Assistant State Attorney Nicholas Kramperth: Disputed Evidence, Malicious-Prosecution Allegations, and a Florida Bar Complaint

FL-BAR COMPLAINT #91777

Assistant State Attorney Nicholas Kramperth prosecuted Adam Joshua Macker in Volusia County criminal cases 2021-102073-CFDL and 2022-02904-CFDL. According to Macker’s Florida Bar complaint, federal court filings, court proceedings, recordings, and supporting records, Kramperth continued pursuing these cases despite repeated challenges to the existence, sufficiency, and reliability of the State’s evidence.

Macker maintains that these prosecutions involved far more than an ordinary disagreement over disputed facts. He alleges that the cases continued after the prosecution had been placed on notice of substantial evidentiary problems, conflicting law-enforcement accounts, recordings that did not support the State’s characterization of events, and information suggesting that the criminal proceedings were connected to a broader pattern of harassment, retaliation, and institutional misconduct.

Before the prosecutions reached their most consequential stage, Macker states that he had repeatedly experienced being followed, monitored, intimidated, confronted, and approached by individuals in marked and unmarked vehicles. In his complaints and court filings, he described this pattern as “gang stalking.”

That term is presented here as Macker’s contemporaneous description of what he reported experiencing—not as a final judicial finding. Macker states that the conduct intensified as he investigated disputed court debts, identity theft, financial irregularities, the suspension of his driver’s license, and alleged misconduct involving law-enforcement and public officials.

Macker alleges that instead of receiving an independent investigation into those reports, he became the subject of increasingly aggressive law-enforcement action and criminal prosecution.

The Disputed Fleeing Charge

The principal prosecution arose from an October 13, 2021 encounter involving Volusia County Deputy Meshelle Naylor.

Macker alleges that Naylor was operating an unmarked or insufficiently identifiable vehicle and briefly activated emergency equipment while he was driving with his child. He maintains that he did not intentionally attempt to escape a law-enforcement officer. Rather, he states that he continued a short distance toward his nearby residence because he did not immediately recognize the vehicle as legitimate law enforcement and wanted to stop in a familiar and safer location with his child present.

Macker was subsequently arrested and charged with fleeing and child neglect.

He alleges that the official charging narrative omitted important information concerning the circumstances of the attempted stop, the identification of the vehicle, the presence of his child, and an existing investigation or lookout involving him and his vehicle. He further contends that his actions were inaccurately portrayed as a deliberate attempt to flee.

According to Macker, none of the recordings ultimately provided by the State showed him knowingly fleeing from a clearly identified law-enforcement vehicle. He states that the evidence primarily consisted of body-camera footage recorded after the alleged fleeing had already occurred, rather than dash-camera footage depicting the charged offense itself.

The Alleged Representation That Video Evidence Existed

One of the most serious allegations against Kramperth concerns a statement reportedly made during a September 2022 court proceeding.

According to Macker’s Florida Bar complaint and federal filings, Kramperth represented to Judge Dawn Nichols that the State possessed video evidence showing Macker committing the offense of fleeing.

Macker alleges that this statement materially influenced the court’s understanding of the case and resulted in an order directing the defense to obtain and review the recordings.

After repeatedly requesting the evidence from his defense attorney, Macker states that he eventually received six recordings. He alleges that none of them showed the charged act of fleeing and that no dash-camera recording depicting the alleged offense was ever produced.

Macker therefore alleges that Kramperth made a materially false or misleading representation to the court concerning evidence that either did not exist or did not show what the prosecution claimed it showed.

This distinction is important. Kramperth was acting as an attorney addressing the court, not as a sworn witness. The allegation is therefore not properly characterized as “perjury.” Rather, Macker contends that Kramperth violated the prosecutorial duties of candor and fairness by representing that incriminating video evidence existed when the recordings later provided did not depict the alleged crime.

The discrepancy was not insignificant. Whether Macker knowingly fled from an identifiable law-enforcement officer was central to the State’s ability to prove the charge.

Continued Prosecution Despite the Alleged Absence of Evidence

By September and October 2022, Macker states that he had obtained and reviewed the recordings produced by the defense. He alleges that none substantiated the State’s claim that he had knowingly fled.

Macker repeatedly challenged the prosecution to identify the specific recording that supposedly depicted the charged offense. He also made portions of the evidence publicly available and continued demanding a trial.

Despite those challenges, Macker alleges that Kramperth refused to dismiss or meaningfully reconsider the cases.

Macker characterizes the continued prosecution as malicious because, in his view, the State persisted after the factual basis for the most serious charge had been substantially undermined.

More precisely, Macker alleges that Kramperth continued prosecuting two criminal cases that were unsupported by sufficient admissible evidence and materially contradicted by the recordings eventually produced.

December 7, 2022 Docket Sounding and Competency Request

As the cases approached trial, Macker’s relationship with his prior defense firm deteriorated. According to his chronology, the firm withdrew, leaving him to appear without counsel at a December 7, 2022 docket sounding.

At that proceeding, Macker refused to accept a plea agreement and continued insisting upon his right to trial.

He states that he also attempted to present Internal Affairs complaints, payment records, court documents, and information concerning alleged police misconduct, identity theft, financial irregularities, disputed court debts, and the suspension of his driver’s license.

According to Macker’s filings, Kramperth reviewed or briefly examined the complaints, referred to them as “letters,” and informed the court that he had thoroughly reviewed the facts of the criminal cases.

Kramperth then allegedly questioned Macker’s competency and recommended that the court order a psychological evaluation.

Macker alleges that this recommendation was not based on a genuine inability to understand the proceedings or assist in his defense. Instead, he believes the competency issue was raised to discredit him after he rejected a plea, demanded a trial, disputed the State’s evidence, and attempted to expose alleged misconduct involving law enforcement and public institutions.

Macker contends that his reports of financial irregularities, identity theft, harassment, and official misconduct were treated as evidence of mental instability rather than investigated on their merits.

The February 2023 Competency Proceedings

A competency proceeding was later conducted before Judge Nichols in February 2023.

Macker states that he was found competent to proceed, but alleges that the process was nevertheless used to stigmatize him and undermine the credibility of his complaints.

He contends that portraying his allegations as irrational or delusional allowed the prosecution and court to avoid directly addressing the evidence he was attempting to introduce. That evidence allegedly included:

• Records of previously paid court obligations.
• Duplicate or disputed financial entries.
• Driver’s-license suspension records.
• Internal Affairs complaints.
• Body-camera footage.
• Identity-theft documentation.
• Communications describing repeated requests for police assistance.
• Records relating to alleged harassment, surveillance, and intimidation.

Macker alleges that the competency proceedings occurred shortly after he submitted a detailed Internal Affairs complaint concerning many of the same institutions and officers associated with his prosecution.

He therefore questions whether the competency request represented a legitimate concern or an effort to neutralize a defendant who was refusing to plead guilty and challenging the conduct of government officials.

The April 5, 2023 Failure-to-Appear Warrant

On April 5, 2023, Macker failed to appear for a scheduled docket sounding.

According to Macker, his privately retained attorney, Kevin J. Pitts, had previously told him that his attendance was unnecessary. Macker states that Pitts did not reverse those instructions until after the proceeding had already begun and did not adequately warn him that a failure-to-appear warrant had been issued.

Approximately fourteen hours later, during the early morning of April 6, 2023, Volusia County deputies entered Macker’s property to execute the warrant.

Macker alleges that deputies passed through or disabled a gate, entered the property without a separate search warrant, forced open the front door with weapons drawn, tackled him inside the residence, and charged him with resisting arrest.

He was then detained without bond.

Although the immediate failure to appear involved the advice allegedly given by Pitts, Macker contends that Kramperth’s continued prosecution of charges he believed were unsupported created the legal conditions that ultimately led to the warrant, armed entry, detention, and plea.

The April 13, 2023 Plea

On April 13, 2023, while detained, Macker accepted a disposition resulting in approximately 18 months of felony probation.

Macker maintains that this was not a freely chosen admission of guilt.

He states that he had been detained without bond, believed that he would remain incarcerated unless he accepted the agreement, needed to return home to care for his children, and felt that probation was the only realistic means of securing his release.

For approximately a year and a half before his detention, Macker states that he consistently rejected plea offers and demanded a trial. He alleges that he accepted probation only after the failure-to-appear warrant, the armed entry into his residence, the additional resisting charge, and his detention without bond.

Macker therefore describes the plea as coerced by the circumstances surrounding his incarceration and the continued prosecution of charges he maintains could not have survived a fully contested trial.

He alleges that Kramperth benefited from those circumstances by obtaining a felony disposition without being required to prove the disputed fleeing charge before a jury.

Report of Suspected Heroin Trafficking Inside the Jail

During the plea or detention proceedings, Macker states that he provided Kramperth with information identifying an individual whom he believed was distributing heroin inside the detoxification wing of the Volusia County Department of Corrections.

Macker states that he did not expect Kramperth to immediately accept the allegation as proven or prosecute anyone without an investigation. He asked that the information be forwarded to corrections personnel so the relevant housing area or cell could be searched and the allegation evaluated.

According to Macker, Kramperth declined to act and stated that Macker was not a credible witness.

Macker argues that the information could have been preliminarily investigated through a phone call to jail officials and a search conducted by authorized personnel.

This allegation should be understood carefully. This page does not state as an established fact that a particular individual was distributing heroin. It documents Macker’s claim that he reported suspected drug trafficking, provided identifying information, and alleges that Kramperth refused to initiate even a preliminary inquiry.

Alleged Disregard of Favorable and Impeachment Evidence

Macker contends that Kramperth was repeatedly placed on notice of evidence that could have undermined the prosecution, challenged the credibility of law-enforcement witnesses, or supported Macker’s defense.

That information allegedly included:

• Recordings that did not depict the claimed act of fleeing.
• Inconsistencies between charging documents and officer narratives.
• Questions concerning whether the vehicle attempting the stop was adequately identified as law enforcement.
• Evidence that Macker’s child was present and influenced his decision to continue briefly to a familiar location.
• Internal Affairs complaints concerning involved officers.
• Documentation of earlier requests for police protection and assistance.
• Records concerning disputed court debts and the suspension of Macker’s driver’s license.
• Evidence of alleged identity theft and financial misconduct.
• Reports of repeated surveillance, harassment, intimidation, and attempted provocation.
• Information potentially affecting the motive, credibility, or conduct of government witnesses.

Macker alleges that rather than fairly evaluating this information, the prosecution continued treating him as guilty and characterized his broader concerns as evidence of psychological instability.

He contends that Kramperth failed to exercise the neutral prosecutorial judgment required of a government attorney whose obligation is to pursue justice—not merely obtain a conviction.

The Prosecutor’s Special Responsibility

A prosecutor is not simply another opposing attorney.

A prosecutor represents the government and possesses the authority to charge citizens, restrict their liberty, recommend detention, negotiate pleas, and present factual representations to the court.

That power carries a corresponding duty to evaluate evidence fairly, disclose favorable information, correct materially inaccurate statements, reconsider charges when evidence proves insufficient, and avoid pursuing a conviction at the expense of justice.

Macker alleges that Kramperth violated those responsibilities by:

• Representing that video evidence of fleeing existed when no recording depicting the offense was produced.
• Continuing the prosecution after the available recordings allegedly failed to substantiate the central charge.
• Failing to fairly evaluate contradictory or favorable evidence.
• Treating complaints concerning alleged official misconduct as evidence of incompetency rather than investigating their substance.
• Recommending a competency evaluation after Macker rejected a plea and demanded a trial.
• Participating in proceedings that culminated in a plea Macker alleges was produced through detention and the threat of continued incarceration.
• Refusing to initiate a basic inquiry after receiving a report of suspected heroin distribution inside a correctional facility.
• Failing to exercise prosecutorial discretion in a manner consistent with the obligation to seek justice.

These are serious allegations. They should be evaluated through the underlying court transcripts, recordings, charging documents, discovery materials, Internal Affairs complaints, plea records, Florida Bar complaint, and federal filings.

Florida Bar Complaint Against Nicholas Kramperth

Macker subsequently submitted a professional-misconduct complaint against Kramperth to The Florida Bar.

The complaint concerns allegations including:

• A materially false or misleading representation to the court that video evidence showed Macker fleeing.
• Continued prosecution despite the alleged absence of evidence supporting the fleeing charge.
• Failure to fairly consider recordings and records favorable to the defense.
• Support for competency proceedings after Macker rejected a plea and raised allegations of institutional misconduct.
• Participation in a prosecution Macker characterizes as malicious, retaliatory, and unsupported by probable cause.
• Failure to respond appropriately to a report of suspected heroin trafficking inside the Volusia County jail.
• Conduct allegedly inconsistent with a prosecutor’s duties of candor, fairness, professional independence, and pursuit of justice.

The Bar complaint and supporting evidence should be reviewed alongside the court transcripts, recordings, charging affidavits, discovery responses, and federal pleadings.

Readers are encouraged to compare what the prosecution reportedly represented in court with what the available recordings and documents actually show.

Connection to the Federal Civil-Rights Litigation

The underlying events are also described in Macker’s federal civil-rights case:

Macker v. Macker et al.
United States District Court, Middle District of Florida
Case No. 6:23-cv-01963

The matter is also connected to Macker’s appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit:

Appeal No. 25-12280

Kramperth was not named as a defendant in the operative federal complaint, but his conduct appears throughout Macker’s factual chronology.

Macker’s filings connect the prosecution to the disputed traffic stop, alleged lack of video evidence, competency proceedings, failure-to-appear warrant, armed entry into his residence, detention without bond, and eventual plea.

The filings also describe Macker’s allegations that Kramperth claimed to possess video evidence of fleeing, continued pursuing unsupported charges, recommended a competency evaluation after Macker rejected a plea, and declined to act on information concerning suspected drug trafficking inside the jail.

Questions the Public Deserves Answered

This page is not merely about the outcome of two criminal cases. It concerns how prosecutorial power was exercised after a citizen disputed the State’s evidence, rejected plea offers, filed complaints against law enforcement, and reported alleged financial and institutional misconduct.

The public has a legitimate interest in determining:

• What video evidence Kramperth claimed the State possessed.
• Whether any recording actually depicted Macker committing the charged offense.
• When the prosecution learned that no such recording had been produced.
• Why the prosecution continued after the evidence was repeatedly challenged.
• What factual basis supported the competency recommendation.
• Whether Macker’s Internal Affairs complaints and financial records were fairly evaluated.
• What action, if any, Kramperth took after receiving information about suspected drug activity inside the jail.
• Whether the resulting plea represented a voluntary resolution or the pressure of continued detention.
• Whether the prosecution sought justice or simply preserved a conviction despite serious evidentiary concerns.

Why This Page Matters

The power to prosecute is among the most consequential powers exercised by government.

It can remove a person from his family, damage his reputation, restrict his liberty, destroy his finances, and permanently alter the course of his life.

That authority must never be used to preserve a weak case, silence a critic, avoid examining official misconduct, or secure a conviction through pressure that substitutes for proof.

Adam Joshua Macker alleges that Assistant State Attorney Nicholas Kramperth continued two prosecutions despite serious evidentiary deficiencies, made a materially inaccurate representation concerning video evidence, supported efforts to portray Macker as mentally incompetent after he demanded a trial, disregarded information relevant to public safety, and participated in proceedings that ultimately produced a disputed felony conviction.

These allegations have not all been established as final findings by a court or disciplinary authority. They are nevertheless connected to identifiable cases, proceedings, recordings, complaints, and public records that deserve careful and independent examination.

Important Notice

The statements on this page describe allegations contained in court filings, disciplinary complaints, transcripts, recordings, public records, and the personal account of Adam Joshua Macker.

Nothing on this page should be interpreted as a final finding of professional misconduct, criminal activity, malicious prosecution, or civil liability unless expressly determined by a court, The Florida Bar, or another authorized tribunal.

All individuals are entitled to the presumption of innocence and an opportunity to respond. Readers are encouraged to examine the linked source materials and reach their own informed conclusions.

The Hidden Truth of the Volusia Sheriff's Office