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. Melody Frey et al.
A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 6th of MARCH, 2024.
I, Nick Hightown, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Melody Frey et al. in the underlying case.
I will be taking the responsibility of Co-Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.
Junior Defence Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 479-9153 — [email protected]
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. Melody Frey et al.
A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 9th of March, 2024.
I, Rowin Lawson, a Junior Prosecuting Attorney with 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.
Rowin Lawson
Junior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 304-6031 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Honorable Judge Duke-judge and pertaining parties,
The prosecution would like confirmation of the defendants that will be disputing their charges at trial. Is Mr. Rapkov's request for no contest valid? We appreciate the clarification prior to trial. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 505-9925 — [email protected]
Is this going to be over soon? This shit that we are being accused of doing happened like 9 months ago and was brought to trial 4 months after the alleged incident happened. I'm starting to get tired of this dumb shit hanging over my head.
If we can't appeal charges after a week we shouldn't be thrown an indictment for something that happened MONTHS ago that we didn't even participate in.
yeah this is a complete joke at this point, feels like a kangaroo court when during all this time i havent once been contacted by the people claiming to represent my case
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. Melody Frey et al.
A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on 30/April/2024.
I, Rowin Lawson, Junior Prosecuting Attorney of the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the State of San Andreas in the underlying case.
I will be taking Over as Primary and Attorney General Hope Kant will be moving to Co-Counsel we will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.
Rowin Lawson
Junior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 327-8882 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Superior Court of San Andreas "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Melody Frey et al.
#23-CM-0102
A Notice of Reassignment was entered in the above case on 7th of May, 2024.
The case of the State of San Andreas v. Melody Frey et al. is hereby reassigned to Superior Court Judge Antonio McFornell.
The presiding judge will familiarize himself with the case throughout the next 48 hours and will decide on any pending motions, if need be. Afterwards, the case will continue to move on swiftly should both parties (State and Defense) be ready for doing so.
Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Antonio José McFornell Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
Chairman of the Bar Ethics Review Board
Training & Hiring Staff
San Andreas Judicial Branch Superior Court of San Andreas "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
MOTION FOR DISMISSAL
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Melody Frey et al.
#23-CM-0102
A Motion for Dismissal was filed in the above case on the 8 of May, 2024.
The Defendants, Melody Frey, , Drew Ohara, Claire Allen and Klaus Derose., by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Dismissal, and the reasoning for request is as follows;
Reasoning: Breach of Sixth Amendment Rights
Detailed Explanation: The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the State of San Andreas guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial. Our clients were indicted on October 29, 2023, 191 days ago, and as of the current date, 8/May/2024, no trial has taken place. This substantial delay constitutes a violation of our client's constitutional rights.
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. Melody Frey et al.
#23-CM-0102
A decision was reached in the above case on the 8th day of May, 2023.
The Superior Court must determine whether the presumed delay in advancing with a trial in this particular case warrants dismissal for a presumed breach of the 6th Amendment right recognized in the San Andreas Constitution.
The presiding judge observes that the Supreme Court of San Andreas has not provided specific interpretations regarding the provisions within the 6th Amendment of the San Andreas Constitution. Particularly, this Court believes that we are faced with a circumstance of excessive indetermination, amounting to an issue of legal hermeneutics. Before proposing an interpretation of this constitutional article, the presiding judge believes it is necessary to clarify that there is no intention to overstep the boundaries set by the Constitution and the Supreme Court. However, the San Andreas Constitution states in Article 3 - Section 2 the following:
"The judicial power shall judge all cases in law and equity, with direct observance of the Constitution, the Laws of San Andreas and Treaties made."
Along with that, Article 3 - Section 2 states the following:
"The judicial power will decide all matters brought to the court’s attention according to the constitution, the law and the sources previously cited. The court will possess full discretion over issues of facts and law. Remedies, damages, and other compensations will be decided according to the constitution, law, and set precedent of the courts."
In this regard, it is a Constitutional mandate that the judicial power decides over ALL matters brought to its attention. In other words, the Superior Court of San Andreas can't refrain from deciding in a specific matter under the pretense that there is not enough constitutional interpretation on a particular topic. In conclusion, having made these reflections and bringing the constitutional articles forward, it is only reasonable for this Superior Court to continue with the decision-making process and carry out the necessary reflections that will justify the determinations to be rendered in this particular decision.
The Superior Court, in the preceding paragraphs, stated that we are faced with an issue of legal hermeneutics. It proposes the following question in order to decide in this case: Does the period of 191 days since the indictment of the defendants constitute a breach of the 6th Amendment rights?
The presiding judge finds that the Constitution, and in that regard, the original authors of the constitution, have not determined what constitutes a speedy trial and the rights recognized in the 6th Amendment in order for the Judicial Branch to determine whether a wait, delay, or period of time exceeds—or not—a speedy trial. With that in mind, in this particular case ab initio, it can be determined that waiting almost 200 days for a trial can constitute an unwarranted or unjustified wait. However, the truth that can be found within the docket of this case allows the presiding judge to reach numerous conclusions:
The indictment was filed on the 29th of October, 2023.
The defendants did not suffer any diminution to their rights. Particularly, all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Discovery wasn’t ordered until the 17th of November, almost a month after the indictment. This happened because the defendants had to be afforded enough time to express to the Court their pleas.
The defense presented a motion to suppress on the 20th of November, and the court reached a decision on the 5th of December.
On December 14th, another motion for discovery was presented, and the prosecution had been delayed due to an ongoing Leave of Absence. Afterwards, a decision was adopted on the 3rd of January of 2024. This led to a motion to stay pending appeal being presented, and the appeal—which falls outside of the power of the presiding judge—was resolved on the 5th of March, 2024.
During this time, the presiding Judge had to recuse themselves from the case, and another one was assigned on February 16th, 2024. It is worth noting that at this date the Appeal hadn’t been decided, and thus, the new judge could not decide in relation to the case and move forward with it.
With the above considerations in mind, the presiding judge concludes the following:
The original Discovery wasn’t presented, contradicted, and decided until the 5th of December. The presiding judge finds that there weren’t any unjustified delays throughout this time. This would mean that it has been 155 days since the original Discovery was presented and contradicted.
In regards to the second motion for Discovery, it was finally decided on the 14th of December. Due to a Leave of Absence, the appeal regarding that decision wasn’t presented until the 4th of January. The defense presented arguments on the 26th of January.
While it is not for the presiding Judge of the Superior Court to evaluate the arguments presented in the confines of the Court of Appeals, it can reasonably determine that the Court of Appeals found themselves in a tough position, given that it had to present reflections based mostly on the arguments of the appellant. The last intervention was presented on the 5th of February, and thus, the Court of Appeals took exactly one month in reaching a decision. The presiding Judge believes this is not an unreasonable delay for a decision of said nature, especially since it involved the study of previous—and dense—precedent, and the decision rendered established an important ruling in regards to Discovery in practice.
It has been a few days over two months since the day the appeal was decided. The presiding Judge believes that the delay, in principle, is unjustified and should be considered regarding deciding this motion.
The presiding Judge believes that there had not been any unreasonable delays that could affect the rights afforded in the 6th Amendment to the defendant until the beginning of the appeal procedure. It has been concluded that the time the Court of Appeals took to render a decision was reasonable. With that in mind, the proposed value of 191 days of delay, to this Court, appears to not take into account the fact that a trial of this nature can take time, especially since an Appeal was presented. In conclusion, this presiding Judge decides that the unreasonable delay amounts to approximately two months, and not over six months, as the defense might have hinted towards.
Does the period of 191 days since the indictment of the defendants constitute a breach of the 6th amendment rights? This Court believes that it does not. However, the Court believes that the constitutional rights of the defendant might be at risk due to the unjustified 60 day delay between the decision of the Appeal and the scheduling of trial (or alternatively, the determination of the trial to be held over the docket).
However, the presiding judge has to make one final consideration: It is necessary to ponder between the constitutional right of the defendant (6th amendment) and the constitutional interests that are being defended by the indictment. The Superior Court Judge finds that, unlike other criminal cases, the economic, political, employment and many other rights afforded to the defendant haven’t been affected (which does happen, in practice, in non-indictment cases). However, the State seeks to defend valid and constitutional protected interests by pursuing the commission of crime through this proceeding.
This Court has already extended itself enough, and thus, will make a swift conclusion: The 60 day delay between the Appeal being resolved and a decision being adopted constitutes a breach of the 6th amendment rights of the defendant. However, the rights and interests of citizens and the State would be affected in a much greater proportion if the motion for dismissal in this case were accepted. In other words, the judge considers that the burden to which the defendant is being subjected through this decision is justified based on the rules of pondering and reflections proposed here.
The motion for dismissal will not be accepted.
So ordered,
Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]
Antonio José McFornell Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
Chairman of the Bar Ethics Review Board
Training & Hiring Staff
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. Melody Frey et al.
#23-CM-0102
An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on 8th of May, 2023.
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 Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]
Antonio José McFornell Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
Chairman of the Bar Ethics Review Board
Training & Hiring Staff
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. Melody Frey et al.
#23-CM-0102
An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on 16th of May, 2023.
Due to unforeseen circumstances, the presiding Judge can't attend a hearing in the proposed dates of the previous notice of scheduling. With that in mind, 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 Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]
Antonio José McFornell Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
Chairman of the Bar Ethics Review Board
Training & Hiring Staff
San Andreas Judicial Branch Superior Court of San Andreas "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
NOTICE OF TRIAL
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Melody Frey et al.
#23-CM-0102
A trial date was set on the above case on May 21st, 2024.
In accordance with the availability reported by both parties in response to the Notice of Scheduling, this trial shall take place at 12:30 AM on May 26th, 2024 at Rockford Hills City Hall, Carcer Way, Metro Los Santos, SA.
((Please be aware of the time. It is (for most of us) on the 25th of May, but due to UTC conversion it ends up being half an hour past midnight, thus making the date the 26th. Please view this image to locate the time locally in the scheduling tool))
Both parties are ordered to be present in the Judges Chambers no later than 15 minutes prior to the above listed date for pretrial arrangements. If complications occur that must result in a delay or cancelation of the trial, you are ordered to inform the court no later than 12 hours prior to the above listed date.
So ordered,
Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]
Antonio José McFornell Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
Chairman of the Bar Ethics Review Board
Training & Hiring Staff
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. Melody Frey et al.
#23-CM-0102
A decision was reached in the above case on the 25th day of May, 2024.
Introduction - Indictment
The matter #23-CM-0102 State of San Andreas v. Melody Frey et al reached this court as a result of an indictment presented on the 29th of October, 2023. The indictment presented, stated the following in its narrative:
On or around the 16th of June, multiple the gang known as "underground" was conducting a chain robbery on 5+ stores. The LSPD captured CCTV from three of them before catching up with the robbers at the Strawberry grocery store. The first unit immediately called for backup, and attempted to arrest the members inside the store. Unbeknownst to the officers, an additional member, Klaus Derose, was waiting in ambush outside the store with an Assault Rifle, and opened fire along side the members armed with pistols. One officer died to AR fire, while the Detective Yukimura was critically injured, but survived the incident.
Given the known hairstyles, tattoos, and outfits from previous mugshots, the Detective Bureau in conjunction with the office of the Attorney General has identified as many suspects involved in these heinous crimes as possible.
The Prosecution in this matter pursues the defendants for the following crimes specifically: Melody Frey
WM02 - Possession of a Class 1 Firearm
GF03 - Armed Robbery
SF02 - Attempted Murder of a Government Employee
SF02 - Attempted Murder of a Government Employee (2nd)
VF04 - Felony Public Endangerment
GM19 - Face Concealment (b)
NM03 - Unlawful Assembly
Chad Rapkov
GF03 - Armed Robbery
VF01 - Evading an Officer
GM19 - Face Concealment (b)
NM03 - Unlawful Assembly
Claire Allen
GF03 - Armed Robbery
NM03 - Unlawful Assembly
GM19 - Face Concealment (b)
All of the defendants pled not guilty to the charges levied against them by the Prosecution.
Pre-Trial Proceedings
Upon activation of the case, the Prosecution submitted eleven (11) exhibits of Evidence. Exhibits 1 through 3 displayed CCTV footage where a group of people, whom this Court believes acted in coordination, with a clear division of tasks and were associated between themselves, could be seen illegally extracting money from the cash register of multiple stores through the use of force and intimidation. Exhibit 4 consisted of photographical evidence of the bullet shots that the cruiser of Detective I Sayaka Yukimura sustained.
Exhibits 6 and 7 consisted of still cameras extracted from the Bodycamera footage of Detective I Sayaka Yukimura, the first of which contained an image of -according to the Prosecution- Chad Rapkov, and the second one of Melody Frey.
Exhibits 5 and 8 consisted of the Bodycamera recording of Detective I Sayaka Yukimura and the late officer Jackson Steel. Along with that, Exhibit 9 presented bullet casings that were found to be in Detective I Sayaka Yukimura’s bulletproof vest.
Exhibits 10 and 11 contained arrest reports found in the Los Santos County Sheriff’s Department Database of Melody Frey and Chad Rapkov, which would later on be utilized by the Prosecution to provide physical identification between two of the defendants and the presumed authors of the crimes from the CCTV footage.
The defense presented various motions to suppress, particularly arguing that exhibits 10 and 11 lacked relevance, they also argued that the CCTV Footage -or rather, stills- provided by the Prosecution consisted of speculation, arguing that they were insufficient to identify individuals based on clothing and/or tattoo markings, for which the defense also cited State v. Batsheba (#23-CM-0027). Finally, the defense also argued against the inclusion of exhibits 6 and 7 since they were speculative, arguing that the only identifying factors in the still photographs were pieces of clothing.
The Prosecution argued in favor of their presented evidence, asserting its relevance and significance to the case at hand. They address the objections that were raised by the defense, specifically those concerning the arrest reports and cited legal precedent that enabled them to support their argument (See #23-CM-0049). The Prosecution emphasized the importance of considering factors such as mugshots, clothing, and affiliations depicted in the reports, which they argued strengthened or justified their relevance.
The Prosecution also argued that the evidence presented was objectively relevant to the case, asserting that it must be admitted unless there were concerns about the integrity of the recording equipment.
The Court acknowledged the defense’s concerns, but found stronger merit in the prosecution’s arguments. The Court decided that, despite the arrest reports making part of another separate incident, the connections identified through the mug shots, clothing and affiliations, bear relevance to the case and thus were admissible. With these arguments, among others, the Court denied the defense’s Motion to Suppress in full and allowed the admissibility of Exhibits 1 through 11 as relevant evidence.
The Prosecution, on the 14th of December, presented extemporary discovery. Particularly, the Prosecution presented a Mugshot of Claire Allen with the same purposes as exhibits 10 and 11, which leads this Court to not delve deeper into the matter. The defense objected the prosecution’s motion for discovery, arguing that there was no precedence (which was utilized by the Prosecution to justify their timing) that could support presenting evidence so late into the proceedings. The Prosecution proceeded to argue in favor of their motion, stating that there was in fact previous precedence that allowed for such occurrences (See #22-CM-0010; #22-CM-0036) and insisted that the mugshot provided would be beneficial for comparison purposes.
The presiding judge acknowledged the exceptions that were given in previous cases, however, denied the motion on the grounds that the Prosecution ignored established procedural guidelines. This decision was appealed (See #24-AP-0001) and thus, the evidence provided was allowed into the docket as Exhibit No. 12.
On the 8th of May, the defense presented a Motion for Dismissal arguing that the defendant’s sixth amendment rights were being breached due to the fact that no trial had taken place. In that regard, the presiding judge at that moment concluded that “The 60 day delay between the Appeal being resolved and a decision being adopted constitutes a breach of the 6th amendment rights of the defendant. However, the rights and interests of citizens and the State would be affected in a much greater proportion if the motion for dismissal in this case were accepted. In other words, the judge considers that the burden to which the defendant is being subjected through this decision is justified based on the rules of pondering and reflections proposed here.”.
Trial Proceeding
During the trial, the Prosecution presented a recount of events that was equal in substance to the filing presented initially with the indictment. The prosecution proceeded to present their first exhibits, arguing that the CCTV footage from exhibits one through three contained pictures of individuals with similar hairstyle, clothing and other paraphernalia that matched the colors of a gang known as “The Underground”. The Prosecution also pointed out that the roles, positions and other tasks carried out during these robberies were evenly distributed, and each and every member was organized and carried out the same specific duty in all of the robberies. The defense argued that all that could be seen from the stills provided were clothing, but no facial features or tattoos. Furthermore, the defense added that the prosecution insisted on mentioning a group called “The Underground”, but at no time did they provide evidence that could substantiate the existen of said group, their clothing, styles or otherwise identification that could tie it to the individuals in the footage, or the defendants.
The prosecution moved on to the bodycamera footage presented on the docket and argued that the individual that opened fire at the officers was in fact the same person that could be seen wearing a hoodie on the first three exhibits. The defense argued that the provided footage did not prove the presence or the identities of the defendants.
The prosecution presented exhibit #8, and argued that a bike with the license plate “MELODY” was at the scene of the final events, affirming that said vehicle belonged to Melody Frey. The defense argued that a license plate having a name didn’t directly link the vehicle to a person.
Finally, the prosecution presented mugshots of the defendants, as result of other arrests carried out by law enforcement agencies, with the purpose of tying the identities of those in the mugshots with the identity of those in the stills, CCTV footage and bodycamera recordings.
To conclude, the prosecution argued that the evidence presented showed a pattern of robberies, carried out by the same group of people with organized and distributed tasks. Also, that the colors and apparel used belonged to a criminal group called “The Underground” and that, based on the evidence presented, it would be possibly to identify the defendants as the ones who carried out said robberies and shootings.
The defense concluded stating that there’s no proof of who “The Underground” are, how they are linked to the defendants and that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the alleged crimes. The defense also added that the evidence provided consisted mostly of still photos, of low detail and with no perspective or view of the faces, tattoos or features that would allow one to recognize the defendants, had they done that. The defense cited the precedent of State v. Scoobie Bathsheba.
Considerations & Conclusion
The Court understands that the Prosecution considered a relevant factor the identity, paraphernalia or otherwise features of the allegedly crimnal organization “The Underground”, and that the robberies that took place were carried out in an organized manner, with specific distribution of tasks. The Court believes that the Prosecution was able to prove that the robberies were carried out in sequence, with a very professional and specific distribution of tasks. However, the Court notes that the prosecution did not provide any evidence that would allow the judge to identify the characteristic traits of the allegedly criminal group “The Underground”, such as vehicles, colors, apparel, etc., which would have proven useful in an attempt to link the defendants with said organization or the events that took place.
The Court notes, particularly, that the photo evidence provided for Chad Rapkov was insufficient. Specifically, the Prosecution argued that exhibit #6 contained a photograph of the mentioned defendant, however, upon reviewing the arrest report provided, the Court struggles to find any similarity between the person in exhibit #6 and the mug shot of Mr. Chad Rapkov. In fact, the Court reasonably believes that the person present in exhibit #6 is not Chad Rapkov.
The Court believes that using similar clothing does not indicate direct relation with a criminal organization. In that regard, the court has to side with the defense and recognize that the Prosecution did err in regards to not presenting any pieces of evidence that would allow the Court to gain understanding of the physical properties of the members of “The Underground”, in order to determine the participation of the defendants in the alleged criminal organization. Had the prosecution presented evidence in that regard, it would’ve been possible -at least- to conclude that the robberies were carried out by members of the alleged criminal organization.
Finally, in regards to the arguments revolving around the vehicle and the license plate, the Court believes that it is possible to determine the presence or participation of a vehicle owner in a specific event off of the license plate. This argument can be held up when the Prosecution provides additional evidence, such as, but not limited to: previous arrest or impound reports that link a license plate to the vehicle owner, ownership records of vehicles, stolen property (or the lack, thereof) reports in regards to said vehicle, among others. However, this was not the case. The Prosecution did not provide any evidence that would allow the Court to conclude that the bike did belong to Melody Frey, and that there had not been any anomalies in regards to the bike that would indicate that the person using and driving it was different from the defendant Ms. Frey.
With the above considerations in mind, the Court concludes that the Prosecution was able to prove the following facts:
That a chain of robberies took place on the 16th of June.
That the robberies were carried out by an organized group of people, with an specific distribution of tasks
That the group did in fact attempt against the property of the store owners, and against the life of police officers
However, the Court did not find proven the identity of the authors of the robberies, their alleged links to a criminal organization, and even less, that the defendants were present -as authors or accessories- in the commission of the crimes.
Verdict
It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:
On the count of WM02 - Possession of a Class 1 Firearm, I find the defendant, Melody Frey, not guilty.
On the count GF03 - Armed Robbery, I find the defendant, Melody Frey, not guilty.
On the count SF02 - Attempted Murder of a Government Employee, I find the defendant, Melody Frey, not guilty.
On the count SF02 - Attempted Murder of a Government Employee, I find the defendant, Melody Frey, not guilty.
On the count VF04 - Felony Public Endangerment, I find the defendant, Melody Frey, not guilty.
On the count GM19 - Face Concealment (b), I find the defendant, Melody Frey, not guilty.
On the count NM03 - Unlawful Assembly, I find the defendant, Melody Frey, not guilty.
On the count GF03 - Armed Robbery, I find the defendant, Chad Rapkov, not guilty.
On the count VF01 - Evading an Officer, I find the defendant, Chad Rapkov, not guilty.
On the count GM19 - Face Concealment (b), I find the defendant, Chad Rapkov, not guilty.
On the count NM03 - Unlawful Assembly, I find the defendant, Chad Rapkov, not guilty.
On the count GF03 - Armed Robbery, I find the defendant, Claire Allen, not guilty.
On the count NM03 - Unlawful Assembly, I find the defendant, Claire Allen, not guilty.
On the count GM19 - Face Concealment (b), I find the defendant, Claire Allen, not guilty.
So ordered,
Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]
Antonio José McFornell Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
Chairman of the Bar Ethics Review Board
Training & Hiring Staff
