And the Name of Charles Ajoloko’s Trial Attorney is………….Gary Schwartz

Gary Schwartz was my son’s trial attorney.

Gary Schwartz, I am calling you out.

Gary Schwartz, how does it feel to know that your representation of my son has cost him 12 years of his young life?

Gary Schwartz, didn’t you know that your responsibility as my son’s attorney was to do everything within the law to clear him of charges?

You had his case for more than 18 months and did not do any type of investigation what so ever. A criminal defense is a strategic argument that attempts to challenge the validity and sufficiency of the prosecutions evidence.

  • You did not put the 911 call into discovery where the victim said that she could not identify the assailant because  his face was covered with a bandana and wore a hoodie.
  • You did not put the original police report into discovery where the officer at the scene wrote a statement saying ” the victim said that she would be unable to identify the assailant. She said that she could only see the eyes.
  • You did not challenge the 2 photo lineups or try to have the lineups suppressed.
    • a. The first lineup was done in the victim’s home and she was unable to identify the assailant.
    • b. The 2nd lineup was done on a table in the lobby of the police station. Now the victim says  that she is 60% sure that it was my son. The nose looked familiar. How can the nose look familiar if she only saw the eyes, unless the nose  looked familiar from the 1st lineup.

A responsible attorney would have at least tried to have the lineups suppressed.

  • You did not put a crime line into discovery showing that the caller said that the assailant had dreadlocks.
  • You did not put into discovery the detective’s statement that my son’s phone was not used during the time in the area of the robbery. It was in the incident report. This is a Brady violation on the part of the prosecutor.
  • You did not challenge the picture of the guns taken from the cell phone of the guys that robbed my son. (Remember,  my son was robbed and called the police and that is how this whole thing got started).
  • The police never had the gun in their possession.

A responsibility attorneywould have object to the police officer brandishing his court during the trial.

  • You never tried to talk to the victim. A few days while my son and I were in your office, we asked you if had talked to the prosecution’s witnesses. You said no, that you did not have their numbers or addresses. I handed you their phone number. I had gotten it from the incident reports. A couple of days before the trial and you had not done anything.
  • Several months prior to trial we were suppose to attend a competency status hearing. After arriving in Florida for the competency status hearing, you called us at the hotel and told my son that we should not go to the status hearing the next day. Our doctor, a renowned well-liked and respected doctor by the judge had found my son incompetent to stand trial. You said that the prosecutor’s doctor would be unable to attend the hearing. You then said not to go because the judge would probably continue the case if the prosecution wasn’t ready. What was I thinking? Why did I listen to you? We had traveled 14 hours by car for nothing. We trusted you. Later, I realized what a mistake it was to not go to court. It should be a defense attorney’s dream for the prosecution to be unprepared.

    After reading the court’s register of actions,  it looked as though the hearing had actually taken place. Were you in cahoots with the prosecutor?

  • A week before the trial you asked for a continuance. You weren’t prepared.
  • You had a crime line in your possession showing a caller saying that the assailant had dreadlocks. Why wasn’t it put in for discovery?
  • You knew that my son did not have any financial difficulties. There was proof that he ha received a living stipend in excess of $8000 less than 2 months prior of the incident. Why wasn’t that put in discovery?
  • At trial, you did not do an opening statement.
  • You did not object to any evidence being entered.
  • You did not object when the prosecutor asked the officer to show his personal gun to the jurors. You did not object when the gun was left in front of the officer on the stand.
  • You did not object when the prosecutor engaged in inflammatory closing remarks.
  • You did not challenge the 2 photo lineups admission into evidence.
  • You did not challenge the victims change of identification. At trial, almost 3 years later, she is 100% sure that it was my son, even  though she initially said that that she could only see the eyes. Why didn’t you ask for a Richard hearing?

A responsible attorney would have asked for an evidentiary hearing.

  • You didn’t even put the 911 call in discovery.
  • You did not try to have any evidence suppressed.
  • You did not object to anything.
  • You did NOT preserve anything for appeal.
  • The jurors had many questions leading toward an acquittal. You did not answer any of thei questions . What’s your problem?

A responsible attorney would have asked for a mistrial.

You did not zealously represent my son!


to be continued…..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s