#23-AP-0013, State of San Andreas v. Scoobie Bathsheba

[Hope Kant]

Appellant Name: Hope Kant
Appellant Attorney(s): N/A

Trial Docket Number: #23-CM-0027
Presiding Trial Judge: Hugh Allgood
Notice of Appeal Filed:

• [ ] Before Verdict
  [X] After Verdict

Reason for Notice of Appeal:

• [ ] Motion to be overturned
  [X] Errors in the trials procedure
  [X] Errors in the judge's interpretation of the law
  [ ] New evidence proving appellants innocence

Grounds for Appeal: (Maximum 150 words)

• The Defense built their entire case around facts not in evidence. The Judge allowed, and sided with, the Defense when the Defense presented arguments towards the innocence of their client that were not previously mentioned until the day of trial. The Prosecution was unable to question the witness about prior Perjury charges, when it's written in our handbook that we may do that. The Prosecution is requesting once again that the verdict be thrown out, and the defendant not be penalized, in order to preserve precedence as we feel this case has circumvented the entire purpose of our Judicial System.

[Wolfgang Bathsheba]

WOOFGANG THINK YOO IS JEALOUZ BYTCH!

[Judith Mason]

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

---

NOTICE OF ACTIVATION

---

IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS

State of San Andreas v. Scoobie Bathsheba
#23-AP-0013

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above case on the 27th day of October, 2023.

The case of the State of San Andreas v. Scoobie Bathsheba is hereby activated by this Court under #23-AP-0013.

While the appellant, being the State of San Andreas in this case, has adequate representation, the respondent (Scoobie Bathsheba) is not currently represented by counsel. At this time, the court shall delay any inquiries that are to be sent out until representation is secured for the respondent.



Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [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. Scoobie Bathsheba

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 25th of November, 2023.

I, Shaun Harper, Chief Public Defender with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Scoobie Bathsheba 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
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

[Mary Burrows]

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. Scoobie Bathsheba

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 25th of November, 2023.

I, Mary Burrows, Junior Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Scoobie Bathsheba in the underlying case.

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


Junior Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 339-5979 — [email protected]

[Judith Mason]

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

---

• Parties,
  
  With confirmation of counsel for the respondent now obtained, the appellant is now hereby ordered to submit an initial written brief within approximately seven days outlining their position of this appeal and giving any legal arguments as to why the court should rule in their favor. Once received, the respondent will be given approximately seven days to respond with any legal arguments of their own.
  
  Once submissions have been received, the court will either issue a decision or ask that parties submit an additional response for clarification, if required. If one of the parties in this appeal have failed to submit their brief within the allotted time, the court will make a decision based on the information it has available.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Chief Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Mason and pertaining parties,
  
  Thank you for taking the time to hear this case. I want to review this case in separate parts: the case of the defense, the case of the prosecution, and the conduct of the Judge.
  
  The Case of the Defense:
  The case of the defense rested on several different factors.
  1. To quote the defendant's own statement: "It is important that Scoobie mentions that he bought all of the family members within the Bathshebas the same outfit for their Christmas service which is the same outfit he was wearing when he talked to Jon and Viccy at DOC and when he was arrested. Every Bathsheba who has seen Scoobie since he bought the clothes is wearing the same set besides for Wolfgang. All the Bathshebas look the same for the Christmas season."
  2. The defendant claimed at trial that he had also bought all the Bathsheba's the same paint job and other Bathsheba's had the same car.
  3. The defendant claimed at trial that the person who committed the crimes was Beau Bathsheba.
  To review, without a singular bit of proof the defendant has made these claims. The Prosecution questioned the validity of these claims during their questioning of the witness at trial. I asked "You claim there were multiple Dragurs done in the same fashion, correct?" The defendant responded in the affirmative. I asked "Where are the receipts?" the defense council objected to this stating something along the lines of "That's not on him to provide. You can't question him about that". The Judge sustained the objection and told the Prosecution to move on.
  
  While the burden of proof does typically rest of the shoulders of the Prosecution it is important to note that the defense council in this case is using something called the Affirmative Defense. An affirmative defense (in this case) is what occurs when the defense makes claims that can be backed up by proof that otherwise negate the guilt or show the innocence of their client. In this instance it is clear that when you purchase from a store and/or from Bayview or LSC a receipt is given to the purchaser. These are things the defense could have provided in the form of discovery or even a Motion to Compel Discovery, but chose not to. Not including these items meant the defense case rested solely on facts not in evidence.
  
  Our Code of Ethics states: "An attorney shall represent and defend the client conscientiously, using all the necessary legal means to do so." Not including evidence that would benefit their client and their own case seems to be a large breach of our own Code of Ethics. Prosecutors are required to present all evidence that benefits the defendant, does this not apply to the defense?
  
  The Case of the Prosecution:
  That brings us to the case of the Prosecution, the Prosecution on the case had multiple different points of recognition, which started at SADOC. Where the defendant was seen...
  1. Without his mask
  2. In the same looking clothes
  3. With the same well-known-affiliate of the defendant, Wolfgang Bathsheba
  4. In the exact same make, model, and color car
  After the CCTV footage at DOC, someone is seen
  1. Wearing the same looking clothing as a previously identified Scoobie Bathsheba
  2. In the same car as a previously identified Scoobie Bathsheba
  3. With the same person (Wolfgang Bathsheba) as the previously identified Scoobie Bathsheba
  4. Wearing the same color and look respirator just like the previously identified Scoobie Bathsheba
  5. Answering to Scoobie by Ali Valentine AND confirmed he responded to Scoobie during his testimony at court
  The Prosecution proved on multiple instances that the defendant was in fact the one driving the vehicle that helped Ali Valentine to flee the Police. In this case the Prosecution feels we proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was not only driving the vehicle, but also lied on his initial appeal statement constituting Perjury as he never provided any proof to his claims.
  
  The Conduct of the Judge:
  The Prosecution would like to finally review the conduct of the Judge on this case. As stated in the appeal narrative, "The Prosecution was unable to question the witness about prior Perjury charges, when it's written in our handbook that we may do that." Under 2.6.9 - Character Evidence, titled Witness's Character it states "Evidence of a witness's character for dishonesty is admissible to attack the witness's credibility. If a witness's character for honesty has been attacked by the admission of bad character evidence, then the opposing party may rebut by presenting good character evidence of the witness's truthfulness." Once again this witness credibility would've easily been solved by the defense simply providing the receipts that their defendant had and admitted to having at trial when questioned by the Prosecution. If the Prosecution is required by the Constitution to provide all evidence that supports the case of the defendant, isn't the assumption that the defense will do the same for their client?
  
  Conclusion:
  In conclusion, while the defense may have had a case to prove the innocence of their defendant, they provided none of this proof at trial. The Judge laid all of that burden onto the shoulders of the Prosecution stating that we had the burden of proof, despite the fact that some of the claims made by the defendant/defense were made the day of the trial. Basically the Judge ruled in a way that forces Prosecutors to be mind readers and disprove claims to the defendants innocence when no proof has been provided to that effect. We request that the verdict be overturned in order to avoid the problematic precedence once again set by Judge Allgood.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Attorney General
  Director of Public Notary
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 321-2132 — [email protected]

[Mary Burrows]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Mason and included parties,
  
  The defense stands firm in its position that the defendant, Scoobie Bathsheba, is innocent of the charges brought against him. We contend that the prosecution's narrative overlooks critical aspects and relies on circumstantial evidence that does not conclusively establish our client's guilt.
  
  The defense emphasizes that an affirmative defense was presented, supported by the defendant's statement regarding the identical outfits he provided to his family members for the Christmas service. This fact, if properly considered, would negate the assumption that the person observed committing the crimes was Scoobie Bathsheba. The defense, however, faced challenges in presenting evidence due to objections sustained by the Judge.
  
  It is crucial to acknowledge that the defense's burden of proof is not equivalent to that of the prosecution. While the defense is obligated to present evidence to support an affirmative defense, the prosecution is tasked with proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense asserts that the burden was unfairly shifted by the Judge when questions regarding the lack of receipts were objected to and deemed irrelevant.
  
  The defense adheres to the Code of Ethics but contends that the prosecution's interpretation oversimplifies the complexities of legal strategy. It is well within ethical boundaries for the defense to focus on presenting a case based on facts and legal arguments. The defense maintains that the Code of Ethics does not mandate the inclusion of every piece of potential evidence but rather a conscientious and diligent defense.
  
  Regarding the attempt to question the witness about prior perjury charges, the defense argues that such inquiries should be guided by legal rules. The defense asserts that the judge correctly adhered to the rules governing character evidence and protected the witness from potentially prejudicial inquiries that could undermine a fair trial.
  
  In conclusion, the defense maintains that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense faced legal obstacles in presenting evidence but firmly believes that, had the opportunity been provided, the affirmative defense would have cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case. The defense requests a fair review of the trial proceedings, considering the challenges faced, and urges the court to uphold the principles of justice as done in the original trial.
  
  Thank you for your time and consideration,
  
  
  Junior Public Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 339-5979 — [email protected]
  

[Hope Kant]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Docket Notice
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Dear Honorable @Judith Mason,
  
  Let this serve as a gentle notice to your office that it has been over 7 days since the last response. The Prosecution kindly requests your honor respond, so that the docket may continue. 7 additional days will be given for response. If the 7 day timeline is not met, we will be moving to apply GM22 - Contempt of Court to your record for the unnecessary delay. The Prosecution feels we've been more than reasonable with the 44 days already given. We await any ruling or notice from the Judge.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Attorney General
  Director of Public Notary
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 321-2132 — [email protected]

[Judith Mason]

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

---

• Attorney General Kant,
  
  Simply put, I will not entertain any discussion relating to the application of a Contempt of Court charge on myself as the presiding judge, as by it's very nature, would effectively require a determination by myself as the presiding judge on whether or not I have committed an offense against my own authority within my own courtroom.
  
  This insinuation is both unprecedented and outright ridiculous, verging on a violation of the same charge you have referenced. I do not suggest attempting this again.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Chief Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]

[Judith Mason]

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

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS

State of San Andreas v. Scoobie Bathsheba
#23-AP-0013

A decision was reached in the above case on the 25th day of January, 2024.

The court has reviewed the underlying case of #23-CM-0027, State of San Andreas v. Scoobie Bathsheba and has carefully considered the arguments made by both the appellant and respondent in this case, ultimately leading to a determination made by this court.

The appellant has presented arguments that call into question several pieces of the trial conducted in the Superior Court based on errors in the trial’s procedure and errors in the presiding judge’s interpretation of the law. The appellant has asserted that the strategy mounted by defense counsel constituted an affirmative defense, which must be backed up by foundational evidence to support such a claim, however, the only evidence presented by the defense was the testimony given by the defendant during their witness examination on the stand.

Further, the appellant states that during this witness examination, when the prosecution was given the opportunity to cross-examine the witness to challenge the veracity of those claims, a sustained objection during the line of questioning regarding proof of similar looking vehicles being available to other individuals had prevented the prosecution from thoroughly examining the witness’s testimony. The appellant asserts that the presiding judge had essentially ruled that the defense is under no obligation to provide proof of their claims and that any further questioning to uncover proof of those claims would be objectionable.

Additionally, the appellant has presented arguments that, through another sustained objection raised by the defense, the prosecution was prevented from thoroughly cross-examining the witness’s character and credibility when the question was raised regarding the witness’s prior charges or convictions in relation to moral turpitude (i.e., perjury, fraud, false impersonation, etc.).

Finally, the appellant asserts that the evidence presented by the prosecution in the underlying case had been sufficient to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict rendered in the Superior Court establishes a precedent that the prosecution must disprove any and all claims to the defendant’s innocence despite the defense’s lack of requirement to present any evidence themselves.

The respondent, in this case, has simply argued that the prosecution had overly relied upon circumstantial evidence that supports a positive identification of the suspect being Scoobie Bathsheba when several pieces of evidence provided by the prosecution had presented the basis for the reasonable doubt sowed by the defense during the subsequent criminal trial. While the respondent claims that the defense faced challenges in presenting additional corroborating evidence to support the claims of an affirmative defense, the defense is, nevertheless, held to a different standard of proof than the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

To that point, the respondent argues that the strategy mounted by defense counsel should be considered sufficient to their obligations of building a conscientious and diligent defense, and that neither the San Andreas Bar Association’s Code of Ethics nor established legal practice necessarily require the defense to present exculpatory evidence to support the defendant’s innocence as suggested by the appellant.

As to the prosecution’s attempt to question the witness about prior perjury charges, the respondent asserts that the presiding judge’s ruling was valid as it could unfairly undermine the credibility of the defendant and compromise the integrity of a fair trial, potentially leading to a line of questioning considered to be prejudicial against the defendant.

Ultimately, the respondent maintains that the defense had successfully introduced reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case against the defendant, and that had the defense been given the opportunity to present further evidence to support their claims, a more substantial defense would have cast further doubt on the validity of the charges.

The court would first like to address the burden of proof required for criminal cases within the Superior Court in addition to the presumption of innocence that the defendant is entitled to throughout the duration of criminal proceedings. The foundation of our court system operates on these two principles to ensure defendants in criminal trials are presumed to be innocent of the charges alleged until proven guilty in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden of proof is considered the highest standard of proof within our court system, as a guilty verdict of criminal charges results in a denial of a citizen’s liberties through incarceration, and thus, this finding should reflect a moral certainty that the defendant is, in fact, guilty.

Second, the court would like to differentiate between the definitions and requirements of a standard defense and an affirmative defense. As previously outlined, the prosecution in a criminal case must prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense counsel can, in turn, present a number of defenses against these allegations as a way for the defendant to be acquitted of the charges. Standard practice is generally to “poke holes” in the prosecution’s arguments and introduce reasonable doubt so as to illustrate a failure of the prosecution to meet their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

An affirmative defense, on the other hand, is used to introduce evidence that would mitigate the legal consequences of the defendant’s actions - most commonly being arguments of self-defense, insanity, entrapment, and other such defenses. The significant difference between a standard defense and an affirmative defense is that the introduction of an affirmative defense does, in fact, present a burden of proof that the defense must meet in order to successfully lodge said defense.

With that said, the standard of proof for an affirmative defense need not rise to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather be by a preponderance of the evidence to be determined valid. Furthermore, an affirmative defense does not absolve the prosecution of their burden to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but is rather a separate legal determination used to excuse or justify the actions of the defendant.

Third, the court will touch upon the ability of either party to call into question the validity of a witness’s credibility and to challenge the veracity of their claims through thorough cross-examination. While witness examination is infrequent in our state due to a variety of factors, its impact on a criminal trial is vastly important in determining the extent and validity of the claims being made by a particular individual. While direct examination is intended to elicit specific testimony from a witness to a crime, cross-examination functions as a fail-safe from one-sided arguments being presented without any way for the opposing party to test the validity of the claims being made and is intended to provide the finder of fact a more well-rounded perspective of the testimony through both lenses of prosecution and defense.

The key point within this explanation is that cross-examination must allow for a thorough review of both the witness’s claims but also of their credibility as a witness to begin with. Thus, common valid practice of counsel conducting cross-examination may include questions relating to the witness’s ability to recollect or the witness’s prior conduct as it relates to their moral honesty, or lack thereof. This is one of the limited situations in which parties may address a witness or defendant’s prior criminal history as it directly relates to whether or not they can be considered a reliable witness or not.

The role of this court is not to relitigate the entirety of a criminal case and is instead dedicated to reviewing the procedures, decisions, and verdicts rendered by judges in lower courts by offering relief to parties seeking the fair administration of justice. During this review, the court has uncovered several inconsistencies and misapplications of criminal procedure, namely the sustained objections relating to the witness’s moral turpitude and the sustained objections barring the prosecution from questioning the witness’s claims made through direct examination.

However, the court has determined that despite these points of contention, the presiding judge’s determination that reasonable doubt had been introduced, given the window of time between the claimed positive identification at Bolingbroke Penitentiary and the specific incident on the side of the road with Ali Valentine, in addition to the circumstantial evidence used to support said identification, is still considered valid. While the testimony provided by the defendant during their witness examination is flawed and should be scrutinized, it was not used as the sole determining factor in deciding whether or not the defendant should be found guilty of either charge.

Nevertheless, the appellant is not seeking relief with any meaningful penalty on the defendant due to the double jeopardy protections afforded to citizens through the State of San Andreas Constitution, therefore, it is with the above considerations that this court closes this case and asserts that the verdict within the Superior Court remains intact.



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