#23-CM-0048, State of San Andreas v. Mickey Silver

[Cyrus Raven]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Re: #23-CM-0048, State of San Andreas v. Mickey Silver "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Honorable Judith Mason,
  
  
  Like the prosecution, we believe it is important to first establish the facts in this case, especially absent interpretation of these facts as this should be done later in a response.
  

  On February 13th, a Fleeca Bank SOS Alarm went off and units of the Police Department arrived on scene, where they found 5 packets of money left behind, inside of the breached vault.

  Per Exhibit #2, on the 13th of February Detective Yukimura ''responded to a bank SOS alarm for the Fleeca bank near Life Invader. Inside there were 5 packs of cash left on the ground inside the bank vault.''. It was later determined that ''one out of the five came back with Mr. Mickey Silver's fingerprints on it.''
  
  The prosecution claims ''they found 5 packets of money left behind, inside of the breached vault.'' This is not borne out by the evidence supplied during discovery. To clarify:
  
  1. No exhibit mentions money being ''left behind''. The inclusion of the word behind, while seemingly harmless, is used to further the argument that my client was involved in a bank robbery. The only mention of something being ''left'' is by Detective Yukimura when she states ''Inside there were 5 packs of cash left on the ground inside the bank vault.''
  2. No exhibit mentions the vault having been ''breached'', just like the prior point, the prosecution is trying to introduce their own narrative into the portion of their reply which should specifically only reference facts.

  ---

  The packets of money that were to be stolen and ultimately were left behind were taken by the PD to conduct forensics tests, in which they checked for fingerprints.

  The prosecution claims ''The packets of money that were to be stolen and ultimately were left behind'' This is not borne out by the evidence supplied during discovery. There is no evidence supplied to suggest that any money was stolen from the bank
  
  

  ---

  The fingerprint scans carried out on the packets returned in one of the five packets a hit on the defendant, meaning that their fingerprints were found along the money that was left behind.

  As previously mentioned, the usage of ''left behind'' is doing a lot of heavy lifting to prop up the prosecution's narrative that a bank robbery did happen and some money was stolen when there is no evidence to substantiate this.
  

  ---

  The defendant was charged, however, they were not apprehended at the date in which the events took place, which led to them being arrested at a later date since there was a warrant out for his arrest.

  No issues with this statement of fact.
  

  ---

  
  SF07 - Bank Robbery is defined as ''Entering or attempting to enter a bank with the intent to deprive it of any item with monetary value, with or without force. Attempted modifier does not apply to this charge.''
  
  We believe the prosecution has failed to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that our client entered or attempted to enter a bank with the intent to deprive it of any item with monetary value.
  
  Our client was not seen at the bank - There is no witness statements, CCTV, body-cam or other evidence placing my client at the bank. While his fingerprints were lifted from one of the packs of money, there are a multitude of explanations that would justify this. At the most, the prosecution can claim our client had contact with a pack. However, can they claim, beyond a reasonable doubt that he was inside the bank with the intent to steal? We argue, no.
  
  For example, one of the main income sources for newer citizens in our city is the Gruppe 6 Money Transporter job. Workers are actively engaged in handling packs of money as they go around and refill ATMs all over the city. Is it possible that our client, while working in such a job, handled and subsequently left his fingerprints on a pack of cash that was later transported to this Fleeca Bank?
  
  Another example, Detective Yukimura confirmed that ''there were 5 packs of cash left on the ground inside the bank vault'' this was after she responded to a ''bank SOS alarm'' is it possible that an unknown group of bank robbers intentionally left a pack of cash with our client's prints to further cover their tracks, attempting to mislead law enforcement?
  
  The prosecution asks this court to believe in their version of events despite our two examples being just as reasonable. According to discovery, there was no attempt at communicating with our client in an attempt to extract more information from the day in question, this is very much a case of ''prints were found = arrest''. It is not our job to disprove an alleged crime, instead it is the prosecution's job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed.
  
  The burden of proof is on the prosecution and they have failed to properly establish a timeline of events where they can place our client inside or around the bank at the time of the SOS Alarm. They have failed to reasonably investigate and build a case on this matter, relying only on the presence of a set of fingerprints of which they have no knowledge of how they got there.
  
  It is with the above considerations that we urge this court to accept this motion for summary judgement in favor of the Defendant.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Cyrus Raven
  Chief Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch - Command
  5356160 — [email protected]

  ---

[Antonio McFornell]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Mickey Silver
#23-CM-0048

A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 1st of June, 2023.

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

• Reasoning: Hand Injury
  • Detailed Explanation: This motion was drafted with voice-dictation. The prosecution would like to request a continuance of 48 hours to reply to the responde of the Defense ((Long story short - I haven't had internet for the past 3 days. Company's said it'll be repaired today evening. Should the repairs not go through, I will write this motion at a coffee shop. In the meantime, I'd really appreciate the continuance though))

Deputy Attorney General

[Judith Mason]

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. Mickey Silver
#23-CM-0048

A decision was reached in the above case on the 1st day of June, 2023.

The Motion for Continuance is granted.



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

[Antonio McFornell]

San Andreas Judicial Branch "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• The defense argues that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the intent to perform the actions described in SF07.
  
  In particular the defense proposes that the defendant might have left their fingerprints on the packets of money due to the possibility of them being employed within a money transportation company. It is also proposed that this might have been an impersonation or framed situation.
  
  While the prosecution has gone through its efforts to gather the discovery that has already been presented, it is also a duty of the defense to prove any theories they might have in relation to the case that would be able to provide enough reasoning for the judge to believe that the defendant might have misplaced their fingerprints on the packets, or that they were framed. However, the defense did not provide any discovery for that matter.
  
  To conclude, I would like to state that -perhaps at fault of the prosecution-, the arguments for this summary judgment presented by both parties have made their way into possibly addressing the facts of the case. With that in mind, we respectfully request -and believe the defense will agree- that the arguments presented, along with the undisputed facts of the event, are taken into account to reach a final decision.
  
  Best regards,
  
  
  Deputy Attorney General
  Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

[Cyrus Raven]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Re: #23-CM-0048, State of San Andreas v. Mickey Silver "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Honorable Judith Mason,
  
  One of the most important principles, if not the most important, is that of presumption of innocence. In other words, the legal principle that a Defendant is innocent until proven guilty.
  
  While Los Santos operates differently than other states in the United States of America, this principle is still applicable when a Defendant appeals their criminal charges with the Superior Court. The burden of proof in criminal trials is always on the prosecution, the Defense is not obligated to provide any discovery on their end because the Defendant is presumed innocent until found guilty by the courts.
  

  While the prosecution has gone through its efforts to gather the discovery that has already been presented, it is also a duty of the defense to prove any theories they might have in relation to the case that would be able to provide enough reasoning for the judge to believe that the defendant might have misplaced their fingerprints on the packets, or that they were framed. However, the defense did not provide any discovery for that matter.

  In response to the prosecution, it is not the Defense's duty to prove any theories unless an affirmative defense is being made. Such an example would be for cases of self-defense where a Defendant admits to the alleged crime, but provides evidence that would waive any criminal liability. The goal of bringing up the previously mentioned ''theories'' is to introduce reasonable doubt into the prosecution's narrative and shine a light in the clear unanswered questions that still remain, likely due to the lack of investigation by Law Enforcement and their eagerness to convict an innocent man solely based on the presence of fingerprints.
  

  ---

  We are in full agreement with the prosecution that the provided statements and core facts in this case are enough for this court to issue a verdict on this case.
  
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Cyrus Raven
  Chief Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch - Command
  5356160 — [email protected]

  ---

[Judith Mason]

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. Mickey Silver
#23-CM-0048

A decision was reached in the above case on the 22nd day of June, 2023.

The case of #23-CM-0058, State of San Andreas v. Mickey Silver has been resolved.

On the 13th of February, 2023, law enforcement officers responded to the Fleeca Bank branch location near the Life Invader building due to a bank-triggered SOS alarm being received regarding an alleged bank robbery. Though no suspects were found at the scene upon arrival, several bank-wrapped packs of cash were found on the ground on the inside of the bank's vault.

During the course of the subsequent investigation, a detective with the Los Santos Police Department was able to lift fingerprints from one of the bank-wrapped packs of cash, and once the fingerprints were processed, were determined to be a match to the defendant's registered fingerprints. As such, the defendant was charged with SF07 - Bank Robbery and, according to the warrant report, was arrested several days after the incident in question.

The prosecution has asserted that with the SOS Alarm triggered as a result of the alleged robbery, the bank-wrapped packs of cash being left on the ground of the bank vault, and the defendant's fingerprints being found on one of the packs of cash, more than enough evidence exists to find that the defendant was in violation of SF07 - Bank Robbery. The prosecution further asserts that bank-wrapped cash, as was found on the floor of the vault, is unobtainable to the general public and there would be no reasonable circumstances in which the defendant's fingerprints would be otherwise found on the wrapping of the cash.

The prosecution further argues that this fact pattern establishes a clear intent considering that the defendant's prints were found on a item which is normally unobtainable to the public in a location which is normally blocked off to public access by a heavily armored door, and as such, asserts that the reasonable conclusion is that the defendant entered the bank with the intent to deprive it of the aforementioned cash.

To counter, the defense asserts that there is insufficient evidence to find the defendant guilty of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, claiming that the prosecution has only established that the defendant had contact with the bank-wrapped cash at some point, however, has not met the burden of proof to establish intent to deprive. The defense continues stating that the lack of further corroborating evidence beyond the fingerprints leaves too much room for interpretation and that there are other reasons why the defendants fingerprints could have been found on the bank-wrapped cash.

Two such circumstances have been provided by the defense to establish reasonable doubt, one of which includes an unknown group of bank robbers who may have intentionally placed a pack of cash with the defendant's fingerprints in an attempt to mislead law enforcement officers investigating the crime, and the other is that the defendant could have been working the popular freelance job of distributing money in a Gruppe Sechs Money Truck.

The court notes the similarities between this case and #23-CM-0043, State of San Andreas v. Beau Bathsheba, a case regarding an incident (which coincidentally occurred on the same date), in which the defendant's fingerprints were found on an items within a location which would normally be inaccessible to the public, and in conjunction with the 911 call reporting a break-in and the nature of the items bearing the fingerprints of the defendant, a guilty verdict was issued.

The court similarly finds the defense's doubt in this case to be inadequate - the exhibits currently in evidence do not necessarily support the narrative that another alternative group may have planted a bank-wrapped pack of cash that already has the defendant's fingerprints, and while the other narrative that the pack of cash was handled by the defendant through the course of money transportation duties, the referenced position specifically transports money from the Union Depository building to ATMs throughout the city for cash to be distributed as opposed to transporting money from the ATMs to any Fleeca Bank branches.

In the first scenario, the court would have to find it reasonable to believe that the defendant, first, came into contact with bank-wrapped cash at some point and that, second, an unidentified entity obtained that same pack of cash, and finally, brought that pack of cash to the Fleeca Bank branch location to be planted on the ground during an alleged bank robbery. For the second scenario, the court would have to find it reasonable to believe that the defendant came in contact with the bank-wrapped cash during the duties undertaken by the defendant while driving the Gruppe Sechs Money Truck, which primarily delivers cash to ATMs throughout the state for distribution of individual bills, but the money in the ATM was rather redirected at some point to the Fleeca Bank branch location.

Ultimately, the court has found that, with the defendant's fingerprints being found on a pack of bank-wrapped cash, which is typically unobtainable to the general public, and with that pack of cash being found on the floor within a typically locked and restricted bank vault, and with the reported SOS call indicating a bank robbery from the bank employees, the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had entered the Fleeca Bank branch location near the Life Invader building with the intent to deprive it of said cash.

It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:

• On the count of SF07 - Bank Robbery, I find the defendant, Mickey Silver, guilty.

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