represent yourself in court, pro se, brady material, giglio material, Quianna Canada, campaign professional, Running From Empty Shoes, Author, texas/austin/quianna-canada, office-of-the-state-attorney-13th-judicial-circuit-drop-all-criminal-charges-against-ms-quianna-s-canadaJust what are 8 Secrets Judges and Prosecutors don’t want you to know? Have you been called a social gadfly? Do you pose questions about the community or law that you believe the government overlooks? Do you persistently challenge authority, and if so, can you carry on this polemic and  stand with the very best orators in a courtroom?

Wait a minute—I’ll back up and start from the beginning: one day someone implicated you (or you implicated someone) in an incident (criminal or civil), now you’re required to appear in court. What do you do? Do you hire an attorney, get a public defender, or act on your own behalf and carry on with this polemic  in a courtroom? Self-representation or pro se (pro-say), is a Latin phrase meaning “for oneself” or “on one’s own behalf.”

You’re thinking, ‘represent myself is that possible? Only fools rush in where angels fear to tread’. So you have it on good authority that individuals who represent themselves in court have a fool for a client, but what makes the endeavor foolish? Representing yourself is not foolish in my opinion—there is nothing senseless about exercising your constitutional right; however, if you step in Perry Mason’s shoes and fail to recognize the machinations of the court, your experience can take a treacherous turn that could land you in jail, but we’ll talk about that later.

 If you live in the state of Texas, The Texas Constitution, Article 1 section 3, states “All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done them, in their lands, good, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.” There is a variant of the article in the state of Oregon, and if you live there, Article 1 section 10 of that Constitution says, “ No Court shall be secret, but justice shall be administered, openly and with purchase, completely and without delay, and every person shall have remedy by due course of law for injury done them in their person, property, or reputation.”

This worthy inclusion  has supplemented the Bill of Rights for two-hundred years, logical yet still unorthodox to some, our founding fathers recognized the concepts and importance of going pro se.  So, we’ve already established you’re pretty good at challenging authority when your rights are challenged, but can you research facts? Can you contest legal arguments intellectually and/or practically, and most importantly, does speaking in front of a live courtroom audience (I often clam up) make you fearful? Think about this for a moment.

Before you embark on your Constitutional adventure, I’ll share  8 secrets judges and prosecutors don’t want you to know:


Your Neat Appearance Will Not Earn The Judges’ Respect

Esthetically and hygienically speaking, fresh and clean is always nice; however, judges don’t rule on motions or decide cases based the clothes you wear, how your hair is cut, or if your aroma reaches them on the bench. In my experience, judges discriminate on pro se defendants who are well-dressed because they feel you’re disguising the alleged “criminal aspect” of yourself. It’s not that they want to evoke the criminal in you, but think about the Cinderella story: she arrives beautifully (or handsomely) in “glass slippers” but when the clock strikes midnight, Cinderella’s true nature is a peasant in rags. A way for you to shatter this stereotype judges have on defendants is by presenting solid facts, and do so, eloquently.


They Use Politeness to Distract You

“Judicial influence” or “judicial intention” (a type of red herring) has transpired for years throughout America’s courtrooms. Judges were once attorneys; it’s not uncommon that they will attempt to change your thoughts and beliefs when it comes to the questionable judicial system. This is known as thought reform or brainwashing. A judge will use it to distract you from raising any relevant and important arguments.

A judge may smile, tell you that you’re doing an amazing job, or that you hit on some good points; and if this is true, they should have no qualms when ruling in favor of your motion. Sometimes they tell you that you haven’t made any valid arguments when you have: stick to the rules of evidence and statutes.  If the judge doesn’t rule in favor after you properly presented factual circumstances that are material  at issue, or after researching the underlying law extensively, you might be up against a conservative defender of old courtroom corruption.


You’re Not Their Equal

Aristotle stated, “Equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally.” To find out if a judge is non-partisan (like I did), ask the judge on record to order the prosecution to comply with a request that’s probative. For instance, if you don’t believe the prosecution is giving you all discovery, say “Your Honor, I don’t believe what I received from the prosecution is complete and accurate, can you order them to send a certified letter stating…” If the judge says, ‘I can’t because he’ll perjure himself’ or ‘he’d be subject to perjury, it’s possible you’re in a courtroom of cronyism. In my opinion, judges rule in favor of prosecutors ninety-five percent of the time, ninety-seven percent where pro se defendants are involved.


Your Subpoena Power

The Sixth Amendment guarantees you the opportunity to call witnesses and to have the court issue subpoenas to compel the witnesses to appear. But if you’re representing yourself, you’ll discover the courts ignore this constitutional right all the time, especially if the witness’ testimony is exculpatory and probative. Because you are not an attorney, the courts prohibit you from serving the subpoena upon the target. One way to issue it is to have a friend put the subpoena in the targets hand. If you have no reliable source, consider hiring a good process server. Issue a subpoena (if you have the money) to any and everyone that might substantiate your claims.


Brady and Giglio is The Conduit to Impeach A Discreditable Law Enforcement Officer

Brady v. Maryland was the landmark United States Supreme Court case where the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence from a criminal defendant. In the span of the 1972 case, Giglio v. United States, prosecutors promised a  witness (for the state) immunity from prosecution for their testimony and failed to inform the jury. The courts ruled that prosecutors failed to fulfill the duty to present all material evidence to the jury, and constituted a violation of due process, requiring a new trial. No matter what a judge or prosecutor may tell you, the Federal Rules of Evidence permits you to cross-examine a police officer on issues relating to bias or untruthfulness, their prior inconsistent statements, and possible criminal record that’s hidden away in their file. No prosecutor or judge wants this material admitted because it could possibly exonerate you, not to mention, the community may lose trust in our police departments.

If you like this article, please and I’ll write an in-depth article on Brady and Giglio material.


They’ll Stack Witnesses Against (Strength In Numbers)

Cumulative testimony is identical or similar testimony made by more than one witness for the prosecution. The prosecution offers this type of testimony to indoctrinate the jury. There was a live trial I attended that highlighted the use of cumulative testimony. Now, before I tell you this, I want everyone to know that in no way, do I advocate predators that violate women sexually. In addition, when you become familiar with my story, you’ll understand why.

A young ADT employee was on trial for sexually assaulting an 80-year-old woman while in her home. The prosecution put 15 employees on the stand who testified that when the defendant came to work he had on a uniform, but when he literally plunged head first into the van, he didn’t have his uniform on, just his underwear. Can you imagine the effect that had on the jury?  The witnesses also testified that the defendant told everyone in the van that he raped the woman. Imagine if you were a juror and you heard 15 different people say, “He told me he raped her and she deserved it.”

Now you may think the statement or fact itself is pretty damaging, but in reality, it’s not and here’s why: if you knew of someone who didn’t consume alcohol but an individual told you the one who didn’t got wasted, you’d probably be in disbelief. You might consider doing your own investigation or write it off as hearsay. Now put yourself in the room with 15 people declaiming they saw this person, the one you know so well, who doesn’t drink alcohol, wasted to a point beyond control—the information becomes pretty cogent, right? That’s how cumulative testimony works. It’s like gas, it needs fire to burn. In theory, the trial court should limit this testimony, but quite often (if you’re representing yourself) they don’t.


If You Cause Them to Look Foolish, They’ll Find A Reason to Arrest You

Now Comes ruined pride if in the event you are successful in your arguments. A  prosecutor has the necessary resources to get revenge. It’s like the story of the tortoise and the hare, but in this story, the hare gets vengeful when he doesn’t win. We already know the commonality of police frame-ups, so imagine a kind of revenge where you are held in contempt of court or placed into custody at a court hearing. Picture a government where there’s no redress in grievances, only judicial connivance and the miscarriage of appeal-court procedures.When you’re a defendant representing yourself, you’ll need to save some “get-out-of-jail” money, or better yet, open up an emergency savings account in the event they had enough of you and decide to arrest you in court.

When you’re representing yourself in a cause, you’ll need to save some “get-out-of-jail” money, or better yet, open up an emergency savings account in the event they courts get sick of you and decide to arrest you in your hearing.


Staying aware of this cunning history in the judicial system and the manner in which judges and prosecutors counterattack very strongly goes a long way. Understand that some juries are “bought” to render a verdict of guilty. If the state offered you $15,000 to render a guilty verdict, would you do it?  Money isn’t the only way to buy a jury—consider reality control (brainwashing); or an individual’s social or celebrity status, race, gender, personal beliefs—all these things can “buy” a jury. Beware of hidden  jurors with latent schadenfreude for your misfortune.

I hope this article was informative.  If you are interested in reading more on this subject please 

ff0000;">DISCLAIMER: I am not an attorney. This blog does not provide legal advice. If you need legal advice, please contact an attorney directly.

About Quianna Canada

Quianna Canada is an anti-police brutality activist, author, and opinion writer living in the United States.
Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.

  • Knowledge is power. Information is liberating. Education is the premise of progress, in every society, in every family. ~Kofi Annan

    Education. Activism. History.