Appellant Name: Mike Bartowski
Appellant Attorney(s): Tony McFornell, Peit Vanniekerk, Cyrus Raven
Appellant Attorney(s): Tony McFornell, Peit Vanniekerk, Cyrus Raven
Trial Docket Number: #22-CM-0034
Presiding Trial Judge: Hon. Darcy Valor
Notice of Appeal Filed:
Presiding Trial Judge: Hon. Darcy Valor
Notice of Appeal Filed:
- [ ] Before Verdict
[X] After Verdict
Reason for Notice of Appeal:
- [ ] Motion to be overturned
[X] Errors in the trials procedure
[X] Errors in the judge's interpretation of the law
[ ] New evidence proving appellants innocence
- Error in the judge's interpretation of the law in relation to DM02
Mr. Mike Bartowski was found guilty of possessing a controlled substance while armed, however, as it currently stands, there is no doctrine, law or jurisprudence that clearly outlines or determines the way "controlled substance" has to be interpreted. In other words, at the time of Mr. Bartowski's arrest there wasn't -and still isn't- any clear indication of which substances lie in the spectrum of controlled substances or illegal drugs.
Since there is no definition of what is a controlled substance, it would be impossible to assume that Mr. Bartowski was -at any time- in possession of said substances. Considering otherwise would be a direct breach of the rule of law and the principle of legality.
Error in the trial's procedure in relation to the interpretation of proof
According to the presumption of innocence, Mr. Bartowski was not guilty of any wrongdoings nor should he have been suspected according to what had been narrated throughout the first instance of this case in the Superior Court. However, even with no proof provided by the prosecution, the presiding judge considered that a single statement provided by Deputy Paulo Witherfork constitutes enough proof to justify the illegal search and seizure carried out on Mr. Bartowski's possesions.
With this being said, and adding the fact that the prosecution -at the sheriff department's fault- failed to provide any proof that would justify the searching of Mr. Bartowski's belongings, this judgement opens the door to the creation of very dangerous precedent consisting in lowering the standards at which police officers and deputies are held when it comes to searching vehicles and citizens' belongings. The precedent, as it currently stands, would imply that a simple written statement or arrest report would be enough for this honorable court to uphold any kind of charge.
It must be reiterated that the prosecution -after the defense's request- failed to produce any body camera footage, or direct evidence that would prove Mr. Bartowski's guilt, or even probable cause to carry out a search.