THE SMELLL OF FISH FROM LAPDOG COLLIER'S KANGAROO COURTROOM #1 IS OVERWHELMING !

Shown below is the ELEVENTH installment of the MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE ON THE GROUNDS OF PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL BAD FAITH AND MISCONDUCT, which LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER and the Republicrats at the Medina County Courthouse, Mosque & Railroad Station do not want you, the citizens, to see.  You can cross-reference any exhibits to the List of Exhibits by "CLICKING" on the link shown directly below "PAGES" at the upper right-hand corner of the web page:

D.  Post-Trial Motions Directed Trial Court I to

Concepts and Testimony to Alter in the Transcript.

For the convenience of the Court, this Memorandum will simply summarize some of the evidence presented in the briefs, described above in the above-cited footnote to Mr. Hartman’s appeal brief. This sampling of the evidence demonstrates that tampering occurred and also documents the material nature of the alterations to the corrupted “official” transcript of Mr. Hartman’s Trial I before Judge Collier.

Aside from the serious and fatal suppression issues, the primary issue that defense counsel argued to the Court at the close of the trial was that the judge had deprived Mr. Hartman of a fair trial by limiting and often foreclosing Mr. Hartman’s right to a full and fair cross-examination of the State’s witnesses.  Defense counsel expressly cited to Davis v.Alaska, 415 U.S 308, 318 (1974) (holding Petitioner was denied the right of effective cross-examination which "'would be constitutional error of the first magnitude and no amount of showing of want of prejudice would cure it').  During defense counsel’s argument, the judge winced noticeably when counsel expressly pointed to Davis.

Because Attorney Robert Dixon represented Mr. Hartman on appeal, the undersigned counsel did not have the opportunity to review the Trial I transcripts until preparing to file Mr. Hartman’s petition for post-conviction relief.[1]  When counsel and her investigator reviewed the “official” transcripts of Trial I, the undersigned discovered that someone had completely deleted from the transcript the places where the trial judge had stopped her from questioning the State’s witnesses.

That discovery immediately prompted a closer inspection and review of the materially altered transcript of Mr. Hartman’s Trial I, which disclosed a number of other substantive deletions and alterations to the transcript, set out below.

---

[1]  Defendant had requested the appointment of Ms. Cramer to handle his appeal.  Judge Collier, however, denied that written motion and appointed Attorney Dixon, who was not present for Trial I or any pretrial proceedings.  Thus, he could not know that the transcripts did not reflect what had occurred.