#24-CM-0037, State of San Andreas v. Jack Falken

[Jack Falken]

Defendant Name: Jack Falken
Defendant Phone: 462-2791
Defendant Address: Eclipse Towers Apartment 786
(( Defendant Discord: JackOFrost ))
Requested Attorney: Shaun Harper

Charging Department: LSPD

Date & Time of Incident(s): 21/01/2024 01:20am MST
Charge(s):

• VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle

Narrative:
At this time I do not wish to divulge any information but my attorney Shaun Harper is fully aware of the situation.

---

I, Jack Falken, 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. ))

[Colt Daniels]

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. Jack Falken

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 23rd of January, 2024.

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.



Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]

[Shaun Harper]

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

---

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Jack Falken

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 23d of January, 2024.

I, Shaun Harper, Chief Public Defender with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Jack Falken in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Primary Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.


Chief Public Defender
Director of Training & Hiring
Notary Clerk
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

[Julien Rocklopher]

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

---

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Jack Falken

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 28/JAN/2024.

I, Julien Rocklopher, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Jack Falken in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Co-Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.



Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 442-8161 — [email protected]

[Antonio McFornell]

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. Jack Falken
#24-CM-0037

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above case on 7th of July, 2024.

The case of the State of San Andreas v. Jack Falken is hereby activated by this Court under #24-CM-0037.

Both the State and Defendant in this case are still awaiting adequate representation. At this time the court will delay the Order for Discovery until adequate representation has been assigned for the Defendant and a State Prosecutor has been assigned to the case and both parties inform the court they are ready to proceed.

In accordance with guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court of San Andreas, this case shall require an in-person trial. Once all pretrial matters have been resolved, a Notice of Scheduling will be issued to arrange an appropriate time for trial.


So ordered,

Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

[Jay Wellberg]

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

---

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Jack Falken

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 7th of July, 2024.

I, Jay Wellberg, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Jack Falkenin the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Primary Counsel l and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.


Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 2956979 — [email protected][/list]

[Luna McMillan]

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

---

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Jack Falken

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 11th of July 2024.

I, Luna McMillan, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant(s), Jack Falken in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Co-Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.



Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 463-9315 —[email protected][/list]

[Terence Williams]

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

---

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Jack Falken
#24-CM-0037

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on 12/JUL/2024.

I, Terence Williams, a Prosecuting Attorney of the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the State of San Andreas in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Primary Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.


Terence Williams
Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

[Mikhail Garin]

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

---

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Jack Falken
#24-CM-0037

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on 12/JUL/2024.

I, Mikhail Garin, Prosecuting Attorney of the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the State of San Andreas in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Co-Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.


Mikhail Garin
Junior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 397-4871 — [email protected]

[Antonio McFornell]

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

---

ORDER FOR DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Jack Falken
#24-CM-0037

A court order was entered in the above case on the 13th of July, 2024.

The prosecution is hereby ordered to provide all evidence collected from the arresting Law Enforcement Agency and submit it to the Court via Motion for Discovery within seven days. If additional time is needed, the prosecution can file a Motion for Continuance.

Once evidence has been submitted to the official docket the defense can begin filing motions.

So ordered,

Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

[Mikhail Garin]

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

---

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Jack Falken
#24-CM-0037

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 15th of July, 2024.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;

• Exhibit #1: Arrest Report - Jack Falken, 22/JAN/2024

  

  

  Los Santos Police Department ARREST REPORT "TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"

  
  

  ---

  MUGSHOT

  • SUSPECT DETAILS
    • 
      Full Name: Jack Falken
      Phone Number: 4622791
      Licenses Suspended: Yes
      Officers Involved:
      • Deputy Chief Lex Roth
      Charges:
      • VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle
    INCIDENT NARRATIVE
    • Incident Date: 22/JAN/2024
      
      Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
      • The subject was witnessed following Officer's Montgomery cruiser after leaving a scene. When he noticed that the Officer was not paying attention to him, he backed his car and collided with Deputy Chief Roth's cruiser causing damages to the cruiser. When he was confronted and asked why he did that, the subject replied that he wanted to sell raffle tickets.
    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:
        2x Black Gloves
        1x Knife
        1x Car Speaker
        1x Speaker
        2x Masks
        1x Radio
        1x Fishing Rod
        1x Sunglasses
        2x Lockpicks
        
        Photograph of Possessions (MANDATORY)

        

  

• Exhibit #2: Witness Statement - Deputy Chief of Police Lex Roth

  

  

  
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  Official Witness Statement
  "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  Case Information

  • Incident Date: 22/JAN/2024

  Witness Information

  • Name: Lex Roth
    Date of Birth: N/A
    Phone Number: N/A
    Occupation: Deputy Chif, Los Santos Police Department

  Witness Statement

  • Where did the incident occur?
    High-End Entrance.
    
    How fast were you traveling?
    I was going with 10 kph since I was behind the car in a safe distance observing why he was following the officer.
    
    Did the suspect break in the middle of the road? You noted they decided to reverse, where did they reverse? How did this cause a collision?
    The suspect was driving to the correct lane of travel following the other unit to sell raffle tickets, and hiking all the time. All of a sudden he stopped in the middle of the road and reversed without looking at his back traveling for about 50 meters when he collided with my car. I assume his speeds while reversing were about 30-35 kph as the impact was big. He collided with his rear end to my front bumper.
    
    It seems that Officer Montgomery was transporting a suspect, Mr. Falken was following Officer Montgomery with yourself behind in a line of 3. Is this correct?
    It was not that close as of line 3 but you can say that. It was Montogomery's Unit, Mr Falken was following/driving very close to the first (Montgomery's) unit and I was about 2-3 cars distance from Mr Falken's vehicle.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Lex Roth, 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,
    
    
    LEX ROTH, Deputy Chief
    Commanding Officer
    Detective Bureau
    [/b]
    Date: 17/FEB/2024

  

• Exhibit #3: Impound Report - Impaler SZ

  

SPACER

Terence Williams
Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

Mikhail Garin
Junior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 397-4871 — [email protected]

SPACER

[Jay Wellberg]

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

---

MOTION TO SUPPRESS

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Jack Falken
#24-CM-0037

A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 16th of July, 2024.

The Defendant, Jack Falken, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Suppress, and requests to following be suppressed from evidence;

• Exhibit #1: Arrest Report - Jack Falken, 22/JAN/2024
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Highlighted Sections for Speculation and Hearsay

  Exhibit A: Arrest Report - Jack Falken, 22/JAN/2024

  Submitting Party: Prosecution
  

  

  Los Santos Police Department ARREST REPORT "TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"

  
  

  ---

  MUGSHOT

  • SUSPECT DETAILS
    • 
      Full Name: Jack Falken
      Phone Number: 4622791
      Licenses Suspended: Yes
      Officers Involved:
      • Deputy Chief Lex Roth
      Charges:
      • VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle
    INCIDENT NARRATIVE
    • Incident Date: 22/JAN/2024
      
      Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
      • The subject was witnessed following Officer's Montgomery cruiser after leaving a scene. When he noticed that the Officer was not paying attention to him, he backed his car and collided with Deputy Chief Roth's cruiser causing damages to the cruiser. When he was confronted and asked why he did that, the subject replied that he wanted to sell raffle tickets.
        
    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:
        2x Black Gloves
        1x Knife
        1x Car Speaker
        1x Speaker
        2x Masks
        1x Radio
        1x Fishing Rod
        1x Sunglasses
        2x Lockpicks
        
        Photograph of Possessions (MANDATORY)

        

  

  • Detailed Reasoning: Speculation - The witness is assuming the reason why he backed his vehicle up, they have no first-hand knowledge of the defendant's reasoning.
    
    Hearsay - The witness is testifying to statements made out of court by the defendant.

• Exhibit #2: Witness Statement - Deputy Chief of Police Lex Roth
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  The highlighted sections for Speculation and Leading.

  Exhibit B: Witness Statement - Deputy Chief of Police Lex Roth

  
  

  

  
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  Official Witness Statement
  "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  Case Information

  • Incident Date: 22/JAN/2024

  Witness Information

  • Name: Lex Roth
    Date of Birth: N/A
    Phone Number: N/A
    Occupation: Deputy Chif, Los Santos Police Department

  Witness Statement

  • Where did the incident occur?
    High-End Entrance.
    
    How fast were you traveling?
    I was going with 10 kph since I was behind the car in a safe distance observing why he was following the officer.
    
    Did the suspect break in the middle of the road? You noted they decided to reverse, where did they reverse? How did this cause a collision?
    The suspect was driving to the correct lane of travel following the other unit to sell raffle tickets, and hiking all the time. All of a sudden he stopped in the middle of the road and reversed without looking at his back traveling for about 50 meters when he collided with my car. I assume his speeds while reversing were about 30-35 kph as the impact was big. He collided with his rear end to my front bumper.
    
    It seems that Officer Montgomery was transporting a suspect, Mr. Falken was following Officer Montgomery with yourself behind in a line of 3. Is this correct?
    It was not that close as of line 3 but you can say that. It was Montogomery's Unit, Mr Falken was following/driving very close to the first (Montgomery's) unit and I was about 2-3 cars distance from Mr Falken's vehicle.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Lex Roth, 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,
    
    
    LEX ROTH, Deputy Chief
    Commanding Officer
    Detective Bureau
    [/b]
    Date: 17/FEB/2024

  

  • Detailed Reasoning: First, the witness is assuming the defendant's reason for following the officer, with no first-hand knowledge of his reasoning. They are also assuming that the defendant did not look in the mirrors, they do not know if he did or did not firsthand, and there is no evidence to show that he did not, they are assuming. Finally, they are Assuming the speed of the defendant's car as stated by Deputy Chief Roth in the statement.
    
    Leading Question - The witness was asked a leading question in a direct examination: "It seems that Officer Montgomery was transporting a suspect, Mr. Falken was following Officer Montgomery with yourself behind in a line of 3. Is this correct?" . Witnesses should not be asked leading questions during a direct examination or re-direct examination, only a cross. Therefore we request the suppression of the question asked and the response given by the witness.

• Exhibit #3: Impound Report - Impaler SZ
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  ► Show Spoiler

  

  • Detailed Reasoning: Entire Exhibit for relevance, we already know the vehicle was impounded due to the nature of the crime and this impound report provides no new information as to the context of the situation.

Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 2956979 — [email protected][/list]

[Terence Williams]

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

---

• Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution would like to present our rebuttal to the Defense's Motion to Suppress.
  
  Exhibit #1: The Defense is arguing parts of the arrest report as hearsay. The Prosecution argues that hearsay does not argue here as the information was given willingly to law enforcement by the defendant, and included in an official document in the scope of the officer's duty. The Prosecution would also like to ask this be the last time the Defense argues hearsay as pertaining to official duty-related documents, including arrest reports as this one, as it has been established time and time again that such information cannot be classified as hearsay, recently ruled on in #24-CM-0007, State of San Andreas v. Tyler Masons by Judge Hyland.
  
  The Prosecution has no objection to the Defense's argument of speculation in this exhibit.
  
  Exhibit #2: The first phrase being suppressed for speculation is fact and is supported by Exhibit #1, where the defendant voluntarily said why they were following them. The second phrase should also not be considered as speculation, as it is based on the witness' own observations. Being positioned behind the defendant's vehicle, they would have been able to see the defendant NOT turn their head to look at the side-view mirrors or rear-view mirror before they started reversing.
  
  The Prosecution has no objection to the Defense's argument of speculation for the third phrase regarding the assumption of the defendant's speed.
  
  As for the Defense's claim of the witness statement containing leading questions, that is not the case. To start, the Prosecution never asked either of the questions contained in the witness statement, the legal investigator asked these as part of the investigation for the Prosecution's Court Information Request, as is their right. Additionally, the questions should not be considered leading as the statement provides answers to more than just the questions asked for each paragraph.
  
  Exhibit #3: The exhibit is highly relevant to the case as it relates both to the vehicle involved in the accident and also the state of the vehicle following the accident, which stands to prove the seriousness of the crash.
  
  SPACER
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Prosecuting Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

  
  Mikhail Garin
  Junior Prosecuting Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 397-4871 — [email protected]

[Jay Wellberg]

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

---

• Honorable Judge McFornell,
  • Exhibit #1: Arrest Report - Jack Falken
    
    • The prosecution argues that hearsay does not apply because the information was given willingly to law enforcement by the defendant and is included in an official document, in the scope of the officer's duty. However, we contend that the nature of the information, the statement "the subject replied that he wanted to sell raffle tickets," falls under hearsay. According to the rules of evidence, hearsay is any statement made out of court that is offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted. This statement was made out of court by the defendant and is now being used in an attempt to suggest why the defendant was following the officer. Witness statements are also provided by officers "in the scope of the officer's duty" and yet we are able to object to them when a statement is hearsay. There is not difference between an arrest report and a regular witness statement, they are both "in the scope of the officer's duty", we should be able to object to this out-of-court statement made by the defendant. The prosecution's reliance on a precedent case (#24-CM-0007, State of San Andreas v. Tyler Masons) does not negate the fundamental definition and application of hearsay in this context.
  • Exhibit #2: Witness Statement – Deputy Chief of Police Lex Roth
    
    • The prosecution argues that Deputy Chief Roth's statement is based on his first-hand observations. However, Roth's statement that the defendant "reversed without looking at his back" is clearly speculative. The witness themself stated that the defendant's vehicle was about 50 meters away from him. From this distance, through the vehicle's rear window and headrest, it is unreasonable to assert with certainty that the defendant did not turn his head. The officer could not have a clear, unobstructed view of the defendant's actions from that distance, and thus his statement is speculative and should be excluded.
  • The Leading Question:
    
    • The prosecution stats that the questions were asked by the legal investigator and should not be considered leading. Regardless of who asked the questions, the nature of the questions suggests the answers and directs the witness to a particular response. The question "It seems that Officer Montgomery was transporting a suspect, Mr. Falken was following Officer Montgomery with yourself behind in a line of 3. Is this correct?" implies a sequence and relationship that guides the officer's s response. Such questions should be excluded as they lead the witness and are inappropriate for direct examination or statements intended for factual determination.
  • Exhibit #3: Impound Report - Impaler SZ
    
    
    • The prosecution states that the impound report is relevant to the case as it relates to the vehicle involved in the accident and the state of the vehicle following the accident. However, the impound report provides no details about the state or damage to the vehicle. The included image does not show any damage to the vehicle. Furthermore, the deputy states the defendant reversed into them, so any damage to the vehicle would be to the rear of the car. This impound report does not provide a few of that. Without such details, the report fails to contribute any significant context or evidence to the case. Therefore, it should be excluded for lack of relevance.
    
    We urge the court, respectfully, to consider our arguments and grant our motion to suppress all highlighted sections from the exhibits.
    
    Sincerely,
    
    Respectfully yours,
    
    
    Public Defense Attorney
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 2956979 — [email protected]

[Terence Williams]

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

---

• Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution would like to present our final rebuttal for the Defense's Motion to Suppress.
  
  Exhibit #1: - The Prosecution would like to reiterate the fact the precedent set on hearsay in arrest reports is binding. There are multiple cases where rulings have been made to deny hearsay suppression in arrest reports due to the nature of the document.
  
  #22-CM-0050, State of San Andreas v. Harley Pavlovich

  #22-CM-0050, State of San Andreas v. Harley Pavlovich[/url]]Exhibit #1 will be admitted into evidence and admissible at trial, the motion to suppress the majority of the last paragraph was denied due to the exception to hearsay stating "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." It was decided that the arrest report is a record of an event and as they are a requirement it was made within the scope of the arresting officers duty.

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

  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.

  #23-CM-0101, State of San Andreas v. Vince Williams

  Citing precedent in case #22-CM-0050, which underscores the significance of recognizing official records by public employees, it is established that Exhibit #1, being an official document, should not be suppressed. With this precedent in mind the court rules not to suppress Exhibit #1. This decision is guided by precedents affirming the admissibility of arrest reports as official documents prepared during the official business of law enforcement officers.

  The Defense is correct in the definition of hearsay as written in the Judicial Branch handbook. The same section, however, contains multiple exceptions, one of which is provision e, which explicitly states "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." Provision e is the exact exception used in all of the rulings listed above. The Prosecution believes the Defense to deliberately misuse the definition from the handbook to promote their argument, when it should be disregarded based on the binding precedent provided by the Prosecution.
  
  Exhibit #2: The Prosecution remains confident in its previous argument. There is a reasonable expectation that motorists will orient themselves when making new and sudden maneuvers. Due to this expectation, it is reasonable for the officer to believe the defendant did not orient themselves, such as looking behind them when beginning to reverse. The Prosecution still believes in the officer's ability to have seen movement inside the vehicle, even at a distance, due to the fact they were focused on the vehicle as it was following another unit transporting a suspect. Additionally, with this suppression, it is now the Defense who is assuming what the officer did and did not see.
  
  Leading questions: The Defense does not seem to understand the Prosecution's argument against the suppression of these questions. The questions in the witness statement from Exhibit #2 were not asked by the Prosecution, but by a legal investigator. The legal investigator, in this and most other instances, is an officer employed with the LSPD just as the witness, and are allowed to ask investigative questions. They are not required to be bar-licensed attorneys, and as such, should not be held to the standard of the courts. Their questioning is investigative in nature and is not held to the standards of the courts in terms of objectionable questions, but should instead be likened to an interrogation video or voluntary witness questioning by investigators.
  
  Exhibit #3: The Prosecution remains confident in its previous argument. While not a lot of the vehicle's rear is visible, there are still parts of the left rear side visible, parts that are clearly damaged. The Prosecution remains adamant that this exhibit is in fact relevant to the case.
  ((I'd also like to note that saying no damage is visible on the car could be interpreted as powergaming and against server rules, as the vehicle would very much have been damaged in the collision. It's widely known that vehicle's tend to "repair" themselves visually due to desync and other OOC factors, and the RP damages should be taken into account in this instance.))
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Acting Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

[Antonio McFornell]

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. Jack Falken
#24-CM-0037

A decision was reached in the above case on the 28th day of July, 2024.

Motion to Suppress
The defense has challenged parts of the arrest report on the basis that they constitute speculation and hearsay. The prosecution has argued that it is information given willingly to law enforcement by the defendant and within the scope of the officer's duty. In that regard, the Court believes that the first portion of the arrest report that is subject to the motion does not constitute a narration of the events that took place, but rather the possible motives that the defendant might've had. With that in mind, the Court will grant the suppression. However, the defense's affirmation in regards to the second statement constituting hearsay disregards the rules of hearsay, as an officer citing what a defendant has stated can't be construed as hearsay, thus the Court will deny the second part of the motion.

The defense has challenged the second witness statement provided, arguing that several portions are riddled with speculative assessments and leading questions being proposed. The Court sides with the defense in regards to portions of the statements being speculative, particularly those referring to the defendant's speeds. However, the Court does not believe that assertions in regard to the officer's perception of the actions (i.e, looking back) are matters for pre-trial, and concerns regarding the ability of the officer to have witnessed such act (due to their distance) must be brought up during trial. As for the leading objection, the Court struggles to find that the question was suggestive or otherwise led the witness to make an (un)truthful statement. It depicts and uninfluenced, neutral, representation of a scene and thus the Court will not grant the defense's motion.

The Court finally believes that there is direct relevance as to allowing exhibit #3. Expert knowledge that attorneys might have in regards to the practices of the police (in this case, that the nature of these crimes leads to impounds) does not disqualify evidence from being presented. The motion will be denied in that regard.

For ease of understanding this decision, the presiding Judge has digitally crossed the suppressed portions of Discovery on its original submission, which will allow all parties to have clear understanding of which portions have been suppressed and which haven't.

So ordered,

Superior Court Justice
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

[Antonio McFornell]

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

---

NOTICE OF SCHEDULING

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Jack Falken
#24-CM-0037

An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on 28th of July, 2024.

All parties in this case are encouraged to complete the following Scheduling Tool in an attempt to schedule a trial on the above case.

In the event all parties have overlapping availability the Presiding Judge will determine the best date and time to have a trial take place and post a Notice of Trial informing all of the upcoming proceeding.

In the event some or all parties do not have overlapping availability, the Presiding Judge will make one more attempt to schedule. Should this second attempt fail, a docket Trial will be ordered to avoid further delays.

If either party has the intentions of calling a witness to the stand during the proceeding they must inform the court by filing a Witness List at the time of filing their availability. If no Witness List is filed before the Notice of Trial is filed you will be unable to call a witness during the proceeding.


So ordered,

Superior Court Justice
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

[Terence Williams]

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

---

• Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,
  
  Please note that none of the proposed scheduling times work for the Prosecution's primary counsel.
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Acting Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

[Antonio McFornell]

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

---

• Parties,
  
  The Court has taken notice of the unavailability of enough attorneys to warrant a re-scheduling. With this in mind, the Court will be sending a new Notice for Scheduling throughout the weekend in order to schedule a second date that will take place between August 8-11th. Should this attempt at scheduling the trial have no result, the Court will change the venue to a docket trial.
  
  Best regards,
  
  
  Superior Court Justice
  Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

[Antonio McFornell]

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

---

NOTICE OF SCHEDULING

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Jack Falken
#24-CM-0037

A second attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on 3rd of August, 2024.

All parties in this case are encouraged to complete the following Scheduling Tool in an attempt to schedule a trial on the above case.

In the event all parties have overlapping availability the Presiding Judge will determine the best date and time to have a trial take place and post a Notice of Trial informing all of the upcoming proceeding.

In the event some or all parties do not have overlapping availability, the Presiding Judge will initiate a docket trial to avoid further delays.

If either party has the intentions of calling a witness to the stand during the proceeding they must inform the court by filing a Witness List at the time of filing their availability. If no Witness List is filed before the Notice of Trial is filed you will be unable to call a witness during the proceeding.


So ordered,

Superior Court Justice
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

[Antonio McFornell]

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

---

COURT DECISION
Change of Venue

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Jack Falken
#24-CM-0037

A decision was reached in the above case on the 8th day of August, 2024.

Due to the two failed attempts at scheduling a trial, the Court has determined that this proceeding shall follow the rules of a Docket Trial.

Procedure Guidelines
The following timeline shall be followed. Of course, the Court advices each party that they may publish their statements (within their turn/opportunity) before the expiration of the time granted. With this in mind, the docket trial will follow the structure of an in-person trial in regards to argumentative opportunity:

• Prosecution presents opening statement (72 hours).
• Defense presents opening statement (72 hours).
• Prosecutions presents their discovery, along with their arguments (72 hours).
• Defense presents their arguments in regards to discovery, and also their own discovery (if applicable) (72 hours). Any objections to the evidence must be presented and argued in this opportunity.
• The prosecution gets 1 rebuttal where they can address the defense's arguments and respond to the objections (72 hours).
• The Judge reviews any objections and decides on them. If there are none, the Judge will announce the opportunity for closing statements.
• Prosecution presents their closing statements (72 hours).
• Defense presents their closing statements (72 hours).
• Prosecution presents rebuttal (72 hours).
• Judge deliberation and verdict.

With the above considerations in mind, the Prosecution is hereby ordered to present their opening statements.

So ordered,

Superior Court Justice
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected][/list]

[Terence Williams]

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

---

• Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution would like to present its opening statement.
  
  Your Honor, opposing counsel, readers at home. We're present on the docket to argue the case of the defendant, Jack Falken, regarding an incident on January 22nd, 2024. During this proceeding, the Prosecution will present its case against the defendant to prove how they were driving recklessly when following a Los Santos Police Department cruiser transporting a suspect. We will prove how the defendant abruptly and unexpectedly changed the direction of their travel, not only failing to maintain their lane or follow simple Traffic Control Devices like road markings but also failing to use common sense when driving. The defendant's negligent and reckless behavior resulted in a crash with a second LSPD cruiser following behind the defendant and the first cruiser, which is why we're here today.
  
  The Prosecution asks that your honor uphold the laws in the State of San Andreas Penal Code, and bring justice to the people by providing a guilty verdict and maintain the charges on the defendant's record.
  
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Acting Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

[Jay Wellberg]

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

---

• Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,
  
  The Defense presents its opening statement on 10th August 2024.
  
  We are here today to defend Mr. Jack Falken against the charge of reckless operation of a road vehicle. The prosecution alleges that Mr. Falken acted recklessly, with intentional disregard for life and property. During this trial, the prosecution will present you with evidence that they claim proves this beyond a reasonable doubt. However, we will demonstrate that the evidence does not support this claim and show you why the defendant should be found not guilty of the charge.
  
  Regards,
  
  Public Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 2956979 — [email protected]

  
  Public Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 463-9315 —[email protected]

[Terence Williams]

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

---

• Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution presents its Case-in-Chief.
  
  Exhibit #1: Arrest Report - Jack Falken, 22/JAN/2024
  The Prosecution's first exhibit is the arrest report for the defendant from January 22nd. In the arrest report, the arresting officer states that they witnessed the defendant following the cruiser of another officer after they had left a scene. The report then states that, after an unknown amount of time, the defendant reversed with their vehicle which caused a collision with and subsequently damaged the arresting officer's cruiser, which had been following behind the defendant. When asked by the officer why they did it, the defendant answered that they had wanted to sell raffle tickets.
  
  The arrest report makes the reckless nature of the defendant's driving clear. Initially they are following another cruiser who is transporting a suspect, thereby being in violation of both VC05 - Improper Traffic Maneuvers and VC06 - Following or Impeding Emergency Response. The defendant then suddenly starts reversing their vehicle, again violating VC05 - Improper Traffic Maneuvers as well as VC08 - Negligent Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle by reversing in their lane with traffic moving forward in the lane. The defendant then states that their reason for this behavior was to sell raffle tickets, proving they had no valid reason to be following the cruiser in the first place.
  
  Exhibit #2: Witness Statement - Deputy Chief of Police Lex Roth
  The Prosecution's second exhibit is a witness statement from the arresting officer, Deputy Chief Lex Roth. In their statement, the Deputy Chief explains how they were following the defendant slowly outside High End. The defendant was following another cruiser in an attempt to sell raffle tickets, continuously honking. The defendant then stopped in the middle of the road and began reversing without checking their surroundings, leading to a collision with the Deputy Chief's cruiser with a relatively large impact. The defendant had been driving very close to the front cruiser, while there had been a couple of lengths between the defendant and the Deputy Chief.
  
  The witness statement further proves the defendant's reckless behavior as being far beyond negligible. The defendant is following a cruiser transporting a suspect very closely and continuously honking at the same time, which would be distracting for any motorist being targeted by such behavior, but even more so when transporting a detained suspect. Additionally, the defendant provided an inefficient excuse of wanting to sell raffle tickets. As the defendant reversed and collided with the Deputy Chief's cruiser, the defendant clearly failed to meet the reasonable expectations of any driver to continuously orient themselves in traffic, especially when making sudden and careless changes to the motion of their driving.
  
  Exhibit #3: Impound Report - Impaler SZ
  The Prosecution's last exhibit is the impound report for the defendant's vehicle, an Impaler SZ. A picture of the vehicle is attached to the report and upon review, it is possible to ((RPly)) discern the damages to the side of the rear bumper.
  
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Acting Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

[Jay Wellberg]

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

---

• Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,
  
  The Defense would like the court to take notes of these few points for each exhibit.
  
  Exhibit #2: The Witness Statement by Deputy Chief Lex Roth
  The statements from Officer Roth states that Mr. Falken "reversed without looking at his back." We would like the court to note, that for the witness to come to this conclusion they would have had to, from a distance of 50 meters, look through the back windscreen and beyond the headrest.
  
  Exhibit #3: The Impound Report:
  The defense would like the courts to note that the report lacks detailed information about the condition of the vehicle post-accident and does not show significant damage. The photo is taken of the side of the vehicle so it is hard to see if there is any damage to the rear and if any, how bad it is.
  
  
  OBJECTIONS
  The defense has a few objections to the prosecution's last post to the docket, the following statements are what we are objecting due to the fact that they are all argumentative, all arguments should be made in closing arguments, not during the presentation of evidence, like how it has always been for all trials.
  
  ► Show Spoiler

  Exhibit #1: Arrest Report - Jack Falken, 22/JAN/2024
  The arrest report makes the reckless nature of the defendant's driving clear. Initially they are following another cruiser who is transporting a suspect, thereby being in violation of both VC05 - Improper Traffic Maneuvers and VC06 - Following or Impeding Emergency Response. The defendant then suddenly starts reversing their vehicle, again violating VC05 - Improper Traffic Maneuvers as well as VC08 - Negligent Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle by reversing in their lane with traffic moving forward in the lane. The defendant then states that their reason for this behavior was to sell raffle tickets, proving they had no valid reason to be following the cruiser in the first place.
  
  Exhibit #2: Witness Statement - Deputy Chief of Police Lex Roth
  The witness statement further proves the defendant's reckless behavior as being far beyond negligible. The defendant is following a cruiser transporting a suspect very closely and continuously honking at the same time, which would be distracting for any motorist being targeted by such behavior, but even more so when transporting a detained suspect. Additionally, the defendant provided an inefficient excuse of wanting to sell raffle tickets. As the defendant reversed and collided with the Deputy Chief's cruiser, the defendant clearly failed to meet the reasonable expectations of any driver to continuously orient themselves in traffic, especially when making sudden and careless changes to the motion of their driving.
  
  Regards,
  
  Public Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 2956979 — [email protected]

  
  Public Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 463-9315 —[email protected]