Archives for posts with tag: prosecutorial misconduct

Proof of intent to obstruct the Constitution.


To whom it may concern,

On the eve of the closing argument by the defense lawyers I am compelled to offer this last minute advice to Mr. Zimmerman directly and allow him to instruct his defense lawyers thusly.  Mr. Zimmerman must remember that ultimately he is in charge of his defense lawyers and has the final say. In effect, a defense lawyer is the employee of the client.
I offer this information solely based upon the facts that I’m aware of, and the prosecutor’s lack of facts, which convince me that Mr. Zimmerman acted appropriately, and but for the unethical, immoral, and illegal actions of those in the media, politics, and the legal system, specifically the prosecutors, Mr. Zimmerman would only be facing the anguish of having been forced to take another’s life, in self defense, while acting as a community caretaker.
“The prosecutor’s duty is not to seek convictions, but to see that justice is done.”
 My advice to Mr. Zimmerman is as follows; expose the hypocrisy of this duty in your case.  It was never the facts or evidence of the case that was ever your biggest obstacle. Rather know that it was always the prosecutor’s action that ultimately you had to contend with.
Why is this important? At the beginning of any trial the prosecutor enters the courtroom with the added benefit of being perceived by the jury as one whose only concerns are about justice and that which are correct and right and legal. Conversely, the jury will almost always tend to have a preconceived notion or belief that the defendant did something wrong. The common thought is “he/she would not be here is they didn’t do something wrong.” It’s not right, but it is reality.
Since 1997 and 1999 respectively, I went from being a Top police sergeant to having to become an expert in both public and legal corruption.  One of the consistent problems was that almost as a norm, prosecutors routinely broke the law to sadistically target the innocent. Furthermore, the prosecutor is rarely held responsible or are their actions exposed before or during a trial, this trial being a good example. This is because defense lawyers simply refused to do so.  If this is nefarious conduct is really the reason for the trial, it becomes its own arguing point FOR the defendant. If the accused is actually innocent, than the accused truly has no defense other than to explain to the jury that the ONLY reason he is there is BUT FOR the misconduct by the prosecutor. a defendant is under no obligation to counter false charges and it is a sound and wise path to prove persecution when appropriate and justified. When this aspect is presented to the juror to think about, to consider the motive and intent of the Prosecutor, NOT of the defendant, they can then measure all that the prosecutor offered (or didn’t offer) as evidence, then things such as why stories, opinions, innuendos, witnesses with nothing to offer, and a trial with no POINT, begins to make sense. If this is not done by the defense, then the juror will not have this additional option and will have to rely on the earlier belief, that prosecutors only seek justice and do not lie or prosecute the innocent, and only submit credible information facts, and evidence.
In trials where the defendant is literally actually innocent, it is not sufficient to only defend against the charges and accusations.  Indeed, the single most important act for any defendant of such a trial is to insert into the mind of a jury that not only is the defendant not guilty, but in fact it is the prosecutor who is in the wrong for bringing this matter before the jury and why. When being persecuted, the best strategy is a strong offense, not defense.
The true role of a jury must be highlighted also, to the jurors! The role of a jury is to not only to determine guilt, it is also to PROTECT against bad prosecutors and to protect the wrongly accused! Pound this into the jury!
If Mr. Zimmerman gets this information, he will have to quickly choose whether or not to instruct, or if necessary order, his defense lawyers to target and identify that the trial is really about prosecutorial misconduct and malicious prosecution so the jury has this to consider during their deliberation.  To make this claim after trial and in the unlikely event of a conviction, it becomes a redundant argument, and regardless of its validity, much weakened.
There have been many cases wherein I have been borrowed and pleaded with the defense lawyers of victim-accused individuals, like Mr. Zimmerman, to heed my advice.  When it was refused it was/is the victims that suffered, not the defense lawyers.