WHAT YOU, THE CITIZENS, NEED TO KNOW !!!

As the blogger pointed out in the prior post at this blog. information was received that LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER has threatened to sue the Medina Gazette if they publish any article disclosing the content of the MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE ON THE GROUNDS OF PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL BAD FAITH AND MISCONDUCT filed in the case of the innocent citizen whom CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN is attempting to take to trial a third time after the prior convictions were reversed twice by the Ninth District Court of Appeals, due and owing to PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT facilitated by LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER and RICHARD (the) "DICK" MARKUS, both birds of the feather.

The blogger has decided to publish the entire MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE ON THE GROUNDS OF PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL BAD FAITH AND MISCONDUCT in segments.  Any references to exhibits can be cross-referenced at the List of Exhibits, accessed by "CLICKING" the link at the upper right-hand corner of the web page directly beneath "PAGES."

Shown below is the first installment of the MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE ON THE GROUNDS OF PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL BAD FAITH AND MISCONDUCT :

1.         The State and the Previous Trial Courts Engaged in

Egregious Misconduct, Driven by Bad Faith.            

 

Justice demands dismissal of this case, with prejudice, where the record in this case, and other supporting evidence, proves that the State and the trial judge in Trial I unjustly prosecuted this Defendant in bad faith, engaging in egregious prosecutorial and judicial misconduct.  Prosecutorial and judicial bad faith and misconduct marked Defendant’s second trial as well.

A.  The State Fabricated a Discovery Document in Defendant’s First Trial.

At Trial I, the State fabricated a discovery document in a deliberate attempt to conceal that Mr. Hartman had not been Mirandized prior to his interrogation at the Medina County Jail, some eight hours following his unlawful arrest. A copy of the fabricated discovery Document is attached as Exhibit One.

Specifically, the police report by Deputy Douglas Clinage of his interrogation of Matthew Hartman, after his arrest and while he was in custody, revealed that Clinage failed to advise Matthew Hartman of his rights and also failed to seek a waiver of those rights.  Rather than admit the unconstitutional interrogation, Assistant Medina County Prosecutor Scott Salisbury fabricated a false police report of interview by cutting and pasting two different reports together to falsely represent to the Defense that Clinage had advised Matthew Hartman of his Miranda rights, when no such warning and waiver of rights occurred.

Salisbury combined Clinage’s report with portions of a separate report prepared by another deputy, who was not present for the interview, but rather was reporting on events occurring more than eight hours previously, at another location.  The copy Salisbury presented to the defense (see Exhibit One) bears the brackets Salisbury used to mark the portions of the other deputy’s report that Salisbury cut and pasted onto Clinage’s report.  Had the Defense not independently obtained the actual reports by subpoena, Salisbury might have gotten away with his dishonest and dishonorable ruse.

B.  The State Invaded the Defense Camp in Defendant’s First Trial.

Further misconduct occurred when the State invaded the defense camp during pre-trial proceedings by monitoring telephone calls between defense counsel, the defense investigator, and Defendant.  The Affidavit of Inspector Paul M. Hartman (Ret.), defense counsel’s investigator and Defendant’s father, was previously filed as an attachment (Exhibit #1) to the December 30, 2009 Defendant’s Post-Hearing Rebuttal Memorandum, With Exhibits and is presently attached hereto as Exhibit Two.

Moreover, the State planted an investigator in the county jail, after Defendant had been indicted, posing as inmate “Chris Palm/Palme,” to elicit information from Hartman pertaining to the charged alleged offense.  See Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S 293, 307 (1966) citing Coplon v. United States, 89 U.S. App. D.C. 103, 114 (1951) (holding Government's intrusion upon the defendant's relationship with his lawyer "invalidates the trial at which it occurred").  This misconduct, in and of itself, warrants dismissal of the Indictment.  Id.

THUS FAR, THE MOTION ADDRESSES THE BAD FAITH AND MISCONDUCT BY CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN.