LIE to the Cops THEN Use THAT Lie tOverturn Your Plea? Judge is Furious at Defendant's Scheme!

You say he's a diabetic. He says he's a diabetic now, even though apparently he told the police. So the police are either lying in a police report, in which case they should be kicked off the force. Okay. >> All right. People against Norbert Pastor 25T644584. Good morning, Mr. Clovis. Your appearance. >> Columbus P34. I'm defendant. >> Mr. Pastor here. >> Oh, here he is. >> Your name, sir? >> Good morning. one roof passed over. >> Okay, Mr. Bolognia. >> Anthony Bolognia City. >> So, you want to argue your motion now? Uh, >> I don't need to hear about the one with how do I say this? I'm I'm I'm not I would not have scheduled this for hearing at all if it if it was still over the motion to withdraw the plea. >> It was a motion to withdraw the plea was denied. Correct. A motion for reconsideration. >> But you filed a motion for reconsideration. I didn't know that you were asking for a Gentner hearing before. Gther hearing before. You mentioned something about ineffective assistance. And >> right. >> Go ahead. Why don't you proceed? We would like a bit hearing concerning this because on October 7th on October 7th of last year's being uh represented by the prior attorney um he had a medical um consultation quite in depth and it does show the diabetes um he suffered trauma and I guess ultimately is this um they're claim they're claiming by hearsay police report that he said he wasn't a diabetic when he cast uh on the road or I don't know where that they alleged. Um even if that was true, we deny it, but even if it was true, it's a manifest injustice that he pled guilty that the it was artificially high his blood alcohol level. So in other words, if DNA is somebody's convicted of murder, right, and DNA later shows something, well, you know what, it's not a manifest injustice. I understand that that's >> You have a medical record that tells me a a doctor that tells me that he's a diabetic. >> Yes, is it saying a report or am I going to be asked to interpret numbers here? >> No, no, no. Um, that he's a free diabetic. And your honor, I'm a pre-diabetic and I have to take a shot and three pills every day. So I don't know where they come up with the word three, but they call me that, too. I guess after a certain number, you become a diabetic officially. But I take OMIC and I take three other pills for my pre-diabetes. >> No, no, but a lot of people take OMIC just because they want to lose weight, too. >> It ain't losing weight. Mine was uh almost going into shock when I was in Chicago about two years ago. >> Well, if this is a report dated October the 7th, >> right? >> What is this medication that he's on? >> What kind of medication? >> That's for me. >> For what? >> Med for me. >> What's that for? >> Diabetes. I'm on thousand milligrams a day for the last two years. Uh we had produced last time the uh prescription history for my hips. >> Have you seen this Mr. Bologonian? >> I have not. >> The pre-diabetes. That doesn't mean he's a diabetic though, right? >> Your honor, I'm a pre-diabetic and the sh >> Why would he have told the police officer he wasn't diabetic? >> First, it's a police report hearsay. Nobody's testified to them. And the bottom line is, judge, respectfully, if they're inaccurate results, that's a miscarriage of justice. If they're in they they can't do that test. Well, wait a minute. You mean I could if I'm diabetic, I could tell them I'm not diabetic, have them lure them into giving me an Intoxilizer, and then come back and argue that the Intoxilizer results are invalid because you bought my lie and you relied on it and you you didn't get a blood draw instead. Judge, I don't I doubt very much that he knew scientifically that he can't take the breath. his attorney didn't know and it was never brought up at all >> because because he Why would a lawyer bring it up when their client when their client asked >> when their client told the officer they weren't diabetic? >> Your honor, it's your state right now. >> You're relying 100% that the officer said that. >> Well, who am I who are you relying on? You're handing me a police report that you're handing me a medical report that says pre-diabetic. You say he's a diabetic. He says he's a diabetic now, even though apparently he told the police. So the police are either lying in a police report, in which case they should be kicked off the force. >> Okay. >> Who's saying he's a diabetic? This says pre-diabetes. What information do you have to tell me that that the lawyer should have pursued that >> pre-diabetic is like diabetic? That's what I am. >> Well, you're saying that. I don't know that that to be true. >> Making it up. Well, I don't know if you are or not. >> Oh, there you go. Okay. >> Well, you guys are coming in now saying there's diabetes involved and I don't have any evidence of that. >> You got it in front of you right now. >> It says pre-diabetic. >> What do you have to say, Mr. uh Bologonian? >> Yeah. If the request is for here at this point, it's focused on ineffective assistance of counsel. All we have to work off is what we have in the report and what was done up until now. The report says that he stated to be he was not diabetic. So the question is, was there ineffective assistance to counsel? If council is reviewing that report, I can only assume that he's not going to ask me follow questions as it relates to diabetes. So unless there's something that states where the client presented prior counsel with a statement saying I'm diabetic or medical records to prior counsel stating that he's diabetic. I think it's safe to assume that there was effective assistance of council in this whole process. >> His prior counsel didn't even know what diabetes does or pre-diabetes who said that hearing I'll have a doctor sitting up there during the hearing and the former attorney. the results are just they're void. We can't say, "Well, you said something to the officer, so we're going to put everything aside." >> Okay. So, you're I just want to ask you this question. >> If the officer comes in here and tells me, "Judge, unequivocally, the defendant told me he was not die of that." How? And if I believe that officer's testimony, you still think it's ineffective assistance of counsel because the defense lawyer didn't didn't pursue an avenue when the officer had had been told by the defendant, according to the officer, that he was not diabetic. And therefore, that the defense simply could lure somebody in by saying, "No, I'm not diabetic." Wink wink. And then go back and say, "Ah, I was diabetic." And the results are skewed. I can't even imagine a lawyer trying to trying to argue that his client's diabetic if and and if the officer was told by the defendant if the officer was told by that you're right there are mistakes that he was not di >> he's got medication with him >> and it's on the report his medication Which report? The the medical report or the police report? >> I believe both of them. >> I didn't ask I didn't ask you that. What? What? What report are you referring to? The medical >> Oh, that report. >> The medical report >> and I'm sure the inventory and I don't have the inventory report on it. I don't have an inventory. I don't >> What else? Anybody else want to help me out here and tell me why I'm thinking incorrectly? Mr. Bolognia, Mr. Kovus, >> I hear him with results. It'll be very short hearing. You're going to bring in the doctor. >> I'll bring in that his treating physician, not a made up one. And how long he's been on it. So, what I'm saying is, let's just say that the officer heard that my client was not a diabetic. Let's just say, does that mean that test results go in? Absolutely not. You got to lay foundation. And one of the foundations is if you're a diabetic and you blow. >> If you're conceding that he told the officer he was was not diabetic. Are you conceding that? >> No. No. I'm saying what you know the worst case scenario. I haven't seen any. I can't imagine me or any other judge throwing out a case on the basis that they should have administered a blood draw as opposed to a breathalyzer if the officer was told and the court believes that it's truthful testimony that the defendant told the officer he's not diabetic. I can't imagine me throwing out a case saying, "Oh, it's a miscarriage of justice. He should have been a mind reader. He should have been Houdini. He should been a read everything." Nobody says throw it up. What we're saying is those results have all true. The breathweiser results are excluded and now they can try their case the oldfashioned way. >> Well, that's what I meant. Throw out the the results. >> Correct. You know, that's like not watching a person for 15 minutes. They regurgitate and then they blow. >> No, that's not a that's a lot different than somebody telling an officer, "I'm not diabetic." And for the officer, I'm all going to pretend you are. I'm going to pretend everybody's diabetic cuz they could be lying to me. They could be luring me in. I'll give you your hearing, but I hope you're not wasting the court's time. >> I will. >> You You subpoena the officer, Mr. uh Bolognia. I know you said at one point he doesn't work for the department. I want that officer here. >> And I want to hear testimony, but I can tell you honestly, Mr. I can't imagine any judge worth 13 cents throwing out a a a breathalyzer because they administered a breathalyzer to a diabetic who happened to tell them that they weren't diabetic. >> So the breathalyzer was not working properly. >> Did you hear what I said? you wouldn't get results in I >> if if it's if I didn't admit if I administered a breathalyzer because the defendant told me I he was not diabetic. I guess I would. >> He also told him he wasn't drunk. >> Listen to that. >> Come on. I'm not going to argue about it with you. I'm just telling you I have a feeling there's more to this. But that's I'll listen to it. We'll have a hearing. When we going to do the hearing? I want to do this quickly. >> Yes. >> Do you want to do it two weeks, judge, or how? >> Yes. >> May 7th. >> May 7th. You want to do 11:00? >> Can we do it later in the morning because I'm in Ann Arbor again. That's where I was this morning. I had to drive right back there. >> All right, let's do May 7th. >> Yeah. 11 o'clock. >> You're going to May 2nd to May 10th. The family is a vacation. to where for what? Why don't you tell report that photo confidence? >> I can't hear you. >> I'm sorry. I needed to request the time between May 2nd and the May 10th. I tried to voice. >> You got to keep your voice up. >> I'm sorry, sir. I needed to request time to May 2nd to the May 10th. There's a medical conference. >> I go and meet like two of my doctors for >> that. Let's do it before then. >> Are you going to be able to get somebody here before then, Mr. Bolognia? >> I have no clue on the officers here. So, I'll try my best. >> What? >> Why don't you go call him real quick? See if you can get a hold of >> I'll see >> because I don't want to put this off to the 21st. I really don't. Can you >> thinking next Thursday? >> If I can if everybody's available. That's exactly what I'm thinking. Uh your honor too, >> that's that's April 30th, right? >> Yes. Being that this is a Gther hearing though, we're the hearing to determine an effective assistance of counsel. My concern is we're going to get into the weeds and create some type of record now as it relates to evidence that wasn't even put forth before it was court in consideration of how we got here. >> That's the effect of assistance of counseling. Well, my views should be more focused on did council even know about this diet keepance. Is there any evidence that council was aware of? >> Well, of course, that's all part of it. >> I guess we'll find out. >> They have to prove essentially that the defendant is diabetic. It was conveyed to the to uh defense council. Defense council didn't pursue any kind of defense. Period. That's generally speaking, but that's what they're going to have to prove. When I then I I think your point in your brief is well taken. Why I'm so frustrated is because I just can't imagine somebody, a lawyer, reading in a police report that his client admitted that he was not diabetic or at least told the police he was not diabetic and then faulting the lawyer for not pursuing a claim that the Intoxilizer or Breathalyzer shouldn't have been administered because he's a diabetic. I just I can't imagine I can't imagine somebody saying lying to the police about whether or not they're a diabetic. And if they even if he even if he wanted to come in and claim that he was diabetic, if the officer's testimony is to be believed, let me be clear about this. How am I going to find that there's ineffective assistance of counsel? That being said, let's figure out what day we're going to do it. I I I I will honor your client's ability to leave the state between May the 2nd and May the 10th. >> How about 429? Well, next next >> is I'll tell you what I'll make it. Am I good that time, Heather? >> On which date, judge? >> April 29th at 11. >> Let me look at our docket. >> Is that the 29th? >> That's a list of >> That's a Wednesday. >> Let me just check something. >> 30 is what I thought. >> Yeah. Are you good at 11 on that day? >> Good. Yeah. Well, you're here with Judge Hess here. >> Why don't we do it? >> You do have a trial at 11 on the 30th. >> What kind? >> A domestic violence. >> Let's do it at one on the 30th. >> Kathy, perfect. >> Now, here's the thing, though. If either one of you can't get your officer here, can't get the doctor here, then we're going to have to adjourn it. So, you guys can be big boys and figure out a time with my judicial clerk. Okay. April 30th at a one. Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. If you can just write those up for me, Tony, the other warrants or whatever they are. Show causes. >> FDA. >> Yeah. >> I have the names. I'll take care of it. >> Yeah. Thank you.