to refuse to turn over the photographs of the purported “injuries,” allegedly sustained by petitioner’s wife, to defense counsel. (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 145.)
The trial judge then instructed Salisbury, “But if you’ve got pictures, give them pictures.” (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 146.) Shortly thereafter, the trial judge addressed Salisbury, “If you’ve got photographs, make a reasonable effort to find those photographs. If you do, you have got to give them to me. I’ll take a look and see if they’re exculpatory.” (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 148.)
Salisbury later informed the trial judge that he had been informed by Deputy Clinage that Clinage had taken photographs of Petitioner’s wife at the scene. Salisbury then added, “I will provide that.” (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 154-155.)
Further, given the Salisbury’s refusal to turn over the exculpatory evidence, on September 24, 2009, defense counsel filed Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why the Assistant Prosecutor Should Not Be Held In Contempt of Court and Subject to Sanctions, incorporating by reference Petitioner’s prior discovery demands. Salisbury filed no opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Show Cause. Once again, the trial court failed to rule on the motion, and failed to compel Salisbury to turn over the exculpatory evidence. (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 160.) The trial judge never addressed the Motion to Show Cause.
In pretrial discussion of the Motions in limine, held on November 9, 2009, defense counsel reiterated to the trial judge, “we still have not seen those photographs” or the audio tape of the May 29, 2009 interview of Roy “Al” Leighton. (Tr. Pretrial at 13-14.)
The trial judge agreed to review the audio taped interview of Roy “Al” Leighton and make it available to defense counsel prior to the cross-examination of Mr. Leighton. Salisbury stated that he had turned over the audiotape to the trial judge. (Tr. Pretrial at 14).
The trial judge, despite his earlier assurances to defense counsel that he would “give (defense counsel) an opportunity” to review the audio cassette tape of the oral statement given by Roy “Al” Leighton to sheriff’s deputies on May 29, 2009, refused to turn over the audio tape at trial. (Tr. Pretrial at 14; Tr. at 344-346.) During a sidebar conference at trial, Defense counsel once again informed the trial judge that the defense still had not been provided production of the exculpatory photographs. (Tr. at 347.)
The trial judge never made the audiotape of the oral statement given by Roy “Al” Leighton or the requested photographs available to the defense, at trial or at any other time.
At trial, Kimberly Leighton falsely testified that, when Petitioner’s wife Melissa arrived at her home, Melissa “had marks. It appeared to me that somebody grabbed her by the neck.” (Tr. at 272.) Petitioner’s wife disputes the testimony of Kimberly Leighton and denies that there were “marks” around her neck, suggestive of choking, as Ms. Leighton insinuated.
The photographs of Petitioner’ s wife, had they been turned over to the defense, would have refuted the testimony of Ms. Leighton concerning “marks” around the neck of Melissa, and would have affected the credibility of the entirety of her testimony. The audiotape of the May 29, 2009 interview of Roy “Al” Leighton, had it been turned over to the defense, would have included statements of Mr. Leighton that Petitioner did not burglarize his home, and that Mr. Leighton did not wish to press criminal charges against Petitioner.
Neither the trial judge nor Salisbury ever turned over the exculpatory photographs or the exculpatory audiotape of the May 29, 2009 oral statement of Roy “Al” Leighton to the defense, at trial or at any other time. By denying that the Office of the Medina County Prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence from Petitioner, the prosecutor is now laying culpability for concealing and withholding this exculpatory evidence from Petitioner squarely at the feet of the trial judge, which may very well be true.
Despite his sweeping denials, the prosecutor has offered no countervailing evidence to dispute or challenge the record, which documents that Brady material was deliberately withheld from Petitioner.
ONCE AGAIN, NEWBY KERN HAS FAILED TO SUPPORT HIS SWEEPING DENIALS, WHICH HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER, WITHOUT ANY PROOF OR EVIDENCE.
THIS INNOCENT DEFENDANT HAS, HOWEVER, PRODUCED PROOF AND EVIDENCE THAT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, FACILITATED BY LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, HAS INDEED WITHHELD EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE FOR THIS INNOCENT DEFENDANT. THE UNLAWFUL CONDUCT OF SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, AND LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER CONSTITUTES MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF OHIO, SPECIFICALLY TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE, A FELONY OF THE THIRD DEGREE.
Regular readers of this blog may recall that, in a prior post, the blogger published an electronic message from SALISBURY , THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, who openly admitted that the Medina County Prosecutor's Office regularly withholds exculpatory evidence from defendants because the requirement to disclose such evidence in compliance with the Brady Rule, promulgated by the United States Supreme Court, "is almost impossible to enforce."
Newby Kern offers no more than incredible sweeping denials that he is unable to support with any competent, credible evidence.
MICH MORE TO COME ....
No comments:
Post a Comment