COMPLETELY WORTHLESS AND TOTALLY CORRUPT MEDINA JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER violated the rights of the Defendant from the very outset of the trial.
COLLIER, who must have been thinking of his first wife, denied the Defendant and his wife the Spousal Privilege, contrary to the Ohio Rules of Evidence, the Ohio Revised Code, and the body of prevailing case law,
all in a very determined effort to prejudice the Defendant and to steer the jury to a Guilty verdict.
As the trial commenced, Medina County assistant prosecutor
SCOTT SALISBURY, as already shown a RACIST AND A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, called the Defendant's wife as his very first witness.
SALISBURY'S sole purpose for calling the Defendant's wife was to introduce the legally forbidden alleged "other acts evidence," which is prohibited by the Ohio Rules of Evidence.
Firstly, the reader should know that the Defendant's wife filed two separate and distinct
sworn affidavits with COLLIER, asserting her Spousal Privilege. Further, the Defendant's wife sent a personal letter to
SALISBURY, also asserting her Spousal Privilege.
As the reader might expect, following a
sham "hearing" on the morning of trial, the results of which had been dictated to COLLIER by HOLMAN and SALISBURY, COLLIER, in his typical allegiance to HOLMAN, compelled the Defendant's wife to testify.
COLLIER, who will never even be considered for a position requiring him to sweep the floors in the United States Supreme Court, explained his irrational
rationale for compelling the Defendant's wife to testify. COLLIER'S ruling, and his stated
rationale, will be the subject of the next post at this blog.
Suffice it to say,
COLLIER should have simply stated,
"The wife is compelled to testify because SALISBURY AND HOLMAN decided that she has to."
At this time, it is more than appropriate to look to the Ohio Rules of Evidence and the law, which
COMPLETELY WORTHLESS AND TOTALLY CORRUPT JUDGE COLLIER simply ignored in making his
idiotic ruling.
FIRST, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE OHIO REVISED CODE
2945.42 Competency of witnesses.
No person is disqualified as a witness in a criminal prosecution by reason of the person’s interest in the prosecution as a party or otherwise or by reason of the person’s conviction of crime. Husband and wife are competent witnesses to testify in behalf of each other in all criminal prosecutions and to testify against each other in all actions, prosecutions, and proceedings for personal injury of either by the other, bigamy, or failure to provide for, neglect of, or cruelty to their children under eighteen years of age or their physically or mentally handicapped child under twenty-one years of age. A spouse may testify against his or her spouse in a prosecution under a provision of sections 2903.11 to 2903.13, 2919.21, 2919.22, or 2919.25 of the Revised Code for cruelty to, neglect of, or abandonment of such spouse, in a prosecution against his or her spouse under section2903.211 or 2911.211, of the Revised Code for the commission of the offense against the spouse who is testifying, in a prosecution under section2919.27 of the Revised Code involving a protection order issued or consent agreement approved pursuant to section 2919.26 or 3113.31 of the Revised Code for the commission of the offense against the spouse who is testifying, or in a prosecution under section 2907.02 of the Revised Code for the commission of rape or under former section 2907.12 of the Revised Code for felonious sexual penetration against such spouse in a case in which the offense can be committed against a spouse. Such interest, conviction, or relationship may be shown for the purpose of affecting the credibility of the witness. Husband or wife shall not testify concerning a communication made by one to the other, or act done by either in the presence of the other, during coverture, unless the communication was made or act done in the known presence or hearing of a third person competent to be a witness, or in case of personal injury by either the husband or wife to the other, or rape or the former offense of felonious sexual penetration in a case in which the offense can be committed against a spouse, or bigamy, or failure to provide for, or neglect or cruelty of either to their children under eighteen years of age or their physically or mentally handicapped child under twenty-one years of age, violation of a protection order or consent agreement, or neglect or abandonment of a spouse under a provision of those sections. The presence or whereabouts of the husband or wife is not an act under this section. The rule is the same if the marital relation has ceased to exist. Effective Date: 09-03-1996
IF YOU CHOSE TO NOT PLOW THROUGH THE ABOVE-LEGALESE, HERE IS THE ESSENCE OF THE STATUTE:
One spouse may testify against another if the spouse and any dependent children are the victims of specified offenses (generally crimes of violence) for which the Defendant is being prosecuted.
NEXT LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE OHIO RULES OF EVIDENCE
RULE 601. General Rule of Competency
Every person is competent to be a witness except:
(A) Those of unsound mind, and children under ten years of age, who appear incapable of receiving just impressions of the facts and transactions respecting which they are examined, or of relating them truly.
(B) A spouse testifying against the other spouse charged with a crime except when either of the following applies:
(1) a crime against the testifying spouse or a child of either spouse is charged;
(2) the testifying spouse elects to testify.
You will note that Ohio Rule of Evidence 601 sets out, in plain language, the same essential provisions of Section 2945.42 of the Ohio Revised Code, as above.
NOW LET'S LOOK AT THE CASE LAW
Here is but one case, among many, in the body of Ohio Appellate Law upholding the sanctity of the Spousal Privilege:
State v. Henness (1997), 79 Ohio St. 3d 53, ¶ 1 of the syllabus
- “…the testifying spouse remains incompetent *** until she makes a deliberate choice to testify, with knowledge of her right to refuse. The trial court must take an active role in determining competency, and must make an affirmative determination on the record that the spouse has elected to testify.”
ALL OF THIS SHOULD SEEM PRETTY CLEAR TO THE PERSON OF AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE, WHICH OF COURSE EXCLUDES COLLIER, SALISBURY, AND HOLMAN.
I AM NOT QUITE SURE WHAT PART OF THE FACT THAT A SPOUSE CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY AGAINST ANOTHER SPOUSE, UNLESS THE VICTIM OF A CHARGED CRIME OF VIOLENCE, THAT COLLIER JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO GET!
IF YOU AR A REGULAR READER OF THIS BLOG, YOU WILL RECALL THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH THE BURGLARY OF THE HOME OF HIS FRIEND BY SIMPLY WALKING THROUGH AN OPENED DOOR AND CALLING OUT FOR HIS WIFE AND FAMILY! THE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER CHARGED AND PROSECUTED FOR A CRIME OF VIOLENCE DIRECTED AT HIS WIFE OR THREE YOUNG CHILDREN.
THIS, OF COURSE, IS HOW COLLIER PRESERVES HIS LIFETIME UNCONTESTED APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
MUCH MORE TO COME ....
