free matt mason

intercepting privileged client and lawyer telephone calls, withholding evidence, witness perjury



Despite the direct Trial testimony of the lead detective that there were no identifiable fingerprints found at the crime scene, (Transcript page 211) it was later discovered through documents obtained from the Prosecutor's files that there were, in fact, two fingerprints "with sufficient ridge detail for comparison" found on Johnson's glasses, which were found thrown down next to her body by the killer. The Ohio Crime Lab ("BCI") issued a report of the fingerprints being compared with Johnson's, Dan Miller's and two other suspects never mentioned at Trial, with no match. They were never compared with Matt's. 

Matt spent the next 15 years, from 1997 - 2012 trying to get his fingerprints compared with them, being rejected by the Trial and appellate Courts. In 2010 (unbeknownst to Matt,) the BCI sent everything back to Ashland County, which destroyed the glasses and the prints. 


The Prosecutor knowingly withheld voluminous amounts of exculpatory evidence that proves beyond any doubt that he knew he was prosecuting an innocent man. More evidence exonerated Matt than tended to inculpate him; and the inculpatory evidence was all fabricated. While the real evidence was withheld.


  • While on remand at Ashland County Jail, communications between Matt, his Court appointed Trial Counsel and the Investigator were all conducted by phone or personal interview. During these communications, names of potential witnesses were discussed, and who could prove/dispute areas which may be presented at Trial. Often, the very same day, those potential witnesses were called by the Prosecution! This information could only have been obtained from listening to privileged phone calls. Further, those witness names would show up in a Supplemental Discovery response as new prospective State Witnesses.

  • The State intercepted the name of one of Matt's character witnesses, Marcus Hood on the phone, and subpoenaed him as a State witness, threatening to revoke his probation if he did not testify their way.

  • Upon initial direct examination of the County Coroner, the Prosecution made specific point to elicit testimony that it was “difficult or impossible” to determine whether the assailant was left or right-handed, thereby discrediting the testimony of the pathologist consulted by the Defence who was yet to testify. The only way the Prosecution could have known that Matt was planning to present this evidence was through the Matt’s privileged telephone conversations with Counsel.