Assistant Prosecutor Rebekah Sinnott-Bunn, in Clark County Common Pleas Court Case Nos. 22-CR-508 & 680 (merged) did in fact withhold exculpatory evidence, more specifically impeachment evidence, in a criminal trial. Moreover, once discovered before the Defense's case-in-chief, proving that key witnesses for the state had committed perjury, Defense counsel was precluded from introduction and rebuttal examination because Sinnott-Bunn, by and through Judge Douglas Rastatter, excluded the evidence from introduction. This case is an odd duckling whereby the Defendant was charged with violating a protection order for communicating with the protected party's employer. However, the employer was the Clark County Sheriff's Department; and he was reporting criminal conduct and child abuse being committed by the protected party. What is most crucial is that the department contacted the Defendant and encouraged his reporting of concerns that the Defendant brought to the attention of an outside agency. The State encouraged these communications as violative pursuant to paragraph 7 of the CPO, which prohibits communication with the protected party's employer. The State was able to convince the jurors that the employer had no knowledge of the CPO when the Defendant was communicating with them; corroborated by witness testimony claiming no knowledge of the CPO. However, inner-office communications between the officers show that 6 months prior to Defendant's indictment, the same State witnesses all discussed the very CPO in question with their employee; as well as admitted that the Defendant was not in violation to the CPO for communicating misconduct concerns to the department. This information was excluded from evidence, both by a Motion in Limine filed by the State, and then later by exclusion by the Court when the defense attempted to introduce the documents found for impeachment and rebuttal purposes. These errors violate not only Brady but also the decision in Great Coastal Express Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters. There is so much more that this jurisdiction has done; but I believe this alone warrants an appropriate investigation. Defendant's pro se Appellant Brief and supporting exhibits are attached below.