Revealing the Truth Now through the removal of the blindfold.

**Issue: Conflict of Interest with Judge's Spouse**

Corey's judge, Judge Margaret Hudson, is married to the former chief of investigative services for the Volusia County Sheriff's Department, the same department to which the victims, detectives, and investigators are affiliated. Following his tenure in this role, he began volunteering for the sheriff's department, all of which creates an undeniable conflict of interest.

**Issue: Nepotism and Close Relationship Between Judge and Sheriff's Department**

Judge Margaret Hudson received a letter of recommendation from the Volusia County Sheriff to the governor of Florida, advocating for her appointment to the judicial position. This letter underscores not only a close relationship between the judge and the sheriff's department but also suggests potential nepotism.

**Issue: Lack of Disclosure Regarding Judge's Potential Bias**

The judicial canon of ethics mandates that a judge discloses any information that could be perceived as bias by either the defense or prosecution. Judges are required to maintain the appearance of impartiality. However, in Corey's case, he was never made aware of the close relationship between Judge Margaret Hudson and the Volusia County Sheriff's Department, nor of the letter of recommendation advocating for her judicial appointment. As a result, Corey was not given the opportunity to decide whether these facts warranted the judge's recusal, depriving him of his rights in the legal process.

**Issue: Improper Medication Prescribed by Doctor**

Corey's doctor prescribed medication that was beyond his authorization level, as it should have been prescribed by a psychologist rather than a family healthcare physician. Despite the known risks associated with the medication, the doctor proceeded to prescribe it to Corey without proper monitoring. This crucial oversight was never investigated or addressed during the trial proceedings. Consequently, the adverse side effects Corey experienced from the prescribed medication directly contributed to the altercation with law enforcement officers, leading to his life sentence 

**Issue: Incomplete Psychological Evaluation**

Despite the standard procedure requiring a comprehensive psychological evaluation to assess Corey's competency to stand trial and his mental state at the time of the incident, the evaluation was never completed. The evaluating doctor cited a lack of essential documents, including Corey's medication history, Baker Act records, and information about a previous suicide attempt while on the medication. Despite being requested to provide this crucial evidence, Corey's trial counsel, Jane Park, failed to furnish the necessary documents. Consequently, the evaluation was left incomplete, depriving Corey of a fair assessment of his mental state. Subsequent evidence shows that Corey's actions were influenced by the negative side effects of his medication, rendering him temporarily legally insane at the time of the incident that exonerates him of the crime.

**Issue: Suicide Attempt and Baker Act**

During Corey's time on the medication, he attempted suicide, a well-known side effect of many medications. Recall the many commercials you hear saying ''Call your doctor if you are experiencing suicidal thoughts or behavior.''  This incident led to Corey being involuntarily committed under the Baker Act, a process used to evaluate an individual's mental stability and determine if they pose a danger to themselves or others. The fact that Corey was subjected to the Baker Act underscores authorities' concerns about his mental state at the time. This critical evidence should have been presented to the evaluating doctor, the prosecutor, and the jury to provide context regarding Corey's mental state while taking the medication.

**Issue: Misadvice Regarding Defense of Involuntary Intoxication**

Defense counsel Jane Park provided incorrect guidance to several family members and friends regarding the availability of the defense of Involuntary Intoxication due to the medication Corey was prescribed. Despite early reports from Corey's family and friends about his erratic behavior, mood swings, and uncharacteristic actions, Jane Park failed to properly investigate or pursue this defense strategy. Corey himself was not fully aware of his own mental state during the early stages of his incarceration, as he was still detoxifying from the medication and experiencing its effects on his awareness. His realization of his altered state, expressed to his counsel when he told her ''I don't know what it is but something is wrong. I've been doing crazy things lately.'' underscoring the significance of the missed opportunity to explore the defense of Involuntary Intoxication.
 
* This would later become a central issue in his many appeals to overturn his sentence. See issue # ####

**Issue: Lack of Defense Opportunity and an Outrageous Testimony**

Corey was deprived of the opportunity to rely on the defense of involuntary intoxication, leaving him to navigate his medication-induced altered perception and faulty memory, coupled with the evidence and testimonies of the victims to figure out a defense. Lacking a conscious thought process leading to the act of violence, Corey's fragmented memory led him to believe the shooting was accidental. This was in part a product of John Brady, one of the victims, testifying to striking a heavy metallic object, resulting in the accidental discharge of the firearm. Corey's recollection of holding the firearm backward led him to conclude it accidentally discharged. However, his testimony that the firearm accidently discharged six times resulting in two law enforcement officers getting shot actuslly raises doubts about his sanity, as it appeared unbelievable and far-fetched to say the least.  
 * Corey no longer stands by the majority of his trial testimony as concerns how the firearm was discharged 6 times.  He does not trust his memory or his perception of the event.

**Issue: Discrepancy in Chain of Custody of Key Evidence**

Defense counsel Jane Park pointed out a discrepancy in the chain of custody of key evidence against Corey, inadvertently benefiting the state prosecution. Typically, defense lawyers aim to have evidence against their client dismissed due to flaws in the chain of custody. The integrity of evidence hinges on a secure chain of custody to prevent tampering or mishandling. Those involved in the chain of custody are responsible for ensuring the protection and integrity of the evidence. One could easily begin to question where the trial counsel fealty lies.

**Issue: Discrepancy in Sentencing Statutes**

There was a discrepancy between the sentencing statutes the state intended to use and those that were actually being applied in Corey's case. Defense counsel Jane Park assisted the state in rectifying this error, ensuring Corey's sentencing fell under the minimum mandatory life sentence statute. I bet the state prosecutor was happy to have Corey's defense counsel on their side for that one!

**Issue: Prosecutorial Control Over Sentencing, a Violation of the Constitution's Separation of Powers**

In Corey's case, the prosecution wielded complete control over the sentencing process, a power traditionally reserved for judges and juries. This violates the constitutional principle of separation of powers, which mandates that sentencing should be within the purview of the judiciary, not the prosecution. Despite this, Corey was sentenced to a minimum mandatory life sentence by the prosecution, with no opportunity for parole consideration (if Florida ever decides to bring parole back into the system). Furthermore, they did not even entertain the possibility of offering Corey a plea deal. This blatant disregard for the principles of justice raises serious concerns about the fairness of Corey's sentencing.

**Issue: Constitutionality of the Indeterminate Life Sentence**

The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution expressly prohibits sentencing individuals to an indeterminate amount of time. However, despite the courts word play and legal maneuvering of this clear constitutional provision, Corey's case highlights a blatant disregard for this principle. A life sentence, by its very nature, is indeterminate, as there is no fixed duration for an individual's life. This lack of determinacy raises serious questions about the constitutionality of Corey's sentence, as it defies the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against indeterminate sentencing.

**Issue: Jury Bias and Lack of Impartiality**

During Corey's trial, 14 out of 40 prospective jury members had affiliations with law enforcement, including a corrections officer, a friend of the prosecutor, and a county jail worker at the facility where Corey was held. This raises concerns about jury impartiality, especially considering that Corey's victims were Volusia County sheriff's officers. In the justice system, juries are intended to represent a diverse and impartial cross-section of the community, but the prevalence of these connections to law enforcement among potential jurors suggests a lack of impartiality and undermines Corey's right to a fair trial.

**Issue: Prejudicial Statement by County Jail Worker**

A county jail worker openly stated in front of the entire jury pool that she knew Corey from jail, potentially tainting the impartiality of the jury. Such statements can introduce prejudice into the jury pool and compromise Corey's right to a fair trial. In many cases, such incidents could lead to a mistrial or automatic overturning of a conviction due to presumed prejudice. However, as the subsequent issue will illustrate, this was not the case in Corey's trial.

**Issue: Denial of Mistrial Motion and Rare Procedural Requirement**

Defense counsel Jane Park objected with a motion for a mistrial based on the tainted jury panel due to the inherent prejudice of the county jail worker's statement. However, the judge denied the motion. On appeal, Corey raised this issue, which had a high likelihood of overturning his conviction. However, an unusual procedural requirement demanded two objections, an almost unheard-of stipulation. Unshockingly, trial counsel was unaware of this requirement, and failed to do so. Raising this as an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, prevailing caselaw elevated the burden of proof to overturn the case. What was previously considered presumed prejudice now needed concrete evidence, all because it was presented in a different motion. Since no jury member was asked about their thoughts on the statement and none openly expressed prejudice, it remains unprovable to this day. Adding to the peculiarity, the court typically relies on the truthfulness of lawyers and favors them over the accused in most cases. However, in this instance, they choose not to believe the lawyer, citing failure to object twice as a loophole the lawyer could abuse. As the whole issue and how it's raised would favor the accused, as it leaves room for an automatic overturn of a conviction, it coincidentally works in the opposite fashion in this case, highlighting the court's inconsistency in its treatment of legal matters.