San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU" |
- Honorable Judge Daniels and pertaining parties,
We thank the defense for their work and motion. There are certain points we would like to bring up objections to.
Exhibit #1 is an official document written during official business. To completely disregard the entire writing would be to disregard the work done by the officers on scene, their interview skills, and scene assessment. As Associate Justice Daniels quoted in #22-CM-0050, State of San Andreas v. Harley Pavlovich "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 is important to recognize this fact. As for the witness statement from Robert Winejudge, it has been included later with the affidavit required. We will address the individual concerns of the statement later.
Exhibit #2 the Prosecution believes that the Police Captain Jessica Nash is saying exactly what had occurred on the day as they witnessed it. Let us keep in mind the Captain Jessica Nash is the individual who reviewed the CCTV footage. She is not speaking out of anything but her own personal experience. She is speaking about what her eyes and ears witnessed. Not only that but her statements are not being used to prove the truth of the matter. The fact of matter has already been prove, the actions already stated by multiple eye witnesses. The officer is once again stating their own experience. They have no direct quotes besides ones already confirmed in CCTV footage. The officer admits to being the one to see it stating "I confirmed this with the CCTV footage from city hall, located exactly where Vince had held the "Interview" with Brian Stone."
Exhibit #3 "Captain Jessica Nash and myself received word from an employee within the Government that Mr. Williams called up a cadet with the name Stone to city hall to conduct his interview." This statement is essentially why the officers showed up to the scene. If they do not lay the foundation for why they appeared at City Hall, what would be the point to entertaining the statement from the witness? I'd like to assert that the second section of the highlighted statements are once again not being used to prove the truth of the matter. Finally in the last section beginning with "Captain Jessica Nash was shown..." The Captain asserts that he saw Captain Jessica Nash take actions, which she also admits to making in her own witness statement. These are the actions of each Captain that they personally witnessed and cannot be considered hearsay.
Exhibit #4 the highlighted yellow parts of Mr. Woods statements are not being used to prove the truth of the matter. Whether or not the defendant asked Mr. Wood to look up Brian Stones number on the MDC does not prove the fact that Mr. Williams was impersonating an officer on the day in question. Not only that but Mr. Wood is perfectly within his right to quote himself "I declined unless Brian Stone provided proper identification and a valid reason." That statement in no way falls under hearsay. As for the green highlighted statements, we are fine with having those suppressed. For the blue, "I later discovered that Brian Stones's number was on the PD application he submitted on July 27, 2023." This is the experience of the witness. Anyone of us can type in Brain Stones name on the Government Website and fact check this information, not only that, but the fact was included in the exhibit included by the defense, and I quote "Officer Stone first applied to the Los Santos Police Department on July 28th, 2023" ((Let's forgive the timezone difference)).
Exhibit #5 the entire first highlighted statement until “Are you here for your PD interview?” is simply their own witnessing of events. The quote "Are you here for your interview?" is not being used to prove the truth of the matter. The truth of the matter is the question "was someone impersonating or posing as a member of LSPD". The question "Are you here for your PD interview" does not answer that question nor support it. It simply asks whether or not someone is there for an interview. It does not say "Hi, I'm the LSPD officer here for your interview."
Further on in exhibit #5 there is the statement "however Stone then asks Williams if he called him here to conduct and interview." As officer stone is a witness on the current case, nothing he says could be considered hearsay. Hearsay only occurs when the person quoted is not also a witness on the case or when the item stated is not being used to prove the truth of the matter. As hearsay is a statement that cannot be refuted or confirmed because the person is not here to refute or confirm it. For the final highlighted sentence, "Williams then says that they need to step to his vending machine to go do the interview." The Prosecution is fine with the suppression of this statement as it would be used to prove the truth of the matter.
Exhibit #6 we are fine with the suppression of all highlight statements, but request that "Mr. Stone was crestfallen" be allowed to remain. We ask this largely due to the nature of the comment. It is clear this was the observation made by Winejudge about the way Mr. Stone looked at that moment. If the whole statement is to be suppressed, then we ask that Mr. Stone be left for continuity purposes.
Exhibit #7 this was not questions asked by the Prosecution. These were questions posed by the LSPD, not the Prosecution. While the exhibit is listed as a witness statement, it is better labeled as an interrogation. I'd like to take the time to remind the defense that they have the ability to depose a witness as well. While the prosecution did not exercise that right in this case, it is still a fact. We were never approached by the defense in regards to deposing the witness.
Exhibit #10 We would like to mention that the search warrant was not incorrect. The Judges writing was incorrect. That is not the fault of the Prosecution, but of the Judge who signed the warrant. We executed the warrant as we wrote it and assumed when signed that the Judge had done their part. We believe this to be a simple error of copy and paste. Nothing more.
Respectfully,
Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 321-2132 — [email protected]
