Appellant Name: Lilliana Howell
Appellant Attorney(s): Self-Representing
Appellant Attorney(s): Self-Representing
Trial Docket Number: 25-N/A-0000
Presiding Trial Judge:Joseph Horton
Notice of Appeal Filed:
Presiding Trial Judge:Joseph Horton
Notice of Appeal Filed:
- [X] Before Verdict
[ ] After Verdict
Reason for Notice of Appeal:
- [X] To contest a motion granted during trial.
[ ] To challenge a verdict due to egregious errors by the judge.
[ ] New evidence proving appellants innocence.
- The defendant is appealing the ruling made on the motion for involuntary dismissal.
The defendant disagrees with the ruling made and does not believe that discovery having been filed should constitute a "special circumstance" for a defendant to be put ahead in the courts over defendants that have been waiting for 11 months or longer.
This sets a dangerous precedent that filing a bench trial and later filing for a Motion for a Change of Venue after discovery is complete allows people to somehow game the system to have their cases looked at 11 months faster than people who wouldn't cheat the system to bypass the established queue. While the defense can understand it could be convenient since evidence is already present in discovery, this should not take away from the fact that it inadvertently delays other criminal trials that have waited much longer, forcing them into a much longer wait.
The defense would also like to note that this will now be the second case in which the defendant's case becomes delayed due to a bench trial being changed into a criminal trial, see #25-CM-0041 State of San Andreas v. David Deltoid & Alistair Vespucci. The defendant Lilliana Howell has just as much right as anyone else to a speedy trial, and her right should not be infringed upon simply because of the order in which others file their Motion for a Change of Venue
