#23-CM-0008, State of San Andreas v. Akio Yamada

User avatar
Roderick Marchisio
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Roderick

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0008, State of San Andreas v. Akio Yamada

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Motion for Involuntary Dismissal
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion for Involuntary Dismissal

Honorable Mason,

  • We the Prosecution in the case below are requesting an involuntary dismissal from the court, please find the reason for it below.
    State of San Andreas v. Akio Yamada
    Assigned Court Case Number: #23-CM-0008
    Requesting Party: Prosecution
    Party Members: Roderick Marchisio
    Involuntary Dismissal: Breach of court protocol, violation of good process order and breach of Code of Ethics
    Detailed explanation:

    As the Defense has admitted publicly on the Docket, the Defense has been in contact with a party that is being represented by the Prosecution, namely a law enforcement officer working for the State. In this respect, the Prosecution notes that the Defense has obtained a Witness Statement from the Officer by contacting them privately. Further, it is obvious that the witness statement that has been obtained by the Defense - which has been provided to the presiding judge privately - contains information that is to be considered both confidential and privileged. As such, it is obvious that with these ridiculous procedural tactics the Defense has willingly and knowingly interfered with court protocal and has violated the good process order that can be expected from parties that adhere to the Rule of Law.

    Further, the Prosecution notes that each and every one of the Defense attorneys named to this underlying case are all bar certified with the San Andreas Judicial Branch and therefore are deemed to adhere to the Code of Ethics. In this respect, the Prosecution refers to the various sections of the Code of Ethics, including but not limited to V - Relationship to the Adverse Party under e.: An attorney shall not come into any contact with the adverse party without the knowledge of the party's counsel or without the knowledge of his or her own client.
    Given the fact that the Defense is actively using the argument of the witness statement of the Officer in question, as well as their own admittance, it is evidently clear the Defense has violated the Code of Ethics with the sole purpose of gaining an advantage in the underlying case.

    Following the above, the Prosecution deems it clear that the Defense has intentionally not only brought harm to the legal certainty that can and should be expected from parties in the courts of the State of San Andreas as well as the courts image but also to the evidence the Prosecution is presenting in the underlying case. As such, the Prosecution is requesting the court the following:
    • 1. That the appeal in the underlying case be formally dismissed;
    • 2. That the presiding judge takes a decision surrounding the Motion to Amend Charges with the evidence as already provided to the court;
    • 3. These allegations formally forwarded by the presiding judge to the Bar Ethics Review Board for further investigation.

    Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,


Deputy Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Cyrus Raven
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:14 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Cyrus Raven

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0008, State of San Andreas v. Akio Yamada

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Judith Mason,

    On the 17th of January I received an email from Attorney Shaun Harper regarding a statement by Officer Luigi made directly to the Defendant.

    The following is a redacted version of that email which can be made available to the presiding Judge:
    Redacted Email
    Image
    As can be clearly seen, Officer Luigi is directly replying to the Defendant. No member of the Public Defense Division requested this initial statement.

    I initially instructed Attorney Harper to get the same statement in the format of a witness statement. In hindsight this was not only not needed, as a submission using a standard motion for discovery by the defense was sufficient, but requesting this statement could bring up issues concerning the CoE: V - Relationship to the Adverse Party as mentioned by the prosecution. I advised Attorney Harper to ''bench'' the witness statement and to simply request it through a motion to compel discovery to avoid any ethical issues.

    As such the following facts are true:
    1. The initial communication was between the Defendant and Officer Luigi.
    2. No attorney from the Public Defense Division approached Officer Luigi for a statement, they were approached to reformat their original communication with the Defendant.
    3. The initial communication would be admissible via a motion for discovery.
    I urge the court to accept the motion to compel discovery taking into account this statement was given on a voluntary basis and that this initial correspondence between the Defendant and the Officer are admissible via a motion for discovery.

    There have been mistakes made in this situation and I will take responsibility for them moving forward to avoid any similar issues in future cases. The prosecution is entitled to file whatever bar ethics review board reports they deem necessary. However, this is not the forum to conduct such investigations. I believe the court is solely trying to determine whether this requested evidence should be admissible and I believe the above points make it abundantly clear that it should be.


    Respectfully,

    Cyrus Raven
    Deputy Chief Public Defender
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    5356160 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0008, State of San Andreas v. Akio Yamada

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

  • Parties,

    I will be ordering a continuance in this case to address the pending ethical complaint and to determine if the conduct alleged is appropriate grounds for dismissal. I will, thus, be delaying my decision regarding the Motion for Involuntary Dismissal and other pending motions until the appointed investigating member of the Bar Ethics Review Board has concluded their inquiries and made a recommendation for potential remedies.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0008, State of San Andreas v. Akio Yamada

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


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. Akio Yamada
#23-CM-0008

A decision was reached in the above case on the 16th day of February, 2023.


The court will be denying the Prosecution's Motion for Involuntary Dismissal.

Based upon the submission onto the docket of this case, an inquiry by the Bar Ethics Review Board was undertaken to determine the nature and scope of the alleged unethical conduct by those involved in this case under Section V - Relationship to the Adverse Party of the Code of Ethics.

As stated by the investigator, "the contact with Officer Luigi of the Los Santos Police Department was initiated by the defendant themselves, and this resulting statement was provided by the defendant to their attorneys. The attorneys realized the statement could not be accepted because it was not on the official witness statement form. The initial handling attorney [...] contacted their immediate supervisor [...] to seek advice on how to proceed. Initially [the supervisor] told [the initial handling attorney] to reach out to [the Los Santos Police Department] to format their statement on the appropriate forms, however, this advice was then rescinded, and [the initial handling attorney] was instructed to seek this information through a motion for discovery."

In accordance with the findings of the Bar Ethics Review Board, it is the court's determination that any error or misconduct on the part of Judicial Branch attorneys was non-intentional and any acts that may have occurred were mitigated.

The court now cautions all parties to adhere to proper courtroom procedure to ensure no violations occur from this point forth, and further instruction is made for the defendant to rely upon their attorneys to properly conduct themselves during these proceedings.

This case is now pending a decision on the remaining motions. To ensure both parties have made their positions known now that the Motion for Involuntary Dismissal has been denied, the court will allow 24 hours for final submissions in favor or against the remaining motions before a decision will be issued.


Image
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Shaun Harper
Judicial Branch
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2022 6:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0008, State of San Andreas v. Akio Yamada

Post by Shaun Harper »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

State of San Andreas v.
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Judge Judith Mason,

    The defense is ready to proceed at the courts discretion.

    In regards to the motion to compel discovery, we the defense believe this would be a vital piece of evidence. The witness statement from the officer may contain critical evidence that could impact the outcome of the case. This evidence could potentially be the key to proving or disproving important facts or allegations that are central to the case.

    Furthermore, it is in the best interest of both parties to disclose all relevant evidence that is within their possession or control.

    Without this evidence, the court may not have a complete understanding of the situation at hand and may not be able to make a fair and just ruling.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Senior Defense Attorney
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 308-7889 — [email protected]
User avatar
Roderick Marchisio
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Roderick

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0008, State of San Andreas v. Akio Yamada

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #23-CM-0008, State of San Andreas v. Akio Yamada
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Mason,

    While the Prosecution does not object that the clear misconduct was at least non-intentional, the court decision dated February 16, 2023 goes completely past the fact that the Defense Attorneys were up to date regarding the communication between the Defendant and the party the Prosecution is representing. In fact, the Defense Attorneys as admitted by Defense Attorney Raven even instructed the Defendant to obtain a properly formatted witness statement from the Defendant:
    Cyrus Raven wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:10 am I initially instructed Attorney Harper to get the same statement in the format of a witness statement. In hindsight this was not only not needed, as a submission using a standard motion for discovery by the defense was sufficient, but requesting this statement could bring up issues concerning the CoE: V - Relationship to the Adverse Party as mentioned by the prosecution. I advised Attorney Harper to ''bench'' the witness statement and to simply request it through a motion to compel discovery to avoid any ethical issues.
    As such, the Prosecution notes that the following:
    • 1. The Defense Attorneys were informed of the original contact between the Defendant and the party the Prosecution is representing.
    • 2. The Defense Attorneys did not report these findings to the court nor the Prosecution.
    • 3. The Defense Attorneys then proceeded to instruct the Defendant to request the Witness Statement using the formal format.
    • 4. The Defense Attorneys are willingly and consciously using the knowledge gained by this misconduct in the underlying case to try and force a Motion to Compel Discovery.
    In the eyes of the Prosecution, this is an abundant breach of Section V - Relationship to the Adverse Party of the Code of Ethics. With reference to issued cases in other parts of the US (i.e. State v. McDermott in 2011, United States v. Patrick in 2017) where cases have been dismissed through knowledge and/or evidence being obtained by contacting the other party directly, the Prosecution cannot hide its disappointment of the aforementioned Court Decision. In this respect, the Prosecution also fears the obvious precedent that this Court Decision creates: if the act of consciously contacting the party the other chair is representing is not met with retribution, but in fact rewarded - in this case by clearly obtaining knowledge the Defense otherwise would not have - when and where does this conduct stop? As our court system should maintain the principle of equality of arms, and as such both parties having the same procedural rights, can the Prosecution also instruct their parties to contact Defendants directly going forward?

    Following the above, the Prosecution will hereby also make known its intentions to file an appeal with the Court of Appeals in case the Motion to Compel Discovery is granted for obvious reasons.

Respectfully,

Deputy Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0008, State of San Andreas v. Akio Yamada

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


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. Akio Yamada
#23-CM-0008

A decision was reached in the above case on the 5th day of March, 2023.


The court will be granting the Motion for Discovery of the arrest report, physical evidence, body-camera footage, and statements from Deputy Hartwell and Deputy Brown.

With respect to the Motion to Suppress filed by the defense, the court will be denying the suppression filed for Exhibit 4 on the grounds of speculation as the Deputy's statement is an observation that the Deputy made based on what she saw and what could potentially be seen on the body-camera footage, which does not constitute speculation in the eyes of the court. When it comes to the suppression of the statement made in Exhibit 5, "She saw both Akio Yamada and Aya Kasumi standing inside with the mechanic tools and equipment." While the defense filed for suppression on the grounds of speculation, this statement is clearly hearsay and is covered in Deputy Hartwell's statement, therefore, the suppression of this statement is granted.

When it comes to the prosecution's Motion to Amend Charges, the court will be granting this motion, and therefore, the charges of this case shall be VF03 - Operating a Chop Shop, GM04 - Resisting Arrest, GF11 - Accessory to Grand Theft Auto, NM06 - Trespassing, and GF24 - Perjury.

On the defense's Motion to Compel Discovery of Officer Rija Luigi's Witness Statement, I will be denying this motion due to the information contained within the witness statement having already been obtained by the defense improperly through improper procedure. Though it does not appear that this procedural violation had been the result of direct misconduct by the defense attorneys working with the defendant, it has nonetheless been obtained improperly by the defense and this court has determined that the information contained within the witness statement shall be inadmissible in this case.

I will, however, caution the prosecution that references to specific cases outside of the jurisdiction of the State of San Andreas are not to be submitted onto the docket in my courtroom. Any arguments that relate to the referenced cases have not and will not be taken into consideration by this court for any past, present, or future decisions. Once again, this court will not allow references to cases outside of the jurisdiction of the State of San Andreas and any further attempt to use arguments contained within such cases as binding or persuasive authority shall be met with repercussions.


Image
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Roderick Marchisio
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Roderick

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0008, State of San Andreas v. Akio Yamada

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #23-CM-0008, State of San Andreas v. Akio Yamada
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Mason,

    With reference to the above Court Decision dated March 5, 2023, the Prosecution would like to raise the following before answering which charge we would like to pursue in the underlying case.

    As far as the Prosecution is aware, the rules of criminal procedure as applied throughout the United States as a whole permit the Prosecution to pursue two or more offenses to be charged together, provided that the crimes are of a similar character and based on the same act or common plan - the so called lesser included offense doctrine. The Prosecution notes that this lesser included offense also goes for the attempted modifier of a charge. The Prosecution fully understands the courts of the State of San Andreas and its criminal law principles are different from that of the rest of the United States. However, as this particular question has not been raised in the constitution, case law or even literature, the Prosecution hopes for your understanding of us making this comparison and raising the following question: do the courts of the State of San Andreas acknowledge the lesser included offense doctrine?

    Upon receiving your answer, if then still required, we will of course provide the reply to which charge we wish to pursue as soon as possible.

Respectfully,

Deputy Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Roderick Marchisio
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Roderick

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0008, State of San Andreas v. Akio Yamada

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #23-CM-0008, State of San Andreas v. Akio Yamada
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Mason,

    At this point in time, while still severely disappointed in the procedural undertakings from the Defense's side, the Prosecution wishes to move forward in these proceedings and schedule a trial.

Respectfully,

Deputy Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0008, State of San Andreas v. Akio Yamada

Post by Judith Mason »

Image



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. Akio Yamada
#23-CM-0008

An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on the 17th day of March, 2023.


All parties in this case are encouraged to complete the following Scheduling Tool in an attempt to schedule a trial on the above case.

Be advised that this Scheduling Tool is the same as that which is posted to #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi as the court will be attempting to schedule these two trials back-to-back given that they are regarding the same situation. As such, a larger window of time for both trials to take place is required.

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 continue to attempt to schedule the proceeding or seek alternative avenues to conclude the case.

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.


Image
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Roderick Marchisio
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Roderick

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0008, State of San Andreas v. Akio Yamada

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #23-CM-0008, State of San Andreas v. Akio Yamada
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Mason,

    The Prosecution has filled in the scheduling tool and is awaiting scheduling of the trial. However, would you please confirm the Court Decision in the similar case, counts for this case as well?

Respectfully,

Deputy Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0008, State of San Andreas v. Akio Yamada

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

  • Parties,

    Based upon the responses to the scheduling tool, I will tentatively be scheduling this trial for Sunday, March 26th at 6:30 PM (( UTC )). Be advised that this is the same starting time as the similar case of #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi. Though the cases shall remain separate, the prosecution has requested that the evidence presentation portion of these two trials be shared as the same exhibits would be displayed in each.

    I would like the defense to submit a response onto the public docket if this is agreeable to your party. If so, then I will be in touch with specifics as to how this procedure will be handled. If not, then both cases shall remain entirely separate and will simply be handled back-to-back in terms of scheduling, with #23-CM-0008 starting first.

    Once a response has been received, an official Notice of Trial will be issued.



    To quickly address the prosecution's latest inquiry to the court, this matter is moot due to the charges in this case not being affected by the lesser included doctrine, therefore, the decision has no bearing on this case.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Shaun Harper
Judicial Branch
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2022 6:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0008, State of San Andreas v. Akio Yamada

Post by Shaun Harper »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Personal E-mail
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Judge Judith Mason,

    The Defense does not have any issues with the request made by the prosecution.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Director of Training & Hiring
    Senior Defense Attorney
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 308-7889 — [email protected]
Image
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0008, State of San Andreas v. Akio Yamada

Post by Judith Mason »

Image



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. Akio Yamada
#23-CM-0008

A trial date was set on the above case on the 23rd day of March, 2023.


In accordance with the availability reported by both parties in response to the Notice of Scheduling, this trial shall take place at 6:30 PM on the 26th day of March, 2023 at Rockford Hills City Hall, Carcer Way, Metro Los Santos, SA.

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 cancellation of the trial, you are ordered to inform the court no later than 12 hours prior to the above listed date.


Image
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0008, State of San Andreas v. Akio Yamada

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


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. Akio Yamada
#23-CM-0008

A decision was reached in the above case on the 26th day of March, 2023.


On the 29th of September, 2022, a law enforcement officer with the Los Santos County Sheriff’s Department witnessed two vehicles enter the unauthorized area of Fort Zancudo Air Base. After dispatching a ground unit to investigate, two individuals were spotted in a small garage on the property of the Fort Zancudo next to a red vehicle that the prosecution asserts as stolen.

After a short bit of time, law enforcement officers gathered their resources and executed a plan of action to apprehend the two individuals and block any and all exits that may be used to flee from arrest. Upon approaching the scene, the two individuals appeared to gather up their possessions and quickly exit the garage on foot, with one individual, Aya Kasumi, proceeding to enter a vehicle and drive off, as confirmed in her witness statement.

First off, the court has found that both Akio Yamada and Aya Kasumi did not have permission to be within the gates of Fort Zancudo and, as such, are liable for the Trespassing charges they both received.

The court has also determined that, based on the evidence provided, the vehicle had indeed been stolen and transported to Fort Zancudo by one of the defendants. While it cannot be confirmed which defendant had actually stolen the vehicle, the court has determined that the evidence supports the charge of GF11 - Accessory to Grand Theft Auto for both defendants, given their collaboration in obtaining possession of the vehicle.

When it comes to the allegation of VF03 - Operating a Chop Shop, the fact pattern of the two defendants unlawfully entering a facility where they did not have permission to enter, the stolen status of the red vehicle in which they were seen in possession of, the recovered items found within their possession which have the ability to remove parts from a vehicle, and the subsequent resistance to police intervention, the court has found there to be sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants are liable for this charge.

When it comes to the resisting charge for both defendants, the court has determined that despite the defendant’s claims of being scared and being unaware of what may occur during the situation at the time, it is still unlawful to physically resist apprehension by law enforcement officers and the court has found there to be sufficient evidence to support this charge for both defendants.

As for Aya Kasumi’s Evading an Officer charge, the court has found that, once again despite the defendant’s claims of being scared and the alleged regret they have for undertaking such an action, the act of evading from a pursuing law enforcement officer is unlawful and, therefore, has satisfied the requirements of the full charge of Evading an Officer.

When it comes to the GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify charge on Aya Kasumi, however, the court has found the conduct alleged to have violated this law has been covered under the resisting arrest charge - Ms. Kasumi’s action to resist arrest implies a failure to comply and as such, this conduct has already been targeted with the Resisting Arrest charge.

When it comes to the perjury allegation from the prosecution, the court has found that both defendants have claimed in their initial statements to the court that the stolen vehicle in question had already been in the garage at Fort Zancudo prior to the defendant’s arrival. The court has found this assertion to be false, given the witness statement provided by the ALPHA unit, which had witnessed the two individuals entering the facility with said vehicle. As this assertion by the defendants had the ability to affect the outcome of this trial, the court has found that both defendants had perjured themselves.

It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:
  • On the count of VF03 - Operating a Chop Shop, I find the defendant, Akio Yamada, guilty.
  • On the count of GM04 - Resisting Arrest, I find the defendant, Akio Yamada, guilty.
  • On the count of GF11 - Accessory to Grand Theft Auto, I find the defendant, Akio Yamada, guilty.
  • On the count of NM06 - Trespassing, I find the defendant, Akio Yamada, guilty.
  • On the count of GF24 - Perjury, I find the defendant, Akio Yamada, guilty.


Image
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
Locked

Return to “SAJB - Archived Criminal Cases”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests