free matt mason



  • Closing remarks to the Jury, the Prosecutor inferred that certain witnesses were not called because they would not have helped the Defense. 

  • Going too far to explain what testimony one witness would have presented, and made repeated references to questions which had been disallowed upon proper objection by the Defense, and urged the Jury to guess at what the answers may have been had objections not being sustained. 

  • Disparaging comments about the raising of objections by Defense counsel.

  • improperly bolstering his witnesses’ credibility indicating they were reluctant witnesses

  •  Implying he had some knowledge outside the record which would support Matt’s guilt.

  • Used sarcasm to cast aspersions about Matt be name-calling i.e. “Mr Salesman who lies to sell himself as someone he is not”.

  • Asking jurors to infer evidence from the fact that he was disallowed by the Court from pursuing improper lines of questioning

  • Asking the Jury to ignore the law, as instructed by Trial Court, to find Matt guilty based on a theory of aiding and abetting.

A continued pattern of misconduct on the part of the prosecution clearly exceeded normal degree of latitude afforded a criminal Prosecutor.

In a case like this, where there is no overwhelming evidence of guilt, there stands far more reasonable probability of Prosecutorial misconduct. This can infect the proceedings and affect the judgment of the Jury – contributing to the verdict, thus denying Matt a fair Trial and due process.