Concerning my court case

This post has been edited for another party to view. No information has been removed, only added at the end of the post.
Muito obrigado (Thank you),
                                                 Desmond Chapman





For reason that I do not have legal representation and that it has been currently denied to me by the Salisbury, Maryland Public Defender's office, I am having to publicly post all of the pertinent and important information relating to my case.
Case number:D-023-CR-17-002178 in the Maryland circuit court system

I was falsely accused of breaking and entering when what I did was knock quite sharply - very hard - on the door of the residents' home.
1. The police did not take fingerprints. If I had grabbed the door handle, then there would have been fingerprints. When I suggested taking fingerprints, the state trooper's reply was, "This is not C.S.I." That does not matter, taking fingerprints was suggested by a former police officer that worked at the Spring Grove Hospital center.
2.The admission of cell phone photos four months after the first trial. The first trial was in October, while the admission of evidence from the plaintiffs side was in February.  What was shown was a set of pictures in which the house had "no trespassing" signs on the door and in the front yard. The truth is that these signs were not placed until weeks had passed when I was arrested on September 05, 2017.
3. The woman states that I told her " I know that you're in there, leave me alone, or I'll come get you. " What was really stated by me was, "Stop harassing me, I'll press charges." I did state in the report for the people to "leave me alone." However, according to Maryland criminal Law Code 3-803 - and paraphrasing the portion of the code - I am told to warn an individual before pressing charges of harassment. I was doing exactly what the law stated.

I will update this in the near future.
Update on July 06, 2018 Gregorian calendar:

The photos were presented to the court in the last week of February. Because the photos were not properly checked for the time stamp in comparison of the date of arrest and that the photos were not checked to see if the device was the original source - they should not be admitted into the court as evidence. Every computer file has a date of creation, even copies have a creation date. This is the time stamp.