I recently had a case dismissed. This is what i learned along the way..

Representative Findings: 

1. “During the investigation we discovered that law enforcement coerced witnesses and tampered with the evidence used to forward the prosecution of the defendant. This very same law enforcement agency hacked a google account without a warrant, altered investigative recordings, and destroyed evidence which was later recovered by forensic investigators; more importantly, those two recovered key pieces of evidence (testimony that impeached a witness and evidence that showed a lack of guilt) were used to eliminate culpability to the alleged crime.” 

2. “The prosecutor is under federal review for multiple acts of prosecutorial misconduct, and wasn't permitted to oversee the case directly. The prosecutor is known for violating the rights of defendants and making inappropriate statements during trials. There are open source news articles noting that the prosecutor ran a smear campaign against the former prosecutor so that he could take the office without contest. In the case in question, the prosecutor is believed to have violated the rights of the defendant through a brady-violation by not provided exculpatory evidence to a grand jury, grossly mischaracterizing evidence, a refusal to submit all evidence in the discovery, and attempting to coerce witnesses into making false statements, resulting in the return of a true bill and subsequently the arrest of the defendant.”

3. “While represented by a public defender, there were multiple points in that representation where conflicts of interest arose. Those conflicts were never resolved. Those conflicts were the lack of a proper case briefing, inadequate case strategy, a refusal to file motions, a refusal to submit key evidence gathered by the defendant, a refusal to disclose all discovery evidence to the defendant, and extremely limited communication with the defendant. It was noted from audio recordings made by the defendant, that the attorney was gleeful to deliver bad news, but sounded upset to report findings in favor of the defendant’s innocence.”

 4. “Ironically, one thing that was consistent during the entire investigation is that the defendant, the alleged victim, and the self impeaching witness, all told the same story. However, the defendant's statements were used as a confession, the alleged victims statement were used as evidence, and the self-impeaching witness had their statements remain as corroborating evidence despite multiple clarification being made for the prosecution.”