I'm a little mystified as to why you haven't engaged outside counsel or hired a legal officer. Although I think you have some strong arguments, there's an awful lot of avoidable-seeming 'who said what' questions that ultimately boil down to whether the jury finds you or the state's witnesses more credible. Winning on the facts is no guarantee of winning on the questions of law, and the appeals process is going to be lengthy no matter which side you find yourself on.
Pro se litigants that bring test cases on constitutional matters are laboring at a considerable disadvantage. Litigating your own case does not seem like the best use of your energies. Although I can relate to both your pedantry and one-man-band approach on a personal level, I am perplexed by your (apparent) hostility to gathering outside financing or simply taking the same approach as your competitors, none of whom seem to be anticipating criminal charges.
Pro se litigants that bring test cases on constitutional matters are laboring at a considerable disadvantage. Litigating your own case does not seem like the best use of your energies. Although I can relate to both your pedantry and one-man-band approach on a personal level, I am perplexed by your (apparent) hostility to gathering outside financing or simply taking the same approach as your competitors, none of whom seem to be anticipating criminal charges.