#23-CM-0103, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

[Mary Burrows]

Motion to Supress
State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

To whom it may concern,

The defense, in light of evidence presented by the prosecution in Exhibits #14 and #15, respectfully moves to suppress both exhibits fully for the following reasons:

• The exhibits presented by the prosecution, namely Exhibit #14 (Jack Goodnight Chronology of Events) and Exhibit #15 (Assistant Warden Issei Schneider Witness Statement), lack relevance to the case at hand. While the chronology of events provided in Exhibit #14 outlines past encounters involving Mr. Jack Goodnight with law enforcement, the defense contends that the time elapsed since his last charge demonstrates his efforts to reintegrate into society and lead a law-abiding life. Notably, Mr. Goodnight's last charge occurred approximately [insert time frame] ago, indicating that he has served his time to society for his past actions. Additionally, the witness statement in Exhibit #15, dated February 01, 2024, reflects information that is around 2 months old. In the time since then, Mr. Goodnight has undergone significant personal growth and is committed to making positive contributions to society. Therefore, the exhibits fail to establish a direct connection to the charges against the defendant, Frank Haswell, and should be suppressed.
• Admitting Exhibits #14 and #15 into evidence would infringe upon the defendant's right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the Constitution. By allowing irrelevant and prejudicial evidence to be presented before the jury, the court risks unfairly influencing the perception of the jury and denying Mr. Haswell his fundamental right to due process.

The defense would also like to note again that there are multiple people who are in Supervisor+ Positions in Government Agencies who were given a chance to prove that they were changed.

The defense would like to state that we would be more than happy to submit a witness list and have jack goodnight take the stand so that he can speak his truth and you can ask him questions in trial. But there is no reason for the prosecution to continue outcasting my client for choices he has made and regretted in the past.

((On an OOC Note as well with the way that IRL time is portrayed ICly this would mean that Jack Goodnight has been clean for a reasonable amount of time. We urge you to also view this from a OOC level within the latter of the IRL time conversion to IC time.))

Respectfully,

Mary Burrows
Associate
Bar Certified Attorney
☏ 339-5979

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Mason and pertaining parties,
  
  We're concerned about the method the defense went about constructing their previous argument ((it's written by chat GPT)). There's issues at several points where the prosecution feels that clarification is required. To begin the defense states "Notably, Mr. Goodnight's last charge occurred approximately [insert time frame] ago, indicating that he has served his time to society for his past actions." Mr. Goodnight's last charge(s) was on the 17 of March. One of which was WF01 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon of a Gov. Employee placed by an SADOC officer. Once again, the prosecution has proven that Mr. Goodnight was NOT in good standing when he made the witness statement. The witness statement was posted on the 12th of March. 5 days prior to continued attacks by Mr. Goodnight on SADOC. Additionally, as the defense has only had the witness sign and not date the statement, suggesting that the statement was incorrectly obtained.
  
  ((The OOC timeline in this case means nothing as the Jack Goodnight was still actively committing crimes when he made the statement to the defense. With the way that IRL time is portrayed ICly this would mean that Jack Goodnight had NOT been clean until days after making the statement to the defense.))
  
  Moving onto the next confusing statements made by the defense. "By allowing irrelevant and prejudicial evidence to be presented before the jury, the court risks unfairly influencing the perception of the jury and denying Mr. Haswell his fundamental right to due process." First, the jury is not being presented information, the judge is. Second, the prosecution has presented the information similar to how courts outside of our state impeach witnesses.
  
  Outside of our state to impeach a witness, the prosecution can include the several items in regards to an arrest as long as it pertains to the impeachment and not the guilt of the individual. These items are location, charges, date, and a small description of the events, but only if it is necessary for context (IE: showing how antagonistic Mr. Goodnight is to SADOC). None of this information is considered more prejudicial than probative as it does not sway the judge to feel any way about the defendant. It is about impeaching a witness, and having that information on the record for trial.
  
  Speaking of trial, the prosecution is ready for trial or whatever the next step required by the Judge are.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Attorney General
  Director of Public Notary
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 505-9925 — [email protected]

[Mary Burrows]

Motion to Supress
State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

To whom it may concern,

Before I write the defenses reponse, I would like to openly criticize Attorney General Hope Kant going to a new low to criticize how I have constructed my arguments. I truly believe she is using her personal vendetta against me to try and call out my abilities as a lawyer.

((Deciding to try and point out that I use ChatGPT is very low on an OOC note. I do not use ChatGPT to construct my responses. I use a grammar checker and softwares to make sure my language is to a higher standard as it would be realistically for my character. So let’s not accuse and instead uplift and foster a great community.))

I will release the defenses response in the coming hours.

Respectfully,

Mary Burrows
Associate
Bar Certified Attorney
☏ 339-5979