[Public Inquiry] Questions into Prosecution Perjury Charges

Post Reply
Olivia Valentine
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:49 pm
ECRP Forum Name:

[Public Inquiry] Questions into Prosecution Perjury Charges

Post by Olivia Valentine »

Image
Image
  • Full Name: Olivia Valentine
    Phone Number: 5888223
    Position in Agency: N/A
Image
  • Detailed information of your inquiry:
      • How many times have your prosecutors tried and failed to prosecute the charge of perjury?
      • At what point do you consider the fact that your prosecutors are attempting to place more charges on people for little to no reason? Or without full understanding of the law?
      • It is almost standard to see the prosecution file a perjury charge against the defendant. How is this practice allowed and not viewed as a break in your "code of ethics"?
      • Is there an understanding by the prosecution that they have to prove intent to mislead?
      • Will there be repercussions in the future for prosecutors who continue to charge defendants with GF24 and fail?
      GF24 - Perjury
      Image
      By my calculations/research ONE perjury charge, out of the many that your prosecutors have tried to apply to innocent people, has actually succeeded. (The singular success was charged to Elijah Taylor... which is not a shocker that it succeeded as he was very well known for being a repeat felon and lying to get his way)

      Questions unrelated to GF24:
      • Could you define what is "reasonable doubt"?
      • Could you please define the role of the prosecution? (I have read the press release about the "role of the prosecution", and I hope that their role goes deeper than just being able to actively press charges against civilians or suspected felons)
      • Cyrus Raven stated "the burden of proof lies with the prosecution". However, the current way the system works, the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the defense as they have to prove within a "reasonable doubt" that their client has not committed said crime, or have I misunderstood the role of a defense attorney? If I have, could you please define what is the role of a defense attorney in Los Santos?
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: [Public Inquiry] Questions into Prosecution Perjury Charges

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: [Public Inquiry] Questions into Prosecution Perjury Charges

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

  • Ms. Valentine,

    Thank you for your submission to the Public Inquiries section, I would be happy to provide some details and clarifications that will hopefully give you a better understanding of how our Judicial System works and what tools our prosecutors have available to them when working on a case, including the Motion to Amend Charges for cases in which the defendant has allegedly committed the crime of perjury.

    In the context of a criminal case going through the Superior Court, a prosecuting attorney is the legal counsel tasked with representing the State of San Andreas. This means that they work on behalf of the citizens of our state to present legal arguments in the form of charges against those accused of breaking the law. This is their main duty and it encompasses many tasks including working with law enforcement agencies to collect and organize evidence, preparing legal strategies, and of course presenting those arguments to a judge within the Superior Court for consideration.

    A defense attorney, on the other hand, is the legal counsel who works with those accused of a crime in order to build up their defense in the Superior Court. While we encourage the public to work with the Judicial Branch's public defense attorneys, a defendant is also entitled to act on their own behalf, and represent themselves during a criminal proceeding. Alternatively, there are several law firms that have been established to provide private legal services, which allow another avenue for the public to utilize.

    In addition to these responsibilities, both prosecuting attorneys and defense attorneys within the Judicial Branch also help with the upkeep of the other services our branch offers to the public. For example, Deputy Attorney General Roderick Marchisio was recently appointed as the Director of the Public Notary, and now oversees the Offices of Contract Authenticity and Marriage & Civil Partnerships. We also have the Director of Public Relations, being Robert Winejudge, who handles aspects of the branch that involve public interaction, media relations, and to allow for more transparency from the Judicial Branch as a whole.

    Circling back to the Superior Court, Mr. Raven was correct in stating that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and further, this burden must be met beyond a reasonable doubt, which is one of the highest standards that we have in our legal system. What this means is that disputed allegations of criminal conduct, when presented to the Superior Court, solely lies on the prosecution and if the prosecution is unable to present evidence that proves the allegations did violate the law, the defendant shall be found not guilty.

    For example, if a case comes into the Superior Court with the allegation that the defendant committed an act in violation of GF11 - Grand Theft Auto, the prosecution would be required to submit evidence that the defendant had taken someone else's vehicle without consent. For the purposes of this example, we will assume the prosecution has presented CCTV footage of an individual who appears to be the defendant lockpicking said vehicle, then entering the vehicle and starting to drive the vehicle, before law enforcement officers initiated a traffic stop to arrest the defendant for GF11. We would now have evidence that would appear to show the defendant taking someone else's vehicle without consent.

    The defense, at this point, can take a number of different routes in an attempt to reach a verdict of not guilty. For one, the defense could begin poking holes in the prosecution's arguments by introducing doubt in their narrative - this is where reasonable doubt comes into play. If the defense can introduce a reasonable doubt that the events that played out did not violate the law, then the defendant shall be found not guilty. For the purposes of this example, let's say the defendant was actually friends with the registered owner of the vehicle and the owner had given the defendant consent to operate the vehicle in question - the defense can then provide evidence to prove this, and thus, will have brought a reasonable doubt that the defendant had not committed the crime of Grant Theft Auto.

    Another strategy the defense could take would be simply not providing any evidence whatsoever and making the argument that the prosecution has not met it's burden of proof that the defendant committed the crime at all. The defense could argue that even though the CCTV footage shows the defendant lockpicking the car and driving off, the prosecution has not shown any evidence that the defendant did not have consent. As the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, they need to prove all elements of the law in order for a verdict of guilty to be issued, and since the prosecution failed to prove that the defendant was not given consent, the court might find the defendant not guilty.

    Whether or not the arguments in this example would be enough to establish reasonable doubt or if it has reached the burden of proof required for the prosecution to secure a conviction strongly relies on the circumstances of the case. It's not always clear to either party whether or not the law has been violated, and the role of the judge is to be that impartial third party who will review all of the evidence presented by all sides of the dispute in order to determine the most reasonable route forward.

    Putting these concepts in context with the Perjury charge, the Penal Code establishes very strict language in order for a defendant to be found guilty of Perjury. Without getting into too much legal analysis of the charge, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant made false statements with the intent to mislead during an official proceeding.

    Even just looking at the keyword of 'intent,' the prosecution must prove that the defendant intended to mislead the judge, and proving intent is a rather difficult burden to reach. Even if the prosecution was able to prove that the defendant made a false statement to the court, they must further prove that the defendant intended to mislead the court while making such a statement.

    In a preliminary review of cases going through the Superior Court, I was able to find seven instances of a perjury charge being brought forth. Of those cases, the charge had been dropped by the prosecution twice, a not guilty verdict had been found twice, two cases are pending, and one instance in which the defendant pled guilty to the charge. With seven cases in total throughout all 77+ cases the Superior Court has reviewed this year, I would not consider 10% as "standard" and would instead argue that prosecutors within the court system have a duty to seek justice where they see a violation of the law.

    A prosecutor is well within their rights to seek charges against those who may have committed a crime, despite what public opinion of a case may be. Our prosecutors are instructed to only bring charges that have a factual basis behind them, any less would result in a clear verdict of not guilty. Just because a prosecutor is unable to secure a verdict of guilty does not mean they are acting against the interests of the state. Once again, their job is to represent the State of San Andreas and the interests of its citizens through the prosecution of those who violate the law.

    If you have any evidence that a prosecutor, or anybody within the Judicial Branch for that matter, is acting within malicious intent, I would urge you to submit a report with the Bar Ethics Review Board, which is the Judicial Branch equivalent of Internal Affairs.

    I will be leaving this inquiry open for 24 hours following this message if you would like to ask any followup questions.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
Olivia Valentine
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:49 pm
ECRP Forum Name:

Re: [Public Inquiry] Questions into Prosecution Perjury Charges

Post by Olivia Valentine »

Image
Image
Re: [Public Inquiry] Questions into Prosecution Perjury Charges
December 15, 2022
    Image
    • Dear Honorable Judge Mason,

      As always, thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate your thorough response to my questions. However, I'd like to note that the prosecution was only allowed to add charges to a case after May 15, 2022. Meaning that your total number of 77 would be incorrect. By my calculations, that would make it 19+ and not 77+. Meaning 7 out of 19+ cases, perjury has been brought forth. In my opinion that's way too much, as it has become some what of a standard to seek out the charge. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, but the questions I began with still remain:
      • It is almost standard to see the prosecution file a perjury charge against the defendant. How is this practice allowed and not viewed as a break in your "code of ethics"?
      • Will there be repercussions in the future for prosecutors who continue to charge defendants with GF24 and fail?
      I would hope that the court as well as the prosecutors understand the consequence of their actions, and the severity of what a felony charge means to someone.

      Why should the suspect be the sole person to suffer recourse?

      They have to pay court fees if they lose, court fees even if they don't lose (if they choose to hire their own attorney), time, loss of employment, loss of reputation, you name it. However, cops, deputies, prosecutors, etc. do not.

      ((Sorry I submitted a response on the wrong character! xD))

    • Respectfully,
      Image
      Olivia Valentine
    Image
    Last edited by Olivia Valentine on Thu Dec 15, 2022 5:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    Judith Mason
    Judicial Branch
    Posts: 2578
    Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
    ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

    SAJB Awards

    Re: [Public Inquiry] Questions into Prosecution Perjury Charges

    Post by Judith Mason »

    Image


    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    Re: [Public Inquiry] Questions into Prosecution Perjury Charges

    "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

    • Ms. Valentine,

      Thank you for your follow-up response.

      To address the disputed number of cases that have had the potential for additional charges, it appears that the earliest instance of this in the Superior Court was on the 27th of March, 2022 in #22-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Chad Rapkov, in which the prosecution argued, during a Motions Hearing, that the defendant should be charged with GF24 - Perjury.

      Ultimately, the defendant was found not guilty of this charge, however, it seems that both of our estimations were off. Based on the number of previously activated cases which have been concluded since the decision on 27/MAR/2022, my estimation now puts me at 66 cases, or 10.6%, not including cases that are either currently active or pending arraignment.

      The practice of seeking a perjury conviction during an active trial is not, and will not, be discouraged so long as probable cause to believe that the charge is warranted has been established. Needless to say, probable cause is a lower standard to meet when compared to the previously discussed standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, hence the reason why the prosecution may seek to apply this charge but fail to secure a conviction.

      This is not considered to be a violation of the Code of Ethics because the prosecutors seeking this charge are doing so within the bounds of their authority as representatives of the State of San Andreas, tasked with upholding the laws that have been established. Prosecutors will not be disciplined for doing their duties to uphold the law.

      That being said, my previous statement still stands as well: if you have any evidence that a prosecutor, or anybody within the Judicial Branch for that matter, is acting with malicious intent, I would urge you to submit a report with the Bar Ethics Review Board. We take these matters very seriously and will investigate all inquiries of malicious prosecution.

      To address your final statement, there are inherent risks to any criminal justice system throughout the world. Even within other jurisdictions throughout the United States, those accused of committing a crime, including truly innocent citizens, have a number of hurdles to jump through just to address their charges in court. It isn't a perfect system, but we at the Judicial Branch do our best to uphold the laws of the Penal Code and the ideals presented in the Constitution so that we can all live in a more civilized society based on the rules that are applicable to everyone.

      Finally, I will take this opportunity to direct you to the Legislative Desk - Suggest a Bill or Resolution section and to the Certified Election Results, posted last week, to get in contact with a representative of the Law Review Committee if you feel there are meaningful changes that can be made to the Penal Code, including the perjury charge. This new opportunity allows for much more hands on engagement with the citizens of our state to make changes to existing laws and pass new legislation with the help of our elected officials.

      Once again, I thank you for your submissions - this thread will be locked and archived. If you have any additional inquiries, please submit a new request.

      Respectfully,

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

    Return to “SAJB - Archived Public Inquiries”

    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest