WHAT JUSTICE TERRENCE O'DONNELL HAS TO SAY ABOUT EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS, A DAILY OCCURRENCE IN LAPDOG COLLIER'S KANGAROO COURTROOM #1

Regular readers of this blog are aware that this blog has exposed the improper ex parte communications between LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER and MEDINA ASS PROSECUTOR SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.


In one particularly egregious ex parte meeting in LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER was overheard to tell SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, "I'LL HELP YOU" at a scheduled post-conviction hearing held before LAPDOG COLLIER in Kangaroo Courtroom No. 1.


The innocent man whose case is being profiled at this blog, who was railroaded by LAPDOG COLLIER and SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, has presented sworn proof of this ex parte meeting, from which the defense counsel was obviously excluded. 


At the sham hearing, immediately following this forbidden ex parte conversation between LAPDOG COLLIER and SALISBURY THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.  LAPDOG COLLIER FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH HIS PROMISE TO SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. AT THE SENTENCING HEARING, LAPDOG COLLIER DENIED ALL OF THIS INNOCENT CITIZEN'S MERITORIOUS POST-CONVICTION MOTIONS.


IN DENYING THE POST-CONVICTION MOTIONS, LAPDOG COLLIER STATED THAT HE WAS DENYING THE MOTIONS "ALTHOUGH THERE ARE NUMEROUS GROUNDS."


CONVENIENTLY, LAPDOG COLLIER UNLAWFULLY REMOVED THAT REMARK FROM THE CORRUPTED "OFFICIAL" RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AS HE UNLAWFULLY TAMPERED WITH, MATERIALLY ALTERED, AND CHANGED THE TRANSCRIPT.  (TAMPERING WITH RECORDS, A FELONY OF THE THIRD DEGREE!)


Although presented earlier at this blog, the blogger again presents his sworn proof of the egregious ex parte communication between LAPDOG COLLIER AND SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR:

What, may one ask, does the Ohio Supreme Court think of such forbidden ex parte communications between sleazy judges and sleazy attorneys?

Supreme Court Justice Terrence O'Donnell made his position clear in an opinion concerning the suspension of the law license of a sleazy Cleveland attorney, who would fit in quite well in the office of CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN and welcomed by LAPDOG COLLIER to engage in the usual and customary ex parte discussions at will..


Taken from an online news article found at http://www.wkyc.com/news/state/article/234642/23/Court-High-profile-Cleveland-attorneys-license-suspended is the following language of Justice O'Donnell directly from his opinion.

Justice Terrence O'Donnell joined the court's decision, but also entered a separate opinion, joined by Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor and Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, in which he responded to an assertion by counsel for Stafford during oral argument that ex parte communications (communications between counsel for one party and the judge outside the presence of opposing counsel) were a common practice in proceedings before the Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court.

Justice O'Donnell wrote: "Participating in unauthorized ex parte communications is prohibited conduct subject to sanction. Our adversarial system of justice is dependent upon attorneys who respect, understand, and adhere to the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and impartial jurists who strictly adhere to the Code of Judicial Conduct and who resist ex parte engagements. Counsel and judges are reminded of their obligation to adhere to the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct in this regard and to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Of course, given the fact that LAPDOG COLLIER, and HOLMAN THE CORRUPT completely ignore and violate the provisions of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION and the decisions of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, the legal opinion of such an insignificant personage as Justice Terrence O'Donnell of the Ohio Supreme Court will hold little sway in the fiefdom of the corrupt Medina Courts.

Most certainly, LAPDOG MEDINA JUDGE COLLIER does not qualify as an
impartial jurist," to which Justice O'Donnell has alluded.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

WHAT HOLMAN THE CORRUPT, ANOTHER STUPID CRIMINAL, IS TRYING TO CONCEAL FROM THE PUBLIC: ISSUE #10 - SMOKE AND MIRRORS

HOLMAN THE CORRUPTis attempting to conceal that he has already schooled Newby Kern in one of the standard tactics of his office: SMOKE AND MIRRORS.  That is, to say, one of the tried and true tactics employe by HOLMAN THE CORRUPT and his "boys" is to deflect attention away from the real issues by raising the proverbial "red herring."

Here is but one more example:

         The Assistant Prosecutor Launches Attacks Upon Petitioner’s Father That Not Only Are Untrue But Also Are Wholly Irrelevant To The Issues Raised in the Motion For Bond.

                                                                                                                  

            This prosecutor, reflecting the animus of the Medina County Prosecutor’s Office, has launched personal attacks upon Petitioner’s father that are wholly irrelevant to the issue of bond.

Petitioner’s father is a highly decorated and honorably retired Federal law enforcement officer who has demonstrated the highest level of integrity and honesty in all of the many years of his law enforcement service.

            The Medina County Prosecutor, however, has demonstrated by this brief and by the egregious display of unchecked prosecutorial misconduct by Assistant Medina County Prosecutor Salisbury, who has an extensive and longstanding history of “widespread improper conduct in the courtroom,” that his office has very little integrity, if any, and no credibility.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

WHAT HOLMAN THE CORRUPT, ANOTHER STUPID CRIMINAL, IS TRYING TO CONCEAL FROM THE PUBLIC: ISSUE #9 - KNOWINGLY ARGUING AGAINST THE STATE OF THE LAW

HOMAN THE CORRUPT tries to conceal that one his "boys" argued against the state of the law, decided by the Ninth District Court of Appeals, and, in fact, overturning LAPDOG COLLIER and SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, ON THE VERY SAME ISSUE.

            Salisbury Argued Against the Lesser-Included Offense of Criminal Trespass Knowing Full Well That The Trial Judge Had Been Previously Reversed by The Ninth District Court of Appeals on the Very Same Issue in 2008 in the Medina County Case of State v. Morris, 2008-Ohio-3209, Tried by Salisbury Before This Same Trial Judge.

            As the trial court consulted with counsel in preparation of the jury instructions, defense counsel moved the trial court to charge the jury with the lesser-included offense of Criminal Trespass.  (Tr. at 764-765, 940-943, 949-951)  Salisbury, however, argued against the lesser-included offense of Criminal Trespass based upon the premise that a trespass into an occupied structure does not permit the trial court to charge the jury with the lesser-included offense of Criminal Trespass.  (Tr. at 761-764, 936-937, 945-946, 948)  Salisbury overlooked the fact that the Ninth District Court of Appeals overturned this same trial on the identical issue in the case of State v Morris, 2008-Ohio-3209.  Salisbury tried the same Morris case before this same trial judge.

            Citing now to the record in the case at bar:

            SALISBURY:     Judge?

            COURT:              Yes?

SALISBURY:     If I could just address that point, Judge.  My position – and I think there are cases that back this up – that a criminal trespass  -- the criminal trespass would not be appropriate.

(BRIEF INTERRUPTION IN THE PROCEEDINGS)

SALISBURY:      The State’s position is, the criminal trespass could not be an appropriate lesser included offense on an aggravated burglary, because the specific facts of the case are that he trespassed into a habitation….

                             The trespass into a habitation, Judge, is a burglary. It can’t be a criminal trespass.

COURT:              And a trespass into an unoccupied structure is a criminal trespass.  Is that your point?

SALISBURY:      Right, not into a habitation…. I believe there are cases that say it is fact specific, and under these facts that have come in front of this jury, criminal trespass does not apply.

                             We are not seeking a lesser included offense.

MS. CRAMER:  I did some research to be absolutely sure, but it’s my understanding that criminal trespass is a lesser included offense ….

COURT:              Can I tell you what I think he’s arguing?  And I’ve heard it before.  I guess that criminal trespass can, in certain situations, be a lesser included.  He’s (sic) arguing that, according to the facts of the case, because it’s a trespass into a habitation, that it’s different.  In other words, I think that you’re going to find that there are criminal trespass instructions given, but factually it would require them - - he’s arguing factually it wouldn’t.  So if you can find some cases, I’d love to look at them.

(Tr. 762 -765)

COURT:              Okay.  Here’s what I’m going to do. I’m giving the (A) (1) and (A) (4).  I’m not giving the criminal trespass

(Tr. 949)

In it’s opinion in State v Morris, the Ninth District Court of Appeals noted:

Defendant was indicted on one count of burglary in the Medina County Court of Common Pleas in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(3), a third-degree felony for his unlawful entry into the home of Brenda Roberts and assault of Ms. Roberts’ guest, Allan Leach, on January 29, 2006.

State v Morris, 2008-Ohio-3209, ¶ 2

              The facts in Morris are such that Defendant Morris entered the habitation of Brenda Roberts, which, at the time of the alleged offense, was occupied by at least Allan Leach.  Thus, the facts in Morris are strikingly similar to the case at bar insofar as Morris had frequently entered the home of Roberts on prior occasions, just as the Petitioner had entered the Leighton home on numerous prior occasions, although in the case at bar Petitioner had formed no intent, and did not commit a criminal offense within the Leighton residence.  Thus, in both Morris and the case at bar, privilege became an issue.

              The Court of Appeals in Morris held:

              Criminal trespass is a lesser included offense of aggravated burglary.

State v. Morris, ¶ 5, Id.

             

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 the 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.

State v. Morris, ¶ 6, Id.

              This prosecutor cannot deny that Salisbury was aware that Criminal Trespass is a lesser-included offense of Aggravated Burglary. Nor can this prosecutor deny that Salisbury argued against charging the jury with the lesser-included offense of Criminal Trespass in the case at bar.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

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 ....

WHAT HOLMAN THE CORRUPT, ANOTHER STUPID CRIMINAL, IS TRYING TO CONCEAL FROM THE PUBLIC: ISSUE #7 - CONSPIRACY TO UNLAWFULLY CONVICT AN INNOCENT MAN

Newby Kern overlooks tangible evidence that SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, CONSPIRED WITH LAPDOG COLLIER, ANOTHER STUPID CRIMINAL TO CONVICT AN INNOCENT MAN.  Newby Kern asserts that this unlawful conduct by both SALISBURY and LAPDOG COLLIER was plucked out of thin air?

             In an Ex Parte Discussion Between The Trial Judge and Medina County Assistant Prosecutor Salisbury in Chambers, Immediately Prior to a Scheduled Hearing on Petitioner’s Post Conviction Motions and While Discussing the Unlawfully Compelled Testimony of Petitioner’s Wife, the Trial Judge Was Overheard to Say to Salisbury, “But I’ll Help You.”

            On November 23, 2009, defense counsel filed Motion for Acquittal; Motion for New Trial; Motion for Arrest of Judgment; Motion to Suspend Execution of Sentence; and Motion for Bail Pending Appeal.  On December 17, 2009, defense counsel filed Additional Authorities and Exhibits in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Acquittal; Motion for New Trial; Motion for Arrest of Judgment; Motion to Suspend Execution of Sentence; and Motion for Bail Pending Appeal.

            On December 18, 2009, defense counsel and her investigator were seated in the gallery of Courtroom No. 1, waiting for the scheduled hearing on Petitioner’s post conviction motions to convene.  While seated there, defense counsel and her investigator overheard the trial judge and Salisbury discussing in loud voices the impending motions hearing.

            In one memorable exchange, while discussing the forced testimony of Petitioner’s wife, who had asserted her spousal privilege on no fewer than 4 occasions, the trial judge stated loudly to Salisbury, “You compelled the wife to testify.”  The trial judge then quickly added, “But I’ll help you.”

            Defense counsel detailed this ex parte discussion between the trial judge and Salisbury in her Affidavit of Disqualification of Judge Collier, which she filed with the Ohio Supreme Court.  Further, defense counsel attached to her Affidavit of Disqualification the sworn Affidavit of her defense investigator regarding his independent recollection of this ex parte communication between the trial judge and Salisbury in the chambers of Courtroom No. 1 on December 18, 2009.

            A copy of the Affidavit of Disqualification of Judge Collier, filed by defense counsel with the Ohio Supreme Court, along with the supporting Affidavit of defense counsel’s investigator, is appended hereto as Exhibit 15.

            This prosecutor has presented no countervailing evidence to challenge or dispute the ex parte communications between Salisbury and the trial judge during the proceedings below. 


MUCH MORE TO COME .... 

WHAT HOLMAN THE CORRUPT, ANOTHER STUPID CRIMINAL, IS TRYING TO CONCEAL FROM THE PUBLIC: ISSUE #6 - DESTRUCTION OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE

Newby Kern then had the audacity to claim that SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, has had nothing to do with destroying the exculpatory evidence in this case, despite SALISBURY'S own claims, set out below.

Medina County Assistant Prosecutor Salisbury Has Insinuated That the Exculpatory Evidence Withheld From Petitioner at Trial Has Been Destroyed.

            Medina County Assistant Prosecutor has understandably been outraged that his unlawful and unethical conduct has been openly exposed at an Internet blog site exposing the corruption in the Medina County Courts.  In his anger, Salisbury has submitted a number of electronic messages to the blog, often employing assumed identities, intended to threaten, intimidate, extort, harass and deride the blog, the Petitioner, and the Petitioner’s family.

            In one such electronic message, Salisbury threatened a lawsuit but, at the same, admitted that abuses of the Brady Rule in the Medina County Courts are ongoing because the Brady Rule “is almost impossible to enforce which is why the abuse has been going on.”

            A copy of Salisbury’s electronic message to the blog, dated January 1, 2011 and previously attached to Petitioner’s Surreply and Motion to Strike State’s Out of Rule Second Response; Motion to Disqualify Medina County Prosecutor’s Office, is appended hereto as Exhibit 13.

            On January 3, 2011, Salisbury sent a message to the blog, found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com, in which insinuated that the exculpatory evidence withheld from Petitioner at trial had been destroyed.  In his electronic message to the blog, Salisbury wrote:

            And can you prove that these illustrious prosectors (sic) withheld evidence?

You do realize that if the courts were really corrupt as you have said with FACT that they are … they would have destroyed all proof by now.  (Emphasis added.)

Because the courts are really not corrupt, and the evidence that Matthew is not the violent felon that nearly killed his family is not and never has been in existence.

He got off easy Paul, 5 years instead of 10, and convicted by a JURY, not a double cross plea deal like you claim.[1]

A copy of Salisbury’s electronic message to the blog, attached to Petitioner’s Reply to States Opposition to Correct the Record; Opposition to State’s Motion to Disqualify Petitioner’s Counsel, is appended hereto as Exhibit 14.

            This prosecutor has yet to produce the withheld the exculpatory evidence and, moreover, drove to Columbus to file an Affidavit of Disqualification of Judge Brown with the Supreme Court on the very day before Judge Brown’s scheduled evidentiary hearing regarding the withheld exculpatory evidence, for the very purpose of evading and evading the evidentiary hearing.

---

[1] At sentencing, Salisbury “argued” for a 10-year sentence.


MUCH MORE TO COME ....

WHAT HOLMAN THE CORRUPT, ANOTHER STUPID CRIMINAL, IS TRYING TO CONCEAL FROM THE PUBLIC: ISSUE #5 - CONCEALING EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE

Newby Kern makes the outlandish denial that MEDINA ASS PROSECUTOR SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR and LAPDOG COLLIER, TWO EQUALLY STUPID CRIMINALS, have withheld EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE FROM THIS INNOCENT DEFENDANT.


HOLMAN THE CORRUPT and LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, TWO PARTNERS IN CRIME (LITERALLY),  just can't stand to reveal the longstanding and customary practice of withholding exculpatory evidence for persons accused of criminal offenses.

           The Medina County Prosecutor Deliberately Withheld Exculpatory Evidence, Identified and Demanded by Petitioner, Thus Violating the Laws of the State of Ohio, Specifically ORC §2921.12(A)(1), Tampering With Evidence, a Felony of the Third Degree.

            At the suppression hearing, Deputy Douglas Clinage testified that he took photographs of the purported “injuries” to Petitioner’s wife at the scene of the purported incident that led to Petitioner’s arrest. (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 226).  Clinage further testified that he took an “oral statement” from Roy “Al” Leighton “two days later,” specifically on May 29, 2009.  (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 256.)

            Prior to trial, defense counsel viewed some, but not all, of the evidence in this case at the Medina County Sheriff’s Office.  Ms. Beth Klinecht, the evidence custodian, reported that Medina County Assistant Prosecutor instructed her to deny access to certain items of the evidence, specifically the photographs of the purported “injuries” of Petitioner’s wife, the micro cassette recording of the taped “oral” statement of Roy “Al” Leighton taken by Deputy Douglas Clinage on May 29, 2009, and the audiotape of the dispatch 911 call. (Tr. Supp. At 88-89) 

            During the evidence view, Ms. Klinecht produced a copy of the evidence log upon which Ms. Klinecht placed asterisks beside the items that Salisbury instructed her to withhold from defense counsel. (Tr. at 723-724.)

            Defense counsel’s investigator photographed the two-page evidence log.  A copy of the photograph of the Medina County Sheriff’s evidence log, displayed to defense counsel and her investigator prior to trial, and previously attached to Petitioner’s Reply to State’s Opposition to Correct the Record; Opposition to Disqualify Petitioner’s Counsel, filed on September 8, 2011, is appended hereto as Exhibit 12.

            Defense counsel filed her Rule 16 Discovery Demand on June 29, 2009.  Included among the discovery sought, and expressly requested, were:

“Any…photographs…recordings… available to or within the custody or control of the State, which are material to the preparation of the defense….” 

“All evidence known, or by exercise of due diligence may become known, to the prosecuting attorney, favorable to the Defendant, or discrediting to the State’s case (“Brady Material,” as defined in Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny), and material to either guilt or punishment, specifically including, not limited to the following: …

5.         The existence and identification of each occasion on which each State witness has testified to, or otherwise provided as statement, or narrative purporting to describe the facts of this case, whether oral, transcribed, recorded, written, reported, or summarized, together with copies of all such testimony, transcripts, recordings, statements, narratives, reports, or written summaries of oral statement;

7.         Any executed or unexecuted written, tape recorded or summarized oral statement(s) of whatever kind and description in the possession, custody, or control of the State, its agents, or the prosecuting attorney, made by or obtained from any person regarding the incident at issue;

8.         All other mitigating and/or exculpatory materials.

            The prosecutor refused to turn over the requested exculpatory evidence.  Accordingly, on July 27, 2009, defense counsel failed Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery; and Renewed Motion for a Bill of Particulars.  Salisbury filed no opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Compel.  The trial court did not rule on the Motion to Compel and failed to compel the prosecutor to turn over the exculpatory evidence.

            At the close of the September 4, 2009 segment of the four-part suppression hearing, defense counsel discussed discovery issues with the trial court. (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 123.)  Defense counsel informed the trial court that she had received exculpatory information from Roy “Al” Leighton and specifically requested the tape-recorded interview of Mr. Leighton be turned over to the defense, further stating her belief that Salisbury was withholding Brady material.  (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 124-125.)  Salisbury stated to the Court, “… I don’t want to give her the tape.”  Salisbury then turned over the audiotape of the May 29, 2009 interview of Roy “Al” Leighton to the trial judge.  (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 143.)

            Defense counsel then brought the matter of the photographs of the Petitioner’s wife, taken by Deputy Clinage at the scene of the purported incident, to the attention of the trial court.  Salisbury denied he had any such photographs, even though they were specifically itemized on the report of Deputy Clinage.  (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 145.)

            Petitioner’s counsel then informed the trial judge that the Sheriff’s evidence custodian had been instructed to refuse to turn over the photographs of the purported “injuries,” allegedly sustained by petitioner’s wife, to defense counsel.  (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 145.)

            The trial judge then instructed Salisbury, “But if you’ve got pictures, give them pictures.”  (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 146.)  Shortly thereafter, the trial judge addressed Salisbury, “If you’ve got photographs, make a reasonable effort to find those photographs.  If you do, you have got to give them to me. I’ll take a look and see if they’re exculpatory.”  (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 148.)

            Salisbury later informed the trial judge that he had been informed by Deputy Clinage that Clinage had taken photographs of Petitioner’s wife at the scene.  Salisbury then added, “I will provide that.” (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 154-155.)

            Further, given the Salisbury’s refusal to turn over the exculpatory evidence, on September 24, 2009, defense counsel filed Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why the Assistant Prosecutor Should Not Be Held In Contempt of Court and Subject to Sanctions, incorporating by reference Petitioner’s prior discovery demands.  Salisbury filed no opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Show Cause.  Once again, the trial court failed to rule on the motion, and failed to compel Salisbury to turn over the exculpatory evidence.  (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 160.)  The trial judge never addressed the Motion to Show Cause.

            In pretrial discussion of the Motions in limine, held on November 9, 2009, defense counsel reiterated to the trial judge, “we still have not seen those photographs” or the audio tape of the May 29, 2009 interview of Roy “Al” Leighton.  (Tr. Pretrial at 13-14.)

            The trial judge agreed to review the audio taped interview of Roy “Al” Leighton and make it available to defense counsel prior to the cross-examination of Mr. Leighton.  Salisbury stated that he had turned over the audiotape to the trial judge.  (Tr. Pretrial at 14).

            The trial judge, despite his earlier assurances to defense counsel that he would “give (defense counsel) an opportunity” to review the audio cassette tape of the oral statement given by Roy “Al” Leighton to sheriff’s deputies on May 29, 2009, refused to turn over the audio tape at trial.  (Tr. Pretrial at 14; Tr. at 344-346.)  During a sidebar conference at trial, Defense counsel once again informed the trial judge that the defense still had not been provided production of the exculpatory photographs.  (Tr. at 347.)

The trial judge never made the audiotape of the oral statement given by Roy “Al” Leighton or the requested photographs available to the defense, at trial or at any other time.       

At trial, Kimberly Leighton falsely testified that, when Petitioner’s wife Melissa arrived at her home, Melissa “had marks.  It appeared to me that somebody grabbed her by the neck.”  (Tr. at 272.)  Petitioner’s wife disputes the testimony of Kimberly Leighton and denies that there were “marks” around her neck, suggestive of choking, as Ms. Leighton insinuated.

The photographs of Petitioner’ s wife, had they been turned over to the defense, would have refuted the testimony of Ms. Leighton concerning “marks” around the neck of Melissa, and would have affected the credibility of the entirety of her testimony.  The audiotape of the May 29, 2009 interview of Roy “Al” Leighton, had it been turned over to the defense, would have included statements of Mr. Leighton that Petitioner did not burglarize his home, and that Mr. Leighton did not wish to press criminal charges against Petitioner.

Neither the trial judge nor Salisbury ever turned over the exculpatory photographs or the exculpatory audiotape of the May 29, 2009 oral statement of Roy “Al” Leighton to the defense, at trial or at any other time.   By denying that the Office of the Medina County Prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence from Petitioner, the prosecutor is now laying culpability for concealing and withholding this exculpatory evidence from Petitioner squarely at the feet of the trial judge, which may very well be true.

Despite his sweeping denials, the prosecutor has offered no countervailing evidence to dispute or challenge the record, which documents that Brady material was deliberately withheld from Petitioner.

ONCE AGAIN, NEWBY KERN HAS FAILED TO SUPPORT HIS SWEEPING DENIALS, WHICH HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER, WITHOUT ANY PROOF OR EVIDENCE.


THIS INNOCENT DEFENDANT HAS, HOWEVER, PRODUCED PROOF AND EVIDENCE THAT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, FACILITATED BY LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, HAS INDEED WITHHELD EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE FOR THIS INNOCENT DEFENDANT.  THE UNLAWFUL CONDUCT OF SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, AND LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER CONSTITUTES MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF OHIO, SPECIFICALLY TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE, A FELONY OF THE THIRD DEGREE.


Regular readers of this blog may recall that, in a prior post, the blogger published an electronic message from SALISBURY , THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, who openly admitted that the Medina County Prosecutor's Office regularly withholds exculpatory evidence from defendants because the requirement to disclose such evidence in compliance with the Brady Rule, promulgated by the United States Supreme Court, "is almost impossible to enforce." 

Newby Kern offers no more than incredible sweeping denials that he is unable to support with any competent, credible evidence.

MICH MORE TO COME ....