#22-CM-0060, State of San Andreas v. Edward Greeg

User avatar
Roderick Marchisio
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Roderick

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0060, State of San Andreas v. Edward Greeg

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #22-CM-0060, State of San Andreas v. Edward Greeg
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Mason,

    The Prosecution notes that as the Motion to Amend Charges had been filed before the announced changes to the docket, the principles of legal certainty and due process dictate this Motion should not be changed retroactively and would like to kindly request you to confirm this in your decision on the Motions as previously filed by the Defense.

Respectfully,

Deputy Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Shaun Harper
Judicial Branch
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2022 6:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0060, State of San Andreas v. Edward Greeg

Post by Shaun Harper »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: State of San Andreas v. Edward Greeg
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Judith Mason,

    The defense, in accordance with the recent changes to the docket, waiver our rights for a motions hearing of any kind and would like to reserve our arguments for trial.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Junior Defense Attorney
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 308-7889 — [email protected]
User avatar
Roderick Marchisio
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Roderick

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0060, State of San Andreas v. Edward Greeg

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #22-CM-0060, State of San Andreas v. Edward Greeg
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Mason,

    The Prosecution also waives their rights for a motions hearing of any kind. However, we would like to receive the outcome of the previous motions and arguments before scheduling a trial.

Respectfully,

Deputy Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0060, State of San Andreas v. Edward Greeg

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

COURT DECISION


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Edward Greeg
#22-CM-0060

A decision was reached in the above case on the 2nd day of December, 2022.


To start on a general basis, the exhibits presented in the prosecution's October 17th and November 26th Motions for Discovery have been deemed admissible and thus the two motions are granted.

As for the defense's Motion to Suppress, the court's ruling is as follows:
  • Exhibit 1
    "Reasons why we made the arrest" section.
    • Motion denied - these statements are made by the law enforcement officer who wrote the arrest report in an attempt to state why they made the arrest, as opposed to prove the truth of the matter. Whether or not the statements made are the truth is an argument best saved for trial.

    Exhibit 2
    "As can be clearly seen, these clothes are an exact match to the outfit as seen in evidence exhibit #3."
    • Motion granted - the statement made is an interpretation of the evidence provided, and thus, is not evidence in itself. (( On an OOC note, due to the script limitation of not showing what the clothes literally look like, I will be operating under the assumption that the clothes of this exhibit of evidence appear to be the same clothes pictured in Exhibit 3. If this is an inaccurate OOC assumption, please let me know. ))

    Exhibit 3
    "The bodycam footage as provided by the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department clearly shows the Defendant wearing the clothes as presented in evidence exhibit #2, stepping on the exact same bike as presented in evidence exhibit #5."
    • Motion granted - once again, this is an interpretation of the evidence and not evidence itself.

    Exhibit 4
    "Additionally, the Prosecution would like to note that as can be seen on the bodycam footage of the Deputy as presented in evidence exhibit #3, the tattoos of the Defendant correspond exactly."
    • Motion granted - once again, this is an interpretation of the evidence and not evidence itself. Furthermore, there do not appear to be any tattoos presented in the images.

    Exhibit 6
    "The suspect (Edward Greeg) matched the BOLO exactly; vehicle, clothing, shoes and tattoos. Everything matched the BOLO exactly."
    • Motion denied - this statement will be taken to be the interpretation of the Investigator who wrote it, rather than to prove the fact of the matter.

    "Deputy Hoffman was confident he was involved, but we wanted a second opinion from JB. We met with Prosecuting Attorney Caroline Johnson and Prosecuting Attorney Kendall Frances, who advised with the charges eventually placed on Edward Greeg."
    • Motion granted on the grounds of relevance.


When it comes to the prosecution's Motion to Amend Charges, I will be granting this motion, in part, to allow for VF01 - Evading an Officer to be pursued along with the previously listed charges (NM03 - Unlawful Assembly, GF03 - Armed Robbery, and SF02 - Accessory to Attempted Murder of a Government Employee), however, GM19 - Face Concealment (b) will be unable to be pursued.

While the prosecution argues that since the Motion to Amend Charges had been filed before the announced procedural changes to the Superior Court, and thus, the Motion should be granted in accordance with their previous process, the court had not made a definitive decision regarding this motion before that change, and will now be making the decision in light of the newly made changes in addition to the precedence of #22-CM-0070, State of San Andreas v. Tanaka Inagawa, when the presiding judge made a similar decision not to allow the misdemeanor charge to move forward.

Both elements of the Motion to Compel Discovery are denied. As for the firearm element, evidence has already been presented to show that a firearm may have been used in the alleged crime, whether or not this is sufficient for language in the crime alleged to result in a conviction is an argument best saved for trial. As for the GSR test results, with the fact that the defendant is not being charged with a crime that may have resulted in the defendant's use of a firearm, the results of a GSR test would not prove any fact more or less likely. Whether or not the defendant fired a gun would ultimately not make a difference to the specific charges alleged.


Image
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0060, State of San Andreas v. Edward Greeg

Post by Judith Mason »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #22-CM-0060, State of San Andreas v. Edward Greeg
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Parties,

    This case is now pending trial - please mark your upcoming availability here so the proceeding can be scheduled.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0060, State of San Andreas v. Edward Greeg

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: #22-CM-0060, State of San Andreas v. Edward Greeg

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

  • Parties,

    As we begin wrapping up the holiday season, I thank you for your continued patience while I have been on a Leave of Absence. I shall return to San Andreas at the end of this week and would like to place a priority on this case for trial.

    Please use this scheduling tool to mark your upcoming availability, starting on the 9th of January.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0060, State of San Andreas v. Edward Greeg

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: #22-CM-0060, State of San Andreas v. Edward Greeg

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

  • Parties,

    I will be scheduling this trial for Thursday, January 12th, at 8:30pm (( UTC )).

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0060, State of San Andreas v. Edward Greeg

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

ISSUANCE OF VERDICT


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Edward Greeg
#22-CM-0060

A decision was reached in the above case on the 12th day of January, 2022.


The case of #22-CM-0060, State of San Andreas v. Edward Greeg has been resolved.

In this case, we have allegations of law enforcement officers allegedly stumbling upon an active store robbery in Grapeseed being perpetrated by approximately four individuals. As law enforcement arrived on scene, some of these individuals allegedly drew heavy weaponry and silenced pistols upon the officers before a shootout began between the two groups.

As the scuffle continued, multiple individuals involved in the alleged robbery continued to discharge their firearms in an apparent attempt to subdue the officers pursuing them. This resulted in two Sheriff’s deputies requiring treatment for gunshot wounds, one of which required life saving care with the Los Santos Emergency Medical Services.

This trial has been about tying the defendant, Edward Greeg, to that incident and proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he participated in this alleged armed robbery with at least one other individual and had assisted in the attempted murder of the law enforcement officers who tried to stop the illegal activities from taking place.

With the bodycamera footage submitted into evidence showing the shootout and the suspects fleeing the scene, the clothing appearing to match the individual in said footage and being worn by the defendant, the tattoos appearing to be the same, and the BF-400 also appearing to be the same one at the scene of the robbery, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Edward Greeg, had participated in the armed robbery at the Grapeseed store, which resulted in the attempted murder and subsequent evasion from law enforcement.

It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:
  • On the count of NM03 - Unlawful Assembly, I find the defendant, Edward Greeg, guilty.
  • On the count of GF03 - Armed Robbery, I find the defendant, Edward Greeg, guilty.
  • On the count of VF01 - Evading an Officer, I find the defendant, Edward Greeg, guilty.
  • On the count of SF02 - Accessory to Attempted Murder of a Government Employee, I find the defendant, Edward Greeg, guilty.


Image
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
Locked

Return to “SAJB - Archived Criminal Cases”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests