Of course, SLEAZEBURY has not engaged in this recurrent pattern of "widespread" prosecutorial misconduct in a vacuum. All of SLEAZEBURY'S prosecutorial misconduct was enabled and facilitated by LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE. That is the only way, of course, that a second-rate attorney like LAPDOG CAN KEEP HIS UNOPPOSED LIFETIMG APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY BENCH.
As the Ninth District Court of Appeals pointed out, when it chastised SLEAZEBURY for his prosecutorial misconduct, in its analysis of State v. Johnson:
The prosecutor’s “cross-examination” of these women was improper, and the trial court should not have allowed him to get away with it.
LET SLEAZEBURY GET AWAY WITH IT ? NOT ONLY DID LAPDOG COLLIER LET SLEAZEBURY "GET AWAY WITH IT," HE HAS ENCOURAGED AND PROMOTED THE RECURRENT PATTERN OF PROSECUTORAL MISCONDUCT. LAPDOG COLLIER IS PART AND PARCEL OF THE COMPLETE PACKAGE OF WIDESPREAD MISCONDUCT.
Now it's time to review some of the misconduct by SLEAZEBURY and LAPDOG COLLIER OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS. The blogger will include specific case numbers, so that the reader may research and review these cases at the website of the Ninth District Court of Appeals.
Remember that all of the cases cited below were tried before LAPDOG COLLIER by Medina Ass. prosecutor SCOTT SLEAZEBURY.
State v Aaron Gatt, 2011-Ohio-5221, tried by Salisbury before Collier
{¶14} Mr. Gatt’s second assignment of error is that the prosecutor engaged in
improper
conduct that deprived him
of a fair trial.
{¶18} This Court’s review of the transcript in
this matter revealed many troubling
comments by the prosecutor. Although
not amounting to reversible error, the prosecutor made numerous inappropriate
comments throughout the course of this trial.
In addition to the threat Mr. Gatt has assigned as error, the prosecutor
repeatedly expressed his personal belief regarding the credibility of witnesses
(during direct-examination of his own witness, cross-examination of the
defendant, and closing argument) and frequently introduced facts not in
evidence via his “questions” to various witnesses.
This Court has previously addressed this prosecutor’s tendency to engage
in “widespread improper conduct” in the courtroom. State
v. Johnson, 9th Dist. No. 09CA0054-M, 2011-Ohio-3623, at ¶62,
42-70.
State v Brian Johnson, 2011-Ohio-3623, tried
by Salisbury before Collier
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
{¶42} Mr. Johnson’s second assignment of error is that the prosecutor engaged
in a
pattern of improper
conduct that deprived him of a fair trial.
{¶43} The prosecutor in this case did engage in a pattern of
improper conduct.
{¶44} Mr. Johnson has argued that the prosecutor
committed numerous instances of
improper conduct during his cross-examination of
defense witnesses. An embarrassing amount of that
cross-examination reads more like the script of a television drama than the
type of cross-examination that is expected from a prosecutor.
{¶49} The prosecutor’s “cross-examination” of
these women was improper, and the trial
court should not have allowed him to get away
with it.
{¶62} Lawyers are forbidden from stating a
personal opinion about the credibility of a
witness. State
v. Smith, 14 Ohio St. 3d 13, 14 (1984).
{¶73} The prosecutor was argumentative, asked
improper questions, made testimonial
assertions, referred to
facts that were not in the record, misrepresented the evidence, and
expressed
his personal opinion of Mr. Johnson’s credibility.
State v Riffle, 2010-Ohio-2812,
tried by Salisbury before Collier
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
“[RIFFLE] WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL DUE TO PROSECUTORIAL
MISCONDUCT.”
{¶5} In his first assignment of
error, Riffle contends that he was denied a fair trial due
to prosecutorial misconduct. Riffle takes issue with
statements made by the prosecutor during opening and closing statements as well
as on cross- examination.
{¶11} Next, Riffle points to the
prosecutor’s statements regarding the fact that S.R. had
no reason to lie and
that she was testifying against Riffle because it was the truth.
{¶13} Riffle points to statements made
by the prosecutor during the State’s closing
argument. Particularly, Riffle
contends that the prosecutor’s statements served to bolster S.R.’s credibility
and to explain perceived discrepancies in her testimony.
{¶23} Riffle further states that the
“prosecutor also prejudiced [Riffle] by questioning
him over objections about a
young lady named Katie Rock, whom the court had previously ruled could not be
introduced as evidence pursuant to Evid.R. 404(B) during the first trial in
November of 2006.” [A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT ROUTINELY FACILITATED BY LAPDOG COLLIER.]
State v Craig Maynard, 2009-Ohio-282, tried by Salisbury before Collier
prevented him from questioning witnesses about Mrs. B.’s and B.M.’s
veracity. At trial, Mr. Maynard’s lawyer asked the mother of B.M.’s drinking
companion if she had an opinion about whether Mrs. B. was a truthful person,
and the trial court sustained the State’s objection. He also asked her if she had an opinion about
whether B.M. was a truthful person, and the trial court again sustained the
State’s objection. Finally, he asked the
drinking companion if she had an opinion about whether B.M. was a truthful
person, and the trial court again sustained the State’s objection. After completion of all the evidence, Mr.
Maynard’s lawyer proffered that he would have asked both witnesses whether they
“believe she’s going to be truthful” and that he believed they both would have
answered no. [ANOTHER CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF LAPDOG COLLIER ROUNTINELY PREVENTING FULL AND FAIR CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE DEFENSE, DIRECTLY IN VIOLATION OF THE HOLDING OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN DAVIS v. ALASKA.]
State v Peter Riffle, 2008-Ohio-4155, tried by Salisbury before Collier
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
“THE LOWER COURT ERRED AND DENIED [RIFFLE] HIS RIGHT T0 DUE PROCES OF LAW PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WHEN IT PERMITTED EVIDENCE REGARDING HIS
POST-MIRANDA SILENCE AND ASSERTION OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL[.]”
{¶3} In
his first assignment of error, Riffle asserts that his constitutional rights
were
violated: (1) when Police Chief
Sivard testified that once given his Miranda warnings, Riffle exercised his
right to remain silent; (2) when a social worker testified as to the
circumstances of her interview with Riffle and noted that Riffle had told
police that he wanted an attorney; and (3) when the State referenced Riffle’s
decision to cease interrogation with police during closing argument.
{¶6} “Questioning regarding post-Miranda
silence is improper.” State v. Gales
(Nov.
22, 2000), 9th Dist. No. 00CA007541, at *4, citing Doyle,
426 U.S. at 619. With regard to a
defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights, the Supreme Court of Ohio had held that
“the use of pre- arrest
silence as substantive evidence of guilt is an impermissible burden upon the
exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege.”
Leach, supra, at ¶28, citing Combs v. Coyle (C.A. 6,
2000), 205 F.3d 269, 285
.
We, therefore, hold
that the evidence of, and the State’s references to, Riffle’s silence were
improper.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
“STATE MISCONDUCT DURING [RIFFLE’S] TRIAL VIOLATED
PROTECTIONS AFFORDED BY THE FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND
REQUIRE REVERSAL[.]”
In his third assignment of
error, Riffle asserts that the State engaged in misconduct
by: (1) stating in opening
argument that the defense would likely use a “built-in” defense thereby
implying the defense is false or illegitimate; (2) imputing that defense
counsel was insincere during closing argument; (3) asking the jury during
closing argument to compare S.R.’s veracity with that of their own teenage
daughters; (4) giving a personal belief as to the veracity of the evidence
during closing argument; and (5) implying during closing argument that the jury had a
duty to convict Riffle because of S.R.’s courage in coming forward.
State v Robert Morris, 2008-Ohio-3209, tried by Salisbury before Collier
Assignment
of Error No. I
“The trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on
the lesser included offense
of criminal trespassing and in failing to properly instruct
on a necessary element
of criminal trespass as required for a conviction of
burglary in violation of
[Defendant’s] rights to due process and fair trial under the
Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Ohio and United States Constitutions.”
{¶3} Defendant
asserts that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on the lesser
included offense of criminal trespass, including giving an instruction
on privilege, an element of the crime of criminal trespass. Defendant maintains that the trial court
agreed that criminal trespass was a lesser included offense of burglary, but
refused to instruct the jury on the offense based on State v. Fontes
(2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 527. [ANOTHER CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF SLEAZEBURY AND LAPDOG COLLIER TAG-TEAMING A DEFENDANT BY REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON A PROPER LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE.]
{¶6} “If
under any reasonable view of the evidence it is possible for the trier of fact
to
find the defendant not guilty of the greater offense and guilty of the
lesser offense, the instruction on the lesser included offense must be given.
The evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to defendant.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Deimling (Dec. 20, 2000), 9th Dist.
No. 99CA007496, at *1 quoting State v. Wilkins (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d
382, 388
{¶7} The parties concede and the
trial court acknowledged that criminal trespass is also a lesser-included
offense of an (A)(3) burglary, although the trial court declined [REFUSED] to give such
an instruction. [THUS DELIBERATELY PREJUDICING MORRIS]
State v Anthony Divincenzo, 2006-Ohio-6330, tried by Salisbury before Collier
In his fifth assignment of error, Appellant
argues that the trial court
erred in permitting the
State to introduce testimony that Appellant invoked his
right to counsel during
his interview with police. [ See State v Peter Riffle, 2008-Ohio-4155, above.]
State v Ricardo Almazan, 2006-Ohio-5047, tried by Salisbury before Collier
SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
“The trial court abused
its discretion and erred to the prejudice of
[Defendant] by allowing
the state to introduce, over defense
objection, irrelevant,
unfairly prejudicial and misleading testimony
by a sheriff’s deputy,
concerning comments which he allegedly
overheard [Defendant]
make during a break in the trial about the
amount of marijuana
transported to court for introduction by the
prosecution as State’s
Exhibits 19-21.”
State v Michael Scheck, 2006-Ohio-647, tried by Salisbury before Collier
“THE COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT
PREVENTED DEFENSE COUNSEL
FROM CROSS-
EXAMINING THE VICTIM
REGARDING PRIOR SEXUAL
ACTIVITY WITH THE
CO-DEFENDANT.”
In his first assignment of error, Appellant
argues that the trial court
committed reversible
error when it prohibited the defense from cross-examining
T.D. regarding her prior
sexual activity with the co-defendant.
[ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF LAPDOG COLLIER SUSTAINING SLEAZEBURY'S OBJECTION AND DEPRIVING THE DEFENDANT OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO FULLY AND FAIRLY CROSS-EXAMINE A STATE'S WITNESS, IN VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HOLDING IN DAVIS v. ALASKA.]
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
“THE STATE OF OHIO
COMMITTED PROSECUTORIAL
MIDSCONDUCT [SIC] WHEN IT
AUTHORIZED THE
DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE
PRIOR TO TRIAL WHICH
WAS CRUCIAL TO
[APPELLANT’S] CASE.”
[A TYPICAL EXAMPLE OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN'S OFFICE OF WITHHOLDING AND CONCEALING EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF THE HOLDING OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN BRADY v. MARYLAND.] [See prior post at this blog
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VI
“IT WAS PROSECUTORIAL
MISCONDUCT AND
REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR [THE
STATE] TO REFER TO
[APPELLANT] AS A ‘RAPIST’
DURING THE TRIAL.”
In his second assignment of error, Appellant contends that the State
committed prosecutorial misconduct when it authorized the destruction of
crucial evidence prior to trial. In
Appellant’s sixth assignment of error, he contends that the State also
committed prosecutorial misconduct when it referred to Appellant as a “rapist”
during trial.
Appellant has notably
failed to identify the portion of the trial
wherein the prosecutor
referred to him as a “rapist.”
[EVIDENCE OF ANOTHER "OFFICIAL" TRANSCRIPT DELIBERATELY EDITIED AND MATERIALLY ALTERED BY LAPDOG COLLIER.] [See prior posts at this blog
Nonetheless, a review of the transcript reveals that
during closing argument the prosecutor
stated:
“You back down
from a lie, like he did eight days before his trial.
That’s
what a coward does, that’s what a rapist does.”
State v Henry Smith, 2005-Ohio-1001, tried by Salisbury before Collier
“A SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT OF [APPELLANT] WAS
PREJUDICED BY CERTAIN
COMMENTS MADE BY THE
STATE OF OHIO DURING THE
REBUTTAL CLOSING
ARGUMENT THAT WARRANT A
REVERSAL OF
[APPELLANT’S]
CONVICTIONS.”
In his fourth assignment of error, Appellant
has argued that he was
not afforded a fair trial
due to prosecutorial misconduct.
Specifically, Appellant
has argued that the State
made prejudicial statements during its closing arguments,
and
that such statements prevented Appellant from receiving a fair trial.
Appellant first has argued that race was used as a means of securing
his conviction because
the State referenced “the OJ case” in its closing arguments.
Appellant
next has argued that certain comments by the State in
closing argument were racially motivated.
State v Bryan Nelson, 2004-Ohio-4967, tried by Salisbury before Collier
In his final assignment of error, Appellant
argues that he was denied
a fair trial due to the
misconduct of the prosecutor.
Appellant points to three
specific instances of misconduct in the
State’s case that he
believes deprived him of a fair trial.
Appellant claims that the
State improperly
questioned an expert witness about the cause of the fire,
improperly argued the
time that was required to fill the house with gas, and
improperly made personal
assertions that Westfield Insurance “did not push for
this
prosecution.”
[ WHO WAS SLEAZEBURY TRYING TO FOOL? BILL BATCHELDER, MR. ESTFIELD INSURANCE AND THE SITTING JUDGE PRIOR TO LAPDOG, HAND-PICKED LAPDOG COLLIER TO REPLACE HIM ON THE BENCH IN KANGAROO COURTROOM NO. 1.]
State v Nicholas Jamison, 2004-Ohio-2514, tried by unknown female prosecutor before Collier [EVIDENCE THAT DINO HOEMAN HAS ADOPTED A POLICY OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT]
In his fourth assignment of error, appellant
argues that prosecutorial
misconduct, specifically
statements made during the State’s closing argument,
unfairly prejudiced
appellant, inflamed the jury and consequently denied appellant
a fair trial. Appellant asserts that, absent the improper
prejudicial closing
argument by the State,
the jury would not have found him guilty of assaulting Ms.
Whipple.
In the instant case, appellant alleges that during the State’s closing
argument, the prosecutor
argued facts not in evidence and characterized the
appellant in terms
designed to inflame the jury by repeatedly referring to
appellant’s use of
alcohol and stating that appellant lacked any indicia of a brain
injury. Appellant also argues that the prosecutor
improperly told the jury that
appellant’s attorney was
intentionally making “untrue” statements to them.
State
v Samuel Cutlip, 2004-Ohio-2120,
tried by Salisbury before Collier
“THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED APPELLANT’S
CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
RIGHTS AND COMMITTED
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN
ADMITTING HEARSAY
STATEMENTS BY ALLEGED
ACCOMPLICES WHICH
IMPLICATED APPELLANT,
WHERE THOSE STATEMENTS
DID NOT CONTAIN ADEQUATE
INDICIA OF RELIABILITY.”
In his first assignment
of error, Appellant maintains that the trial
court erred by admitting
certain statements in violation of his Confrontation
Clause rights.
[T]he admission of the hearsay statements of Lechene and Barandi violated
Appellant’s
Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him.
[ANOTHER TYPICAL EXAMPLE OF SLEAZEBURY AND LAPDOG COLLIER DELIBERATELY VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS OF THE DEFENDANT]
THERE ARE MANY MORE EXAMPLES OF MISCONDUCT BY THE TAG TEAM OF SLEAZEBURY AND LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE. THIS LONGSTANDING PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, OBVIOUSLY CONDONED AND PROMOTED BY CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO GAG A MAGGOT, EVEN A MAGGOT LIKE LAPDOG COLLIER !!!
