DEJA VU !!! SEEN IT ALL BEFORE, MORE THAN ONCE !!!

In the prior post at this blog, readers were shown that the Ninth District Court of Appeals overturned the conviction of Vincent Labriola in the Medina Kangaroo Court of Common Pleas due to the "REPEATED AND EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT" OF MEDINA ASS. PROSECUTOR MUSTAFAH RAZAVI.

MUSTAFAH RAZAVI'S "REPEATED AND EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT" IN THE LABRIOLA CASE WAS NOT AN ANOMOLY AND SIMPLY DEMONSTRATES THE ONGOING COURSE OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT IN THE MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, CONDONED AND PROMOTED BY CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN.

COMPARE MUSTAFAH RAZAVI'S "REPEATED AND EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT" IN THE LABRIOLA CASE WITH MUSTAFAH'S "REPEATED AND EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT" IN THE CASE BEING PROFILED AT THIS BLOG, ALONG WITH THE "REPEATED AND EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT" OF ASS. PROSECUTOR SCOTT SLEAZEBURY.

Shown below are excerpts from the transcript of the case being profiled at this blog, along with appropriate commentary.

In Labriola, at page 9, ¶27, the Court noted that “the Ohio Supreme Court has concluded that comments by the State referring to the defendant’s evidence as ‘lies,’ ‘garbage,’ and ‘[a] smoke screen’ went well beyond the normal latitude allowed in closing arguments and [was] clearly improper.”  Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d at 14.”  In [Defendant's] trial, the State’s closing argument included these very comments, repeatedly characterizing the defense evidence as “lies,” and “garbage,” and other derogatory remarks intending and accomplishing similar prejudice.  The transcript is replete with these impermissible remarks by the State’s prosecutors [Excerpts from the State’s closing arguments, with cites to pages of the transcript, follow]:

There's an old saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Something along those lines. I think that's how it goes. And the general idea is you are not going to keep accepting garbage and just say, hey, give me another try.  (Tr. at 1116.)

as much as they [the defense] want to put on ridiculous testimony and lies --I'm [SLEAZEBURY] not as polite as Mr.[Mustafah] Razavi and [Defense counsel] -- and lies to say that door was wide open every time I entered their premises, absolutely, definitely.  (Tr. at 1190).

And that's how you know that's a lie.  (Tr. at 1190).

even though, even though [Defendant] lied in his statement  (Tr. at 1193).

And I'll submit to you that the defense presented to you a lot of irrelevant, frankly useless evidence, and I submit to you on behalf of the State of Ohio that what they presented, a lot of it was, frankly, useless to your determination today.  (Tr. at 1106).  [These remarks also include use of the prosecutor’s position for improper vouching.]

the defense is going to present to you, we submit to you, the illogical and preposterous notion . . .  (Tr. at 1097-1090).

           Despite all the attempts they have made to have this preposterous notion that there's some like one-way privilege . . . (Tr. at 1098).

          Their argument is that for 30 minutes she was there sitting in the living room while he watered the flowers. Impossible. Not true. Made up.  (Tr. at 1112).

And I suggest to you that most of these [defense exhibits] are frankly worthless.  (Tr. at 1115).

Why did they put on this all? To try to distract your attention from the evidence in this case.  (Tr. at 1115).

their [defense] theory, it got so preposterous, ladies and gentlemen  (Tr. at 1124).

but the really preposterous things . . .  (Tr. at 1125).

That's ridiculous.  (Tr. at 1191).

That's something they made up later to try to say that this time elapsed, which it didn't.  (Tr. at 1193)

The best story he could come up with is he's going there, this night, to Deputy Clinage, this is what Clinage told you, "I'm going there to cool off and to go groundhog hunting." Well, curiously, Al Leighton never told you that. Because it's not true.  (Tr. at 1202).

 

The Court, in Labriola, at page 9, ¶27, confirmed earlier holdings that, “A prosecutor may not express any opinion as to the credibility of a witness or as to the defendant’s guilt.” Citing State v. Kirby, 9^th Dist. No. 23814, 2008- Ohio-3107, at ¶23.  In[Defendant's] trial, the State violated this well-established law and actually stated the following to the jury:

"the State of Ohio has every right to comment upon it and comment upon the credibility of those witnesses."  (Tr. at 1117). 

 

 

NOT SO. . .  ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO ! ! ! !

 

      The State then proceeded to deceive and mislead the jury, by dictating the conclusions that the State wanted, namely, that [Defendant], all of his witnesses, and even his counsel were lying to them and deliberately trying to mislead them.  For example, when her testimony hurt the State’s case, the State chose to mischaracterize the  truthful testimony of [Defendant's] wife as “a whopper.” 

 

Specifically, the prosecutors stated:

 

[Defendant's wife] got up here and really, I think, hit you with a whopper  (Tr. at 1105).

 

And now [Defendant's wife] wants you to believe, oh, it was all, it was all Kim.  (Tr. at 1113).

 

Now, [Defendant's wife] tried to mislead you.  (Tr. at 1197).

 

You know, there's been a lot of quotes and a lot of sayings, and I'm not big on that and I don't pretend to be so presumptuous as to quote Shakespeare or read Shakespeare, but there's one quote that I like, because I don't read Shakespeare, have never read Shakespeare, butwhen a play is cast in hell, Shakespeare said, do not expect the actors to be angels. Okay? And that's very, very appropriate in this case. Because [Defendant's wife] got her -- got -- was assaulted, reacted appropriately that day, and now she's trying to save her family.  So she is not being honest about what happened that day.  (Tr. at 1197-1198).  [ IF SLEAZEBURY HAS NEVER READ SHAKESPEARE, HE OBVIOUSLY MADE THIS UP - TYPICAL FOR A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. ]

 

[Defendant is] not a valid broker of the evidence.  (Tr. at 1198).

 

[Defense witness] gave me the preposterous answer . . .  (Tr. at 1123).

 

[Defense witness is] just not telling the truth, okay, to protect his friend.  (Tr. at 1124).

this is not the place for you to get people to come in and give you false characterizations about the nature of people's relationships  (Tr. at 1124).

 

[Defense witness] can't say that [Defendant] has privilege to go in the Leighton's house. That's ridiculous.  (Tr. at 1191).

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you the testimony of [Defense investigator, an honorably retired federal agent.]  It's like an oh-for on all of those. That's an abject failure as to all of this, and let me tell you why, ladies and gentlemen, why he fails the credibility test in these instructions.  (Tr. at 1117).

 

[Testimony] certainly was not frank or reasonable. [Defense investigator] certainly wasn't trying to provide him the truth. He was trying to avoid answering.  (Tr. at 1120).

 

Ladies and gentlemen, you hear, and it's palpable, in [Defense investigator's] appearance and his manner of testimony, a disingenuous nature, a not frank nature, an interest or bias in this case. There is no doubt about it. And his testimony doesn't even make sense.  (Tr. at 1121).

 

when you watch [Defense investigator] up there, that was cat and mouse games  (Tr. at 1124).

 

How disingenuous and nonfrank and not credible is [Defense investigator's] testimony?  You don't have to accept testimony that is so disingenuous and nonfrank.  (Tr. at 1125).

 

But [Defense investigator] the best investigator in the world wants to sell you that bill of goods.  (Tr. at 1126).

 

I don't want to distract you from the facts in this case, which is, I believe, and I told you this, the intention of their defense.  (Tr. at 1126).

 

These things, ladies and gentlemen, all these photographs, I submit to you on behalf of the State of Ohio, [improper vouching] these pictures of firearms, these pictures of automobiles, these pictures of the outlet, and like seven pictures of the outlet and all different stores are a distraction. [attacking the honesty and value of the defense evidence in an impermissible manner.]  (Tr. at 1114).

 

since you have heard for an hour and a half of [Defense counsel] mischaracterizing the evidence  (Tr. at 1186).

 

[Defense counsel] wants to mislead you. Intentionally.  (Tr. at 1187).

 

 

Corrupt Medina County Prosecutor DINO HOEMAN obviously approves of the ongoing PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT of Ass. prosecutors SCOTT SLEAZEBURY and MUSTAFAH RAZAVI, in that HOEMAN has failed to take any corrective action to curb these ass. prosecutors gone wild, despite repeated chastisement from the Court of Appeals.

The Blogger believes a Federal Judge will view the recurrent misconduct of HOEMAN'S office quite differently!

 

The excerpts of Mustafah's and Sleazebury's misconduct during closing arguments would make a text book example to a first-year law student of how not to conduct closing argument at trial.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals has seen it all before, and will most certainly see it all again . . . and again . . . and again.

 

NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS RECOGNIZES RECURRENT PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT BY THE MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, SLAPS MUSTAFAH RAZAVI, REVERSES CONVICTION!!!

The Ninth District Court of Appeals has begun to recognize a recurrent pattern of misconduct by

the Medina County Prosecutor's Office.

On June 24, 2013, the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction of Vincent Labriola, who had been

deprived of a fair trial due to PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, this time

by SCOTT SLEAZEBURY'S  office companion and cohort, MUSTAFAH RAZAVI.

The Court of Appeals found that MUSTAFAH RAZAVI engaged in the same pattern of misconduct

in Mr. Labriola's case as SLEAZEBURY  demonstrated in the case being profiled at this blog.

IT IS CLEAR THAT CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN ENDORSES AND ENCOURAGES MISCONDUCT BY HIS CUYAHOGA COUNTY CAST-OFFS, SPECIFICALLY SCOTT SLEAZEBURY AND MUSTAFAH RAZAVI !!!

MUSTAFAH RAZAVI'S  PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT  IS APTLY CHARACTERIZED BY THE NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, DECIDING MR. LABRIOLA'S APPEAL, EXCERPTED BELOW:

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

 

THE PROSECUTOR’S REMARKS DURING CLOSING ARGUMENT AN
FAILURE TO PROVIDE ALL EVIDENCE ROSE TO THE LEVEL OF
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WHICH DEPRIVED MR. LABRIOLA OF
HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF HIS 5TH, 6TH, AND

14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND
ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

{¶24} Labriola argues that he was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial based on

improper conduct by the State. This Court agrees.

{¶25} Labriola first argues that the State’s repeated comments during closing argument

about his lack of credibility and other witnesses’ credibility deprived him of a fair trial.

{¶26} Although the State is generally accorded a certain degree of latitude during

closing argument, “[t]he prosecutor is a servant of the law whose interest in a prosecution is not

merely to emerge victorious but to see that justice shall be done. It is a prosecutor’s duty in

closing arguments to avoid efforts to obtain a conviction by going beyond the evidence which is
 

before the jury.” (Internal citations omitted.) State v. Smith
14 Ohio St.3d 13, 13-14 (1984).

As an initial matter, the State “must avoid insinuations and assertions which are calculated to

mislead the jury.” Id. at 14, citing Berger v. United States, 295 U.S.78, 88 (1935).

{¶27} This Court has adopted the Ohio Supreme Court’s test in evaluating a claim of

prosecutorial misconduct arising during closing argument. We must determine “whether the

prosecutor’s remarks were improper and, if so, whether the remarks prejudicially affected the

defendant’s substantial rights.” State v. Kirby, 9th Dist. No. 23814, 2008-Ohio-3107, ¶ 23, citing

Smith at 14. Specifically, a prosecutor may not express any opinion as to the credibility of a

witness or as to the defendant’s guilt. Kirby at ¶ 23. For example, the Ohio Supreme Court has

 concluded that comments by the State referring to the defendant’s evidence as “lies,” “garbage,”

and “[a] smoke screen” went “well beyond the normal latitude allowed in closing arguments and

[was] clearly improper.” Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d at 14. A reviewing court focuses not merely on

the culpability of the prosecutor, but rather considers the trial record as a whole to determine

whether the defendant received a fair trial. Kirby at ¶ 23, citing State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160,

166 (1990).

{¶28} During closing argument, the State [MUSTAFAH RAVAVI] repeatedly
 

commented on Labriola’s testimony as untruthful, implausible, and full of lies. For example, in

comparing Labriola’s testimony to that of other witnesses, the assistant prosecutor

[MUSTAFAH RAZAVI]  asserted: “You only heard that from

Mr. Labriola who, by the way, his testimony is untruthful and I’ll point out a lot of ways why it’s

untruthful.” Labriola objected to this statement, arguing that the prosecutor “has no idea whether

it’s truthful or not. That’s misleading.” When directed by the trial court to rephrase, the State

[MUSTAFAH RAZAVI] continued by asserting that “this man right here, Vincent

Labriola, his testimony is full of mistruths and lies. It’s clear as it can be and that’s my argument
 
to you.” Later, the State [MUSTAFAH RAZAVI] informed the jury: “You heard what I

 call and what I submit to you is false testimony of the Defendant * * *.” 

  The assistant prosecutor [MUSTAFAH TAZAVI] asserted that Labriola’s “excuses”

were “implausible” and that he “in fact, lied.” 

The State [MUSTAFAHRAZAVI] argued that “if * * * you’re Vincent Labriola, and


I submit to you a liar as he has been throughout this case when he testified, you think up another lie


 for that * * *.”   ¶29} In addition, the assistant prosecutor [MUSTAFAH RAZAVI] commented on

 Labriola’s explanations,stating that “[t]hat affects his credibility. You don’t accept every story.”
 
 

The State [MUSTAFAH RAZAVI] even went so far as to effectively inform that jury
 



that they must either believe or discount all testimony from

any single witness.  The State [MUSTAFAH RAZAVI] argued that Labriola wanted the

 jury to believe the State’s witnesses as their testimony aligned with his but not when it did not:


 “That’s not the way it works. That’s not the way human beings work. That’s not the way that 12

 
people that are peers that are deciding the case decide credibility.”

 

{¶30} In his rebuttal argument, the assistant prosecutor [MUSTAFAH RAZAVI]

 asserted that the State [MUSTAFAH RAZAVI] did not

present the testimony of Steven Combs because it did not want “to parrot your lies * * *.” In

conclusion, the assistant prosecutor [MUSTAFAH RAZAVI] told the jury that the State

 “has been an honest broker of the evidence in this case[,] * * * characterizing the evidence in a more
 

believable fashion.”

 

{¶31} Finally, the State [MUSTAFAH RAZAVI] commented on the credibility of some
 
 of its witnesses, going so far as to emphasize the witnesses’ traits to bolster their credibility.
 

After recapping the testimony of Chris Adam and Ryan Sweeney, the assistant prosecutor [MUSTAFAH RAZAVI] stated: “I suggest to you that they

were very credible in their testimony. Frankly, they’re very likeable and straight forward.”

 

{¶32} This Court concludes that the assistant prosecutor’s [MUSTAFAH RAZAVI'S] repeated comments about Labriola’s untruthfulness crossed the line into impropriety. See Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d at 14. Moreover, we conclude that the State’s [MUSTAFAH RAZAVI'S] repeated and egregious misconduct prejudicially affected Labriola’s substantial rights so as to deprive him of a fair trial.

Even after being directed by the trial court at one point to rephrase, the assistant prosecutor
[MUSTAFAH RAZAVI] only more emphatically called Labriola a liar.

 In fact, the crux of the State’s argument was that Labriola lied under oath, while the State’s witnesses told the truth. Under the circumstances of this case, the State’s misconduct deprived Labriola of his constitutionally protected right to a fair trial. Thus, as the State’s remarks prejudicially affected the defendant’s substantial rights and undermined the integrity of the proceeding, Labriola’s first assignment of error is sustained.

{¶34} Labriola’s first assignment of error is sustained. Labriola’s second assignment of

error is overruled. This Court declines to address the third assignment of error as it is moot. The

judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas is reversed and the cause remanded for



further proceedings consistent with this decision. 





 
 THE "PERFORMANCE" OF MUSTAFAH RAZAVI IS CERTAINLY FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS WITNESSED, IN ANY CAPACITY, THE PROCEEDINGS HELD DAILY IN THE MEDINA COUNTY MOSQUE AND RAILROAD STATION!!!