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!!!