This is Zachariah Huddleston. He was arrested in November 2016 and is currently serving a sentence of 21 years to life in an Ohio state prison. He’s 28 years old.

Zachariah is not a murderer. Where he should have been met with the rehabilitation that our justice system continues to boast about in this country, he was written off and locked away time and time again. Are we to take at face value the narrative of a justice system that has failed so many times?

Zachariah was not given a fair trial nor did he have effective counsel. It is time to bring awareness to everything that went wrong during the court proceedings and to spell out the exact ways in which Zachariah had to stand by and spectate the violation of his constitutional rights.

Zachariah was appointed a public defender, many of whose decisions in representing him proved to be detrimental to his case. During the trial, this public defender made no objections to the testimony of a Logan County detective, allowing him to inform the jury that Zachariah already had two prior felony convictions. When court was not in session, both before and after testifying against Zachariah, this same detective sat in a room with him, eating and talking to him, while he was there to watch him in place of the sheriff who was taking a break. The public defender also neglected to take Zachariah’s weapons under disability charge to the bench, which once again signaled to the jury that Zachariah was already a criminal and allowed major biases to penetrate the jury and work against him. Allowing the jury to hear these things about Zachariah was completely unnecessary. Although it can be argued that the judge likely would have admitted the disclosure of the prior convictions in court, it cannot be disputed that this information made the jurors all the more likely to find Zachariah guilty. It’s impossible to know for sure what would have happened alternatively because the public defender made absolutely no attempts to stop this information from reaching the jury, and that is impermissible. He also neglected to call any witnesses on Zachariah’s behalf, most notably his mental health specialist. This key witness could have verified Zachariah’s struggles with mental illness, which began around age 8, potentially producing a different determination of his mental capacity.

In the jury instructions, which are given by the judge to explain the elements of each crime and the criteria required for a conviction, the judge would not grant Zachariah’s public defender’s request to add a lesser included offense instruction (murder to involuntary manslaughter) since it was proven during the trial that Zachariah was not the person who shot the victim. The judge’s response was that that was not an option, he was either guilty of murder (which carries a minimum sentence of 15 years to life) or not, and so the jury found him guilty. Another flaw in the jury instructions was the included addition that because Zachariah “failed to act,” [failed to stop the victim from dying], he was equally guilty for the murder when in actuality, there is no law that states this. The fact that his public defender objected speaks to the insane lack of validity of this claim, but it made no difference.

During both the trial and at sentencing, the prosecution stated that all parties involved in this crime were equally responsible for the death of the victim. This cannot be true because each of the five defendants received different charges, and therefore different sentences; from least to greatest: 5 years, 10 years, 15 years to life, 18 years to life, and 21 years to life. It was proven during the trial that Zachariah did not shoot the victim, and yet he received a longer sentence than the person who did.

Before the trial began, the sheriff and one of the jurors smoked a cigarette outside with Zachariah. There were multiple connections and perspectives within the jury that predisposed them to find Zachariah guilty on all charges. When the prosecutor inquired about whether or not members of the jury worked for either the state or the sheriff’s office, they collectively told him no; however, when the public defender asked the same question, he was given conflicting information.

At least one juror stated that she had already formed an opinion against Zachariah and wasn’t certain she could be impartial, but the court led her to change this by saying that she would “try.” As the Constitution states, Zachariah was entitled to an impartial jury, not a jury that would try to be impartial. Trying is not good enough. You can try many things and fail at all of them. Surely everyone in the courtroom knew this and yet this juror was not dismissed and replaced. Another juror who can be identified by name stated under oath that she sympathized with the daughter of the victim and she did not think that she could be impartial, but she was not corrected nor was she dismissed.

The court overruled Zachariah’s motion for a change of venue despite multiple jurors admitting to either following the case on the news (and thus having already heard the 911 call recording that was played during the trial), engaging with the coverage of the case via the Internet, or both. His public defender made no objections.

Multiple jurors worked at Honda with the victim. In a small town such as this one, in a tight-knit community where everyone knows each other and works at Honda with one another, the presence of major bias against the defendant, and an outsider at that, is all but guaranteed. How are we to take the court’s blatant disregard for the imminent threat of jury contamination? How are we to take the lack of concern demonstrated when that threat became reality?

After the trial ended, Zachariah wrote his public defender to ask him for his discovery pack and to inquire about why he’d let him get such a severe sentence. He responded that Zachariah didn’t take the plea bargain he told him to take, referring to the 18 years to life deal that the shooter received. Why would this public defender not even attempt to get less time for his client whom both he and the court have acknowledged was not the shooter? As previously stated, the prosecution acknowledged in court that Zachariah did not fire the fatal shot. During the trial, it was concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove that Zachariah was the shooter, likely the case because he wasn’t. Ballistics revealed that the bullets taken from the victim could not have originated from the weapon associated with Zachariah. Furthermore, the only evidence that could be traced back to this weapon was a singular bullet in the wall. Nowhere else in the house and nowhere near the victim.

Throughout the trial, the jury was falsely informed that Zachariah shot the victim. In Zachariah’s appeal, it was supposed to be noted that the jury was lied to on record by both the prosecutor and judge during the jury instructions. Aside from how unethical this was, giving false information such as this to a jury that was already against Zachariah before the trial even began, combined with the fact that they were all permitted to remain as jurors after revealing their biases, these actions can only be taken one way. It is highly illogical to consider that these falsities would lead a jury (heavily impacted by forbidden consumption of the inaccurate media portrayal of Zachariah) to anything other than a guilty verdict. It was well-documented that Zachariah’s public defender made an objection, but the appeal attorney never raised the issue.

Both the public defender and the appeal attorney failed to make a defense out of the fact that Zachariah backed out of the crime before it escalated. In a partial video and complete audio recording that was recovered from the scene, Zachariah can be heard saying “let’s go,” and then he commences leaving. Section E of Ohio’s complicity law states that terminating one’s criminal purpose is an accurate defense to a charge if the accused displays a complete and voluntary renunciation. When Zachariah said “let’s go,” completely and voluntarily renouncing his criminal purpose, that phrase constituted the termination of his complicity. He was no longer responsible. There is indisputable auditory evidence to confirm this, but it was never, not even one time brought up by anyone tasked with defending Zachariah.

In another case from earlier in 2016 that went to trial in the same county, the perpetrator was indicted on charges of reckless homicide, felonious assault, and unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. This 20-year-old man, who pleaded guilty to multiple felony charges after he was caught running a business selling liquor to underage kids, having sexual encounters with minors, and having killed a 16-year-old with a shotgun, was sentenced to just over 5 years in prison. He was represented by the same public defender that Zachariah had. In the same town, in the same year, with the same representation, how can Zachariah’s 21 years to life be justified when another man who committed (and admitted to) the act of taking a life received only 5?

Bringing light to these errors made during Zachariah’s trial and sentencing does not represent a lack of accountability. Zachariah does not claim to be innocent. He has expressed the regret he feels about what happened and he has owned up to his mistakes. Nevertheless, Zachariah is not a murderer. Since his arrest, Zachariah has had nothing but time to look introspectively at his life. He recognizes that he made poor choices in the past and he has redirected his energy into as much productivity and positivity as his situation allows. The debate here is not whether or not he should have received prison time, but rather the veracity of how he was convicted and sentenced. He has filed several appeals, all of which have been denied. Due to his past financial circumstances, which are impossible to overcome from prison with minimal support on the outside, he continues to navigate all of this alone. Had he been able to hire a private attorney, perhaps they would have taken a more holistic approach to his defense instead of sending him into a courtroom full of people who’d already branded him as a criminal, and were either unwilling or incapable of acknowledging his humanity.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. If you were moved by his story, please sign this petition to help Zachariah try to achieve true justice.

If you are compelled to help Zachariah get the legal defense he needs, you can make a donation by reaching out on one of the social media platforms listed below.
If you would like to reach out to him, you can correspond with him via JPay (ODRC) using his identification number, A737326. Lastly, if you’d like to follow his journey, you can find him on TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram @ RiahhSos.

Thank you.