Background

(Michael is currently imprisoned at FMC Fort Worth Medical Center, 499 miles from our home. This is especially infuriating because there is a federal medical facility located in our own town. Under the First Step Act, inmates are supposed to be placed in the facility closest to their home, yet that mandate was completely disregarded in Michael’s case.

But the injustice doesn’t stop there. It gets worse. Much, much worse...)

The pursuit of justice often hinges on a simple yet critical principle—that all evidence, especially that which could exonerate the accused, must be made available. Such as CRITICAL EVIDENCE IN THE CASE!!! When this standard is ignored, the fairness of the trial collapses, leaving individuals and families to contend with life-altering consequences. This is where we find ourselves in the ongoing fight for Michael Sylvara, my husband, a man wrongfully convicted after the government suppressed key evidence that could have changed the course of his trials, plural.

Today, we share the heart of Michael’s appeal, a legal document that not only highlights the failures of the system but serves as a roadmap for what must change.

The Core of the Appeal

Michael’s appeal, led by Assistant Federal Public Defender Chelsea Wilson, centers on the government’s failure to disclose material evidence in both of his trials. This evidence, a misuse determination by the Social Security Administration (SSA), confirmed that over $11,500 of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) funds had been properly spent. Despite its importance, this document was withheld until eight months after Michael’s second trial, leaving the jury with a distorted narrative that ultimately led to his conviction.

At the heart of the case was an allegation that Michael misappropriated $42,000 from his father’s Social Security benefits. Yet records show that the government knowingly omitted the SSA determination, which validated the legality of a substantial portion of the funds in question. Without this evidence, the prosecution was able to fabricate a picture of theft and conversion that did not reflect reality.

What Went Wrong

Trials are meant to uncover truth, yet Michael’s trials did the opposite. The appeal reveals several critical issues:

1. Suppression of Exculpatory Evidence-The SSA determination proved that a significant portion of the funds had been properly allocated. This evidence would have rebutted the government’s accusations of systemic theft and negated the appearance of a pattern of misuse. Its absence was not only unethical but unconstitutional, violating the landmark ruling of Brady v. Maryland, which mandates the disclosure of evidence favorable to the defense.
2. Inflated Financial Data-The government presented manipulated financial figures during the trial to bolster its case. By including legitimate cash withdrawals tied to the accounted-for SSI funds, the prosecution falsely inflated the alleged “missing” amounts. For example, withdrawals immediately following the properly spent SSI deposit were presented as evidence of misappropriation. This misrepresentation painted an unjust picture of Michael as someone abusing his role as a caregiver.
3. Undermining of Defense Strategy-Without the SSA determination, Michael’s defense team was deprived of the ability to cross-examine witnesses effectively or refute financial claims. Witnesses such as Agent Don Krahn provided misleading testimony about the calculated loss amount, testimony that was pivotal to the government’s case. The appeal argues this suppression of evidence directly undermined Michael’s ability to challenge these inaccuracies.
4. Deficient Oversight of the Prosecution-The appeal raises a troubling question: Who is responsible for ensuring prosecutors and investigators act ethically? The government’s suppression of evidence highlights a systemic failure, and yet, those who perpetuated these acts have faced no consequences.

Why the Suppressed Evidence Matters

Had the jury been aware of the SSA determination, the entire case would have shifted. Instead of presenting Michael as someone misusing funds, the government would have been forced to acknowledge that key payments tied to the alleged crime were, in fact, lawful. This would have dismantled the narrative of theft and significantly undermined confidence in the prosecution’s story.

The appeal makes it clear that the absence of this evidence denied Michael a fair trial. The suppressed information was not just a detail; it was central to the core allegations. The appeal argues that this failure by the prosecution undermines public confidence—not only in this trial’s outcome but in the justice system at large.

The Outcome of Bad Faith Prosecution

The government’s suppression of evidence had devastating consequences for Michael. He is separated from his family, sentenced to 27 months in a maximum-security facility, and subjected to subpar medical care that has jeopardized his health and well-being. All of this occurred following a prosecution riddled with errors, falsehoods, and unethical conduct.

This appeal is not just about overturning a wrongful conviction. It’s about exposing a system that allowed lies to prevail over truth and holding accountable those who violated their duty to seek justice.

The Key Questions

Michael’s case leaves us asking critical questions about the legal system’s priorities:

• Why wasn’t the SSA determination disclosed before trial? Did officials truly not know about it, or was its suppression intentional?
• Why are prosecutors allowed to present financial figures that distort the truth without repercussions?
• How many other individuals have been convicted because of similar failures to disclose evidence, and who is monitoring this breach of justice?

These questions demand answers. Without systemic change, more families like ours will face the same unjust fate.

A Call for Reform

Michael’s appeal is a rallying cry for transparency, accountability, and reform in the legal process. The failures in his case highlight the need for greater oversight of prosecutors and investigators, stronger protections for defendants, and harsher penalties for those who violate legal and ethical standards.

This is more than just one family’s fight for justice. It’s a call to action for all of us to advocate for a system that prioritizes truth and fairness. Without such changes, stories like Michael’s will continue to darken the pages of our justice system’s history.

The Journey Ahead

Michael’s appeal won’t undo the harm already done to him and our family. But it does offer a chance at rectifying the present injustice and setting a precedent for future cases. The fight for justice is far from over. We are committed to pushing forward, not just for Michael, but for every person denied a fair shot at justice.