#24-CM-0040, State of San Andreas v. Joey Casper

[Luna McMillan]

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. Joey Casper

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 2nd of Aug 2024.

I, Luna McMillan, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant(s), Joey Casper in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Co-Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.



Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 463-9315 —[email protected][/list]

[Antonio McFornell]

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

---

COURT DECISION
Motions for Suppression, Voluntary Dismissal & Continuance

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Joey Casper
#24-CM-0040

A decision was reached in the above case on the 3rd day of August, 2024.

Motion to Suppress
Exhibit #2
The Defense has requested multiple exhibits to be suppressed. In their first request, the Defense argues that Exhibit #2 did not follow correct formatting, citing precedent set by Justice Colt Daniels on #22-CM-0036. The Court will not address the arguments presented by the Prosecution, given that the Defense attempts to apply precedent mistakenly, particularly because the ruling determines that any witness statement that does not include the witness affirmation will not be admissible in Court. In this case, however, the Witness statement does not include the reference to the case number, which, in the opinion of the Court, does not make the exhibit subject to suppression. In practice, many of the witness statements provided are requested of public servants when cases haven't been activated, and thus, not assigned a docket number. The Court believes substance must prevail over form in situations like these. Therefore, the Court denies the first motion to suppress.

Exhibit #2 - Subsidiary
The defense presented a subsidiary request to suppress portions of Exhibit #2 for it including a description of events provided by Dante Archer that took place when he was, according to the report, under treatment in the hospital. The defense argued that he had no personal knowledge of what was requested to be suppressed and thus, requested it be suppressed on the grounds of speculation or [hearsay]. The prosecution argued that the author of the statement would have been privy to the defendants opening fire at him and fleeing the scene, and eventually they would gain knowledge of the arrests given that there were arrest reports filed for these. The Court believes that it is possible that Lieutenant Dante Archer had first hand knowledge of sections of the events and the subsequent arrest reports, and thus, will suppress the following statement: When visual was gained (...) resulting in the shadows to shoot at the deputies pursuing them. If they didn't surrender they were shot down by deputies and taken into custody.

Exhibit #4
The defense requested the suppression of exhibit #4 on the grounds that the source was not cited. The Prosecution clarified that Exhibit #2 makes direct reference to the source of said exhibit, and thus the Court will not be suppressing exhibit #4.

Exhibits #5 & #6
Subsequently, the defense requested the suppression of Exhibits #5 and #6 due to them lacking relevance and, instead, the Prosecution being able to obtain evidence that would better serve the purpose of proving the defendant's responsibility in regards to the alleged crimes. The Prosecution argued that the exhibits were provided as supporting information to Exhibit #2. The Court believes that the contents of these exhibits are not a matter of pre-trial discussion, given that the Prosecution is utilizing them to provide context and clarification around the alleged events that led to the defendant's arrest, and thus, will allow them to stay on the docket.

Motion for Involuntary Dismissal
The defense presented a Motion for Involuntary Dismissal on the grounds that the Prosecution was failing to produce an arrest report that was ordered by the Superior Court. The prosecution argued against the motion affirming that the Prosecution was not willingly failing to execute a Court order, but rather, they were materially unable to do so as they do not have access to it and for reasons beyond their control they could not produce it.

Motion for Continuance
The Court believes the reasons presented for the Motion for Continuance -which received no objection- have ceased to exist, and thus, will not evaluate it and move towards a denial.

So ordered,

Superior Court Justice
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 SCHEDULING

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Joey Casper
#24-CM-0040

An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on 3rd of August, 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 Justice
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. Joey Casper
#24-CM-0040

A trial date was set on the above case on August 8th, 2024.

In accordance with the availability reported by both parties in response to the Notice of Scheduling, this trial shall take place at 06:30 PM on August 10th, 2024 at Rockford Hills City Hall, Carcer Way, Metro Los Santos, SA.

The Prosecution has made the Court aware that an expert witness is currently being produced. With that in mind, and in order to not cause further delay in the scheduling of this trial, the Prosecution will be allowed to present the expert witness statement on the docket at least 12 hours before the date of the trial, or earlier if the circumstances allow it.

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]

[Terence Williams]

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

---

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Joey Casper
#24-CM-0040

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 8th of August, 2024.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;

• Exhibit #7: Expert Witness Statement - Commander Oscar Black

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: [#24-CM-0040]
    Incident Date: [07/AUG/2024]

  Witness Information

  • Name: [Oscar Black]
    Date of Birth: [21/JUN/1998]
    Phone Number: [N/A]
    Occupation: [Commander of Sheriffs Investigation Buereu, Los Santos County Sheriffs Department]

  Witness Statement

  • I'm Commander Oscar Black and will be providing an expert statement on the accuracy of ballistic analysis.
    
    I currently act as the commanding officer of and oversee the Sheriff's Investigation Bureau, having worked in the Bureau close to its Launch in 2022, becoming certified as a Crime Scene Technician in February 2022 where I was trained and certified in Ballistic Analysis for firearms, which I've them on numerous occasions utilized in the field to match bullets to firearms.
    
    Ballistics analysis is very simple and very trustworthy. The process is as follows;
    
    You retrieve a firearm and two (2) bullets. One (1) bullet would be loaded in the gun, whereas the other would be where the scene is, e.g. a deceased body. Upon firing the weapon, to retrieve the first bullet, you would wait for it to cool down before removing it from whatever you shot at, usually a gun trap, but occasionally water or a wood log.
    
    Once you have both bullets, one being from a scene and the other from the firearm, you would review both bullets in detail, as all bullets have a unique serial number as well as engraving. Should both bullets have the same details, it would be apparent that the bullets belong with each other, and therefore, belong to that weapon.
    
    When a bullet is fired from a gun, the rifling inside the gun barrel leaves unique markings on the bullet. These markings are specific to the individual gun that fired the bullet, as no two gun barrels are exactly alike due to microscopic imperfections and wear patterns.
    
    Similarly, the firing pin, breech face, and extractor/ejector mechanisms in a firearm leave distinctive marks on the cartridge case. These marks can be used to identify which firearm fired a particular round.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, [Oscar Black], 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,
    
    
    [Oscar Black]
    [Commander of Sheriffs Investigations Beureu]
    [Los Santos County Sheriff's Department]
    
    Date: [07/AUG/2024]

  
  

Terence Williams
Acting Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

[Izaak Scott]

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

---

REBUTTAL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Joey Casper
#24-CM-0040

Rebuttal was filed in the above case on the 22rd of July, 2024.

• Defendant, Joey Casper, by and through his attorney, and hereby submits this reply to the Prosecution's Motion for Discovery. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Discovery should be denied.
  
  Your honor, The prosecution’s disclosure of new evidence at this late stage is a clear violation of discovery deadlines. These deadlines exist to ensure that both parties have decent time to prepare their cases, they are heavily important to the integrity of the judicial process. The discovery rules are designed to prevent one party being unfairly surprised by evidence without sufficient time to respond and/or prepare.
  
  The 6th Amendment of our Constitution explicitly guarantees that "in all criminal trials," the accused shall enjoy the right to a "speedy and public trial, by an impartial Judge," and mainly, "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation." This means the defense has a constitutional right to be fully aware of the evidence against them well in advance of trial. The prosecutions late disclosure of new evidence violates this right because it deprives the defense of adequate time to prepare, analyze, and respond.
  
  By disclosing this expert witness statement just two days before trial, the prosecution severely hinders our ability to prepare. This late disclosure effectively denies my client the ability to challenge this testimony, which is a fundamental component of the right to a fair trial.
  
  We can see from the exhibit is that it is signed off on the 07/AUG/2024. A singular day before the notice of trial. In the court of appeals case #24-AP-0001, a court higher then the superior court, Acting Chief Justice Judith Mason stated "The court recognizes that the late disclosure of relevant evidence is not ideal and should not become a regular occurrence, however, the court must balance this against the ultimate goal of ensuring a fair and unbiased trial. The fact of the matter is that some situations will present unintentional delays in the disclosure of evidence and this court seeks to provide clarity for determining a just outcome." The Chief Justice stated how it is not ideal and should not become a regular occurrence, this is regarding a motion for discovery posted when trial date is not set, if it not ideal when a trial date isn't set, what does it make it when trial date is set and in only two days?
  
  Thank you, your honor.
  
  
  Acting Chief Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 411-2330 — [email protected]

[Antonio McFornell]

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

---

• Defense Attorney Scott,
  
  The Court will not consider the objection presented to the docket, given the circumstances that were already described in the Notice of Trial. Find a copy attached.
  
  Spoiler

  

  
  

  
  
  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. Joey Casper
  #24-CM-0040
  
  A trial date was set on the above case on August 8th, 2024.

  
  
  In accordance with the availability reported by both parties in response to the Notice of Scheduling, this trial shall take place at 06:30 PM on August 10th, 2024 at Rockford Hills City Hall, Carcer Way, Metro Los Santos, SA.
  
  The Prosecution has made the Court aware that an expert witness is currently being produced. With that in mind, and in order to not cause further delay in the scheduling of this trial, the Prosecution will be allowed to present the expert witness statement on the docket at least 12 hours before the date of the trial, or earlier if the circumstances allow it.
  
  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]

  
  
  
  Best regards,
  
  
  Superior Court Justice
  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. Joey Diesel
#24-CM-0040

A decision was reached in the above case on the 10th of August, 2024.

On the 30th of January, while monitoring a speed trap, the defendant, driving a black Kamacho, was observed speeding above the speed limit by the Sheriff’s deputies. Upon attempting a routine traffic stop, it was discovered that the vehicle was occupied by multiple individuals. The defendant, along with another person whose license was known to be suspended, began shooting at officers and fled the scene. The defendant’s alleged actions resulted in the officer being injured and hospitalized.

Subsequent pursuit led to the arrest of all four individuals involved. Ballistics analysis attached to the arrest report provided, claimed that one of the individuals and the defendant were responsible for shooting at the officer. The weapon analysis showed that one person was the primary shooter, but the defendant’s weapon had allegedly been used to fire shots. Another individual was later on charged for the drive-by situation in which the defendant was allegedly involved. All three involved—one person, the defendant, and the other individual faced charges related to the shooting, with the defendant and the other individual specifically charged with shooting at government officials.

The Prosecution argued that the defendant made part of a group that opened fire against sheriffs, causing serious wounds against Lieutenant Dante Archer from the Sheriff's Department. The defense, during their arguments, alleged that the evidence presented by the prosecution does not meet the minimum criteria to indicate enough certainty in regards to the defendant’s commission of the alleged crime. Particularly, the defense cited an extended timegap, lack of direct documentation, flaws in the presented evidence and also presented a witness statement.

As a result of the arguments and evidence presented in the proceeding, the Court has no doubt that shots were fired from the vehicle towards Lieutenant Dante Archer with the intent to take the deputy’s life. It has also been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant participated in these acts, however, the Court will address the relevance or circumstances revolving the defendant’s participation in these acts.

As a result of the statement, the Court was able to conclude that the weapons were exchanged by the defendant and the other occupants of the vehicle. This circumstance is strengthened by the prosecution’s request to amend the charges, in order to also pursue the defendant for the crime of tampering with evidence.

The Court, in order to reach a verdict, determined that the validity of the ballistics examination was not in question, but it lacked major relevance in order to reach the decision. Particularly, because it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did partake in the events that led to the shooting of Dante Archer. However, what was not proven, is that it was in fact the defendant that actually discharged the weapon, attempting against the deputy’s life. This circumstance is aggravated by the fact that two people were already charged with the commission of the crime.

Finally, the Court also considered that the Prosecution's motion to amend the charges did not proceed, given that it was made clear throughout the statements and discovery provided that the defendant at not point had the intent to interfere with an ongoing investigation.

With the above considerations in mind, the Court has no option other than to conclude the following:

1. The defendant did willingly participate in the events that have been thoroughly described.
2. The defendant’s weapon was exchanged during the time that the police had lost VC with the vehicle and its occupants.
3. The Prosecution has not proved that it was the defendant who discharged the firearm.

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

• On the count of ACCESSORY to WF02 - Shooting from a Vehicle - Drive By - against a government employee, I find the defendant, Joey Diesel, guilty.
• The defendant Joey Diesel shall be issued a $500 fine for their tardiness.

So ordered,

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