Re: #24-CM-0021, State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff
Posted: 22 Jun 2024, 19:12
Allgood Law 24-CM-0021 - response to prosecution "Right Firm. Right Now" |
- Superior Court Judge McFornell,
To respond to the prosecution.
We believe the prosecution is so very severely flawed in their logic.
This case has not been dismissed, and the arrest has not been dismissed or considered null and void. That's the entire basis for what we are arguing about! The prosecution wishes to dismiss without prejudice so they can continue to complete "inter-agency investigations", and as the prosecution has stated, "a temporary dismissal". Reading between the lines, the prosecution is effectively admitting the evidence against Mr. Wolff is not strong enough to gain a conviction, therefore the need to collect more evidence. The defense objected to this, and Superior Court Judge McFornell sided with the defense. As Judge McFornell ruled, if the prosecution wishes to dismiss the charges, they need to dismiss them with prejudice. The Prosecution filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. It does not take a rocket scientist to see what is happening here -- filing an appeal on this matter gives the prosecution more time to carry out their inter-agency investigations without penalty. This appealed case is third in line in a court that has not taken a case in over 3 months. It's very likely it will be at least 2-3 months, or more, before this case will be taken up on appeal. Hence our request for discovery right now.in no instance ever has the prosecution or arresting department been forced to provide the evidence for an arrest that was dismissed or later considered null and void.
The State's hesistation / refusal to turn over the evidence used to support the arrest of Mr. Wolff is particularly telling, again supports the defense belief the Prosecution knows the charges are not enough for a conviction. But this should not be bore on the back of Mr. Wolff. Mr. Wolff has a Constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial, neither of which is being given to him currently. The trial is not speedy, given it will likely be many more months before a trial will take place on account of the prosecutor's appeal, and the trial will not be fair as the prosecutor is allowed to attempt to collect more evidence to bolster their weak case. The defense reaffirms our belief that "objection to providing this evidence by the State will further corroborate the defense belief in this move by the State to be used to intentionally delay these proceedings to allow the State to continue their investigations post-arrest to cover up the deficiencies in the case against Mr. Wolff at the time of his arrest."
The list of cases provided by the prosecution to support their position do not fit the facts of this case, and the defense will explain;
- #24-CM-0023, State of San Andreas v. Bongo Haze - this case was voluntarily dismissed by the defense -- meaning the defense no longer wished to appeal their charges, affirming the guilty verdict.
- #23-CM-0079, State of San Andreas v. Randy Hayes - this case was voluntarily dismissed by the prosecution, affirmed by the defense, and the case was dismissed. Since the dismissal came from the prosecution, the defendant was exonerated.
- #23-CM-0084, State of San Andreas v. Marcy Madison - this case was voluntarily dismissed by the prosecution for "lack of evidence", and the case was dismissed.
State of San Andreas v. Erin Faustin - this case was also voluntarily dismissed by the prosecution for "prosecutorial discretion", and the case was dismissed. - #23-CM-0063, State of San Andreas v. Jake Weed - this case was also voluntarily dismissed by the prosecution, citing their inability to prove the guilt of the defendant, and the case was dismissed.
Turning over the evidence they have does not interfere, delay, obstruct, lie, or conceal information from law enforcement officers or other government official. In fact, if Superior Court Judge McFornell ordered this discovery as requested, the prosecution's failure to turn over the evidence would in-fact be violating GM14, as Superior Judge McFornell is a government official conducting a lawful investigation into the charges and arguments made by both the prosecution and defense.If any person interferes, delays, obstructs, lies or deliberately conceals information from law enforcement officers or any other government official that is conducting a lawful investigation and/or questioning then they are to be regarded as obstructing justice.
Correct - but until that happens, this case is still active.If in fact the appeals court rules that the prosecution must motion for dismissal with prejudice, then again the prosecution would not be required to present discovery.
Incorrect - if the Court of Appeals rules against the prosecution, this case returns to the Superior Court, and the prosecution would be required to turn over the evidence. But at that point, and the whole reason for the defense objection, is at that point the prosecution would have had several months to collect more evidence against Mr. Wolff the LSPD did not have or use at the time of his arrest to shore up the case against Mr. Wolff.If in fact the court rules that the prosecution can continue their motion for dismissal without prejudice, then again the prosecution would not be required to present discovery.
In summary, the defense would not be asking for the evidence possessed by the prosecution if the prosecution took the same actions they took in 3 of the 4 cases they provided for "support" of their objection -- voluntarily dismissing the case against Mr. Wolff. The prosecution, in their own words, have offered to dismiss the charges against Mr. Wolff on the condition that they will be refiling the case later. In the defense's eyes, the prosecution should follow their precedence in 23-CM-0063, State of San Andreas v. Jake Weed and agree to dismiss the case against Mr. Wolff due to their inability to prove the guilt of Mr. Wolff with the evidence they currently have, as it's obvious that's what is going on here.
Respectfully,
Owner/Attorney
Allgood Law
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]