WEBSITE CLAIMS VS TRIAL REALITY

Attorney: Paul Zachary Olah

Law Firm: Luftman, Heck & Associates LLP

WHAT THE WEBSITE SAYS

“There is no political agenda in defense work. There is only the client’s best interest.”

WHAT HAPPENED AT TRIAL

In the State v. Markale Lundy trial, the defense failed to present critical evidence that supported my innocence.

WHAT THE WEBSITE SAYS

“A passionate and detail-oriented advocate.”

WHAT HAPPENED AT TRIAL

The defense did not call the DNA expert who could have explained the forensic evidence and challenged the prosecution’s narrative.

WHAT THE WEBSITE SAYS

“Helping clients navigate difficult criminal charges.”

WHAT HAPPENED AT TRIAL

Instead of aggressively challenging the prosecution’s claims, misleading testimony about DNA evidence went unchallenged in front of the jury.

WHAT THE WEBSITE SAYS

“Guiding clients through trial.”

WHAT HAPPENED AT TRIAL

The jury never heard the full scientific explanation of the evidence that could have changed the outcome of the case.

WHAT THE WEBSITE SAYS

“Working to accomplish the client’s goals.”

WHAT HAPPENED AT TRIAL

The result was a conviction that could have been avoided if the defense had presented the available evidence and witnesses.

THE QUESTION THAT REMAINS

If a defense attorney claims their mission is to protect the client’s best interest, the public deserves to ask one simple question:

Why was the critical DNA testimony never presented to the jury?

When a jury does not hear the full truth about the evidence, justice is not served.