A. The Prosecutor Introduced Inadmissible
Alleged Other Acts
“Evidence” at Trial, After Acknowledging Its Inadmissibility and
After Assuring Defense Counsel and the Court That He Would Not Do So.
In Mr.
Hartman’s Trial I, after assuring the court and defense counsel that he had no
intention of presenting alleged forbidden acts to the jury (Motions in Limine Tr. at 8-9), the prosecutor
called Mr. Hartman’s wife, as his first witness, over her repeated assertions
of spousal privilege.[1] The prosecutor, himself, on direct exam, then
placed Mr. Hartman’s character at issue and presented the forbidden acts
evidence to the jury, upon which he relied in closing argument. In fact, at a
sidebar conference when the defense objected, the prosecutor “justified” his
introduction of the forbidden acts, with his first witness on her first direct
examination, by expressly stating, “I don’t have any other witness to testify
to” the forbidden acts “evidence.” (Tr.
at 122).
The
prosecutor, with the Court’s blessing, thus deliberately violated R.C. 2945.42,
Evid.R. 404(b), 601(b), 608(a), as well a whole host of the provisions of the
Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and the ABA Standards of Conduct for
Prosecutors, all with the bad-faith intent to prejudice Mr. Hartman. (Juror comments after the trial confirmed
that the inadmissible allegations did in fact prejudice the jury.) The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction
because of other evidentiary violations by the prosecutor and cautioned him not
to repeat the other misconduct raised on appeal.
During Trial
II, also subsequently reversed on appeal, expressly on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct, the
prosecutors assured the judge that they had removed prejudicial remarks from
the 911 call pertaining to false claims by Kim Leighton that the Hartmans were
separated. Again, the Assistant
Medina County Prosecutor assured the court that he had reviewed the decision of
the court of appeals and, in light of that decision, had removed the untrue
allegation of separation. Because the prosecutors
had missed a reference, they had to prepare a corrected tape during the trial
to play to the jury. This process
confirms that the prosecutors were well-aware that innuendo about the
non-existent separation were prohibited during the retrial. Yet, in closing argument, both
prosecutors argued that the couple was separated, contrary to the sworn
testimony and the express admonition of the Court of Appeals on this issue. See State v. Hartman, 9th Dist.
Nos. 10CA026-M, 10CA0031-M, 2012-Ohio-745,
¶17, 19, 22.
During the
appellate phase, the State continued to offer factual misrepresentations,
misstating the testimony adduced at trial, even after Mr. Hartman briefed the
precise cites in the record refuting the State’s invented “facts.” See Appellant’s
Reply Brief, 9th
Dist. No. 12CA0057-M, pp. 1-2, attached hereto as Exhibit Three.
[1]
The alleged “forbidden acts” failed to
qualify as legitimate Rule 404(b) evidence.
It was not like and similar to the charged offense of aggravated
burglary, nor was it otherwise admissible under the Rules of Evidence. The court did not conduct a balancing test of
any kind, and the prosecutor offered it for exactly the purposes the Rules
prohibit – to show
alleged propensit1. The admission of
this “evidence,” over defense objections, was reversible error in and of itself
and the manner of its introduction further demonstrates bad faith by the
prosecutor and the court.
LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER AND SCOTT SLEAZEBURY JOINED TOGETHER TO VIOLATE THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND DELIBERATELY, AND UNLAWFULLY, PREJUDICE THIS INNOCENT CITIZEN, ALL FOR THE SAKE OF LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER'S UNOPPOSED LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY COURT.
No comments:
Post a Comment