TRUE TO HIS WORD, CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR CONTINUES TO HIDE AND CONCEAL EVIDENCE

The has been an interesting change to the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically Rule 16, Discovery and Inspection.  The Ohio Supreme Court has amended Rule 16 to provide for open discovery.

Open Discovery simply means, with limited exception, that the prosecutor's file is open to defense attorneys for inspection and discovery.  The rule was amended to provide defendants full and fair pre-trial discovery so that there are no surprises at trial.

Needless to say, the rule providing for open discovery is an anathema to Medina County Prosecutor DINO HOEMAN whose usual and customary practice is to conceal exculpatory evidence from defense attorneys.

The blogger received information that, prior to the change in Rule 16, HOEMAN attended a summit of sorts composed by various attorneys debating the proposed amendment to the rule.  Apparently HORMAN and a Cleveland defense attorney engaged in a heated debate that nearly turned to blows. It is reported that, at this juncture, HOEMAN stormed out of the room after stating, quite bluntly, "There will never be open discovery in Medina County."

Of course, Rule 16 was amended, requiring open discovery and, as usual, HOEMAN continues to violate Rule 16 by hiding and concealing evidence from defense attorneys.

Following is a perfect example of HOEMAN presently concealing evidence from the defense.

Rule 16(K), as presently enacted, provides:

Expert Witnesses; Reports.

An expert witness for either side shall prepare a written report summarizing the expert witness’s testimony, findings, analysis, conclusions, or opinion, and shall include a summary of the expert’s qualifications. The written report and summary of qualifications shall be subject to disclosure under this rule no later than twenty-one days prior to trial, which period may be modified by the court for good cause shown, which does not prejudice any other party. Failure to disclose the written report to opposing counsel shall preclude the expert’s testimony at trial.

The language of Rule 16(K) is not ambiguous as to the attorneys' responsibility to disclose reports of expert witnesses.  There's nothing mysterious here.

Following is an excerpt of a motion filed by a defense attorney on April 3, 2014 in LAPDOG COLLIER'S KANGAROO COURTROOM NO. 1:

Despite the Court's assurances that the defense would receive Dr. Steiner's report, the State has refused to produce those reports. In fact, at the last recorded Hearing on this case, which undersigned attended via telephone, the Prosecutor made it clear that the State would not ever produce the expert reports.

READERS CAN BE ASSURED THAT LAPDOG COLLIER AND HIS COURT REPORTER, DONNA "HAVE IT YOUR WAY" GARRITY WILL TAMPER WITH AND CHANGE THE TRANSCRIPT OF THAT HEARING, REMOVING ANY TRACE OF SLEAZEBURY'S REFUSAL TO PRODUCE THE REPORTS!

 

Given the fact that COLLIER is in  HOEMAN'S pocket, there is no way that LAPDOG COLLIER will enforce the mandatory requirements of Rule 16 against HOEMAN'S office,  thus deliberately depriving the defense of full and fair discovery.

That is a perfect example of CORRUPTION IN ACTION in the Medina County "JUSTUS" system.

HOEMAN IS THE TAIL THAT WAGS THE LAPDOG NAMED COLLIER!