Prosecutorial  Misconduct

   If circumstantial evidence is the proof of facts then why does the evidence not have to be factual according to Prosector Matthew Reed (AZ). In the case of CR201900100. the prosecutor knew in the beginning that the defendant had good cause under A.R.S. 13-417 at least.  He knew there was cause for reasonable doubt and that alledged victim Winner contributed to the aggravated assault by first confrontation of approaching defendant. Numerous witness (Hope, Justin, and Michael) testified to that in their transcript. Hope said she saw someone with dog walk around car. Michael said he don't know why Winner ran up to the car , heard Defendant say " Don't run upon me motherfucker, Justin said Winner stood still, unmoveable like he was frozen. Micheal and Justin said the Defendant yelled "back the fuck up". The Prosecutor knew that this type of actions in the Defendant case even a reasonable person would construe Winner actions as a direct attack. The Prosecutor  knew that this type of actions from the alledged victim conduct contributed to the accidential discharge of a firearm. He knew that Defendant had a right . He ignored the facts that 4 witness said they thought Winner had gotten hit. The prosecutor ignored the facts that a reasonable person would have thought so too stopping abruptly, getting out of the car with no reckless intent just a moral obligation. The prosecutor knew the defendant has a history of PTSD, he had the records. He knew that even a reasonable person would think that if Joe kept advancing or not moving after being pushed and told to back the fuck up then alledged victim Winner contributed to the chain of events which happened next. A reasonable person with a gun in his hand who pushes you back and you are just standing there wouldn't think that you are not a threat to him.  A reasonable person let alone a person who strruggles with PTSD would look at it as a threat with no way to retreat. Any reasonabl person could see that turning his back to Winner wasn't an option based on his actions and reactions. How could he there was no time to fully access the situation. I wouldn't turn my back would you? Prosecutor Matthew Reed knew that his case was shaky which is why in Sept 2019, he went back to the grand jury and added MIchael and Justin to the case which happened on 01/05/2019 . It was 8 months after the fact and all of a sudden he come up with these additional charges with aggravator factors which was a red herring distraction. It is prosecutorial misconduct when you add onto a case just to get a conviction. His report to the grand jury was misleading and ommitted relevant factors that alledged victim Winner had a confrontation with defendant, alcohol level of .281 and that alledged victim had ran up to the defendant 1st. His misconduct was evident and prejudicial when he sought other charges. You can see the prejudice in alledged Victim Winner statement to police when he said "Why would a black person be in a white person neighborhood" and the other sterotype comments he made in reference to the Defendant. The Prosecutor Matthew Reed knew he didn't have a case of reckless intent to convict of attempted homicide of 2nd degree murder. His refusal to acquit based on the actual edvidence i and pursing anyway is a cause for dismissal. The only crime that Defendant should have been given or not given at all is accidental disgharge of a firearm due to the circumstances.  Prosecutor Matthew Reed committed the illegal act by swaying the jury to wrongfully convict the defendant and impose a harsher punishment with sentencing. The transcript taken on the date the incident occured is inconsistent statements of the alledged victim and witness and evidence which shows the alledged victim (Winner) did recklessly cause or start the chain of events which happened that night.