In a case of child exploitation, Zachary Williams attempted to twist the judicial system to his advantage but ultimately failed. Following a three-week trial, Williams was convicted of multiple felonies related to the coercion, exploitation, and abuse of a minor. His desperate attempt to secure a new trial—based on a procedural sentencing misstatement—was flatly rejected by the court.
The Crimes and Conviction
A jury found Williams guilty on five serious felony counts against minors, each carrying significant sentences. The prosecution presented devastating evidence, including explicit messages, forensic evidence from Williams’ electronic devices, and testimony from thirteen witnesses, including the underage victim. The jury quickly convicted Williams on all counts, cementing his fate as a dangerous predator facing a potential life sentence.
Sovereign Citizen Tactics
Williams employed a series of delay tactics, courtroom disruptions, and baseless legal arguments in an effort to derail the trial. Williams attempted to weaponize sovereign citizen theories in court with predictable failure.
Throughout his trial, Williams repeatedly fired and rehired his court-appointed attorneys, at one point choosing to represent himself. He questioned the court’s authority, refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of federal statutes, and made outlandish demands—such as insisting the court recognize him as a “private citizen” immune from prosecution.
His self-representation strategy was transparently a ploy to delay proceedings. During multiple Faretta hearings, the court painstakingly ensured Williams understood the consequences of waiving legal counsel. He flip-flopped between representing himself and requesting an attorney, hoping to exploit legal technicalities.
At one point, he openly admitted he was using delay tactics, telling investigators that since “nobody could beat this case,” his best option was to drag the trial out as long as possible in the hopes of securing a better plea deal. His gamesmanship exhausted court resources and forced multiple procedural reviews.
However, despite his chaotic legal maneuvers, the court found that Williams was fully aware of his rights and deliberately engaging in obstructionist behavior.
A Predator in the Courtroom: Aggressive Victim Questioning
Williams’ self-representation allowed him to personally cross-examine his own underage victim, an excruciating ordeal that showcased his complete lack of remorse.
Rather than presenting a rational defense, Williams used his questioning as a weapon—yelling at the young victim, attempting to intimidate her on the stand, and violating multiple court orders regarding inadmissible evidence.
Some of his most egregious actions included:
- Aggressive interrogation: He screamed at his victim multiple times, demanding that she “tell the truth” while repeatedly reminding the court that he was “facing a life sentence”.
- Humiliating and irrelevant questioning: He forced his victim to describe explicit details, including their positions during intercourse, and even asked if she had begged him to continue the abuse—a shocking line of questioning that led to multiple objections from the prosecution.
- Attempting to introduce banned evidence: Ignoring the judge’s clear ruling, Williams kept referencing other alleged conduct of the victim, a blatant violation of the SA shield laws designed to protect victims from irrelevant character attacks.
- Personal attacks on the victim’s family: In an attempt to discredit her, Williams mocked her family history, questioning her about her absent biological mother in a desperate effort to paint her as unstable.
- At multiple points, the judge threatened to revoke his self-representation due to his grossly inappropriate conduct, but Williams continued to push the limits of courtroom decorum.
His strategy backfired spectacularly. Rather than casting doubt on the victim’s credibility, Williams’ hostile and disturbing behavior only solidified the jury’s perception of him as a dangerous and predatory individual.
Desperate Plea for a New Trial Fails
After his conviction, Williams filed a motion for a new trial, claiming that because the government misstated the maximum penalty for Count 4, his waiver of legal counsel was invalid.
While the court acknowledged the misstatement, it ruled that Williams had been sufficiently informed that he faced a potential life sentence. The judge pointed to:
-
- Multiple court warnings about the cumulative 120-year maximum sentence.
Williams’ own statements where he openly acknowledged he was “facing life in prison.” - His past legal battles, including similar Faretta hearings in his Connecticut and New York cases, where he had also been advised of life sentences but still chose to represent himself.
- Multiple court warnings about the cumulative 120-year maximum sentence.
Final Ruling: No Second Chances for a Serial Predator
Given Williams’ deliberate courtroom antics, repeated procedural delays, and clear understanding of the charges, the judge denied his motion for a new trial.
The ruling means that Williams now faces the full weight of his sentence, with a likely life term awaiting him at sentencing.
Williams’ legal troubles are far from over. In addition to his New Jersey conviction, he faces similar charges in two other states—Connecticut and New York—where he is accused of preying on additional child victims.
Citation: USA v. Williams, No. 1:22cr325, 2025 U.S. DIST. CT. MOTIONS LEXIS 36267 (D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2025).