The Transcript of Mr. Hartman’s October 28, 2013 Bond Hearing
Has Been
Deliberately Edited and Materially Altered in an Attempt To Deprive His
Spouse, For a Third Time, of Her Spousal Privilege.
On October 28, 2013, Matthew Hartman,
represented by the undersigned, appeared before Judge Richard Markus, then
sitting by assignment, for a bond hearing. Medina County Prosecutor Dean Holman and his
assistants, Matthew [MUSTAFAH FAOUQUOD] Razavi and Matthew [STA-PUF] Kern, represented the State at the
hearing.
During the hearing, while considering
the conditions of bond, Judge Markus queried whether the State was alleging
that Melissa Hartman and the Hartman children were victims of the charged
offense. Markus asked the prosecutors,
“Who does the State say are the victims of this crime?”
With the Court’s permission, Prosecutor
Holman, alongside [MUSTAFAH FAOUQUOD] Razavi and [STA-PUF] Kern, formed a huddle and conferred among
themselves for awhile. Following their
impromptu conference, Dean Holman turned to Judge Markus and stated, expressly
and unequivocally, “Al and Kim Leighton are the victims. His wife and children are not victims.”
At a luncheon following the bond hearing, attended by Mr.
Hartman, his family, and the undersigned, discussion included the fact that
Dean Holman had expressly and unequivocally identified only the Leightons as
the victims of Mr. Hartman’s alleged offense, to the exclusion of all other
persons. They discussed the significance
of this admission by the prosecutor because it preserved Melissa Hartman’s
spousal privilege and further proved that the prosecution could not force her
to testify.
In anticipation of Mr, Hartman’s impending third trial, the
undersigned ordered a transcript of Mr. Hartman’s bond hearing from Medina
Court Reporters, Inc., specifically to have this crucial admission by Holman.
On or about October 10, 2014, court
reporter Jenifer Lunney furnished the alleged transcript of the October 28,
2013 bond hearing. Upon review, the
undersigned detected material alterations to this transcript, as the undersigned
has found in other transcripts in this case that Medina Court Reporters, Inc.
has prepared.[1]
Specifically, at pp 14-15 of this
corrupted transcript, a course of dialogue attributed to Judge Markus had been
invented and inserted into the transcript.
Moreover, Dean Holman’s express and unequivocal identifications of only
“the Leightons” as the victims of the alleged offense has been deliberately deleted from the transcript.
Witnesses to Dean Holman’s express
and unequivocal identification of the Leightons as the sole victims of Mr.
Hartman’s alleged offense, made during Mr. Hartman’s bond hearing, have
prepared affidavits pertaining to Holman’s identification. The affidavit of Matthew Hartman is attached
as Exhibit Fifty-Eight. The
affidavit of Matthew’s mother, Mrs. Carolyn Hartman, who was present at the
hearing and witnessed the identification of the Leighton’s as the sole victims
of Matthew’s alleged offense, is attached as Exhibit Fifty-Nine. The affidavit of Inspector Paul M.
Hartman, the defense investigator and Matthew’s father, is attached as Exhibit Sixty.
Another alteration occurs when
discussing electronic monitoring and the travel restrictions as a condition of
bond. Throughout the entirety of the
bond hearing, the undersigned objected on Mr. Hartman’s behalf to electronic
monitoring. The transcript has been
altered to falsely read that the undersigned agreed to electronic monitoring in
certain counties (which also makes no sense – monitoring is not related to
counties. Either a defendant is on
monitoring or he is not. It also makes
no sense with other portions of the transcript where the undersigned continues
to argue against monitoring.) In truth
and in fact, the undersigned agreed to travel in certain counties, but never
agreed to monitoring anywhere.[2]
[1]
Jenifer
Lunney is the same court reporter who furnished a materially altered transcript
and is alleged to have offered perjured testimony in the trial of Ms. Lynn
Vandeusen. See, infra, State v. Lynn
Vandeusen, Medina Case
No. 12CR0388, and Exhibit Twenty-Five.
[2] Counsel notes that Garrity also changed Counsel’s
closing argument in Trial I to include admissions and concessions regarding the
evidence that the undersigned most certainly did not make.
No comments:
Post a Comment