#24-CM-0018, State of San Andreas v. John Chapel (Pauls)

[John Chapel]

The Office of the Shadows
#24-CM-0018, State of San Andreas v. John Chapel (Pauls)
Motion to Suppress

To whom it may concern,

I, John Chapel, Will be filing a motion to suppress and urge the court to look upon it.

• Exhibit 3 and 4: Witness Statements
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  The entire of both exhibits 3 and 4.

  • Detailed Reasoning: Exhibits 3 and 4 consist of a singular paragraph or less. Of which both start with "I can't recall much about the arrest" and "I can't recall anything during the arrest."
    
    Not only does this show signs that their witness statements are useless to the case at hand, it also shows their lack of memory. In exhibit 4 Captain Oscar Black literally says and I quote " I simply don't believe I was present".
    
    Exhibit 3 is very vague and only states "The aforementioned individual was part of the whole incident." which is backed up by no evidence and just shows that Undersheriff Harry Payne struggles to form a coherent paragraph. This lacks any foundation and If we look at #22-CM-0040, State of San Andreas v. Gregory Gregov we can see the court does not entertain these 1 sentence witness statements.

• Exhibit #2: Witness Statement - Lieutenant Zero Hunter
  To make this not only easier on the eyes I will highlight parts of the exhibit I want suppressed and why underneath in blue.
  
  Exhibit #2: Witness Statement - Lieutenant Zero Hunter

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: [TO BE FILLED]
    Incident Date: [05/JAN/2024]

  Witness Information

  • Name: [Zero Hunter]
    Date of Birth: [08/JAN/1995]
    Phone Number: [REDACTED]
    Occupation: [Sheriff's Deputy within the LSSD.]

  Witness Statement

  • [On the 5th January 2024, myself and Captain Black were investigating an illegal organisation that call themselves "The Shadows". They were at this time lining up all their vehicles and convoying around town. They started off next to Burgershot, made their way to Legion where multiple other cars joined them through their route, eventually getting to the Petstore/CandyPayne intersection where they decided to all block the 4 way exits and made a circle with their cars with one car in the middle doing donuts and other forms of illegal acts. At this time we found a car within those vehicles registered to a Chase Vincero, which had a BOLO out for it so we pulled it over. Numerous vehicles in this matter decided to block us or huddle us. We eventually managed to finish our 10-55 and Sheriff Payne asked Captain Reno to get some riot control vehicles out to try and get rid of the manic that was happening in front of us. We did but this led to the vehicles all speeding together, racing against each other as they tried to evade us, this included the Black Jester that John and another suspect were in. - The witness suggests the intent or actions of the individuals in the vehicles, which is speculation since they did not have direct knowledge of the individuals' intentions- We were at this time focused on one specific vehicle and were pursuing said vehicle.
    
    This vehicle led us eventually to the Del Perro/Great Ocean Highway tunnel where our pursuit line was spiked by the suspects friends. During this all the vehicles present, including the Black Jester (confirmed 2x occupied as they came up to me to make jokes about me being spiked) used their vehicles to force the pursuit line to go to the far left lane where the spikes were. - The witness mentions statements made by individuals in the Black Jester. - After this we were still pursuing the original vehicle and ignored it but I saw both the driver and passenger of the Jester's description.
    
    After the pursuit ended near Road Workers HQ we drove around checking for vehicles trying to assist and obstruct again. During this I saw the Black Jester, same RO, same plate and same two descriptions of the suspects inside and began to chase them. They did not pull over until eventually Alpha was on them and a new pursuit began. They managed to make some ground on me as I had to stop for an injured 10-16 I found. Alpha was following the vehicle the entire time. Both suspects eventually stopped at Tinsel Towers where the driver got out and ran away and I got the passenger tazed. He resisted the arrest numerous times before finally being placed into cuffs and patted down.
    
    At any point after we lost them 3 times before he was arrested, he had a chance to tell the driver that he wanted out of the car. He chose not to do so. - There is no evidence that I, The defendant, never requested to get out of the car making this speculation -
    
    We also know both the suspects are part of the same criminal organisation so there was no kidnapping or false imprisonment. They both chose to get into that car, stay in the car and the illegal activity that was happening, evade us twice and then resist arrest. - Again, there is no evidence that I was willingly in that vehicle making this speculation -

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, [Zero Hunter], 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,
    
    
    Lieutenant Zero Hunter
    Commanding Officer, K9 Detection Team
    Assistant Commanding Officer, Gangs & Narcotics
    Los Santos County Sheriff's Department
    
    Date: [12/JAN/2024]

  
  
  
  
  Exhibit #1: LSSD Arrest Report - John Pauls
  To make this not only easier on the eyes I will highlight parts of the exhibit I want suppressed and why underneath in blue.
  
  Exhibit #1: LSSD Arrest Report - John Pauls 05/JAN/24

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    
    
    Full Name: John Pauls
    Telephone Number: 5948122
    Licenses Revoked: Yes
    • Driver
    • Trucker
    
    Charges:
    • VF01 - Evading an Officer
    • VM06 - Street Competition
    • NM03 - Unlawful Assembly
    • GM04 - Resisting Arrest
    • GM13 - Criminal Threats of a Gov. employee
    • GM14 - Obstruction of Justice
    
    
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :

  
  
  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  • Vehicle A:

  
  
  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: Zero Hunter
    Badge Number: 20174
    Callsign: 3-Z-2

  
  
  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2024-01-05
    Deputies Involved: Oscar Black, Harry Payne, Violet Wilson
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • There was a massive gathering of vehicles led by ENVY. This included numerous gangs such as Shadows and Rooks. During this event we pursued a ENVY Comet. This comet eventually led us underneath Del Perro Tunnel where John Pauls was in the passenger seat of a Jester. The Jester originally assisted in directing the LEO vehicles into Spikes that the suspects had placed down for us. They stopped and came to me to insult us before evading when my lights and sirens were on them as I dropped from the original pursuit. I eventually lost them and went back to the first pursuit which finally ended near roadworkers' HQ. This was where I pursued them again, they evaded again with the same two suspects inside the car. The pursuit went on until they stopped at Tinsel Towers where the driver got out and ran away. John Pauls got out of the and began to resist arrest. He was eventually arrested and put in the back of my vehicle where he then decided to threaten my life. - Since I apparently threatened the life of an officer why hasn't the statements made been entered into evidence? - Lack of Foundation

  
  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: Paleto Station
    Exhibit A:

  
  
  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  
  

  ---

  
  
  Respectfully,
  
  John Chapel
  Head Spokesperson
  Friends with Ex Bar Certified Attorney

[Hope Kant]

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. John Chapel (Pauls)

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on 14/MAY/2024.

I, Hope Kant, Attorney General 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.


Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 505-9925 — [email protected]

[John Chapel]

The Office of the Shadows
#24-CM-0018, State of San Andreas v. John Chapel (Pauls)
COI

To whom it may concern,

This notification of counsel from Hope Kant comes at a surprise.

I believe she has a conflict of interest on this case and shouldn't be allowed to be the opposing counsel.

Now to why she has a conflict of interest, she has an active restraining order against me. I request that Hope Kant is not on the case and I urge the court to look over this.

Respectfully,

John Chapel
Head Spokesperson
Friends with Ex Bar Certified Attorney

[Rowin Lawson]

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

---

• Honorable Judge McFornell,
  
  In response to the Defenses motion to suppress the Prosecution would like to present our Rebuttal
  
  Motion to suppress Exhibit 3 and 4
  

  • Detailed Reasoning: Exhibits 3 and 4 consist of a singular paragraph or less. Of which both start with "I can't recall much about the arrest" and "I can't recall anything during the arrest."
    
    Not only does this show signs that their witness statements are useless to the case at hand, it also shows their lack of memory. In exhibit 4 Captain Oscar Black literally says and I quote " I simply don't believe I was present".
    
    Exhibit 3 is very vague and only states "The aforementioned individual was part of the whole incident." which is backed up by no evidence and just shows that Undersheriff Harry Payne struggles to form a coherent paragraph. This lacks any foundation and If we look at #22-CM-0040, State of San Andreas v. Gregory Gregov we can see the court does not entertain this 1 sentence witness statements.

  The prosecution believes that Exhibit #3 and Exhibit #4 should not be dismissed. The defense wished to suppress due to Officer Payne stating that they cannot recall much about the arrest and or that Officer Black stated that he was not present during the arrest. Officers of the Law are often involved in many arrests, claiming to only remember certain parts or have limited knowledge is not uncommon.
  
  In the statement made by Undersheriff Payne he states that he cannot remember much about the arrest though he is able to confirm that there was a large group street racing and that he remembered Mr. Chapel being there. The admission made by the Deputy of not being able to recall much is used in this instance to explain why he does not have a lengthy witness statement. Undersheriff Payne in his statement confirms what he can remember from the arrest.
  
  The statement made by Captain Black is similar to the previous witness statement. The captain states that he was not involved in the arrest though he does confirm the scene of the crime where there was a large gathering and that vehicles were operating in an unruly manner. Much like Exhibit #4 the captain only confirms the facts he can fully remember.
  
  Additionally, the precedence referenced from 22-CM-0040 about single sentence witness statements does not directly apply to this case. In that case a brief single sentence witness statement was the main piece of evidence used to convict the Defendant. In this case these witness statement are brief though they are not single sentence statements, and they are not the main piece of evidence. These statements are used to simply confirm certain details, such as the scene with cars operating in an unruly manner and confirming that the defendant was seen at the scene of the crime.
  

  [On the 5th January 2024, myself and Captain Black were investigating an illegal organisation that call themselves "The Shadows". They were at this time lining up all their vehicles and convoying around town. They started off next to Burgershot, made their way to Legion where multiple other cars joined them through their route, eventually getting to the Petstore/CandyPayne intersection where they decided to all block the 4 way exits and made a circle with their cars with one car in the middle doing donuts and other forms of illegal acts. At this time we found a car within those vehicles registered to a Chase Vincero, which had a BOLO out for it so we pulled it over. Numerous vehicles in this matter decided to block us or huddle us. We eventually managed to finish our 10-55 and Sheriff Payne asked Captain Reno to get some riot control vehicles out to try and get rid of the manic that was happening in front of us.(1) We did but this led to the vehicles all speeding together, racing against each other as they tried to evade us, this included the Black Jester that John and another suspect were in. - The witness suggests the intent or actions of the individuals in the vehicles, which is speculation since they did not have direct knowledge of the individuals' intentions- We were at this time focused on one specific vehicle and were pursuing said vehicle.
  
  This vehicle led us eventually to the Del Perro/Great Ocean Highway tunnel where our pursuit line was spiked by the suspects friends. (2)During this all the vehicles present, including the Black Jester (confirmed 2x occupied as they came up to me to make jokes about me being spiked) used their vehicles to force the pursuit line to go to the far left lane where the spikes were. - The witness mentions statements made by individuals in the Black Jester. - After this we were still pursuing the original vehicle and ignored it but I saw both the driver and passenger of the Jester's description.
  
  After the pursuit ended near Road Workers HQ we drove around checking for vehicles trying to assist and obstruct again. During this I saw the Black Jester, same RO, same plate and same two descriptions of the suspects inside and began to chase them. They did not pull over until eventually Alpha was on them and a new pursuit began. They managed to make some ground on me as I had to stop for an injured 10-16 I found. Alpha was following the vehicle the entire time. Both suspects eventually stopped at Tinsel Towers where the driver got out and ran away and I got the passenger tazed. He resisted the arrest numerous times before finally being placed into cuffs and patted down.
  
  At any point after we lost them 3 times before he was arrested,(3) he had a chance to tell the driver that he wanted out of the car. He chose not to do so. - There is no evidence that I, The defendant, never requested to get out of the car making this speculation -
  
  We also know both the suspects are part of the same criminal organisation so(4) there was no kidnapping or false imprisonment. They both chose to get into that car, stay in the car and the illegal activity that was happening, evade us twice and then resist arrest. - Again, there is no evidence that I was willingly in that vehicle making this speculation -

  
  (1) The statement made in the first highlighted section does make claims about the intentions of the individuals in the car. The prosecution does not believe that speculation applies in this instance. The facts are that the individuals were fleeing from officers and were not complying with the officers attempting to stop their vehicle. Evading officers is defined as fleeing from officers with lights and sirens on. In order to evade arrest from the officers the vehicle would have to exceed the speed limit of 80 KPH. Additionally two vehicles speeding on the same road while both are evading officers could be considered "racing". The statements made in the arrest report do not attempt to speculate on what the Defendant or the other individual in the car was attempting to do, Officer Hunter instead is explaining the events that unfolded in front of him. The scene that was broken up resulted in a chase required riot gear and additional units to be deployed to the scene. by actively evading officers as they were arresting individuals at the scene they were actively evading.
  
  (2) The Prosecution would disagree with Hearsay being claimed in the witness statement. The only point that could be considered hearsay would be "about me being spiked", as every other part of the statement would be covered under the five senses of the officer. The deputy is allowed to testify to the joking tone or manner that the defendant(s) appear to be in at that moment. The stipulation here would be whether or not he can give the specifics about the content of the joke.
  
  (3) The prosecution does not wish to contest this suppression
  
  (4) The fourth highlighted section on the witness statement is requested to be suppressed due to speculation. The prosecution disagrees with the officers statement being considered speculation. The actions taken by the defendant are not consistent with somebody who is being held against their will or is non-compliant to the crimes committed by the driver of the vehicle. When the black Jester was stopped the defendant attempted to flee and resisted arrest multiple times. The Defendant had ample opportunity to explain the situation if he was there against his will. The officer claiming that the defendant was there willingly is supported by the actions of the defendant when stopped. Additionally noting the apparel of the defendant when arrested, his apparel matches what was found on other gang members from the initial gathering.
  

  Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest

  • There was a massive gathering of vehicles led by ENVY. This included numerous gangs such as Shadows and Rooks. During this event we pursued a ENVY Comet. This comet eventually led us underneath Del Perro Tunnel where John Pauls was in the passenger seat of a Jester. The Jester originally assisted in directing the LEO vehicles into Spikes that the suspects had placed down for us. They stopped and came to me to insult us before evading when my lights and sirens were on them as I dropped from the original pursuit. I eventually lost them and went back to the first pursuit which finally ended near roadworkers' HQ. This was where I pursued them again, they evaded again with the same two suspects inside the car. The pursuit went on until they stopped at Tinsel Towers where the driver got out and ran away. John Pauls got out of the and began to resist arrest. He was eventually arrested and put in the back of my vehicle where he then decided to threaten my life. - Since I apparently threatened the life of an officer why hasn't the statements made been entered into evidence? - Lack of Foundation

  The prosecution is confused as to how the statement lacks foundation when the deputy clearly provided a story that showed they were there for the encounter and how they could've been present to hear the threats. The individual was in cuffs and had been arrested. The standard for arrests are the reading of miranda rights. This is a widely accepted definition for an arrest, therefore any statements made would be allowed in court. Additionally the arrest report is a document made during the course of an LEO's duties, meaning it can contain quotes and statements made during the arrest.
  
  Foundation is an objection that is made to a statement like "John ate breakfast that morning" as the LEO would not have provided the courts with how he came to be privy to the information that John had ate breakfast that morning. Now if the LEO had stated that he was conducting surveillance and watched John eat breakfast through the window of his apartment that morning, that would be enough foundation to be able to make the statement.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Rowin Lawson
  Prosecuting Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 451-9939 — [email protected]

[Antonio McFornell]

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

---

• Parties,
  
  The Superior Court apologizes for the delays in deciding. The presiding judge will decide on all pending matters throughout the week and offer a notice to schedule the next phase of this case.
  
  Best regards,
  
  
  Superior Court Judge
  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

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. John Chapel (Pauls)
#24-CM-0018

A decision was reached in the above case on the 22nd day of June, 2024.

On the 14th of May the defendant filed a motion to suppress, requesting various statements be partially or completely suppressed from the evidence provided by the prosecution.

In regards to Witness Statements #3 and #4, the defense argued that they are extremely vague, provide no use to the case and their authors state that they do not recall with clarity the events under study in the present case. The prosecution argued that deputies might have limited knowledge in regards to specifics given their participation in a high number of situations on their day to day operation, adding that the statement provides confirmation of the circumstances in which the alleged crimes took place. The Court considers the arguments presented by the Prosecution insufficient, and has to agree that the statements in Exhibits #3 and #4, due to their vagueness and the contents within them, are unable to provide the court with sufficient elements that would allow it to obtain more or less certainty regarding the case.

In regards to Witness Statement #2, the defense requested four specific sentences to be removed from the docket. Particularly, the Court finds that the arguments provided by the defendant were insufficient in regards to the first sentence, given that the Court considers the statement to be absent from speculation. In regards to the second statement, the Court recognizes the argument presented by the prosecution, clarifying that it will be allowed to remain in the docket given that it provides relevant considerations to the behavior of the defendant.
The defense then proceeded to request the suppression of a third sentence, which the prosecution did not contest. The Court finds that the statement does in fact constitute hearsay, and thus will rule it's suppression.
The Court finally finds that the fourth sentence being suppressed provides a recollection of the events from the perspective of the officer, and the statement itself does not allow the Court to conclude that these are a result of anything but the officer's personal, first-hand, experiences during the event, thus not constituting hearsay.

With that in mind, the Court will then proceed to suppress the following sentence in regards to Exhibit #2:

he had a chance to tell the driver that he wanted out of the car. He chose not to do so.

Finally, the defense requested a portion of Exhibit #1 be suppressed due to it lacking foundation, given that presumably the statements were not entered into evidence. Given that the defendant is appealing GM13 - Criminal Threats of a Gov. Employee within their criminal case, the Court determines that a motion to suppress is not the adequate way of challenging the prosecution's presumed lack of evidence in regards to the threats that were presumably made by the defendant against the officer who provided the statement and that could've eventually served as the basis of GM13.

In conclusion, only the portion of the Statement quoted above will be suppressed from the docket.

So ordered,

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

[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. John Chapel (Pauls)
#24-CM-0018

An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on 22nd of June, 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 Judge
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 TRIAL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. John Chape (Pauls)
#24-CM-0018

A trial date was set on the above case on June 23rd, 2024.

In accordance with the availability reported by both parties in response to the Notice of Scheduling, this trial shall take place at 01:30 AM on June 30th, 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 29th of June, but due to UTC conversion it ends up being an hour and a half past midnight, thus making the date the 30th. 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 McFornell]

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. John Chapel
#24-CM-0018

A decision was reached in the above case on the 30th day of June, 2024.

Introduction - Criminal Appeal
The matter #24-CM-0018, State of San Andreas v. John Chapel reached this Court as a result of a criminal appeal presented on the 5th of January by the defendant, John Chapel. In their narrative, the defendant argued that they were unlawfully arrested and charged with

• GM04 - Resisting Arrest
• Accessory to GM14 - Obstruction of Justice
• VM06 -Street Competition
• GM13 - Criminal Threats of a Gov. Employee
• VF01 - Evading an Officer
• NM03 - Unlawful Assembly

Pre-Trial Proceedings
On May 14th, the defendant filed a motion to suppress several statements from the prosecution's evidence.
In regards to Exhibit #1, the defense wanted parts suppressed due to a lack of foundation. The Court decided that a motion to suppress was not the correct method to challenge the prosecution's lack of evidence regarding the criminal threats (GM13) charge against the defendant.

As for the Witness Statement #2: The defense requested the removal of four sentences. The Court decided the following:

• Denied the removal of the first sentence, finding no speculation.
• Allowed the second sentence to remain, as it was relevant to the defendant's behavior.
• Ruled the third sentence as hearsay and suppressed it.
• Kept the fourth sentence, considering it a firsthand account.
• The Court suppressed the sentence, "he had a chance to tell the driver that he wanted out of the car. He chose not to do so."

Finally, in relation to Witness Statements #3 and #4, the defense argued these were vague and lacked clarity. The prosecution claimed the statements confirmed the crime's circumstances. However, the Court found the prosecution's arguments insufficient and agreed with the defense, ruling the statements too vague to provide useful evidence.

Considerations & Conclusion
The Court has been tasked with determining whether it can be concluded that the defendant, John Chapel, participated in a presumably illegal vehicle gathering that escalated into a vehicular chase, where ultimately the defendant presumably evaded, among others, the police and eventually, when caught, resisted arrest and issued threats against the deputy who conducted said arrest.

The prosecution has presented evidence consisting mainly of an arrest report and a witness statement. These two pieces of evidence, or their authors, were not impeached by the defense, and the prosecution correctly argued that the Court could not conclude that these do not contain truthful statements without finding their authors guilty of perjury, contempt of court, among others. The Court believes that through these statements, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that John Chapel was identified at a group of events that led to him being asked to pull over with cause, orders that were not followed.

The Court, however, is unable to determine, based on the statement, whether the defendant participated in a planned, organized, or otherwise premeditated illegal street contest. This Court also determines that for the misdemeanor of unlawful assembly to take place, it is not enough for there to be a plural number of participants in the commission of an illegal act. Said circumstance requires at least proving an intent, willingness, or otherwise premeditated desire to disobey the law—or law enforcement instructions—with an ulterior motive. Given that the Court has concluded that there isn’t sufficient evidence in the docket to prove that a street competition took place—at least in the terms of the Penal Code, and in regards to the defendant—the crime of unlawful assembly must follow the same fate as VM06 - Street Competition, as the Court finds it hard—not to say impossible—to prove an unlawful assembly with the intent to resist arrest, obstruct justice, or make criminal threats against a government employee.

Verdict
It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:

1. On the count of GM04 - Resisting Arrest, I find the defendant, John Chapel, Guilty
2. On the count of Accessory to GM14 - Obstruction of Justice, I find the defendant, John Chapel, Guilty
3. On the count of VM06 -Street Competition, I find the defendant, John Chapel, Not Guilty
4. On the count of GM13 - Criminal Threats of a Gov. Employee, I find the defendant, John Chapel, Guilty
5. On the count of VF01 - Evading an Officer, I find the defendant, John Chapel, Guilty
6. On the count of NM03 - Unlawful Assembly, I find the defendant, John Chapel, Not Guilty

Furthermore, as a result of the defendant’s behavior -including but not limited to, disrespecting the court, making derogatory and disrespectful comments directed at the prosecution and attendees of these proceedings or disregarding the calls for respect from the presiding judge-, throughout the Trial proceedings, the Court will be charging the defendant with GM22 - Contempt of Court. The defendant will not be required to serve time or be subject to any fines as a result of this charge, given that the compensations they are owed exceed the sentence and fines of this charge. However, it will be placed on their record with date of June 30th, 2024.

So ordered,

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