Corrupt Cop PLANTS Evidence — His Own Bodycam BACKFIRES in Court!
“…guilty of 19 charges involving fabricating evidence and arresting innocent people was sentenced to 12 years and 6 months in prison this afternoon.”
“The former Jackson County Sheriff’s deputy was accused of planting on at least 120 drivers.”
This deputy did not catch criminals. He made them.
He would stop an ordinary driver for something small, a flickering brake light. Ask politely to search the car. And somewhere in that search, a small bag of evidence would appear. Then he would find it, snap on the handcuffs, and drive an innocent person to jail. And he chose his targets. He went after people he was betting no one would ever believe over a deputy.
Most of the time, he turned his own body camera off first, so the moment the evidence arrived would never be seen. His name is Zachary Wester, a deputy in Jackson County, Florida. Before it was over, prosecutors had to throw out around 120 of his cases. Innocent people had gone to jail for things that were never theirs. One father lost custody of his daughter.
It only came apart because on a handful of stops, the camera he trusted to hide his work caught it instead. Wester was charged with racketeering, fabricating evidence, official misconduct, and false imprisonment. And then he did something almost no accused officer does. He took the stand in his own defense and tried to explain the one stop he could not.
For over 30 years I sat on the bench. I have seen officers mishandle evidence. I have seen them lose it and I have seen them get it wrong. But I have never seen a deputy who was the reason the evidence was there at all. Watch what happens when he has to explain that under oath.
“Okay, Mr. Wester, will you raise your right hand for me, sir? Do you solemnly swear firm to tell the truth, old truth, and nothing about the truth?”
“I do.”
“And you can stay there. Just put your hand down, sir. Yes, sir.”
“Uh, this is a critical juncture in a trial and it’s important you and I talk. Uh, you know, generally your attorney uh has a lot of discretion uh with trial strategy. That’s really the job of an attorney is to make certain calls with witnesses and evidence and how to present things to the court and that’s what his expertise is. This is a unique uh junction in the trial though where you really the decision right now rests on you and it’s your decision alone. Obviously, Mr. Davis is a learned and experienced counsel and uh can give you advice on what he thinks in and and what he believes the right decision to make is, but right now this decision is solely yours. It’s my understanding that you want to go ahead and talk to the jury and testify in this case. Is that correct, sir?”
“That is correct.”
“Uh has anybody forced or coerced you to testify in this case?”
“No, sir.”
“Has anything anybody promised you anything in conjunction with your testimony today?”
“No, sir.”
“And you understand that the state will have an opportunity to cross-examine you as part of your testimony here today?”
“Yes, sir.”
“And you believe that giving testimony in this case is in your best interest?”
“Yes, sir.”
“All right.”
“You’ll raise your right hand, sir.”
“Go ahead. Sit down, Mr. Wester. Mr. Wester, I’m going to allow you based on where we’re at in the trial and making sure that we have adequate sound in here right now with the air condition running. If you’ll go ahead and take your mask off. All right. A couple things, and you’ve heard me talk to some other folks about this. Make sure you speak directly into the mic so the jury can hear you. The second thing is if you hear an objection, immediately pause. Let me hear what that is. I’ll instruct you on how to proceed. Okay, sir.”
“Yes, sir.”
“All right, Mr. Davis.”
“Thank you. Um, could you introduce yourself to the jury?”
“I’m Zachary Wester.”
“And Mr. Wester, did you previously work for the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office?”
“I did.”
“And how long did you work for the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office?”
“From 2016 to 2018.”
“And was that your first job in law enforcement?”
“No, sir.”
“What was your prior experience of law enforcement?”
“I worked with the Liberty County Sheriff’s Office um from 2015 to 2016. So, right at a year.”
“And why did you leave the Liberty County Sheriff’s Office to come to the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office?”
“There were a few factors that played into that. Um, there were a couple of disagreements with the current sheriff at the time, mainly focused on budgeting and and a few other things, but the main reason is I wanted to come back to my hometown where I was born and raised um to serve the citizens of Jackson County.”
“Hi, how are you?”
“I’m good. Should I turn in here to get off?”
“You’re fine. You’re fine. Deputy Westwood Jets County Sheriff’s Office. Reason for my stop is um your brake lights.”
“Yes, sir.”
“They work one minute and the next minute they don’t work and then a few seconds later they just flash. Okay. So,”
“It’s probably because of rain.”
“Anything the vehicle need to be concerned about? Bombs, hand grenades, rocket launchers.”
“Okay.”
“Absolutely.”
“Okay.”
“All right. Um, here’s what I do probably 10 or 15 times a shift. Okay. Um, there’s gonna be a K9 coming a minute and she’s going to walk around the car. Okay. But instead of doing that, would you consent to a search of your vehicle?”
“You’re fine with that? Okay. All right. You mind stepping out just hanging out with this deputy right back here?”
“No, I don’t. I just I’m scared to be in this traffic.”
“No, Deputy Hey, will take care of you.”
“Can I get take my phone?”
“Yeah, take your phone. I don’t care. That’s fine. Come on.”
“You pulled over Miss Odum because there was an issue with her brake lights.”
“That is correct.”
“Okay. And what were they doing again?”
“So they would work cut off and then they would flicker. And it wasn’t consistent with as if you would press your foot on the brake and let off. It was obvious that when she had her foot on the brake, she was attempting to stop. The brake lights were working intermittently, not as they were designed to.”
“Okay. And when somebody h is having an issue, that’s a valid reason to pull over with the issue with the brake lights.”
“Yeah, it’s a safety issue for other drivers, but it’s also probable cause for a traffic stop.”
“And we saw you come up and have a conversation with her and she’s exiting the vehicle now.”
“Yes, sir.”
“When she exited the vehicle, was there anything that you noticed about the way she did that?”
“Yeah, I noticed that she reached out of the driver’s side door and opened the vehicle from the outside as opposed to the inside.”
“And you’re asking her to step out because she’s now giving you permission to search the vehicle. Correct.”
“Correct.”
“Deputy He make sure you don’t get run over. Okay.”
“Cuz I have faith that he would prefer to get over. All right. Just hang tight.”
Watch this part closely because you are about to see it happen and almost miss it.
Wester is walking the jury through his search of a woman named Teresa Odum. In his own calm voice, he says he found a small bag in a gap behind the door latch and his words simply placed the item on the floorboard and kept searching. It sounds like nothing. A small tidy detail, but that is the whole trick. Maybe you did not notice. This deputy has already done it right in front of you.
The bag he says he set aside is the same bag that minutes later he pulls out of Miss Odum’s purse and calls evidence. An officer is supposed to be the guardian of the evidence. The one person who keeps it honest from the very first second here. He is not the guardian. He is the source. Keep your eye on that bag.
It is about to change hands and it is about to change her life.
“When you were approaching the vehicle to search it.”
“Yes.”
“Tell me, tell us what you did.”
“So, whenever I approached the vehicle, I obviously wanted to see if there was something wrong with her interior door latch for her to reach out and open the door from the outside. Whenever I looked in and I reached towards the door latch, I saw, so I’m going to give you an example. You have the door latch, then you have this void space behind the door latch on this particular vehicle. In the void space, there was a baggie of some sort. I didn’t know at the time if it was of evidentiary value or not. It didn’t appear as if it had narcotics in it. It didn’t appear as if it had anything that may have been of value, but nonetheless, I wanted to try to preserve it. So, I grabbed it. And whenever I entered the vehicle, it was in my left hand, but I wanted to be able to still use my fingers, as you saw, to be able to touch that red cloth sack and open up my gloves before I put my gloves on. I moved my hand and I place that item in the driver’s side floorboard and I continued my search.”
“And Mr. Wester, do you recognize that photograph?”
“Yes, sir, I do.”
“Now, is there something about that photograph that stands out to you?”
“Yes. There is a gray hair sealed in the bag and wrapped around the bag as well.”
“Did you have long gray hair at the time?”
“No, sir. I did not.”
“Okay. Now, we saw Mrs. Odum. Did she have some gray hair at that time?”
“She did. Yes.”
“And did you end up arresting Miss Odum?”
“I did. Yes.”
“Okay. And what did you charge her with?”
“Possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia.”
“And did you take her to the jail?”
“Yes, sir. I did.”
“Mr. Wester, we had uh stopped for lunch and you are still under oath and back on the stand. Okay, sir.”
“Yes, sir.”
“Mr. Mr. Williams, you can begin your cross.”
“All right. Good afternoon, Mr. Wester.”
“Good afternoon.”
“We um towards the end of your direct examination, Mr. Davis was asking you and you were answering him some questions about how you were a proactive deputy when you were with Jackson County. Correct.”
“Correct.”
“And I believe that’s how you described it. You were proactive.”
“Yes, sir.”
“And you explained why this is this is home for you, right? Jackson County.”
“Yes, sir. That is correct.”
“All right. You come from a law enforcement background. Your father has a successful career in law enforcement. Correct.”
“That is correct.”
“Specifically in narcotics while he was in Jackson County. Correct.”
“Yes, that is correct.”
“And um sounds as if we all agree, everybody in this case, that wanting to be a proactive um good law enforcement officer and work case is hard is a good thing. Correct.”
“It is a great thing. Yes.”
“And advancing in an agency like the sheriff’s office, nothing wrong with that, right?”
“Correct.”
“I think we would agree that it’s how you get there that is what is at issue in this criminal case. Correct. That’s what is at issue here is how you choose to be proactive or how you behave as a deputy based on those motivations. Correct?”
“Maybe if you could repeat that question. And I don’t want to give you the wrong answer.”
“Sure.”
“Well, we agree that those are fair motivations when being a [clears throat] deputy. Correct.”
“Yeah. Absolutely.”
“All right. So, it’s really what you do with those motivations. That’s what’s at issue in this case, this criminal case right now. Correct. Whether you whether you act in earnest or criminally, that’s what’s at issue in this criminal case. Correct.”
“I would agree with that. Yeah.”
“All right. Now, I’ll try for the sake of everybody’s clarity, I’m going to try to follow more or less the same order that Mr. Davis did.”
“Thank you.”
“And um I understand you have your notes there. Same goes for um for me as it does for Mr. Davis. Do you need a refresh for recollection? You let me know.”
“Yes, sir.”
“Um but one thing um I’ll start with is the listed uh victims, and I’m going to try to follow the same order. Okay. Like several of the other listed victims in the case, she consents to the search of her car, doesn’t she? Her car.”
“She does. Yes.”
“She mentions that she’s got $5 that’s missing um in that in that video before you find anything. Isn’t that right?”
“That is correct. Yes.”
Before West finds a single thing, look at how Terresa Odum is behaving. She is standing on the roadside telling the deputy she is missing $5 from her purse, pointing his attention straight at that purse herself. And when she stepped out of the car, she left the purse behind. She did not clutch it. She did not try to carry it with her. Ask yourself a simple question. Is that how a person acts when they know there is a bag of evidence sitting inside? Someone hiding something guards it. Odum walked away from it and complained about her missing change. That is the behavior of a person with nothing to hide, which is exactly what she was.
Minutes later, the same purse she was worried about becomes the place this deputy discovers his case.
“She’s specifically drawing your attention to to her purse or her pocketbook cuz she’s missing $5. Isn’t that right?”
“Correct. Yes.”
“Okay. She’s not trying to take her purse with her when she gets out of the car and goes st and stands with backup deputy Hey, is she?”
“I don’t believe so. No.”
“Video doesn’t show and the video doesn’t depict it. Do you remember hearing it?”
“I do not remember it. Right.”
“So, she didn’t try to take her purse. Now, you say you’ve testified on direct that you don’t dispute that there’s something in your hand like those photos the state’s exhibits depict. Is that correct?”
“Correct. Yeah. I don’t dispute that at all.”
“Your dispute is that you say that it’s not the same item that you charged Teresa Odin with. Correct.”
“Correct. It is not the same item. Right.”
“It was a different baggy is what you say. Correct.”
“Correct.”
“Okay. Where on your body camera video do we see you handle that baggie and and either picking it up or putting it down or looking at it closely to determine what’s in it.”
“Are you referring to the baggie that was in my hand before I put my search gloves on?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Okay. So, as you noticed on the video, there were multiple semiis, multiple vehicles driving by in the opposite direction. Whenever I put that baggie in the front driver’s side floorboard, I never seen it again. I’m not sure if it’s because when a semi came through, it blew it into the roadway. After I found the baggie in her purse containing methamphetamine, and after I found the spoon, which was used as paraphernelia, there was really no need for me to go walk across 231 at the busiest time of the day to try to find something that I didn’t even know was evidentiary value or not.”
“Why’ you set it down on the floorboard if you didn’t know if it had evidentiary value or not? Why’ you set it down if it was already in your hand? Why would you set it down on the floorboard with that setting like you’ve just described to the jury if you didn’t even know if it had evidentiary value or not?”
“So that I could search the vehicle.”
“How about searching what’s in your hand? How about that? Wouldn’t it make more W wouldn’t you agree that it would make more sense to start with what’s already in your hand before you if if if it indeed was a different thing that it would make more sense to start with what’s already in your hand before you set it down on the floorboard on admittedly a busy road.”
“Yeah. In this particular case, no, that would not make sense because whenever I looked at the bag, it did not appear as I testified earlier that it was of evidentiary value.”
“You don’t look you you just said a moment ago to this jury that you didn’t know if it had evidentiary value or not. You just said that a moment ago and now you’re saying that you already looked at it and it didn’t have evidentiary value. Which one is it?”
Listen to the story move. First, Wester tells the jury he set the bag down because he did not know if it meant anything. He had not examined it. Seconds later, pressed on why he would drop something already in his hand, he says the opposite, that he looked at it and knew it was worthless.
Two different answers to the same simple question. The prosecutor stops him cold. Which one is it? This is the test of any testimony. The truth has only one version. You do not need two stories to describe something that actually happened. You need two stories to cover something that did not.
And every time Wester reaches for a new answer, the ground under him gets a little smaller.
“So, as I just stated a couple seconds ago, it did not appear to have evidentiary value. I did not examine it. I did not open it up at this point and examine it. It did not appear to be of anything of evidentiary value.”
“At what point on that video do you have time or does it even show you looking at it to make some type of a reasonable inference as to whether or not it had evidentiary value?”
“Sure. So, whenever I went to the passenger side of Miss Odum’s truck, from the passenger side, you could pretty much see the whole front cabin of that vehicle. [clears throat] Whenever I looked across, I noticed that that particular item that was in my hand was no longer on the driver’s side floorboard. Didn’t really concern me that much because I had found methamphetamine in her purse and I had found the spoon. Like I said earlier, Mr. Williams, I was not going to walk across Highway 231 or shut down traffic to try to find something that was most likely just a piece of trash.”
“It was already in your hand and you made a conscious decision to set it on the floorboard, didn’t you?”
“I did. Yes.”
“Did you or did you not look at it?”
“This is this is assuming that clearly we’re disputing this. Okay. That it’s”
“100% we are. Absolutely.”
“Yeah.”
“So, your your testimony is that it was a different item and in order for you to put it on the ground, you had to determine whether or not it had evidentiary value because it was already in your hand. So, from it going from your left hand onto the floorboard, at what point do you stop and look at it and handle it the way you do all the other exhibits that you found in all the other videos to make that decision. If that if it was indeed different.”
“Okay. I would not have opened up a baggie with my bare hands. First of all, I will say that um”
“Your hand No, no, no. I’m sorry. We need to We need Let me break that down. It’s already in your bare hands. You’ve already picked it up your bare hand, correct?”
“Okay.”
“Okay. So, what difference is opening it up your bare hands going to make?”
“But Mr. Williams, I didn’t open it up and turn it inside out for the contents, if there were any contents to get on my bare skin.”
“Was it a clear baggie?”
“I believe it was an off-white baggy.”
“You could have seen inside it, couldn’t you?”
“I don’t believe I could have with this particular baggie. I don’t believe I could have because from what I remember, it was an off-white almost an eggshell white.”
“You can’t give a consistent answer on this because there isn’t a consistent answer. Correct. I mean, you you would you agree that you cannot tell this jury that this item that you say is different in your hand that you were ever able to determine clearly if it had evidentiary value or if you looked at it determine if it did?”
“Well, I can tell you that whenever I retrieved it from the door latch area, and let’s remember, I went to the door latch area because she opened the vehicle from the outside. Whenever I went to the door latch area and whenever I grabbed that baggie from the door latch area and brought it back, it only takes about probably not even a full second to look at something and visually see what it looks like. And sure, I didn’t have X-ray vision, Mr. Williams. I couldn’t scan the bag to see what was in there. I’m just testifying to what took place on that traffic stop. Okay.”
“Was it ever in your hand? Was it really? Was there anything different in your hand other than what you claimed you found in her purse? Was there even a second bag? Just tell the story. Was there Was there ever even a different bag?”
“What are you asking? Are you asking if the bag that I recovered from the door latch was different than the bag from her purse?”
“I’m asking if there ever even was a second bag. Was there ever anything other than that bag, same bag being palmed in your hand that you later put in her purse? acted like you found out of that purse.”
“Okay. So, what you just presented to this jury is absolutely [clears throat] absurd and not factual at all.”
There it is said out loud. The prosecutor stopped circling and puts it to him directly. There was never a second bag. There was one bag, the same one he palmed and slipped into her purse, then pretended to find. Wester calls it absurd. So, the prosecutor does something simple. He checks every place a real second bag would have to show up.
Is it in your written report? No. Does your own camera ever show you talking about it? No. Did you say one word about it to the backup deputy standing right there? No. To the woman you were arresting? No. A real thing leaves a trace. This one exists in exactly one place. His testimony years later with a conviction on the line.
There was no second bag. There was one bag and he was holding it.
“Mr. Wester, your report doesn’t document a second bag. Does it?”
“It does not.”
“The video never shows you speaking to Deputy Heke about a second bag, does it?”
“It does not.”
“Or the female deputy who’s later on scene, does it?”
“It does not.”
“And you never mention a second bag to Mr. Mrs. Odum, do you?”
“No, I do not.”
“Now, you’ve testified on direct that there was a long piece of hair on the bag that you pulled out of Mrs. Odum’s purse that had meth in it. Correct.”
“That is correct.”
“She had several hair brushes in there, didn’t she?”
“From what I recall, I believe there were one or two. Yeah.”
“Okay. And the video shows what it shows. Correct.”
“That is correct.”
“Okay. Now you say that the hair in addition to being on the outside of the bag was also inside the bag which was closed shut. Is that right?”
“That is what is depicted on the photograph. Correct.”
“Okay. And that’s of course an item of evidence just like the video. Correct.”
“Yes sir. That’s correct.”
“And you say that the hair was inside as well. Correct.”
“Yes sir. That is correct.”
“in in a possession case, identity, you know, who who possessed it is clearly an issue. Correct.”
“Yes.”
“You’re aware that a hair would contain DNA. Correct.”
“Correct.”
“Did you put that piece of hair into evidence? Did you uh when you submitted your methamphetamine and spoon in evidence, did you put that hair into evidence?”
“As I testified earlier, when Mr. Davis was asking me questions,”
“Yes, sir.”
“I I want to make it clear, I did not see the hair on the bag on the traffic stop, it wasn’t until we reviewed the video after the investigation in the photos that I observed the hair in the bag. But to answer your question, Mr. Williams, if I would have seen a hair, yes, I would have put that in the evidence. Absolutely.”
“Not in evidence, though. And I think I understand your explanation by you’re saying you didn’t realize it until this case was and you were reviewing the evidence. Correct.”
“Yes, sir. That is correct.”
“Understood. Understood. So, if that’s the case, you would not have an independent recollection as to whether that hair really isn’t that bad, would you?”
“I’m basing my testimony off of what I saw on the photograph.”
“Okay, fair enough. Well, likewise, I believe you testified on direct about the spoon that it had some kind of some kind of burning on the bottom of it. Is that right?”
“Um, I believe that’s correct. Yes.”
“Do we have um does the video, do you believe, does it show the bottom of the spoon and show that burning?”
“at one point, and I don’t remember exactly in the video, but I believe as I’m placing the spoon maybe into the evidence bag, but at some point during the video, yes, you can see the bottom of the spoon and you can see um black mark, which is consistent with that of a burn mark.”
“You think that’s on the video?”
“I believe so.”
“Showing the burn mark,”
“I believe. So,”
“did you choose to take any photographs of the spoon in this case?”
“Yes.”
“Those are not included in the case file, are they?”
“I I don’t believe so.”
“Okay. And you’re aware that the spoon is an item of evidence in this case? It’s in one of those boxes over there.”
“Yes. Correct.”
“Nothing else, judge.”
“All right. Mr. Davis, you want a break before any redirect or you want to go ahead with your redirect at this time? If it’s going to be less than 10 minutes, we’ll go ahead. If you think it’s going to be more than 10, we’re going to take a recess.”
“I think it’s going to be short. Your honor.”
“Okay. Let’s get it done.”
“Thank you. Good afternoon again, Mr. Wester.”
“Good afternoon.”
“Just want to hit a couple of points with you. Um, Mr. Williams was asking about the stop of Teresa Odum. That first bag that you find that we see in your hand, did it feel like there was anything in it?”
“No, it didn’t feel like anything was in it at all.”
“So, did that help you start to maybe think that there was no evidentary value to it?”
“That is correct.”
“Nothing further. Thank you.”
“All right. Uh here’s what we’re going to do. I’ll bring the jury in. Um the baiff will bring me uh the verdict form. I will review the verdict form. There are over 60 counts. So, it’s going to take me a couple minutes cuz it’s my responsibility to make sure that the verdict form is completely filled out, signed, and dated. So, please give me a second to go through that verdict form to make sure it is correct. If it’s not correct, then I’ll have to bring the attorneys up and we’ll have to talk about how we’re going to deal with it. But, just understand with that many counts, it’s going to take me a minute or two to go through it before I hand it to the uh clerk. Uh when I go through it, make sure it is a completed verdict form. I will hand it to the clerk. I will ask him to publish it to the jury uh read it uh out loud and uh and he will go through the counts one by one. Uh and he is prepared to do that. He will do that at the podium. Once he is done uh reading the verdict uh I will give uh the instruction on discharge 4.2. At that point in time, we will release our jury. After our jury has been completely released, uh we will regroup and talk about where we’re going to proceed from there. So, just understand that’s the process we’re going to go through. Uh after we uh release the jury, uh we will uh deal with the verdict uh here in open court with uh the state and the defendant uh as well. Uh but again, we’re going to release the jury before we do that. Any questions, Mr. Williams?”
“No.”
“Mr. Davis, any questions? All right, Mr. Foreman, has the jury reached a verdict? If you will hand the verdict form to our baiff and he will walk it to me, please.”
“Thank you, M.”
“We’ll ask the clerk to go ahead and publish the verdict.”
“[clears throat] In the state of Florida versus Zachary Tyler Wester, case number 19- CF-431. We the jury find as follows as to the counts charged in the information.
Count one, guilty of rakateeering as charged.
Count seven, guilty of official misconduct related to Terresa Odum as charged.
Count nine, guilty of official misconduct related to Joshua Emanuel as charged.
Count 10, guilty of official misconduct related to Steven Van as charged.
Count 19, guilty of perjury related to Terresa Odum as charged.
Count 21, guilty of perjury related to Joshua Emanuel as charged.
Count 22, guilty of perjury related to Steven Van as charged.
Count 31, guilty of fabricating evidence related to Theresa Odum as charged.
Count 33, guilty of fabricating evidence related to Joshua Emanuel, as charged.
Count 34, guilty of fabricating evidence related to Steven Van as charged.
Count 41, guilty of possession of controlled substance related to February 15th, 2018. As charged.
Count 64, guilty of false imprisonment related to Terresa Odum. As charged.”
“Judge, this sentencing is a little different for me. Um, in most cases, I am here um arguing downward departures um asking for a below the guideline sentence. Um, we’re not doing that today. Um, we are not going to ask you to go below the guidelines. Mr. Wester is here today and he knows that he’s going to be sentenced to prison today. It’s just a matter of how much time is he going to be sentenced to prison. He will never be a law enforcement officer again, but he will continue to be and will always be a husband, a son, and and a friend to those that know him. Judge, we’re asking you to consider also that he does have no prior record, which I think is something that is very important in this case, um that he has done good and he will continue to do good. And we’re asking the court to consider a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines of 81.4 months in prison. Thank you.”
“At this time, I’m going to go ahead and adjudicate Mr. Wester uh guilty. I am going to go ahead and give Mr. Wester 58 days jail credit in this case. There are court costs and fines of $1,65. And I’m going to go ahead, Mr. Wester, if you’ll step. I’m going to get you fingerprinted at this time, sir.”
The jury found Zachary Wester guilty. Official misconduct, perjury, fabricating evidence, false imprisonment, racketeering, 12 and a half years in prison. On his way out, the deputy was fingerprinted like every person he had ever booked. By then, prosecutors had thrown out around 120 of his cases, and 33 people he had framed had settled lawsuits against him and the sheriff’s office.
I will be straight with you about where this stands because it is not fully finished. An appeals court later threw out one count, the racketeering charge on a narrow technicality that one man acting alone cannot by himself be a criminal enterprise under that law. Every conviction for planning evidence and framing innocent drivers was upheld. That technical question reached the Florida Supreme Court in early 2026 and is re-sentencing is still to come. But you do not need the final number to know what you watched. A man sworn to find the truth, built a lie with his own hands, and then took the stand and tried to sell it one more time. The camera did not shade the story. It did not remember it wrong. It just recorded. and 12 jurors saw exactly what it saw.
