HORRIFIC🚨INJUSTICE: ACQUITTAL = TO 24 YEARS IN PRISON, EVIDENCE 🔎🔬🔍DENIED!

Forensic evidence from a nationally recognized expert was developed but never presented, creating a strong claim of actual innocence or wrongful conviction on assault charges.

THE FACIAL IMAGE BELOW SHOWS THE BRUTALITY LEWIS ENDURED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT. https://www.facebook.com/share/157zVdfqQKp/ “A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL’S MOST CRITICAL VALUE ASIDE FROM THEIR HEART AND COMPASSION FOR PEOPLE AND DEDICATION FOR SERVICE, IS INTEGRITY, WHEN THAT IS LOST, IT JEOPARDIZES EVERYTHING THEY’VE TOUCHED! AS IN THE CASE HERE” QUOTED BY OSWALD LEWIS, IN ONE OF HIS COURT FILINGS.

Oswald Jay Lewis was denied a fair trial. In light of the serious constitutional violations he suffered at the hands of law enforcement, justice demands that this miscarriage be rectified.

Mr. Lewis, a successful Brooklyn, New York business owner in real estate and retail, was thrust into a nightmare of legal injustice. He was forced to represent himself in federal court against one of the most egregious charges imaginable—attempted murder of law enforcement officers. Despite this immense burden, Mr. Lewis was acquitted, defending himself pro se. His case exposes deep flaws within the American criminal justice system.

On August 26, 2014, Mr. Lewis was arrested on a fugitive federal warrant issued in Virginia in 1991, more than two decades earlier. The arrest, carried out by United States Marshals and New York City detectives, involved serious constitutional violations.

According to both police reports and court documents, Mr. Lewis’s account of the events is more accurate and consistent than those offered by the arresting officers.

During the execution of the warrant, Mr. Lewis was shot in his left wrist while his hands were raised in a shielding gesture. He recalls opening his bedroom door around 11:00 PM to investigate loud noises coming from his front door, which was being breached. At that moment, he saw an armed intruder pointing a weapon at him. Believing it to be a home invasion, he raised his hand defensively and shouted, “Get the f*** out! I got kids!”

The intruder—later identified as a United States Marshal—shot Mr. Lewis without provocation. He then retreated into the bedroom and shut the door, but the marshal continued firing through the closed door. A photo below shows the damaged bedroom door through which federal agents continued shooting while Mr. Lewis sought refuge inside.

Court records reveal multiple inconsistencies in law enforcement accounts of the incident. Notably, spent shell casings from the marshals’ firearms were scattered across the living room floor, near the front door—supporting Mr. Lewis’s version of events and undermining the official narratives.

The forensic expert Peter R. DE Forest, in his sworn affidavit, stated “I conducted such an investigation and concluded, based on the available evidence, that the documented shots were all fired from the reported location of law enforcement officers to the direction of the bedroom then occupied by Oswald Lewis, and that there was no physical evidence of shots fired by Mr. Lewis from the bedroom in the reported direction of the officers inside the house”

https://forensicresources.org/experts/peter-de-forest/

https://www.newhaven.edu/faculty-staff-profiles/brooke-kammrath.php

The case of Oswald Lewis v. United States (14-523-ILG) is extraordinarily complex and voluminous. Even for an experienced investigative reporter, it would require significant effort to unravel the apparent misconduct and corruption surrounding the proceedings. This complexity worked to the government’s advantage: allegations of police and federal misconduct went largely unchallenged—not due to lack of merit, but because of the overwhelming effort required to confront agencies such as the U.S. Marshals, ATF, and NYPD.

The case was riddled with contradictory witness statements, inconclusive forensic evidence, and overlapping investigative efforts by multiple law enforcement entities. Of particular concern is the involvement of U.S. Marshals in the shooting incident central to the case. Yet, during the trial, the government’s focus shifted almost entirely to two firearms found at Mr. Lewis’s residence, rather than the conduct and weapons used by the federal agents.

Crucially, NYPD ballistic expert Johnathan Fox testified that he did not test-fire any of the weapons used by the U.S. Marshals, leaving a major gap in the forensic evidence. This omission raises serious questions about the integrity of the investigation and the objectivity of the evidence presented to the jury.

In stark contrast, the government relied on NYPD Firearms Analysts,not “independent” forensic experts. These analysts: Focused on firearm operability and shell casing matching, not “incident reconstruction.” Further, their testimony did not refute the defense’s forensic conclusions.

As cited in case (14-523-Ilg) Lewis v. United States of America, trial transcripts (pp. 378 line 20, and pages 384,394,399-402) show the inconclusive and distracting nature of the government’s experts testimony, which failed to demonstrate Mr. Lewis’s culpability with respect to intent or assault.

During deliberations, the jury requested visual evidence—specifically, diagrams showing where bullet casings were found both inside and outside the residence, as well as clarification on which casings were linked to which firearms and who the weapons belonged to. Shockingly, instead of providing the actual diagrams that were part of the government’s own trial exhibits, prosecutors submitted transcripts of testimony as a substitute. This deprived the jury of crucial physical evidence that may have contradicted the government’s narrative.

In fact, the NYPD crime scene diagrams clearly illustrated that the interior shots came from U.S. Marshals, not Mr. Lewis, and that bullet fragments found outside the house—specifically in a shed—were inconclusive and could not be matched to any known firearm.

According to trial transcripts there was no conclusive evidence of a fired bullet, that match the firearms that Lewis use to fire the warning shots. Most likely because the government knew, that the warning shots that Lewis fired into the air conditioning unit and the air, would not prove assault charges. The jury never heard these facts in evidence, because Lewis was denied his due process and never got a chance to testify, or present any evidence for his defense.

During the shooting incident, in fear of his life Lewis retrieved an unlicensed firearm and fired two warning shots, one into an air conditioning unit shown below, and one in the air outside the back window to his apartment. According to police reports, someone was yelling for help and an ambulance, saying they got shot. The audio of the NYPD dispatches were released on YouTube, via justice for Oswald Lewis. —also captured a dispatcher stating: “There’s U.S. Marshals on the scene in plain clothes… again, there’s U.S. Marshals on the scene in plain clothes.”

Court records confirm that Lewis was in shock, believing the bullet that struck his wrist had severed an artery. A neighbor also called 911 to report that someone had been shot and required immediate medical assistance. After exiting his apartment, bleeding from his wrist, Lewis was arrested. Despite his injury, handcuffs were placed directly over the gunshot wound.

During interviews conducted by the Queens District Attorney’s Office, U.S. Marshals acknowledged Lewis’s injury and admitted to placing handcuffs on his bleeding wrist. They also confirmed that Lewis asked them, “Why didn’t you say you were police?” Their accounts of the incident were riddled with contradictions, including inconsistencies about how many shots were fired and where Lewis was standing at the time.

In an initial affidavit, an ATF agent claimed that Lewis encountered the marshals in a hallway while wearing a bulletproof vest. However, video footage from the ATF shows that the apartment had no hallway, directly contradicting the agent’s sworn statement.

While Lewis was face-down on the pavement and in handcuffs, a U.S. Marshal kicked him in the head and face, causing serious injuries. The visible injuries he sustained, as shown above, are evidence of the brutal and excessive force used during the execution of the arrest warrant.

After his arrest, Oswald Lewis was taken to Jamaica Hospital in Queens, New York, but was removed by U.S. Marshals before receiving urgently needed surgery. He was then transported to the notorious Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn, New York, despite being in critical medical condition. At MDC, Lewis was placed in solitary confinement for over fifty days, during which time his injuries were severely neglected. His wrist had a gaping hole—clearly visible in the photograph below—and was bleeding profusely.

The medical staff at MDC were unable to properly treat the wound or stop the bleeding. In desperation, Lewis began writing to the court, pleading for medical assistance. In response, the judge issued an order directing MDC to show cause as to why Lewis was being denied necessary medical treatment, specifically the removal of a bullet lodged in his elbow. Lewis also raised concerns about numerous constitutional violations and requested the court’s intervention.

He alerted the court to obstruction of justice and misconduct committed by U.S. Marshals during his arrest, citing Case No. 14-523-ILG, Docket #136, as well as other filings (Docket #24, #30, and #50), which documented dehumanizing treatment and constitutional violations. Lewis also attempted to clarify facts regarding a 24-year-old arrest warrant—pointing out that he had never been arrested in Virginia, despite claims to the contrary.

Despite the compelling evidence of police misconduct and possible misidentification, Federal District Judge I. Leo Glasser, known for his deference to law enforcement, ignored the majority of Lewis’s complaints.

Lewis did not stop seeking justice. He filed formal complaints with the New York Attorney General’s Office, the U.S. Marshals Service Headquarters, and the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C.

Once removed from solitary confinement, Lewis began seeking legal representation. However, his efforts were interrupted by the need for multiple surgeries. While still in custody awaiting trial at MDC, Lewis underwent surgery on his median nerve, which had been severely damaged when a .40 caliber bullet fired by a Marshal tore through his left hand. Nearly a year later, he finally received another surgery to remove the bullet that had remained lodged in his elbow.

After four months in custody, Oswald Lewis declined a plea agreement offered by his then-attorney, Christopher Booth. The plea deal proposed a sentence of ten years for the shooting incident and an additional ten years for a decades-old Virginia arrest warrant. Disturbingly, the plea required Lewis to waive his rights under the statute of limitations and consent to indictment in the Eastern District of New York. Such an arrangement would have nullified any statute of limitations protections related to the 24-year-old Virginia warrant, effectively reviving a claim that would otherwise be legally obsolete. The charges were to run consecutively, resulting in a multi-decade prison sentence.

Our investigation has revealed no police records or admissible evidence indicating that Mr. Lewis was ever arrested in Virginia. The arrest warrant, which was more than two decades old, simply listed the name “Oswald Lewis Jr., Black Male”—with no unique identifiers such as date of birth, social security number, or fingerprints. Despite Lewis’s repeated objections that he was the wrong individual, those claims were overshadowed by the events surrounding his arrest, specifically the shooting incident that occurred during execution of the warrant.

It appears law enforcement acted on incomplete or outdated information. Over twenty years prior, Lewis had been associated with two arrest warrants related to drug charges stemming from being a passenger in a vehicle where drugs were found. Importantly, both cases were dismissed. Nonetheless, the NCIC (National Crime Information Center) database continued to list the warrants as active, misleading authorities into believing that Mr. Lewis was a wanted fugitive.

At the time of his 2014 arrest, Lewis was 44 years old. He had been just 19 years old at the time of the original Virginia warrants and had no subsequent criminal infractions for over 24 years. Despite this clean record, media narratives fueled by law enforcement portrayed him as a drug trafficker and fugitive, significantly prejudicing public perception and undermining his claims of mistaken identity.

Mr. Lewis was arrested on August 26, 2014. However, the government did not file formal charges for nearly six months. It was not until February 25, 2015, that Mr. Lewis was indicted for assault on U.S. Marshals in a superseding indictment. Even more concerning, it took an additional three months—a full nine months after his arrest—for the government to charge Mr. Lewis with attempted murder of U.S. Marshals and NYPD detectives, through another superseding indictment on May 13, 2015. These extended delays in filing charges, particularly for such serious allegations, raise serious due process concerns and suggest a reactive, rather than evidence-based, prosecution strategy.

Further undermining the credibility of the prosecution, on April 20, 2020, Robert Ledogar, the U.S. Deputy Marshal and on-scene supervisor during Mr. Lewis’s arrest, was terminated from the U.S. Marshals Service for lack of candor and conduct unbecoming of a federal law enforcement officer. As the supervisory officer during the incident in question, Ledogar’s misconduct casts significant doubt on the integrity of the arrest operation and the subsequent investigation. His termination supports Mr. Lewis’s longstanding claims that the circumstances of his arrest were not only flawed but potentially tainted by official misconduct.

According to multiple court filings and supporting records, former law enforcement officer Robert Ledogar played a central role in the prosecution of Mr. Oswald Lewis. Ledogar was the subject of numerous formal complaints by Mr. Lewis prior to his termination from law enforcement on unrelated matters. In sworn statements and filings, Mr. Lewis argued that:

“Under the circumstances, every case with which Ledogar was involved where a complaint was made should be reopened and revisited, particularly with regard to the instant case, due in part to the countless complaints concerning Ledogar’s false statements.”

Lewis further warned of the broader implications of corrupt law enforcement involvement, stating:

“When law enforcement leadership is weak, that is precisely when you see more police brutality, more corruption, more times where situations get out of control.”

He asserted that:

“Robert Ledogar’s involvement presented an unconstitutional risk to the integrity and reputation of the judicial proceedings.”

Following Ledogar’s termination, Mr. Lewis petitioned the Department of Justice to reopen his case based on these serious allegations and their impact on the fairness of his trial.

In addition to concerns about law enforcement misconduct, Mr. Lewis has been held for over ten years without receiving any substantive information regarding an arrest warrant reportedly originating from Virginia. In open court, the presiding judge explicitly stated that Virginia had no role in the case and that the court would focus solely on the conduct of the arrest. The absence of any disclosed records or justification for the Virginia warrant raises potential statute of limitations issues and due process violations.

Furthermore, prior to trial, the court appointed two of the nation’s most respected forensic experts, Professor Peter DeForest and Dr. Brooke Kammrath, under the Criminal Justice Act (Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A) to conduct a forensic analysis of the crime scene. Their findings were deeply troubling:

All gunfire inside the apartment originated from law enforcement.

There was no forensic evidence indicating that Mr. Lewis fired upon or toward U.S. Marshals.

These findings call into question the central narrative that led to Mr. Lewis’s conviction and suggest the possibility of a miscarriage of justice grounded in official misconduct and faulty prosecutorial evidence.

Compelling exculpatory evidence that could have exonerated Oswald Lewis was never presented to the jury. The trial judge, Hon. Leo Glasser of the Eastern District of New York, precluded the expert witness testimony based on the claim that it was filed late. However, court records show that both the court and the government had been aware of the proposed expert testimony months before trial. The judge’s harsh sanction unfairly tipped the scales in favor of the prosecution, giving them a significant tactical advantage and further compounding the series of denials that impaired Mr. Lewis’s right to mount a full defense.

On the morning of trial, Judge Glasser denied Mr. Lewis the right to be represented by his retained attorney, Robert Feldman. Instead, Lewis was given a coercive ultimatum: either represent himself or proceed with court-appointed counsel, David Stern. The judge justified this denial by claiming Lewis was attempting to delay the trial by switching lawyers. This reasoning was not only unsupported by the record—it was irrational. Both Lewis and Feldman were present in court and ready to proceed to trial. The court made no inquiries into Feldman’s readiness and did not permit Feldman or Stern to clarify the situation on the record. Feldman was prepared to try the case, but the court refused to let him speak.

Over the 22 months the case was pending, Lewis had only changed attorneys for good cause. In fact, the court docket reflects that Sam Talkin, one of his prior attorneys, withdrew on his own motion. During this extended pretrial period, discovery was ongoing, and Lewis faced a complex case involving police use of force and ballistics—matters that demanded counsel familiar with such technical evidence.

David Stern himself acknowledged the case’s complexity in a letter to the court, stating:

“My review of the discovery leads me to believe that more time than originally requested will be required for this case to be adequately prepared. This is a complex case with a chaotic crime scene, which I need a criminalist to help me fully understand.”

Mr. Lewis’s decision to hire Robert Feldman was well justified, particularly because Stern expressed hesitancy about calling expert witnesses whose testimony would have been exculpatory. These expert findings could have cast serious doubt on the government’s case—possibly leading to an acquittal—but Stern vacillated on presenting them. Even more troubling, Stern requested that a Criminal Justice Act (CJA) attorney be present in court to assist Mr. Lewis with his own testimony. The judge ignored this request, and as a result, Lewis was denied the opportunity to testify in his own defense.

These procedural missteps and judicial decisions—denying retained counsel, suppressing exculpatory expert testimony, and denying Lewis the ability to testify—cumulatively deprived Lewis of his constitutional right to a fair trial. Had he been allowed to present a full defense, the outcome of the trial could have been very different.

In a dramatic and troubling courtroom exchange, the constitutional rights of Oswald Lewis appeared to be eroded in plain view—raising serious questions about the fairness of his trial and the integrity of the judicial process.

During a key court hearing, attorney David Stern informed the judge that he and his client, Oswald Lewis, were having serious disagreements. Stern pointed out that another attorney, Robert Feldman, was present in court and wished to address the bench. Rather than acknowledging Feldman, the judge dismissed the matter entirely and ordered Stern to remain as Lewis’s advisor or standby attorney.

Stern protested. “Judge, I’ve never done this before, to be honest with you,” he admitted in open court. He emphasized his unfamiliarity with the responsibilities of a standby attorney and asked for guidance. The judge responded curtly, directing Stern to read the Supreme Court case McKaskle v. Wiggins, which outlines the limited role of standby counsel when a defendant chooses to represent themselves.

Yet the judge failed to acknowledge the core issue: Lewis never willingly chose to proceed without a lawyer. Instead, he was forced into that position after his preferred counsel was denied the opportunity to speak, and his court-appointed attorney was unwilling and unprepared to take an active role in the defense.

Despite the circumstances, the judge declared: “Mr. Lewis has elected to proceed pro se. Mr. Lewis can act as his own lawyer.” This assertion, however, contradicted the reality that Lewis had not voluntarily waived his right to counsel—a fundamental protection under the Sixth Amendment.

What followed underscored the imbalance. The judge made a disparaging remark, stating, “He may have heard the adage that he who has himself for a client has a fool for a lawyer.” Lewis objected: “Your honor, you’re not giving me a fair chance to defend my case.” The judge brushed aside the complaint, saying Lewis could raise fairness issues “at a later time,” then ordered jury selection to begin.

Despite having no time to prepare, Lewis was forced to proceed to trial that same day. He requested a delay to prepare an adequate defense—an entirely reasonable and constitutionally protected request. The judge denied it. With no lawyer beside him, Lewis was pushed into delivering his opening statement on the fly.

“This is not prepared,” Lewis began. “And I’m here defending myself because I was refused a lawyer today. So this was not planned. I was not here to defend myself. I had a lawyer; the judge refused my lawyer. So, I have government lawyers assisting me with this… so bear with me. I’m not a lawyer.”

Before the jury, Lewis admitted his confusion and frustration, while also maintaining his position that the government’s portrayal of him was false. “I take full responsibility for the firearm, because I did use it,” he told the jury, “but I’m not violent. I was not a fugitive.”

This case illustrates a cascade of judicial errors and violations of constitutional protections. Lewis’s right to counsel was denied when the judge rejected Feldman without a hearing. His right to a fair trial was denied when he was refused time to prepare after being compelled to represent himself. The judge’s behavior—particularly the sarcastic and dismissive tone toward a man forced to act as his own attorney—raises serious questions about judicial impartiality and due process.

According to Faretta v. California (422 U.S. 806, 1975), a defendant has the right to refuse counsel only when the decision is made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. That standard was clearly not met here. In fact, Lewis explicitly objected to proceeding without a lawyer. His request for counsel was denied, his choice of lawyer was ignored, and he was pushed into a complex legal proceeding without basic preparation—all in violation of established legal precedent.

Moreover, this denial of rights may constitute structural error—a category of constitutional error so grave that it undermines the entire framework of the trial, requiring reversal regardless of the outcome (Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 1991).

The case of Oswald Lewis is more than a legal technicality—it’s a reminder that justice cannot be done when the rules are ignored. A man who stood before the court, asking only for fair representation, was instead ridiculed, denied time, and left to defend himself in a system stacked against him.

As efforts for clemency or post-conviction relief move forward, the troubling facts of this trial deserve a closer look—not just as legal arguments, but as a call to reaffirm the constitutional promise that every person, regardless of circumstance, is entitled to a fair trial and effective legal representation.

After giving the jury his opening statements, the trial proceeded for the next four days. Lewis had to crossed examine eleven law enforcement officers witnesses, including United States Marshals, ATF agents, NYPD detectives and the prosecutions NYPD ballistics experts.

According to the trial transcripts Lewis’s cross-examination actually exposed enough facts, that led the jury to lose credibiity for the law enforement witnesses.

At the end of the trial Lewis gave his closing arguments displaying police reports that contradicted the testimony of law enforcement. But the jury could not use closing arguments as evidence because Lewis had not presented the evidence under oath, and on the witness stand. (Because closing arguments are not considered evidence in a courtroom).

Lewis was left with the jury being only legally obligated to using their common sense. And that is exactly what the jurors did.

After the verdict came in, Lewis was acquitted in federal court of the two counts of attempted murder on U.S. marshals and NYPD detectives. The jury did not fully believe the credibiity of the eleven law enforcement officers who had tesifed.

Futrermore, the jury acquitted Lewis of those charges without ever hearing or even being aware of the forensic experts Deforest and Kammarth. Nor did the jury hear any testimony from Lewis. Which more than likely would have changed the outcome.

Nevertheless at sentencing for the crimes of the “seemingly ambiguous” assault charges, and the related firearms charges, the judge sentenced Lewis to the maximum sentence he could give him, and sentenced Lewis to twenty four years in federal prison, for firing a firearm into an air conditioning unit and being a felon in possession of firearms.

The last words Lewis said after the judge sentenced him was.. ” you just sentenced an innocent man basically to life” I didn’t do this crime”.

Lewis hired the appeals Attorney Raymond Aab a former New York city detective and the former head of the CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD (CCRB). Raymond Aab has stated that “oswald Lewis was railroaded”. https://www.raymondaab.com/

The constitutional violations include the denial of his rights to testify , the improper restriction of his retained lawyer and the obstruction of exculpatory defense witness. These violations compounded the miscarriage of justice that resulted in a 288 months sentenced out of step with both the jury findings and the broader facts of the case.

Due process protections apply to all criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court has held that due process requires criminal proceedings be conducted according to principles of fundamental fairness. The Supreme court has stated fundamental fairness requires that disclosure of the evidence against him, the opportunity to be heard in person and present witnesses, evidence, further the defendant must have an opportunity to refute or impeach the evidence against him in order to assure that only verified facts will be relied in his conviction.

The Supreme court also recognizes that denying a defendant the right to testify on their own behalf at trial constitutes a due process violation.

Despite the clear exculpatory nature of the experts proposed testimony. Professor Peter Deforest and Dr Brooke Kammarth was never called to testify. After Lewis’s trial Professor Deforst submitted his own affidavit that contradicts the law enforcement narratives. David Stern and Robert Feldman also submitted affidavits on Mr. Lewis’s behalf.

Oswald Lewis’s case represents a trial that was irreparably flawed. These constitutional violations significantly undermine the integrity of the trial and call into question the legitimacy of the resulting conviction and the integrity of our judicial system.

Clemency/commutation or even a full pardon. would serve justice by recognizing the breakdown in due process and the compelling scientific evidence that cast reasonable doubt. Lewis has been in federal prison for over ten years all because of the failures of our judicial system and the denial of due process.

Thanks to the investigative journalists who took the time to research the facts and evidence of this case. James winn/ Maria Sanchez/ Ian Khan