#23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota

Rachel Pilota
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2022 4:23 pm
ECRP Forum Name: IblackhawkI

#23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota

Post by Rachel Pilota »

Image
Image
Defendant Name: Rachel Cash
Defendant Phone: Please email me if you need it
Defendant Address: 628, Eclipse Towers
(( Defendant Discord: IblackhawkI#6666 ))
Requested Attorney: N/A
Image
Charging Department: PD
Image
Date & Time of Incident(s): 23/NOV/2022 19:30
Charge(s):
  • Felony, Hit and Run
Narrative:
First of all, thank you for reading this file.
A few days ago, I have been put in DOC by PD. Damaging my status, life and relations.
Reason for putting me in DOC was a hit and run, although I do understand that a hit and run was and is not a good thing... I had my reason for this one. Unfortunately, the video did not contain any sound. They would've heard what mister Marshall had said when he was there. They would've understood why I rammed him. Mister Marshall, or PD, also didn't show the full video. As I know he started recording way before this incident. The part where it's shown what happened before and after has been removed.

PD brought me in with a vague call, asking me for questions. I had a criminal report and a application running and was not aware of what was going on when I got there. They asked me to put my gun in my car, which is not a safe space to store a gun in, and then patted me down to ask some questions. I was and still am confused about what happened and why this has happened, as I feel like they have held false or corrupted evidence against me. I explained why I ran after I have hit him, they did not care and arrested me.

I feel like I've been taken in without them listening to me, other than a confession in their ears... It feels like I have been set up.

I can explain the whole story in a private conversation, as I don't feel safe discussing this over the internet.
Hoping to hear from you soon.

Rachel Cash

I, Rachel Cash, hereby affirm that all information provided above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and understand that knowingly providing false information could result in additional charges and/or fines. (( I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means. ))
Image
Last edited by Rachel Pilota on Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
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: State of San Andreas v. Rachel Cash

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: State of San Andreas v. Rachel Cash
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • To whom it may concern,

    The purpose of this notice is to inform you that as of this moment I, Roderick Marchisio, will be representing the State of San Andreas in all the proceedings pertaining to the underlying case.

    I will take it upon myself to reach out to the involved parties to collect and review all evidence in relation to the underlying case to ensure a proper and smooth continuation of this process.

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: State of San Andreas v. Rachel Cash

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

NOTICE OF RECEIPT


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Rachel Cash

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on 29 November, 2022.


The Superior Court of San Andreas has received your filing and the case is now pending activation. Be advised that the court system runs on a first-come, first-served basis and will only activate cases out of order for special circumstances.

During this time, the defendant is encouraged to reach out to a licensed defense attorney in order to prepare a proper defense, otherwise, a court-appointed attorney will be assigned to the case upon its activation.

The defendant is further encouraged to speak with an authorized individual at Rockford Hills City Hall, Mission Row Police Station, or Paleto Bay Sheriff's Office for official clarification on the specific charges received and their respective date and times, as once the case has been activated, any omitted charges will be considered abandoned and unable to be disputed within this case.


Image
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Cyrus Raven
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:14 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Cyrus Raven

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: State of San Andreas v. Rachel Cash

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Personal Email
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • To whom it may concern,

    The Defense is notifying that the Defendant has changed their name to Rachel Pilota.

    Respectfully,

    Cyrus Raven
    Deputy Chief Public Defender
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    5356160 — [email protected]
Image
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: State of San Andreas v. Rachel Cash

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: State of San Andreas v. Rachel Cash
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • To the Defense,

    Is the Prosecution correct in the assumption the Defendant has changed her name again, now to "Rachel Svensson"?

Respectfully,

Deputy Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Guilherme Tavares
Police Officer II
Posts: 4082
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2020 10:26 am
ECRP Forum Name: gmtavares

LSPD Awards for Service

SASG Awards

DOC Awards

SAJB Awards

Re: State of San Andreas v. Rachel Cash

Post by Guilherme Tavares »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: State of San Andreas v. Rachel Cash

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

  • To whom it may concern,

    I, Junior Prosecuting Attorney Guilherme Tavares, will be co-counseling with Deputy Attorney General Roderick Marchisio, and will be representing the State of San Andreas in all the proceedings pertaining to the underlying case.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Junior Prosecuting Attorney
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 328-1508 — [email protected]
Image
Image
Retired Image POLICE DETECTIVE I Guilherme Tavares
Former Robbery-Homicide Detective, Major Crimes Division
Former Commanding Officer, Firearms and Licensing Division
Los Santos Police Department — "To Protect and to Serve"
Image
Image Licensed Attorney Guilherme Tavares
Former Prosecutor
San Andreas Judicial Branch — "Equal Justice Under Law"
Image
User avatar
Hugh Allgood
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name: HotPipinLeo

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota

Post by Hugh Allgood »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

NOTICE OF ACTIVATION


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota
#23-CM-0025

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above case on 6th of February, 2023.


The case of the State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota is hereby activated by this Court under #23-CM-0025.

At this time the State has adequate representation, however, the Defendant is still seeking representation. At this time the court will delay the Order for Discovery until adequate representation has been assigned and they inform the court they are ready to proceed.



Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Cyrus Raven
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:14 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Cyrus Raven

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • To whom it may concern,

    I, Deputy Chief Public Defender Cyrus Raven, will be representing the defendant, Rachel Pilota, in this case. I have made myself aware of the contents of this case and will be attempting to make contact with the defendant.

    Respectfully,



    Image
    Deputy Chief Public Defender
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    5356160 — [email protected]
Image
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: #23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Motion for Discovery
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion for Discovery

Honorable Allgood,

  • We the Prosecution in the case below are presenting our discovery to the court.
    State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota
    Assigned Court Case Number: #23-CM-0025
    Requesting Party: N/A
    Party Members: Roderick Marchisio
    Exhibit #1: Arrest Report Rachel Cash
    Type of Discovery:
    • Physical evidence
    Spoiler
    All Information from the Discovery The arrest report of the Defendant indicates that the Defendant was arrested after an investigation conducted by the Los Santos Police Department.
    • Image
      Image

      Los Santos Police Department

      ARREST REPORT
      "TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"

      MUGSHOT
      • SUSPECT DETAILS
        • Full Name: Rachel Cash
          Phone Number: 2367455
          Licenses Suspended: Yes
          Officers Involved:
          • Police Officer III Lance Sage
          • Police Detective I Mike Adams
          • Police Officer III Dale Ashcroft
          Charges:
          • VF02 - Felony Hit and Run
        INCIDENT NARRATIVE
        • Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
          • Regarding Casefile #121774 - DSU

            ( A heavy pistol with recovered from the suspect due to her firearm permit being revoked. )
        EVIDENCE DETAILS
        • Document the possessions confiscated from the arrested suspect.
          Possessions are to be documented individually, examples of documented illegal possessions are "Pistol .50" or "12 grams of Cocaine". Legal possessions that can be categorized may be grouped, eg. "Clothing" to describe all clothing items. Body camera footage/pictures may be attached as an evidence exhibit.

          Where possible, the serial number of each firearm seized as evidence should be noted.
          • Illegal Possessions:


            Legal Possessions:

            Photograph of Possessions (MANDATORY)
            Image
      Image
    Exhibit #2: Footage victim
    Type of Discovery:
    • Physical evidence
    Spoiler
    All Information from the Discovery The footage as obtained by the Los Santos Police Department that was used in the analysis of this crime shows the Defendant getting in her vehicle, facing both victims and revving her engine, thus gaining more RPM in the acceleration of the vehicle and ramming the vehicle as driven by herself into both victims as well as a white Warrener that was parked in the parking lot. In this respect, the Prosecution notes that with reference to evidence exhibit #1 it leaves no doubt that the person as depicted in the footage is indeed the Defendant.
    Exhibit #3: Witness Statement Lance Sage
    Type of Discovery:
    • Witness Statement
    Spoiler
    All Information from the Discovery The witness statement as provided by Officer Sage with the Los Santos Police Department further shows that the Defendant was investigated by the Los Santos Police Department for the actions as seen in evidence exhibit #2. After being interrogated, the Defendant was charged and arrested by the Los Santos Police Department.
    • Image

      San Andreas Judicial Branch
      Official Witness Statement
      "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
      Case Information
      • Incident Date: 26/11/2022
      Witness Information
      • Name: Lance Sage
        Date of Birth: 11/NOV/2022
        Phone Number: 263-3763
        Occupation: Police Officer III
      Witness Statement
      • I was working on a casefile with Detective I Mike Adams and had 2 suspects, Waldo Marshall and Rachel Cash, As shown in the Casefile Here there is a phone recording footage provided by Waldo, showing Rachel running him over in her vehicle. Once we brought her to interrogation we informed her of the case file and why she is there, I read her all her rights and made sure that she is fully aware of them and that she also has the right to end the interview at any time. I asked about her interactions with Waldo and she admitted during her statement saying and I quote "I heard on the radio that he had a gun so I ran him over in self-defense"
        And also she stated in her crime report saying "I heard someone scream over the radio he had a gun out. When I saw the chance, I drove him off his bike in self-defense." and as shown in the footage, Waldo did not have a gun in his hand when Rachel ran him over.
        After the interrogation was concluded I informed her of her charge and how the investigation will proceed, Her Firearm license got revoked and we retrieved her firearm which is in the Evidence locker downstairs of Mission Row.
        The investigation is still open regarding Waldo's arrest but we can't reach him yet, He has been charged with Criminal Threats for now. (( Banned ))
      Witness Affirmation
      • I, Lance Sage, affirm that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I affirm that this statement has been made voluntarily, made without promise of reward, and made not under threat, force, or coercion. ((I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means.))

        Signed,

        Image
        Lance Sage
        Police Officer III,
        Los Santos Police Department

        Date: 3/12/2022
      Image
    Exhibit #4: Mugshots Rachel Pilota
    Type of Discovery:
    • Physical evidence
    Spoiler
    All Information from the Discovery The following mugshots of the Defendant in relation to present and future arrest reports relative to this incident were received by the Prosecution from the Los Santos Police Department. Analyzing these mugshots shows that the Defendant evidently has abundantly similar features to those as seen in the evidence exhibits as previously provided to the court. in the eyes of the Proseuction, having seen the individual unmasked on the footage, it leaves no doubt the individual as seen in the footage is indeed the Defendant.
    • Image
      Image
      Image


Sincerely,


Deputy Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
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: #23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Motion to Amend Charges
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion to Amend Charges

Honorable Allgood,

  • We the prosecution in the case are requesting an amendment of the charges.
    State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota
    Assigned Court Case Number: #22-CM-0025
    Requesting Party: Prosecution
    Party Members: Roderick Marchisio, Guilherme Tavares
    Original Charges:
    • VF02 - Felony Hit and Run
    Amended Charges:
    • VF02 - Felony Hit and Run
    • WF01 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon
    • VF04 - Felony Public Endangerment

    Detailed explanation:

    The Prosecution notes that as per the evidence as previously provided to the court, the Defendant has been purposefully lining up her vehicle and ramming this vehicle into a victim on a vehicle, a standing victim and into a vehicle in a very well-known public parking space, namely Legion Square. In the case of #22-CM-0014, State of San Andreas v. Naomi Mizuno, the Superior Court of the State of San Andreas has ruled that for the charge VF04 - Felony Public Endangerment to be applicable the Defendant must place the public in acute danger. In the underlying situation, the Defendant had been willfully using their motor vehicle for these aforementioned actions in well known crowded places. As such, the Prosecution can only conclude that this action should result in the application of the charge VF04 - Felony Public Endangerment.

    Further, it is evident that the Defendant also willfully rammed their vehicle into a standing, innocent civilian in a public parking space that simply happened to talk with the other victim. As per #22-CM-0065, State of San Andreas v. Harley Pavlovich, this constituted not only the threat of bodily harm but also the actual bodily harm itself. Following this, the Prosecution can only conclude that this action should result in the application of the charge WF01 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon.


Sincerely,


Senior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Hugh Allgood
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name: HotPipinLeo

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota

Post by Hugh Allgood »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

COURT RECORD


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota
#23-CM-0025

The following court record was entered in the above case on 7th of February, 2023.


The Superior Court of San Andreas is acknowledging receipt of the discovery presented by the prosecution, and receipt of the Motion to Amend Charges. As the evidence presented by the prosecution occurred before the court ordered discovery, which would have normally been open for 7 days, and to also account for approved leave of absences, the court will give both the defense and prosecution until end of the day on the 20th of February, 2023 to file any motions related to this case, including motions in response to the two prosecution motions (discovery and amended charges). Any motions filed during this time will be reviewed by the Court upon my return from vacation on 21/FEB/2023, and will be decided upon in due time.


Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Cyrus Raven
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:14 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Cyrus Raven

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Motion to Suppress
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion to Suppress

Honorable Hugh Allgood,

  • We the Defense in the case below are requesting that certain evidence be inadmissible in court.
    State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota
    Assigned Court Case Number: 23-CM-0025
    Requesting Party: Cyrus Raven
    Party Members: Rachel Pilota, Cyrus Raven
    Requested Evidence to Suppress: Exhibit #2: Footage victim
    Detailed explanation:

    Footage seems to be corrupted, only showing video and sound up until 1:34. Therefore the remaining blank footage onward should be removed from discovery. ((Disregarded))

    ((The footage provided by the player is valid until the 1:34))

    Requested Evidence to Suppress: Exhibit #3: Witness Statement Lance Sage
    Detailed explanation:

    As shown in the Casefile Here there is a phone recording footage provided by Waldo, showing Rachel running him over in her vehicle. - Lacks foundation, no casefile was provided by the prosecution. The phone recording provided does not show anyone being run over, just an individual recording the Defendant and then getting on his bike.

    I asked about her interactions with Waldo and she admitted during her statement saying and I quote "I heard on the radio that he had a gun so I ran him over in self-defense; And also she stated in her crime report saying "I heard someone scream over the radio he had a gun out. When I saw the chance, I drove him off his bike in self-defense." and as shown in the footage, Waldo did not have a gun in his hand when Rachel ran him over. Hearsay, lacks foundation. Detective is referencing what the Defendant allegedly said. Detective mentions ''crime report'', no crime report has been entered into evidence. Footage does not show what the Detective is alleging.
((Original reply edited to reflect decision regarding footage))


Sincerely,

Image
Cyrus Raven
Deputy Chief Public Defender
Image
Last edited by Cyrus Raven on Sun Feb 19, 2023 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: #23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Allgood,

    In relation to the Motion to Suppress on the second exhibit, the Prosecution notes that the Prosecution is perfectly able to review the footage. If the court wishes, the Prosecution can re-upload the footage.

    (( In this respect, as provided to both the Defense and presiding Judge, it was determined by Head Administrator Kris that the footage is to be accepted for roleplay purposes. If the Defense wishes to argue this, the public docket is not the place to do so. ))

    In relation to the Motion to Suppress on the third exhibit, firstly the Prosecution notes that the witness statement does in fact contain the full case file through the hyperlink "Here". If the presiding Judge is unable to see this, please let us know and we will of course upload this through different means. Further, the Prosecution notes that the statements the Defense would like to have been suppressed is a statement the Defendant made after being read her rights in a formal interrogation. As such, these statements are legally perfectly allowed in court.

    Following the above, the Prosecution requests the presiding Judge to deny the Motion to Suppress from the Defense on all accounts.

Respectfully,

Deputy Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Cyrus Raven
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:14 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Cyrus Raven

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Hugh Allgood,

    To solidify our previous suppression request. It is the responsibility of the prosecution to provide their discovery in a way that is accessible by all parties, including the public (with exception to sealed matters). The Defense is unable to access any hyperlink related to the alleged case file as mentioned in Exhibit #3. Furthermore, the issue regarding hearsay still stands in our view. The prosecution has not provided a transcript of any interrogation nor an audio recording or video recording, making this a clear case of hearsay, regardless if in the witness statement an Officer mentions reading a suspect their rights.

    Respectfully,

    Cyrus Raven
    Deputy Chief Public Defender
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    5356160 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Hugh Allgood
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name: HotPipinLeo

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota

Post by Hugh Allgood »

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. Rachel Pilota
#23-CM-0025

A decision was reached in the above case on the 20th day of February, 2023.


In regards to the prosecution's motion for discovery, I will be allowing all of the uncontested items to be used at trial. I will address the contested items during my discussion of the defense motion.

In regards to the prosecution's motion for amended charges to include WF01 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon & VF04 - Felony Public Endangerment, I will be allowing the prosecution to argue these charges during this trial as these are alleged felonies, which the prosecution is able to pursue during a case appeal lodged in the Superior Court of San Andreas. However, I will remind the prosecution of their extreme burden of proof on not only the appealed charge, but these new charges.

Now to review the defense's motion to suppress evidence.

From exhibit #2, the defense makes mention of the video footage uploaded to the servers of the Superior Court to be corrupted. When I tried to review the footage, I was able to discern audio and video for 1 minute and 34 seconds. After that, the screen goes black and the audio disappears. The rest of the clip showing a black screen and silence is not relevant, therefore, I will agree with the defense on this motion, and this motion is granted.

((Realistically, when the player used /record, it functions just like a physical camera object in the world. The player begins with their phone out aiming towards the other, gets on their bike, and continues to monitor the other player. However, when the player gets their phone out and begins looking at their phone screen, wiring money to another player, etc., his phone is now in his hand doing things other than recording Rachel. The camera itself is no longer faced at Amanda and could not realistically have captured anything beyond 1:34))

From exhibit #3, the defense wishes to suppress portions of a written statement completed by Los Santos Police Department Detective Lance Sage. The specific statements are as follows;

As shown in the Casefile Here there is a phone recording footage provided by Waldo, showing Rachel running him over in her vehicle.

I asked about her interactions with Waldo and she admitted during her statement saying and I quote "I heard on the radio that he had a gun so I ran him over in self-defense; And also she stated in her crime report saying "I heard someone scream over the radio he had a gun out. When I saw the chance, I drove him off his bike in self-defense." and as shown in the footage, Waldo did not have a gun in his hand when Rachel ran him over


As noted in the court decision above, I will agree with the defense that the statement provided by Detective Sage purportedly saying the video shows the defendant running someone is not supported by any evidence submitted by the prosecution. The video, as discussed, does not show the person recording themselves getting run over by the defendant. Therefore, this statement does indeed lack foundation, and the motion is granted in full.

For the second statements, I will be granting the motion in part and denying it in part. I will be allowing the portion stating, "I asked about her interactions with Waldo and she admitted during her statement saying and I quote "I heard on the radio that he had a gun so I ran him over in self-defense;". This is a statement made by Detective Sage recalling a conversation he personally had with the defendant, who (according to Detective Sage, and there being no evidence to the contrary) provided this statement willingly. Furthermore, this statement will be allowed under hearsay exception, "Official records by public employees are writing made by a public employee as a record of an act or event. The writing must be made within the scope of duty of a public employee". As the written statement commonly used by members of the judicial branch are sent to public employees to detail an act or event, and these statements are made within the law enforcement officers' scope of duty. Detective Sage's personally recollection of what the defendant said to him is a record of that event. I will however, be suppressing the rest of that statement, "And also she stated in her crime report saying "I heard someone scream over the radio he had a gun out. When I saw the chance, I drove him off his bike in self-defense." and as shown in the footage, Waldo did not have a gun in his hand when Rachel ran him over" due to the lack of foundation. The prosecution has not provided this "crime report" where the defendant allegedly makes this statement, and the footage as uploaded to the public docket does not show what the Detective purports that it does.

The evidence suppressed has been struck from the record.

Image
Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]
Image
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: #23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Motion for Continuance
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion for Continuance

Honorable Allgood,

  • We the Prosecution in the case below are requesting a Continuance for 14 days for the reason listed below.
    State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota
    Assigned Court Case Number: #23-CM-0025
    Detailed explanation:
    The Prosecution would like to request for continuance to gain more time to review evidence in this clearly important case.

    (( Taking into account the fact that only yesterday afternoon the decision was reached by ECRP server staff how to continue with the footage as provided, this basically resets the Prosecutions' investigation process as a whole. As such, we would like to ask for your understanding in this case. ))


Sincerely,


Senior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Hugh Allgood
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name: HotPipinLeo

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota

Post by Hugh Allgood »

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. Rachel Pilota
#23-CM-0025

A decision was reached in the above case on the 20th day of February, 2023.


The motion for continuance will be granted for a period of 7 days.

The court will be taking notice of the fact the prosecutor was on a leave of absence up until about a week ago, and had posted the discovery prior to taking leave. Both sides were given to the end of the business day on 21/February/23 (at least 7 days) to provide motions to the court from the time when the prosecution resumed their leave of absence. Therefore, I will not be allowing the full 14 days as requested by the prosecution at this time. However, due to the complexity of these technological issues with the footage, I will reserve the right to review a further motion for continuance by the prosecution if necessary after the expiration of this order (28/February/2023 11:59PM ((UTC))).

((It should be noted this decision is based on also based on OOC grounds of receiving late guidance on how this evidence the prosecution initially thought was sufficient would be handled. However, the evidence was available for quite some time for review, as such I do not wish this to drag out much longer than it needs to. But, I feel in the interest of fairness, this can be "backed up" a little bit in time to see if there are other avenues to be explored.
))
Image
Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Cyrus Raven
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:14 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Cyrus Raven

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Motion to Stay Pending Appeal
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion to Stay Pending Appeal

Honorable Hugh Allgood,

  • We the Defence in the case below are requesting a stay pending appeal.
    State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota
    Assigned Court Case Number: #23-CM-0025
    Requesting Party: Cyrus Raven
    Party Members: Rachel Pilota, Cyrus Raven
    Reasoning: The Defense is seeking a partial motion to overturn with regards to the decision made on the motion to suppress Exhibit #3.
    Detailed explanation:

    The Defense believes that allowing the following statement is not in line with previous rulings by the Superior Court that establish a precedent regarding statements made outside of the courtroom and quoting individuals outside of the courtroom.
    I asked about her interactions with Waldo and she admitted during her statement saying and I quote "I heard on the radio that he had a gun so I ran him over in self-defense
    In this instance, we argue that a witness statement does not constitute an ''Official record by public employee'' as the statement is not a recording of the interrogation, a transcript of the interrogation or otherwise a record of the alleged conversation between the Detective and the Defendant as part of the Detective's usual duties. We argue a witness statement should not be seen as a record by a public employee as these are usually not written and kept throughout the regular duties of a law enforcement officer, but instead are requested by the prosecution if an appeal is filled or during the construction of a indictment.
    Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Image
Cyrus Raven
Deputy Chief Public Defender Cyrus Raven
Image
User avatar
Hugh Allgood
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name: HotPipinLeo

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota

Post by Hugh Allgood »

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. Rachel Pilota
#23-CM-0025

A decision was reached in the above case on the 20th day of February, 2023.


The motion to stay pending appeal has been received and acknowledged. The Superior Court will await a decision from the Court of Appeals.

Image
Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]
Image
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: #23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Allgood,

    With obvious relevance to the Discovery for the Prosecution, would you please formally confirm that the Continuance will be extended accordingly with the decision from the Court of Appeals?

Respectfully,

Deputy Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Hugh Allgood
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name: HotPipinLeo

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota

Post by Hugh Allgood »

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. Rachel Pilota
#23-CM-0025

A decision was reached in the above case on the 8th day of March, 2023.


Given the decision made by the San Andreas Court of Appeals, the statement, "I asked about her interactions with Waldo and she admitted during her statement saying and I quote "I heard on the radio that he had a gun so I ran him over in self-defense;" contained within exhibit 3 shall be suppressed, and such statement has been struck from the record.

Given this case has now been returned to the Superior Court, this court will honor the previous motion for continuance, and will give the prosecution until end of business day on 15/March/2023, during which time, the prosecution may file any additional motions deemed necessary. If the prosecution does not need this entire time, the court respectfully asks the prosecution to inform the court. Upon the termination of the continuance (either on 15/March/2023 or through acknowledgement by the prosecution), the defense will have 3 days to file any motions related to any motions made by the prosecution during this time.

The court wishes to thank all parties for their continued patience.


Image
Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]
Image
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: #23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota
#23-CM-0025

A Motion for Voluntary Dismissal was filed in the above case on the 17th of March, 2023.


The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, and the reasoning for request is as follows;


  • Reasoning: Insufficient evidence
    • Detailed Explanation: Taking into account the evidence as made available to the Prosecution, the conclusion has been made the Prosecution cannot rightfully prosecute the Defendant for the charges as appealed. As such, we are voluntarily dismissing this case.





Deputy Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Cyrus Raven
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:14 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Cyrus Raven

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Docket Notice
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Hugh Allgood,

    The Defense has no issue with the Motion for Voluntary Dismissal. However, If possible, we request this case be dismissed with prejudice and full compensation and charge expungement be given to the Defendant.

    Respectfully,

    Cyrus Raven
    Deputy Chief Public Defender
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    5356160 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Hugh Allgood
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name: HotPipinLeo

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota

Post by Hugh Allgood »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

#23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Deputy Attorney General Marchisio?

    Any objections to the latest defense request on dismissing with prejudice?

Respectfully,

Image
Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]
Image
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: #23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: #23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

  • Honorable Allgood,

    As far as the Prosecution is aware, the case has not received a substantive treatment and as such should by legal definition be dismissed without prejudice. Of course, this does not impact the rights of the Defendant to receive compensation as set out by the guidelines.

    Respectfully,


    Attorney General
    Director of Public Notary
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
Locked

Return to “SAJB - Archived Criminal Cases”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests