There are many instances where the prosecutor, court, or police had their thumb on the scale and the defense attorney did nothing about it. This ineffectiveness of defense council deprived Martin Zale from having a fair trial and his constitutional rights were violated.
Mr. Zale asserts that his Trial Counsel was ineffective when she did not move for a change of venue; failed to properly prepare her witnesses for examination and cross examination; when she called a witness upon demand by the Prosecutor, who was one of the witnesses questioned by the Prosecutor about unrelated prior arrests and convictions without objection; when she did not object to the jury instructions; when she did not call an expert in self defense; and when she stipulated to strike Kyle Mead's testimony without attempting to rehabilitate him in any manner, and decided not to call the other witness from Mr. Flemming's prior road rage incident.
The prosecutor continued to impeach character witnesses that would testify against Derek Flemming. It was improper, the Prosecutor knew or should have known it was improper, and neither the Court nor Defense Counsel did anything to correct the situation. The prosecutor intended to merely convict Martin Zale. Defense Counsel was ineffective when she allowed the Prosecutor to improperly impeach these witnesses, contrary to MRE 609, without objection or a request for a curative instruction. Defense Counsel was ineffective for not interviewing Mr. Mead and the other witness, and for not fully preparing them for their testimony.
Additionally, Mr. Zale asserts that Trial Counsel was ineffective when she failed to move for a change of venue, based on the extensive pretrial publicity. Some news media still continue to print erroneous articles that say there was a warrant. The press was so one-sided, that a letter to the editor appeared in the Livingston Daily, criticizing the paper, and expressing concern that no change of venue had been filed.
As argued below, and incorporated herein by reference, Mr. Zale asserts that his jury was not properly instructed, and that Counsel was ineffective for not requesting M Crim JI 7.16a, and for not objecting to M Crim JI 7.18
Mr. Zale asserts that an expert in self defense would have assisted the jury in making their decision. An expert may give the jury their opinion on an issue, and Mr. Zale asserts that the information would have aided the jury.
Send us a message: