JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER PROVES TO BE HOLMAN'S "PAVLOV DOG" IN YET ANOTHER CASE!

LAPDOG MEDINA COUNTY JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, has demonstrated in yet another case that he is nothing more than a stooge for CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN and that he is no more than HOLMAN'S VERY OWN "PAVLOV DOG!"


It is ore than interesting to review the facts in the case of State v, Shawn Wheeland, Medina County Case No. 05CR0095, which can be accessed at the website of the Medina County Clerk of Court at http://www.co.medina.oh.us/medct_epublicnodr/pages/DetailForm.aspx?case=05CR0095 .

State v Wheeland was prosecuted by SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, before none other than LAPDOG COLLIER.


The Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed and overturned the conviction of Mr. Wheeland because, as the Ninth District concluded, LAPDOG COLLIER ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO CONSIDER COMPETENT, CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AS HE RAILROADED ANOTHER INNOCENT CITIZEN INTO PRISON, ALL FOR THE SAKE OF PRESERVING HIS FIRM GRIP ON HIS UNCONTESTED LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY BENCH BY BOWING TO THE DICTATES OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN.


The opinion of the Ninth District Court of Appeals in State v Wheeland, Court of Appeals Case. No. 06CA0034-M can be found at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2007/2007-ohio-1213.pdf  .

BELOW IS A SUMMATION, TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE NINTH DISTRICT OPINION:

{¶2} Appellant was indicted on February 16, 2005, on one count offelonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), a felony of the second degree, and one count of child endangering in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(1)(E)(1)(d), a felony of the second degree. The charges arose out of an incident in which a five-month old baby was shaken and suffered injuries. Appellant was watching the baby overnight after the mother dropped the baby off
before going to work. Appellant maintained that the baby began to looked dazed and vomit after falling off a couch. Appellant pled not guilty to the charges. Appellant was held in jail pending resolution of the matter on a $100,000.00 bond.

Undoubtedly, LAPDOG COLLIER held Mr. Wheeland in lieu of the $100,000 bond set by CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN.  [See prior post, captioned

CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN SETS BAIL FOR EVERY CITIZEN WHO APPEARS BEFORE LAPDOG MEDINA COUNTY JUDGE COLLIER, CONTRARY TO LAW! found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/12/corrupt-medina-county-prosecutor-dino.html ]

{¶3} On January 17, 2006, appellant appeared before the court for a change of plea hearing. The State moved to dismiss the charge of felonious assault in exchange for appellant’s pleading guilty to the charge of child endangering. The State further asserted that it would agree to a one-year term of incarceration. 

In the usual and customary practice in the art of the Medina County double-cross, LAPDOG COLLIER sentenced Mr. Wheeland to TWO YEARS IN PRISON MANDATED BY CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN rather than the one year prison term disingenuously offered by HOLMAN to coerce a guilty plea from Mr. Wheeland.  [ See prior post, captioned THE ART OF THE FIX AND THE DOUBLE-CROSS IN MEDINA COURT, found at
http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2010/10/art-of-fix-and-couble-cross-in-medina.html ]


HERE'S THE SENTENCING ENTRY FROM THE CLERK'S WEBSITE:

4/26/2006

SENTENCING ENTRY FILED

1439/710-711, DEFT CONVICTED OF 2919.22(B)(1(E)(1)(d) ENDANGERING CHILDREN, F-2 SUBJECT TO A PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF PRISON. CRT ORDERS DEFT TO SERVE 2 YRS IN PRISON, W/CREDIT FOR 425 DAYS SERVED. ALL COSTS WAIVED. DEFT SHALL SUBMIT DNA SAMPLE.

 TURNING ONCE AGAIN TO THE APPELLATE DECISION:

{¶4} On February 21, 2006, appellant moved for a continuance of sentencing, which the court granted. On February 27, 2006, the trial court heard comments from the injured infant’s mother for consideration in regard to appellant’s sentencing. The child’s mother informed the court that the child was “doing really well.” The trial judge informed the mother that he had a “problem” with the fact that appellant told the probation department that he had not shaken the child.

In his usual and customary  fashion, LAPDOG COLLIER DENIED MR. WHEELAND THE CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE solely with the intended purpose of preserving his grip on his uncontested lifetime appointment to the Medina County Bench compliments of CORRUPT MEDINA DEM PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN AND MEDINA COUNTY DEM PARTY.

{¶5} On March 3, 2006, prior to sentencing, appellant filed a motion to withdraw his plea. He argued that he had never acknowledged shaking the child
and that a witness had just come forward with newly discovered evidence tending to show that appellant “was perhaps not guilty or had a complete defense to the charge.” On March 3, 2006, the trial court held a hearing on appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court took the matter under consideration, but apparently orally informed the parties that it denied the motion.... Later the same day, the trial court issued an order denying appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea without analysis.

LAPDOG COLLIER issued his "order" without analysis since he conducted none, but simply did as he was instructed by CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN AND HIS CRIMINAL ASSISTANTS (A MORE THAN APT CHARACTERIZATION).   [ See prior post, captioned LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER PROVES HIMSELF TO BE A COMPLETE WHORE, ON THE TRIAL RECORD!, found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/06/lapdog-judge-collier-proves-himself-to.html ]

{¶6} Also on April 24, 2006, the matter proceeded to sentencing. Prior to sentencing, appellant inquired regarding the trial court’s rulings on his motion for reconsideration and motion for conclusions of law and findings of fact. The trial court orally denied both motions, asserting that it found both defense witnesses at the hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea to be “singularly incredible – not credible.” The trial court then sentenced appellant to two years in prison.

Once again, LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, completely ignored the truthful testimony of credible witnesses solely for the sake of preserving his lifetime uncontested political appointment to the Medina County Bench by simply doing the bidding of CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN, CONTRARY TO THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

{¶14} There is further no evidence to show that the State would be prejudiced by an order allowing appellant to withdraw his guilty plea. This Court has held, “‘Before sentencing, the inconvenience to court and prosecution resulting from a change of plea is ordinarily slight as compared with the public interest in protecting the right of the accused to trial by jury.’” Eklich, supra, quoting Kadwell v. United States (C.A.9, 1963), 315 F.2d 667, 670.

The reference by the Ninth District Court of Appeals to "protecting the RIGHT of the accused to trial by jury" is of little concern to LAPDOG COLLIER, WHO DAILY DEPRIVES ACCUSED PERSONS OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND THE PROTECTIONS OF THE OHIO RULES OF EVIDENCE, all for the purpose of preserving his lifetime political appointment to the Medina County Bench.  [ See prior post, captioned CORRUPTION REIGNS IN THE MEDINA COUNTY CRIMINAL INJUSTICE SYSTEM, found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2010/10/corruption-reigns-in-medina-county.html ]

{¶16}The trial court did not, however, inform appellant that he was waiving his right to remain silent and not testify.

NOT MUCH OF A SURPRISE THERE, SINCE LAPDOG COLLIER HAS DEMONSTRATED BY HIS RULINGS THAT HE CONSIDERS MIRANDA WARNINGS TO BE NOTHING MORE THAN AN ANNOYANCE AND HE COMPLETELY DISREGARDS THE RULINGS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN THIS REGARD. 

{¶18} Appellant presented the testimony of two witnesses at the March 3, 2006 hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Roosevelt Shelton is appellant’s neighbor. He testified that a co-worker, Eskia Taylor, told him approximately two-and-a-half weeks earlier that the victim child’s mother told her that she thought she had shaken her baby too hard. Mr. Roosevelt testified that the subject of appellant’s case came up during their conversation about people that they both knew from the Wadsworth area. He further testified that he told Ms. Taylor that she should tell appellant’s father what she had told him but Ms. Taylor declined, because she did not want to get involved. Mr. Roosevelt testified that he went to appellant’s father that evening after work and told him what Ms. Taylor had said during their conversation. Mr. Roosevelt asserted that he does not know Nina King, the victim child’s mother. 

{¶19} Eskia Taylor testified that she and Mr. Roosevelt were having a conversation at work about appellant’s case. Mr. Roosevelt told her that he was a neighbor of appellant’s parents. Ms. Taylor testified that she knew Nina King and
that they “hung out” together when they were younger. She testified that she ran into Ms. King at Medina County Job and Family Services one day in January 2005 and that they engaged in small talk, catching up on one another’s lives. Ms. Taylor testified that she knew that child protective services had taken the victim child from Ms. King after the incident and she asked Ms. King how she was coping with the situation. Ms. Taylor testified that Ms. King told her that it was a stressful situation and then said, “I think I shook him too hard.” Ms. Taylor testified that she did not tell anyone about Ms. King’s statement because she did not want to be involved. She testified that she was angry at Mr. Roosevelt and the prosecutor for encouraging her to testify and become involved in the matter but that she now realizes how important her testimony is. Finally, Ms. Taylor testified that she knows appellant’s sister and that she recognized appellant from school but that she does not know him well.

RELYING ON LAPDOG COLLIER'S UNFAILING OBEDIENCE TO THE MANDATES OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN, ASS. PROSECUTOR SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, DID WHAT HE DOES BEST ... NOTHING:

{¶21} The trial court denied appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea without analysis, other than the judge’s statement at the sentencing hearing that he found Mr. Roosevelt and Ms. Taylor to be “singularly incredible – not credible[.]”
The State, however, failed to present any evidence to rebut appellant’s evidence that someone other than appellant reasonably could have caused the child’s injuries, so that appellant “was perhaps not guilty or had a complete defense to the charge.” See Fulk at ¶13. The trial court further expressed a “problem” with the fact that appellant denied shaking or otherwise harming the child.

 {¶25} Under the circumstances, it is clear that the witnesses’ testimony coupled with appellant’s continued denials of harming the baby are “significant enough to constitute a reasonable and legitimate basis for [a]ppellant’s desire to withdraw [his plea].” State v. Jackson (Apr. 13, 2000), 3d Dist. No. 9-99-50. Given the substance of the witnesses’ unrebutted testimony and its potential to exculpate appellant, we find the trial court’s denial of the motion to withdraw appellant’s plea to be an abuse of discretion. Appellant’s second assignment of error is sustained.

SINCE THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THAT LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, HAD ABUSED HIS "DISCRETION" AND REVERSED THIS UNLAWFUL CONVICTION, IT DID NOT ADDRESS MR. WHEELAND'S OTHER APPELLATE ISSUES, WHICH WERE ALSO WELL-FOUNDED AND OF OBVIOUS MERIT:

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

“THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY ACCEPTING APPELLANT’S PLEA WITHOUT INFORMING HIM OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS[.]”

 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III

“IT WAS PREJUDICIAL ERROR AND AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO DENY THE APPELLANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA BEFORE SENTENCING AFTER THE APPELLANT DEMONSTRATED THAT HIS PLEA WAS BASED UPON MISLEADING INFORMATION ABOUT HIS POTENTIAL SENTENCE.”

 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV

“THE STATE AND THE TRIAL COURT’S BREACH OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT REQUIRE REVERSAL.” 

 THE ABOVE CASE OF STATE v WHEELAND DEMONSTRATES JUST ONE MORE DAY OF BUSINESS AS USUAL IN CORRUPT COURTROOM NO. 1, OPERATED BY LAPDOG MEDINA COUNTY JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER AND HIS CRIMINAL ASSOCIATES AT THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE/MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION.

LAPDOG COLLIER'S COMPLETE LACK OF INTEGRITY, AS DEMONSTRATED IN A WHOLE HOST OF CASES, INCLUDING THE WHEELAND CASE, IS PROOF POSITIVE OF THE IMPERATIVE FOR AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTS BY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FOLLOWED BY INDICTMENTS OF THESE CRIMINAL OFFENDERS WHO OPERATE IN COURTROOM NO. 1.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

  

WHEN CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN COMMANDS "JUMP," LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER ASKS "HOW HIGH?"

There is absolutely no doubt that CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN pulls the strings, and that LAPDOG JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER simply dances to HOLMAN'S tune.


Take, for example, the issue of Judicial Release, a procedure in law that affords an inmate to file for early release from prison confinement after serving a period of incarceration.  The inmate is required, by law, to apply for judicial release to the trial/sentencing judge.


This blogger has made an extensive review of cases heard by LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, and has not located a single case where LAPDOG COLLIER granted judicial release to any individual whom he has railroaded into prison at the behest of CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN AND HOLMAN'S CRIMINAL ASSISTANTS.


While the law require that an inmate apply for judicial release to the trial judge, in Medina County the inmate might just as well apply to CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN, since HOLMAN OPPOSES JUDICIAL RELEASE AND COMMANDS COLLIER TO DENY ANY SUCH APPLICATIONS!


It's time to review how LAPDOG COLLIER handles these applications for judicial release, at the direction of CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN.


Initially, inmates, with unfounded hope, submit their petitions for judicial release to LAPDOG COLLIER, not realizing that their chances of prevailing are significantly less than a snowball surviving the summer season in hell.


Once the inmate files a petition for judicial release, HOLMAN AND HIS CRIMINAL ASSISTANTS FILE IDENTICAL OPPOSITIONS, WITHOUT ANY REGARD FOR THE MERITS OF THE APPLICATION.


HERE IS A TYPICAL FILING BY SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, OPPOSING JUDICIAL RELEASE:

HERE'S ANOTHER USUAL AND CUSTOMARY SALISBURY OPPOSITION TO JUDICIAL RELEASE, PRESENTED HERE FOR GOOD MEASURE:

NOTICE THE COMPLETE IDENTICAL NATURE OF THE "PLEADINGS?" IT CERTAINLY TOOK A BIT OF SHEER BRILLIANCE TO COMPOSE THIS MEANINGLESS "PLEADING," ALTHOUGH ONE CANNOT FIND ONE MISSPELLED WORD, SUGGESTING THAT SALISBURY BRUSHED UP ON HIS LATEST EDITION OF SPELLING FOR DUMMIES BEFORE HE SCRIBBLED CRAYON TO PAPER.

The above documents were randomly chosen, but identical to each and every opposition filed by SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, who has opposed each and every application filed with LAPDOG COLLIER, as far as this blogger has found.


The reader will take note of the boilerplate claims of SALISBURY that "the circumstances" dictate against early release.  However, SALISBURY, who spends most of his "workdays" trolling Craig's List at taxpayers' expense (Theft in Office), has never pled any so-called "circumstances" upon which LAPDOG COLLIER could have made an otherwise conscientious decision.  [It is noted that, in fact, LAPDOG COLLIER really does not possess a conscience.]


LAPDOG COLLIER, ever the dutiful puppet and stooge of DINO HOLMAN, does nothing more than rubber stamp SALISBURY'S fact-less oppositions and denies the inmates' petitions for judicial release.


A REVIEW OF THE DOCKET IN THE GATT AND REED CASES AT THE WEBSITE OF THE MEDINA COUNTY CLERK OF COURT AS OF THE PRESENT DATE DISCLOSES THAT LAPDOG COLLIER HAS NOT YET TAKEN THE TIME TO JOURNALIZE HIS DENIAL OF MR. GATT'S OR MR. REED'S PETITION FOR JUDICIAL RELEASE.


READERS CAN BE ASSURED THAT, AS CERTAINLY AS GOD MADE LITTLE GREEN APPLES, LAPDOG COLLIER, EVER THE DUTIFUL "PAVLOV DOG" OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN, WILL DO EXACTLY AS HE'S ORDERED BY HOLMAN AND DENY BOTH PETITIONS IN DUE COURSE!


THAT'S HOW IT'S DONE IN MEDINA COUNTY, UNLESS YOU HAPPEN TO BE POLITICALLY CONNECTED, IN WHICH CASE YOU WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN CHARGED AND BROUGHT TO TRIAL IN THE FIRST INSTANCE!  [ See prior post, captioned MORE HOLMAN CORRUPTION REPORTED BY ANOTHER MEDINA COUNTY CITIZEN, found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/10/more-holman-corruption-reported-by.html ]


MUCH MORE TO COME ....

"AFTER THE FIRST TEN MINUTES, I KNEW HE DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE"

Those are the words of an anguished parent whose son was railroaded by LAPDOG MEDINA COUNTY JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE.


The prosecutor in the case, of course, was none other than SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR whose ongoing pattern of egregious misconduct, is endorsed and promoted by CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN.

This distraught parent remarked that the innocent son's trial was marked by LAPDOG COLLIER'S usual and customary Vaudevillian theatrics, and SALISBURY'S typical misconduct, WHICH MISCONDUCT WAS ENABLED AND FACILITATED THROUGHOUT BY LAPDOG COLLIER.


While all of this came as no surprise to the blogger, it raised an interesting issue that the blogger decided to investigate further: JUST HOW LONG HAVE LAPDOG COLLIER AND SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, TEAMED UP TO VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF INNOCENT CITIZENS IN ORDER TO RAILROAD THEM INTO PRISON?


The answer to that question, as the blogger has discovered, is that LAPDOG COLLIER AND SALISBURY THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, HAVE BEEN ENGAGING, IN TANDEM, IN THEIR UNETHICAL AND UNLAWFUL CONDUCT FOR A LONG, LONG TIME.


WHEN LOOKING AT THE HISTORICAL RECORD OF LAPDOG COLLIER'S UNETHICAL AND UNLAWFUL CONDUCT, IT COMES AS NO SURPRISE THAT CORRUPT DEM PROSECUTOR AND THE MEDINA COUNTY DEM PARTY HAVE REFUSED TO RUN A CANDIDATE OPPOSING "REPUBLICAN" LAPDOG COLLIER.


FOR CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN, IT CAN'T GET ANY BETTER THAN BEING ABLE TO CONTROL THE OUTCOME OF TRIALS THAN BY HAVING A STOOGE LIKE LAPDOG COLLIER TO TAKE HIS MARCHING ORDERS DIRECTLY FROM HOLMAN AND HOLMAN'S CRIMINAL ASSISTANTS, WITHOUT FAIL.


At this juncture, it is worthy of a stroll down memory lane to discover that no fewer than 20 appellants have raised issues of SALISBURY'S PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, ALL OF WHICH HAS BEEN ENABLED AND FACILITATED BY LAPDOG COLLIER.


This fact, of course, is by no means to suggest that the MISCONDUCT OF SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR AND LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE.  Rather, these are just the cases where the OBVIOUS MISCONDUCT WAS RAISED AS AN ISSUE ON APPEAL!


LET'S GO STROLLING:

State v Aaron Gatt, 2011-Ohio-5221, tried by Salisbury before Collier

found at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2011/2011-ohio-5221.pdf 

"... 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 

(SENTENCE VACATED/REMANDED)

found at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2011/2011-ohio-3623.pdf

"The prosecutor in this case did engage in a pattern of improper conduct." 

"The prosecutor’s “cross-examination” of these women was improper, and the trial
court should not have allowed him to get away with it."

"The prosecutor was argumentative, asked improper questions, made testimonialassertions, 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

found at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2010/2010-ohio-2812.pdf

"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."

"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."
 "Riffle points to two specific instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct that
 occurred during Riffle’s cross examination." 

State v Craig Maynard, 2009-Ohio-282, tried by Salisbury before Collierfound at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2009/2009-ohio-282.pdf

"Mr. Maynard’s second assignment of error is that the trial court incorrectly
prevented him from questioning witnesses about Mrs. B.’s and B.M.’s veracity."

State v Peter Riffle, 2008-Ohio-4155, tried by Salisbury before Collier (REVERSED) 

found at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2008/2008-ohio-4155.pdf

"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."

"In his first assignment of error, Riffle asserts that his constitutional rights were
violated: ... (3) when the State referenced Riffle’s decision to cease interrogation with police during closing argument."

“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.”  

"If references to post-Miranda silences are permitted under the guise of establishing “background information,” it would be futile for a defendant to ever effectively invoke his right to remain silent.  We, therefore, hold that the evidence of, and the State’s references to, Riffle’s silence were improper."

"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  (REVERSED)

found at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2008/2008-ohio-3209.pdf

“The trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenseof criminal trespassing and in failing to properly instruct on a necessary elementof 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.” 

 “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.”

State v Anthony Divincenzo, 2006-Ohio-6330, tried by Salisbury before Collier 
found at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2006/2006-ohio-6330.pdf

        "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."

State v Michael Scheck, 2006-Ohio-647, tried by Salisbury before Collier

found at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2006/2006-ohio-647.pdf

"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." 

"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."

State v Henry Smith, 2005-Ohio-1001, tried by Salisbury before Collier 

found at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2005/2005-ohio-1001.pdf

  

         "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."

State v Bryan Nelson, 2004-Ohio-4967, tried by Salisbury before Collier

found at:  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2004/2004-ohio-4967.pdf

"In his final assignment of error, Appellant argues that he was denied
 a fair trial due to the misconduct of the prosecutor."

State v Samuel Cutlip, 2004-Ohio-2120, tried by Salisbury before Collier

found at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2004/2004-ohio-2120.pdf

"In his first assignment of error, Appellant maintains that the trial
court erred by admitting certain statements in violation of his Confrontation
Clause rights."

ALTHOUGH BUT A FEW OF THE CASES IMPLICATING THE UNCHECKED, LONGSTANDING, ONGOING PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT OF SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, HAVE BEEN CITED HERE, SALISBURY'S MISCONDUCT DID NOT SIMPLY OCCUR IN A VACUUM.

LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, WAS LOOKING DOWN FROM HIS PERCH ON HIGH, COMPLETELY COMFORTABLE THAT HE WILL NEVER HAVE TO FACE A DEMOCRAT CHALLENGER IN ANY OF THOSE FUTURE RIGGED MEDINA COUNTY ELECTIONS DUE TO HIS COMPLICITY WITH CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN, CHEERING ON SALISBURY FOR AN UNTOLD NUMBER OF YEARS!


THE CASES CITED HERE, AND OTHERS, ARE SINGULARLY COMPELLING EVIDENCE OF THE LONGSTANDING CORRUPTION THAT PERVADES COURTROOM NO. 1, AND PERMEATES THE COMMON CRIMINALS WHO OPERATE WITHIN IT, AT THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE/MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION.


THESE CASES ARE MORE UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE THAT COMPELS AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTS BY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE!


MUCH MORE TO COME ....