Deuce
-
Posts
389 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Deuce
-
-
"Alright, motion to dismiss without prejudice is declined, we'll be moving onto the verdict. I don't see any possible way at this time that the prosecution will be able to provide any evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in the near future."
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS
COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS
CRIMINAL DIVISION
THE PEOPLE OF
THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS
(Plaintiff)
- against -
Kiyo Hasegawa(Defendant)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)Court File: 24GJCR00083
JUDGEMENT
Action Filed: February 18, 2024
I. FACTS AND FINDINGS
Upon review of the case matter at hand, the court shall deliver a ruling in accordance with all applicable law to ensure fair and just enforcement of the law within its jurisdiction. It of the official opinion of the court that;
The State Of San Andreas is not or was not able to provide a compelling case that would prove their findings to be sustainable with reasonable doubt to land a conviction, it is the opinion of the court that filing charges in the future would constitute Double Jeopardy.
II. DETERMINATION OF GUILT
[1] As to the offense of MC 414. Motor Vehicle Contest, the court finds the defendant: Not Guilty.
III. SENTENCING
It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Judgment shall be entered for the People and against the Defendant:
- The defendant's charges shall be dismissed with prejudice
It is henceforth ordered by Judge Rebecca Vanderbilt, and shall be carried out without delay.
-
1
-
-
-
-
“Alright then, I’ll be denying the motion to dismiss, albeit violations of the penal code were committed, we’ll be moving to trial.
The defense may begin with their opening statement.”
-
“I’ll give you 24 hours, I’m not very fond of attorneys walking in and out of my courtroom amidst a trial, so you’re welcome to accept my invitation to my chambers.”
(( @defillbert @JohnGili @Sean092 ))
-
-
-
-
-
“Right… Thank you for providing your opening statement, despite me not having said so.
Having said that, the defense may provide their opening statement.”
(( @Jess Lewis @Pablovg8 @JohnGili ))
-
1
-
-
-
"Alright.....
Let me begin by stating the following. **Vanderbilt looks at the clerk, downing a soft nod.**
We will not be bickering back and forth. My courtroom is not a kindergarten, we will treat one another with the mutual respect that are defined in the rules of the court, the same respect that is shown towards a presiding judge.A statement I made on record is nothing more than a basic reminder of how common law works, the utmost basic. Clearly, that reminder was needed for both parties. I assure you that it signals my stance on your motion, Mister Gilbane.
Mister Villanueva, I gave you 24 hours to submit documents to the court, if Mister Gilbane has documents to submit, then he may state that now.
Finally, we will not be skipping parts of the process. The defendant has a right to a fair trial, if not alone a speedy one, it is not my intent to "speed" through delicate matters if I should have to make that clear as well.
Now.. If the defense has nothing else to file, we will start to make our way to the opening statements."
(( @JohnGili @Pablovg8 @Jess Lewis ))-
1
-
-
-
“Mister Villanueva, I’ve read through the exhibits, Mister Gilbane raises a valid concern, you’ve submitted the forensics report, it shows that the blood of the victim belongs to the victim, the jacket belongs to the defendant, the shank has blood of the defendant, however, there’s no DNA sample recovered from the shank? What’s up with that?
We know the defendant was in the cell, it gives you suspicion, as it’s seen on camera footage.
Also, we’re not going to dwell on the past, speculating as to why the prosecution didn’t file the arraignment properly on time in the past, is the past. That motion was filed and ruled upon by a fellow Judge, without prejudice, meaning the prosecution is allowed to refile. Let that be a reminder.”
-
-
** Rebecca Vanderbilt strolls into the courtroom, she takes her seat behind her bench whilst placing a set of documents down, she skims through them before looking into the court-room. **
"Judge Vanderbilt, I will be presiding over these proceedings. Are all parties present? "
(( @JohnGili @Pablovg8 )) -
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS
COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS
CRIMINAL DIVISION
THE PEOPLE OF
THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS
(Plaintiff)
- against -
Rocco Caserta(Defendant)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)Court File: 23GJCR00471
JUDGEMENT
Action Filed: October 18, 2023
I. FACTS AND FINDINGS
Upon review of the case matter at hand, the court shall deliver a ruling in accordance with all applicable law to ensure fair and just enforcement of the law within its jurisdiction. It of the official opinion of the court that;
The defendant has failed to show up in court, motion for summary judgement by the plaintiff has been granted.
II. DETERMINATION OF GUILT
[1] As to the offense of FA 203. SECOND DEGREE MURDER (ACCOMPLICE), the court finds the defendant: Guilty.
[2] As to the offense of FC 115. EVADING A PEACE OFFICER, the court finds the defendant: Guilty.
III. SENTENCING
It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Judgment shall be entered for the People and against the Defendant:
- A punishment of, 20 Day(s) 0 Hour(s) imprisonment and/or a fine of $0 shall be issued.
- The defendant's charges shall be dismissed with/without prejudice
It is henceforth ordered by Judge Rebecca Vanderbilt, and shall be carried out without delay.
"Alright, this has gone on long enough, motion accepted."
(( @GD @Red. )) -
(( @BMW
Player informed me that he's currently banned, and awaiting a report. )) -
-
-
On 10/1/2023 at 1:19 AM, Gouze said:
Boudreaux Lamartine, counsel for the People, your Honor.
(( @Deuce As of right now I haven't been able to find it on my own, I don't think there are any more attempts being made at this point, the forum name provided upon arrest was @carinshambl.))
(( Will have to ask an admin, so they can get the name for you )) -
"Judge Vanderbilt presiding, are all parties present?"
(( @Gouze - Are there any attempts made to retrieve the player's forum name? )) -
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS
COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS
CRIMINAL DIVISION
THE PEOPLE OF
THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS
(Plaintiff)
- against -
CHARLIE HAWKS(Defendant)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)Court File: 23GJCR00449
JUDGEMENT
Action Filed: September 29, 2023
I. FACTS AND FINDINGS
Upon review of the case matter at hand, the court shall deliver a ruling in accordance with all applicable law to ensure fair and just enforcement of the law within its jurisdiction. It of the official opinion of the court that;
The court reviewed a plea arraignment signed by the Defendant, the court finds this to be acceptable.
II. DETERMINATION OF GUILT
[1] As to the offense of FC 115. Evading a Peace Officer, the court finds the defendant: Guilty.
[2] As to the offense of MC 116. Resisting Arrest, the court finds the defendant: Guilty.
[3] As to the offense of MC 408. Reckless Driving, the court finds the defendant: Guilty.
III. SENTENCING
It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Judgment shall be entered for the People and against the Defendant:
- A punishment of, 5 Day(s) 0 Hour(s) imprisonment and/or a fine of $5,000 shall be issued.
- The defendant's charges shall be dismissed with/without prejudice
It is henceforth ordered by Judge Rebecca Vanderbilt, and shall be carried out without delay.
[24GJCR00026] People of the State of San Andreas v. Will Ziegler
in Archive
Posted
"Alright..
Having heard both statements, there are some parts in both statements that I feel the need to clarify.
While mister Gilbane may have a valid argument relating to there being no fingerprints on the supposed weapon, it does not take away that the victim entered the cell alive. The defendant entered the cell shortly after, meaning this raises doubt about whether or not such a crime could have been committed in such a short period, even more so when there is no clearer reasoning provided by either party on why this would be likely or unlikely. So the statement provided that the defendant "would have found the body", is unlikely and will not be accepted by the court, quite frankly, a meagre defense strategy.
Going back to this.. Weapon, the court feels that there has been a shortcoming on the forensics side of the investigation, while specific materials will deteriorate when exposed to water, this supposed weapon could not have been in the water long enough, as that is a process that doesn't take hours, but days, perhaps weeks. That is merely basic science, however, it is not up to the court whether or not the fingerprints are indeed there. It does raise questions about the way the investigation was handled, how come there is blood found on the object used to commit the crime, but no prints as per the forensics report? Was there no further investigation done? So I'll leave that for the prosecution to answer.
Does either party have any witnesses to bring forward? If not, then we'll briefly handle what's been said just now, and then move onto closing statements."
(( @JohnGili @defillbert ))