San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,
The Prosecution has no comments on the Defense's thoughts on Exhibits #2 and #3, as these have already been voiced on the docket.
Regarding the argumentative statement - as noted by Justice McFornell in their court decision for the change of venue, it is specifically stated that Prosecutions presents their discovery, along with their arguments, thus rendering the Defense's objection moot.
Regards, Terence Williams
Acting Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 234-9321 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Superior Court of San Andreas "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
Parties,
The Court does not consider the arguments presented by the Prosecution argumentative, given that they follow standard procedure when presenting evidence - In other words, they allow the Court to become aware of what the intention of said exhibits are. Furthermore, as raised by the prosecution, they were instructed to conduct said clarification during trial proceedings -specifically when presenting discovery-.
At this time, the Court will now allow both parties to present their closing statements as indicated on the procedure guidelines for this docket trial.
Best regards,
Associate Justice
Supreme Court of San Andreas
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]
Antonio José McFornell Retired Supreme Court Justice
Retired Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
Retired Chairman of the Bar Ethics Review Board
San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,
Your Honor, the Prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt the reckless nature of the defendant's driving. The defendant committed not one, not two, but three severe traffic violations, namely VC06 - Following or Impeding Emergency response, by following a police cruiser transporting an arrested individual just to try and sell some raffle tickets; VC05 - Improper Traffic Maneuvers, by failing to follow the regular flow of traffic and road markings; VC08 - Negligent Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle, by reversing without taking proper care of their surroundings, causing a crash with the police vehicle behind them. While the defendant's behavior was negligent, the totality of their driving was reckless, which was proven when they crashed into the vehicle behind them when they suddenly began reversing.
The Prosecution's evidence, as presented here on the docket, proves that the defendant, at the time, was not only a danger to themself but also to others due to their reckless driving. The Prosecution thereby asks that the court find the defendant guilty on the listed charge to uphold the law and bring justice to the people of San Andreas.
Terence Williams
Acting Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 234-9321 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,
We are here to determine whether Mr. Jack Falken should be found guilty of reckless operation of a road vehicle. The charge implies that Mr. Falken acted with intentional disregard for life and property. However, the evidence presented does not support this . Instead, the facts point towards a different conclusion, that Mr. Falken's actions do not meet the legal definition of recklessness.
Exhibit #2: Witness Statement - Deputy Chief of Police Lex Roth
Let's first examine Exhibit #2, the Witness Statement from Deputy Chief of Police Lex Roth. The prosecution presents Roth's statement that Mr. Falken "reversed without looking at his back." In his own statement, Lex Roth states that he was 50 meters away from the defendant's vehicle. How can he conclude without a doubt that Mr Falken did not turn his head as he stated?
To do this, they would have had to, from a distance of 50 meters, look through the back windscreen and beyond the headrest. Given this distance and these obstructions, it is unreasonable and implausible to state with certainty that Mr. Falken did not turn his head. The prosecution wants you to believe that Roth had a clear, unobstructed view of Mr. Falken’s actions from 50 meters away, but this is simply not credible. This statement lacks the reliability needed to prove the intentional disregard, that the defendant reversed without checking his mirrors or turning his head to look behind, and should be considered speculative and thus, unreliable.
Exhibit #3: Impound Report - Impaler SZ
Finally, we have Exhibit #3, the Impound Report. This report lacks detailed information about the condition of the vehicle after the accident and does not show significant damage. The photo is taken of the side of the vehicle, so we are not able to see , how bad it is. Without this information or visible damage, this report does not substantiate claims of reckless behavior, it does NOT show how damaged the rear of the vehicle is, so we can not conclude how big the impact was. Deputy Chief Roth stated and I quote "the impact was big. He collided with his rear end to my front bumper." end quote. This report does not show us any damage to the REAR of the vehicle, so it is impossible to conclude that "the impact was big." without any clear evidence showing the extent of the damage. Without this, the impound report fails to provide substantial evidence that Mr. Falken’s actions were reckless. This report does not support the prosecution's argument that Mr. Falken acted with intentional disregard for safety.
Your Honor, the truth is the prosecution has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that Mr. Falken acted with intentional disregard for life or property. The speculative witness testimony and the impound report that does not show much, do not meet the legal standard for recklessness as defined by our penal code, which is the "Intentional disregard for life and/or property". We urge you to consider these points carefully and recognize that the evidence presented does not support a charge of reckless operation.
Furthermore, all but one of the exhibits provided are witness statements. There is no video evidence or otherwise to show how the events occurred. Without such, it is difficult to 100% conclude that the events occurred exactly as they were described in the statements. While the prosecution makes arguments to try and paint the events in this way, the situation is still not clear. Your Honor, the defendant did not purposely crash into the officer's cruiser, It was a clear accident with NO Intentional disregard. Deputy Chief of Police Lex Roth may not recall the defendant looking in his mirrors before reversing, but that does not mean he did not. It has already been established that he was in his cruiser about 50 meters away from the defendant's vehicle. I want to stress again, that for Chief Roth to say the defendant did not look in their mirrors, he would have had to, from a distance of 50 meters, look through the back windscreen and beyond the headrest.
Based on the evidence and the arguments we have presented, we respectfully ask you to find Mr. Jack Falken not guilty of reckless operation. The prosecution has not met its burden of proof, and has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty of the charge, Thank you.
Regards,
Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 2956979 — [email protected]
Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 463-9315 —[email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,
The Defense continues to try to reason that there is still doubt left regarding the defendant's intentional behavior while driving. However, nothing presented here that should leave any doubt as to the defendant's intentionally reckless behavior.
Let's briefly recount the facts of the incident as they have been presented. First, the defendant was intentionally chasing a police officer in their cruiser with a suspect to try to sell raffle tickets. Second, the defendant intentionally disregarded the general flow of traffic by abruptly breaking in the middle of the road and then beginning to reverse, now driving against the flow of traffic. Third, the defendant failed to reasonably orient themselves of their surroundings, as they ended up crashing into a vehicle behind them while they were reversing.
The Defense has tried and tried to argue against the Prosecution's evidence, but has come up empty-handed. But what else is there to do? How do you fight an arrest report that describes the actions of the defendant in clear detail, with a witness statement from the arresting officer that expands on those details, and an impound report with a picture partially showing the damage of the collision caused by the defendant? The answer is simple - you don't.
The state of San Andreas is the most car-centric in the country, with the most cars per capita. Driving is an everyday occurrence, so much so that it would be considered second nature to most people in the state. People simply just know what to do when driving, and what not to do. You follow the speed limit, you follow the flow of traffic, and maintain a safe speed while observing your surroundings for other motorists and obstructions before making a move. You do not follow police cruisers to sell raffle tickets, you do not suddenly break the flow of traffic, and you simply do not cause an accident with a vehicle that is driving behind you. The thought that someone would be able to do these actions without intent and clear direction is absurd, and the evidence proves this.
Your Honor, the Prosecution retains its stance that the defendant is guilty of VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle by clear margins, committing multiple serious traffic violations in the pursuit of personal achievement. The actions performed by the defendant are all out of the ordinary and require intent to be done. No one in their right mind would do these things normally or without intent. We insist that you retain the defendant's guilt in favor of and for the safety of the people.
Regards, Terence Williams
Acting Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 234-9321 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Superior Court of San Andreas "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
Parties,
Given that all parties have finalized presenting their arguments, the Court hereby closes the docket for any more submissions. It will now study all of them and render a decision within the next 72 hours.
Best regards,
Associate Justice
Supreme Court of San Andreas
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]
Antonio José McFornell Retired Supreme Court Justice
Retired Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
Retired Chairman of the Bar Ethics Review Board
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. Jack Falken
#24-CM-0037
A decision was reached in the above case on the 11th day of September, 2024.
The case of #24-CM-0037, State of San Andreas v. Jack Falken has been resolved.
On the 22nd of January, 2024, the defendant was involved in an vehicle collission with a police cruiser. According to the narrative provided by the prosecution, the defendant was following an officer's vehicle that was conducting a suspect transport. Moments later, the defendant stopped and backed his car recklessly, which led to the mentioned collision, causing damages to the police cruiser that was being driven by Deputy Chief Roth. These circumstances ultimately led to the arrest of the defendant and the impounding of their Impaler SZ.
Following the pre-trial phase, the Court made two attempts to schedule a trial with no success, which led to a change of venue into docket trial procedure. Immediately after the decision was rendered, the Prosecution presented their opening statements which were promptly answered by the defense.
The Prosecution in their case in chief affirmed that the arrest report contained a clear narrative of the events. Particularly, the Prosecution gave special importance to the reckless nature of the defendant's driving. The Prosecution added that the defendant had violated both VC05 and VC06 given that he was following the police while transporting a suspect. The prosecution went on to add that the sudden reverse conducted by the defendant led to the collision with the vehicle directly behind, which was moving with the natural flow of traffic. This situation could be corroborated by the witness statement provided by Deputy Chief of Police Lex Roth.
The defense argued that there would have not been a possibility for Deputy Chief Roth to determine whether the defendant took adequate care while reversing, in the sense that he couldn't have witnessed whether the defendant looked back through his rearview mirror. Furthermore, the defense added that the reports lacked evidence in regards to the state of the police cruiser or the defendant's vehicle after the alleged incident.
The prosecution, in summary, proposed a case in which they argued the defendant committed three severe traffic violations, which ultimately led to causing a crash with the police vehicle behind him. The defense centered their arguments around the fact that the defendant did not act with international disregard for life and property, most specifically because the prosecution had not proven that the defendant did not look at the incoming traffic behind him before stopping and reversing. The defense also argued that the lack of footage revolving the incident implies great difficulty in proving the alleged intentional disregard for life or property in the defendant's actions.
To the Court, it remains undisputed that the defendant Jack Falken followed a police cruiser that was transporting a suspect and ultimately -due to stopping and reversing- caused a collision with an incoming police cruiser driven by Deputy Chief of Police Lex Roth. It has been argued that the prosecution could not prove that the defendant did -or did not- look through his rearview mirror before stopping or reversing their vehicle. However, to the Court this circumstance is devoid of any relevance in the matter at hand, particularly because, if the benefit of the doubt is to be granted to the defense, the defendant must've seen the incoming police cruiser or otherwise vehicular traffic behind them. In other words, given that the collision and the events leading to it are not disputed, the defendant had to either (a) look at the incoming vehicle through his rearview mirror and deliberately stop and reverse their vehicle into them, or (b) stop and reverse their vehicle with disregard and no knowledge of whether there was incoming traffic or not. Both of these circumstances, for the Court, constitute an intentional disregard for life and/or property through the operation of a vehicle and thus, the Court has no other option than to uphold the conviction.
It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:
On the count of VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle, I find the defendant, Jack Falken, guilty.
The defendant shall be compelled to pay the amount of $25,000 for Court Fees.
So ordered,
Associate Justice
Supreme Court of San Andreas
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Antonio José McFornell Retired Supreme Court Justice
Retired Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
Retired Chairman of the Bar Ethics Review Board
