Coerced Plea Bargains,
Are They Standard Practice
Within Volusia Courtrooms?

For sometime now - VolusiaExposed.Com has been reporting on our concern that some Central Florida judges & prosecutors are more interested in playing a perverse version of the television game show "Let's Make A Deal" - than they are in dispensing justice.

Our concerns regarding coerced plea bargains started with the 2012 arrest and prosecution of Holly Hill resident Michael Morrison (click here to read article).

Michael J. Morrison Refusal To Plea Bargain

In the early morning hours of October 22, 2012 - a Holly Hill police officer - while attempting to climb through Morrison's kitchen window - shot Morrison in the back. The police officer claimed that Morrison had pointed a firearm at him as he (the officer) was attempting to come through the window. The officer further claimed that he had fired at Morrison in self defense. Morrison denied pointing a gun at the officer.

Morrison was arrested and charged with battery on a law enforcement officer (2x) - regarding the two officers that were attempting to climb through his kitchen window. (only one officer fired shots at Morrison)

Over the next few years - the State Attorney's office, the Court (Judge Frank Marriott), and Morrison's own attorneys would attempt to "encourage" (coerce) him to accept one of a miriad of plea deals that the State had offered.

However - Morrison absolutely refused to accept any type of plea bargain - maintaining his position that he had NOT committed any crime.

Judicial Coercion & Recusal

In January 2016 - VolusiaExposed.Com published an article - in which we expressed our concern - that Judge Frank Marriott had committed judicial misconduct by attempting to coerce Morrison (offering legal advice) into accepting the State's offered plea bargain (click here to read article).

Shortly thereafter - Judge Marriott recused himself from the Morrison prosecution (click here to read article).

Morrison Fought The Law, And The Law Lost

By the Fall of that year (2016) - Morrison had secured an attorney that was willing to take his case to trial. His attorney had also secured the services of an expert witness (Roy Bedard - see below linked testimony) willing to testify that the actions of the police officers were not acceptable law enforcement practices (click here to read article).

The State Attorney soon after - would abandon their prosecution of Morrison (click here to read article).

READ POLICE EXPERT WITNESS ROY BEDARD'S DEPOSITION / TESTIMONY
These Below Records Are Also Available From The Clerk Of Court's Website - Clerk.Org

Roy Bedard's Testimony Pages 1-25

Roy Bedard's Testimony Pages 26-50

Roy Bedard's Testimony Pages 51-75

Roy Bedard's Testimony Pages 76-100

The Jeffrey S. Smith Travesty
When The Criminal Defendant Prefers A Trial Over A Plea Bargain,
But The Court Merely Laughs At Providing The Defendant With A Jury Trial

In November 2015 - while VolusiaExposed.Com was covering the Morrison prosecution - we ran across criminal defendant - Mr. Jeffrey S. Smith.

In the video that has been provided (see right side of screen) - Smith is attempting to advise the Court (Judge Frank Marriott) that it is his wish that his attorney (standing right next to him) prepare his case for trial.

Apparently, against Smith's wishes - the Court (Judge Frank Marriott), the State Attorney, and Smith's own attorney all preferred to resolve the case via a plea bargain.

Listen closely - as Smith advises the Court - that as a carpenter - he does not have the legal skills to file his own court motions

RELATED ARTICLE
VOLUSIAEXPOSED.COM
November 23, 2015
Mr. Smith Goes To Court
What Passes For Justice Within Courtroom #6

Listen - as the courtroom mocks with open laughter - this carpenter's attempt to secure a jury trial.

Why is it - that the world is always willing to crucify it's carpenters?

....And the king will say to them in reply, "Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me". ~ Matthew 25:40

The Crucifixion Of Nicole Jackson
Prosecuting Her As An Adult - While Treating Her As A Child

On June 1, 2021 - Nicole Jackson-Maldonado was just 14 when she and a 12 year old boy ran away from the Florida United Methodist Children's Home (commonnly known as FUMCH) in Enterprise, Florida.

According to the charging report (click here to review) the following set of events then occurred.

On the run for the police - the children broke into a Enterprise home - arming themselves with weapons they found inside.

The children then reportedly fired at the deputies who were responding to the home break-in. Deputies initially held their return fire, but eventually shot Jackson - severely wounding her.

The State Attorney's Office chose to prosecute the 12 year old boy as a juvenile - while chosing to prosecute Jackson as an adult.

Some in the community - have expressed concerns that Jackson is being prosecuted as an adult - rather than as a juvenile.

While we (VolusiaExposed.Com) share these concerns - these objections are NOT the primary focus of this particular article.

We (VolusiaExposed.Com) publicly question whether Jackson - as a factual juvenile - is being coerced by the Court (as well as others in official standing) to waive her U.S. Constitutional right to a public trial (click here to review 6th Amendment).

During several hearings over the last year - Jackson has expressed her desire for a public trial click here to review FOX 35 article and court video).

Judicial Coercion?


Ms. Jackson's most recent court hearing of September 15, 2022 (see video - right of page) was most disturbing to us (VolusiaExposed.Com).

We "opine" that Judge Raul Zambrano's advisements to Ms. Jackson - regarding plea bargain consideration - crossed judicial ethical canons (click here to review Florida Judicial Canons).

While Judge Zambrano's advisements (see courtroom video - right of page) appear to contain several transgressions against Florida Judicial Canons (judicial impartiality / providing legal advice) - in the particular - we (VolusiaExposed.Com) shall point out three (3).

First transgression - around minute 4:44 of the video - Judge Zambrano states that he is aware of "the facts of the case based upon the police reports".

Since when, especially during pre-trial - are "police reports" accepted as "factual"? At best - police reports contain allegations that must be proven during a public trial.

Within this PUBLIC statement - Judge Zambrano memorialized his apparent judicial bias - in short, that he believes Jackson is factually guilty.

Given - that even the appearance of a judicial bias is suppose to be avoided - why then would Judge Zambrano engage Ms. Jackson in such a manner?

After all - how are prospective jurors suppose to enter the trial with a "presumption of innocence" mindset - if a local Circuit Court judge has already publicly stated his suspicions of guilt?

Second transgression - around minute 5:58 of the video - Judge Zambrano advises Jackson that if she goes to trial - and it (the trial) doesn't come out her way - she can't complain. Has Florida done away with criminal appeals, AND which do you imagine would be easier - to appeal a conviction after a trial - or to appeal a negotiated plea deal?

Third transgression - around minute 7:10 - within Judge Zambrano's "gambling statement" - he advised Jackson NOT to pass up on a plea deal. This only provides further reinforcement - to Zambrano's other pre-trial statements - supporting his apparent belief of Jackson's guilt.

We (VolusiaExposed.Com) OPINE that these public judicial statements - made in open court - have tainted any prospective jury pool - AND has also likely biased other members of the local judiciary - as well as Jackson's own defense team against her.

Jackson's defense team - almost certainly received Judge Zambrano's message loud and clear - plea your client out, and damn your client's desire for a public trial.

Why Are Both The State Attorney & Court So Focused On A Plea Deal?


In the end - we (VolusiaExposed.Com) can ONLY speculate why both the State Attorney's Office (SAO) and the Court desire to settle out this criminal prosecution with a plea bargain.

Our speculations include, but are not limited to the following:

1. The SAO realizes that they have over prosecuted this case by transferring it to adult court - and now they are worried about a jury nullification verdict - should it proceed to trial.

2. Facts - beyond what are allegedly contained within the charging report (per Judge Zambrano's statement) will be exposed during trial testimony - these "facts" may be embarassing to "officials" (law enforcement/SAO/FUMCH).

3. In 2021 - elected officials (law enforcement/SAO) wanted to look "tough on crime" - so they charged Jackson as an adult - with the belief that Jackson would never be tried as an adult. With Jackson refusing to take a plea deal - these same elected officials are now worried about the possible political blow back associated with a public trial (adult) - and an adult sentence - for this juvenile defendant.

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!" ~ Sir Walter Scott, 1808

In fairness to the Court - we provided Court administrator - Mark Weinberg with a preview of our pending article, in order that he could - if necessary - provide us with commentary, clarifications, or corrections for our article. Mr. Weinberg responded via email stating that the Court had "no comment".

Given all of the above - in the end - justice may ONLY be truly served - by transferring this case back to juvenile court - or to another judicial circuit.... stand by to stand by ... there is surely more to come of this......


Rachel Platten - Fight Song