WHAT HOLMAN THE CORRUPT, ANOTHER STUPID CRIMINAL, IS TRYING TO CONCEAL FROM THE PUBLIC: ISSUE #8 - THE COMPLETE LACK OF INTEGRITY OF THE MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

Newby Kern and HOMAN THE CORRUPT wish to conceal the complete lack of integrity of his office, epitomized by the dishonesty of his assistant, SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, which HOLMAN THE CORRUPT endorses and promotes.


After all, HOLMAN'S mantra is, "Lie a little. Lie a lot.  What's the difference?"

            No Greater Evidence of Deceit in The Case at Bar Can Be Shown Than the Manner in Which Medina County Assistant Prosecutor Scott Salisbury Introduced Forbidden Alleged “Other Acts” in Violation of Evid. R. 404(B), Which Further Demonstrates Salisbury’s Predisposition and Intent to Engage in “Widespread Misconduct in the Courtroom.”   State v. Gatt, 2011-Ohio-3263, at ¶18.

            During a pre-trial conference held at the Medina County Courthouse at the direction of the trial judge, Salisbury sprung upon defense counsel heretofore undisclosed alleged “other acts”.  Salisbury sprung the alleged “other acts” upon defense counsel on Friday, November 6, 2009, on the very eve of the trial, which was schedule to commence on Monday, November 9, 2009.  The facsimile indicia on the documents presented to defense counsel established that Salisbury had received the documents on September 11, 2009.

            In subsequent discussion with Salisbury during the pre-trial hearing, Salisbury conceded to defense counsel that purported “evidence” of the alleged “other acts” was not properly admissible as evidence.  Defense counsel sent a letter to Salisbury, dated November 8, 2009, memorializing her pre-trial discussions with Salisbury, including his concession that purported “evidence” of the alleged “other acts” was not properly admissible.

            In her letter to Salisbury, defense counsel wrote:

The Defendant’s first request for discovery, filed on June 29, 2009, requested, among other things, notice of any prior criminal record of the defendant, as well as notice of the State’s intention to introduce Rule 404(b) evidence.  The defense repeated this latter request in our Motion to Compel Discovery, filed on July 27, 2009.  The State’s discovery response did not include any prior criminal record of my client, only a misdemeanor arrest that was dismissed.  See the State’s discovery response, filed July 10, 2009.  To date, the State has not filed or provided any notice of intent to introduce Rule 404(b) evidence.  Id.

On Friday, November 6, 2009, for the first time, you gave me printouts regarding a 2004 incident.  I have reviewed the paperwork you have provided to me and it fails to disclose any felony conviction or any admissible misdemeanor conviction.  See Rule 609(A)(2), Ohio Rules of Evidence.  After you and I discussed those papers, you concede that the incident was not admissible at trial, even if Mr. Hartman took the stand and testified.  Please promptly advise me if you have changed your position and now intend to attempt to introduce this incident, so we can raise the issue of its admissibility with the Court in a motion in limine.

            A copy of defense counsel’s letter to Salisbury, dated November 8, 2009 and previously attached to Petitioner’s Motion for Acquittal, is appended hereto as Exhibit 16.

            Salisbury did not reply, in any manner, to defense counsel’s letter of November 8, 2009.

            On the morning of the first day of trial, November 9, 2009, during a discussion of Motions in limine, defense counsel raised the issue of Salisbury’s intent to introduce the forbidden alleged “other acts,” the subject of defense counsel’s November 8, 2009 letter to Salisbury. 

The following exchange is documented in the record of the discussion of the Motions in limine:

THE COURT:                        What else do you have for me?

MS. CRAMER:          Two prior orders in which my client requested additional discovery responses.  I was only told of a misdemeanor arrest, which would not be admissible; then on Friday, the prosecutor showed me another misdemeanor, which again, it’s not a truth-or-veracity issue misdemeanor.  I don’t know if he - - it seems from our discussions, he’s not intending to introduce this even if the Defendant took the stand.

THE COURT:                        Mr. Salisbury.

MR. SALISBURY:     Well, I’m definitely not introducing it in my case in chief.            (Emphasis added.)

THE COURT:                        He’s not going to use it in his case in chief, so don’t worry about that.    (Emphasis added.)

(Tr. Pretrial at 8-9)

            As soon as the trial commenced, Salisbury called Petitioner’s wife, Melissa Hartman, as his very first witness.  The trial court compelled the testimony of Petitioner’s wife despite that fact that neither she nor her children were victims of the charged crime, and in spite of the fact that she had asserted her spousal privilege on no fewer than four separate and distinct occasions, including by Affidavit.  The trial court failed to advise Petitioner’s wife that she had an absolute right to not testify under the circumstances of the case at bar.  See Evid. R. 601(B); State v Brown, 115 Ohio St.3d 55 at 67 (2007).

            During direct examination of Petitioner’s wife, his very first witness, Salisbury introduced the inadmissible alleged “other acts,” contrary to his assurances to defense counsel during discussions of the Motions in limine.  Obviously, the defense had not raised the issue of Petitioner’s character, since defense counsel had not posed a single question to Salisbury’ first witness, nor had Salisbury qualified Petitioner’s wife a hostile witness. 

(Tr. at 117-120.)

            Defense Counsel requested a sidebar conference.  (Tr. at 120.)  Defense counsel raised her objection to the introduction of the forbidden alleged “other acts” by Salisbury.  (Tr. 120-121.)   As his sole rationale for introducing the forbidden alleged “other acts”, in violation of Evid. R. 404(B), Salisbury offered his very simple, although unsound, rationale, “I don’t have any other witness to testify to this incident….”  (Tr. at 122.)  The trial court permitted Salisbury to continue and to introduce the forbidden alleged “other acts”.  (Tr. at 124.)

            To further compound his deceit in this regard, Salisbury filed State’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Acquittal, Etc., on January 6, 2010, fully 18 days after the trial court denied all of Petitioner’s meritorious post conviction motions.

 In his sham brief, in fact the only brief he ever filed in the proceedings below, Salisbury asserted, in pertinent part, “Additionally, at no time did the State ever assure or reassure that it wouldn’t use the (forbidden “other acts”) evidence.”  (Emphasis added.)  State’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Acquittal, Etc., at unnumbered Pg. 2.

The prosecutor has not, and cannot, offer any legitimate rationale, legal or otherwise, to excuse the blatant deceit and misconduct of Salisbury with regard to the introduction of forbidden alleged “other acts” at trial.

            The prosecutor’s argument that, “out of thin air (defense counsel) has constructed an entire web of lies about which there is no evidence to support the fantastic claims” is not well founded and lacks any scintilla of merit.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....