San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Honorable Judge Mason and pertaining parties,
The prosecution agrees that there was not enough time to safely exit the vehicle at any point prior to when he did. The first moment the defendant saw to exit the vehicle safely and comply with the officers, he took. These are not the actions of an individual intending to evade an officer. Should a hostage in a bank robbery also be held as a willing participant if they could not leave without their health and safety being at risk? Any reasonable individual would not make that determination, nor should they in this case.
The prosecution continues to argue that the defendant's willingness to participate in the crime began when he witnessed the initial act of vandalism and did not leave. However, being present at the scene of a crime or choosing not to immediately leave a situation does not automatically make one a willing participant in the crime. Intent is all that matters. Did our client intend to evade the police? Did he intend to commit this crime? Absolutely not. Our client stated at arrest, and has continued to state that he was unaware of the actions the driver was undertaking at the time of the crime. Intent is all that matters in this case, and the prosecution has not provided a shred of evidence to prove that simple fact.
The prosecution has supplied opinions and suppositions during this entire process. The prosecution refers to the defendant allowing his friend back into his vehicle after the act of vandalism. The defendant's decision to allow his friend in the vehicle does not imply active participation or intent to evade. The defense maintains that the defendant's actions in letting his friend in the vehicle were not indicative of his involvement in or endorsement of her subsequent criminal actions.
The prosecution's argument that the defendant switching seats with his friend, allowing her to drive, indicates willingness to participate in the evasion is speculative and lacks concrete evidence. The defense contends that this action alone does not prove active participation but may be attributed to other factors, such as a panic response that caused the defendant to simply freeze up until the chase was over, or fear of being run over by the police during the chase.
In summary, we the defense maintain that the prosecution has failed to provide substantial evidence demonstrating the defendant's active participation and willingness to engage in the evading incident. The defense argues that the defendant's presence in the vehicle and his decisions during the course of events do not automatically equate to willing participation in the crime.
Junior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 309-8976 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Honorable Judge Mason and pertaining parties,
As the Prosecution has the burden of proof, we will provide one final statement to the courts.
To begin, There are several inconsistencies made by the defense in their statement that need to be rectified for the courts. The defense stated "The prosecution agrees that there was not enough time to safely exit the vehicle at any point prior to when he did." This would be an incorrect representation of the Prosecutions position on the matter. The Prosecution does not argue that the defendant had time to exit the vehicle, once the VF - 01 Evading an officer started.
The defense stated, "The first moment the defendant saw to exit the vehicle safely and comply with the officers, he took." This does not explain the taunting, failure to call cops, or willingness to stay with Fiora Sojka prior to the chase. To compare someone hanging out with their friend, while they commit crimes, to being an unfortunate hostage... well they are totally separate matters. The defendant openly admits to being friends and spending time with Ms. Sojka in his appeal. That hardly constitutes a hostage.
The defendant was not unaware of the actions of Ms. Sojka as the defense claims, but fully aware of what she was doing as he was a direct witness to her crimes. The Prosecution has provided beyond a doubt that the defendant did change seats with Ms. Sojka as in one footage he is seen driving the vehicle, while witnessing her crimes, and then he is later seen in the passenger seat. It would be speculation for the Prosecution to state that the defendant did this to circumvent any possible charges, but we have not insinuated that. What we have stated is that it indicated a willingness to being with Ms. Sojka, while committing crimes, and by that sequential logic a willingness to participate overall.
Once again, in the defendants own appeal he states "Me and my friend got pulled over at a traffic stop". His appeal specifically avoids the events that led up to that traffic stop. The events have already been ruled as being linked. The defendant already knew what crimes Ms. Sojka committed; the defendant not only chose to stick around, but allowed her to drive his vehicle; the defendant had reasonable prior knowledge of crime enough to assume he was aware of why they were being pulled over; the prosecution believes that all of these factors put together shows a willingness to participate.
We will leave the rest to that of the courts mercy.
Respectfully,
Senior Prosecuting Attorney
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 321-2132 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
Honorable Judge Judith Mason,
We the defense disagree with the following:
As the Prosecution has the burden of proof, we will provide one final statement to the courts.
This goes against the court decision made on July 8 which states:
Once initial arguments have been submitted, each party is permitted 72 hours each for one additional response for counter-arguments, at which point I will issue a final verdict.
The court's decision on July 8 clearly states that each party is allowed one additional response for counter-arguments after the initial arguments have been submitted. Since the prosecution has already utilized this opportunity, they should not be granted an extra response solely based on the burden of proof. It would be unfair to the defense, as it would exceed the established guidelines and potentially disrupt the balance of the Summary Judgment proceedings.
Respectfully,
Chief Public Defender
Director of Training & Hiring
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 308-7889 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Honorable Judge Mason and pertaining parties,
The Prosecution finds it unfortunate that they would not be able to refute statements made that presented our own argument in lights that is simply not true. Essentially putting words into the Prosecutions mouth, that they have not said. Not only that, but the Prosecution has always had the burden of proof in a criminal case, always been allowed to speak last, and each and every case that's ever gone to trial would serve to prove that fact.
Respectfully,
Senior Prosecuting Attorney
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 321-2132 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
Honorable Judge Judith Mason,
We the defense appreciate the prosecution's response but feel compelled to address certain points raised.
We appreciate the prosecution's clarification regarding their position on the matter. We apologize for any mischaracterization or misunderstanding of their argument in our previous statement.
Regarding the prosecution's assertion that they have always had the burden of proof in a criminal case and have traditionally been allowed to speak last, we understand that this may be a customary practice during regular trials. However, the specific guidelines for the current proceedings, as outlined in the court's decision on July 8, deviate from the traditional practice. The court's decision clearly states that each party is permitted one additional response for counter-arguments after the initial arguments have been submitted.
While we acknowledge the historical context presented by the Prosecution, we must abide by the established guidelines for the Summary Judgment proceedings. These guidelines ensure fairness and an equitable opportunity for both parties to present their arguments and counter-arguments.
Therefore, we respectfully request that the court adheres to the previously stated guidelines, allowing each party one additional response for counter-arguments. Granting the Prosecution an extra response solely based on the burden of proof would deviate from the established procedures.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and we trust that the court will carefully consider the importance of adhering to the established guidelines to ensure a fair and just proceeding.
Respectfully,
Chief Public Defender
Director of Training & Hiring
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 308-7889 — [email protected]
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. Truls Svartlamon
#23-CM-0064
A decision was reached in the above case on the 18th day of July, 2023.
The case of #23-CM-0064, State of San Andreas v. Truls Svartlamon has been resolved.
On the 16th of April, 2023, law enforcement officers with the Los Santos Police Department initiated a traffic stop on a black Komacho due to an incident approximately 10 minutes prior, in which the vehicle of then off-duty Officer King Lee was allegedly damaged by an acquaintance of the defendant outside of the Vespucci Liquor store. At this original incident, body-camera footage shows a masked woman swinging at and kicking Mr. Lee's vehicle while the driver of the Komacho, assumed to be Truls Svartlamon, inches up closer as the woman damages Mr. Lee's vehicle.
During the resulting traffic stop, with the defendant now in the passenger seat, the driver identified as Fiora Sojka can be seen refusing a lawful request to step out of the vehicle and instead proceeds to start the engine of the vehicle and drive away, at which point law enforcement officers initiate a pursuit of the vehicle. After a short pursuit in which the driver can be seen repeatedly ramming law enforcement cruisers, the driver appears to suddenly stop, resulting in the stalling of the vehicle's engine.
The prosecution has asserted that the defendant was complicit with the alleged vandalism that directly resulted in the traffic stop due to previously driving the Komacho at the original incident, allowing Ms. Sojka to drive the vehicle after the alleged vandalism, and continuing to remain with Ms. Sojka following the incident. The prosecution further argues that these previous actions of the defendant at the original incident of the alleged vandalism shows a willingness to participate in the subsequent evasion from law enforcement.
The defense argues that the prosecution has failed to establish a willingness to partake in the act of evading from law enforcement and has asserted that simply being in the presence of a previous crime does not equate willful participation in a future crime. The defense further states that the defendant did not display an intent to participate in the subsequent evasion and that the defendant did not know Ms. Sojka was going to leave the traffic stop as she did. Regardless of the switch from Mr. Svartlamon driving at the original incident to Ms. Sojka driving a short time later, the defense argues that the defendant's apparent permission for Ms. Sojka to drive the Komacho is not an endorsement of her subsequent actions.
The court has found that despite the defendant's involvement as the driver at the original incident involving the alleged vandalism and the affiliation with Ms. Sojka, even with the apparent permission for her to drive the vehicle following the original incident, the court has not found a specific willingness of the defendant to participate in the evasion. For a guilty verdict to be rendered, the court must have found that the defendant's actions have violated their legal obligations. In this case, the driver (and by extension, passengers) of the Komacho were required to pull over for law enforcement officers when the traffic stop was initiated, which they did initially comply with, however, it was the actions of Ms. Sojka that began the pursuit of the vehicle.
The court has found that it is from the point that the traffic stop was initiated that the defendant was considered detained and, while the actions prior to the traffic stop would help to establish an affiliation with Ms. Sojka and to establish a possible complicity in the alleged vandalism, it does not establish enough of a willingness to partake in an evasion of law enforcement to find the defendant guilty, especially considering that the court has found there to be insufficient opportunity for the defendant to safely exit the vehicle after the pursuit had been initiated, despite the assertions made by the arresting officers.
It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:
On the count of VF01 - Evading an Officer, I find the defendant, Truls Svartlamon, not guilty.
Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
