#23-AP-0001, Hassan Readick v. State of San Andreas

Locked
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

#23-AP-0001, Hassan Readick v. State of San Andreas

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Image
Image
Appellant Name: Hassan Readick
Appellant Attorney(s): Shaun Harper, Cyrus Raven
Image
Trial Docket Number: #22-CM-0066
Presiding Trial Judge: Chief Justice Colt Daniels
Notice of Appeal Filed:
  • [ ] Before Verdict
    [X] After Verdict
Image
Reason for Notice of Appeal:
  • [X] Motion to be overturned
    [ ] Errors in the trials procedure
    [X] Errors in the judge's interpretation of the law
    [ ] New evidence proving appellants innocence
Grounds for Appeal: (Maximum 150 words)
  • At the issuance of verdict, it was determined by the court that the Defendant was found not-guilty of Face Concealment (b) and Failure to Comply / Identify. This was because the prosecution had failed to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Readick had been wearing a face mask in the first place. This was further substantiated by the fact that the only accessory that could even be remotely considered a mask was in fact a scarf which only covers the neck and no part of the head or face.

    With this decision, it is clear that the prosecution was unable to establish the presence of a mask, making the request to remove the mask unlawful. It is with this determination that the Defense feels that the charge ''resisting arrest'' should likewise be found non-guilty as logically, someone is unable to resist being arrested for a crime they did not commit.

    To put it into a simple example. This would be the same as if an Officer ordered a civilian to kill someone, the civilian refused the unlawful order and ran away and the Officer then proceeds to arrest the civilian for resisting arrest. The court would then find the order to be unlawful and invalid, but would uphold the charge of resisting arrest.
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-AP-0001, Hassan Readick v. State of San Andreas

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: #23-AP-0001, Hassan Readick v. State of San Andreas

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

  • To whom it may concern,

    I am Associate Justice Judith Mason and I will be the presiding over this case in my courtroom. At this point in time, I will be assigning this case to docket number #23-AP-0001.

    I will now ask that both parties submit an initial written brief outlining their position of this appeal and giving any legal arguments as to why I should rule in their favor. Once submissions have been received, I will either issue a decision or ask that parties submit an additional response for clarification, if required.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [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-AP-0001, Hassan Readick v. State of San Andreas

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Written Brief
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Dear Honorable Judith Mason,

    I believe the initial appeal outlines the issues the Defense has with the ruling.

    However, we would also like to add that even if the court finds it reasonable that someone can be guilty of the crime ''GM04 - Resisting Arrest'' without an initial crime having taken place, from the evidence provided by the prosecution, there is a single sentence as evidence for the alleged crime.
    Suspect then fled on foot, where he was knocked down by a cruiser at LSC.
    As established by the Superior Court in #22-CM-0040, State of San Andreas v. Gregory Gregov
    The presentation of evidence by the prosecution is a key step in every trial throughout all jurisdictions within the United States - the State of San Andreas is no exception. We require that, should a case come through the Superior Court, the prosecution must present evidence and arguments to show the court that the defendant is guilty of a specific crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a rather high standard but it is an essential standard to the effective administration of justice and must be met in all criminal cases that are being prosecuted in the state.

    Unfortunately for this case, the only evidence that has been provided to the prosecution by law enforcement officers has been a one sentence arrest report, a one sentence witness statement, and an encrypted file that supposedly contains the body camera footage of the Deputy Chief of Police that was allegedly assaulted, but that remains unseen as the footage is inaccessible. (( Once again, RP’d footage is acceptable in place of an actual video, but neither was provided in this case. ))
    While this case provides more detail in it's totality, for the specific charge of GM04 - Resisting Arrest the circumstances are similar to the Gregory Gregov case where no body-cam footage is provided ((RP'ly or the recording)) and the only evidence mentioning the resisting arrest charge is a single short sentence as previously quoted.

    It is with the initial appeal statement and this brief that the Defense believes the decision regarding the charge GM04 - Resisting Arrest be overturned and the Defendant be found not-guilty.


    Respectfully,

    Cyrus Raven
    Deputy Chief Public Defender
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    5356160 — [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-AP-0001, Hassan Readick v. State of San Andreas

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #23-AP-0001, Hassan Readick v. State of San Andreas
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Mason,

    The Appellants states that because in the underlying case it was determined by the Superior Court that the Appellant was found not-guilty of Face Concealment (b) and Failure to Comply / Identify the Appellant automatically should also be not found guilty of the other charge he was convicted of, being GM04 - Resisting Arrest. The Appellants then make the comparison between a citizen being arrested and charged with GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify as well as GM19 - Face Concealment (b) with an Officer ordering a citizen to murder another person. I do not believe any further explanation is required to show what a ridiculous comparison this is.

    Further, the Appellants argue that only a single sentence is in relation to the arrest. In this respect, the Prosecution points out that the arrest details establishes a very logical certain chain of events that led to the arrest of the Appellant. Further, the Prosecution points out that arrest reports are generally considered reliable evidence as it is made by a person (law enforcement officer) who is performing a duty and has no motive to falsify the report. We would also like to point out that during the original trial the Appellants were unable to disprove the chain of events itself. As this is an appeal, and not a substantive case, the facts as established and used in the decision making by the Superior Court are not to be changed.

    Finally, the Prosecution would like to make the point that while it was determined by the Superior Court that the Appellant was found not-guilty on two accounts, sufficient evidence was shown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Appellant resisted arrest by running away on foot. Even if this arrest was unjustified due to being found not guilty of the charges he was originally being arrested for, the law enforcement on scene were still conducting their duties to make a lawful arrest in which the Appellant resisted from.

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-AP-0001, Hassan Readick v. State of San Andreas

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
San Andreas Court of Appeals

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

COURT DECISION


IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS

Hassan Readick v. State of San Andreas
#23-AP-0001

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


The appellant in this case is seeking the overturning of the Issuance of Verdict filed by the presiding judge in #22-CM-0066, State of San Andreas v. Hassan Readick. In this verdict, the presiding judge found the defendant guilty of GM04 - Resisting Arrest, however, found him not guilty of GM10 - Failure to Comply and GM19 - Face Concealment (b).

The appellant argues that as the defendant had been found not guilty of the initial face concealment, which is what allegedly prompted the contact with law enforcement, then the defendant should have been found not guilty of the resisting charge. Additionally, the appellant argues that there is insufficient evidence to support a conviction of the defendant based on the precedence of #22-CM-0040, State of San Andreas v. Gregory Gregov, a case in which the defendant was found not guilty based on a small amount of information being submitted to the court as evidence.

The respondent counters the appellant's arguments with the assertion that the arrest report establishes a clear chain of events of the conduct undertaken by the defendant, that arrest reports written by on-duty law enforcement officers are generally considered to be reliable evidence, and that the law enforcement officers conducting their duties were acting lawfully when arresting Mr. Readick.

This court has found that although the prosecution was unable to secure a conviction for the GM10 - Failure to Comply and the GM19 - Face Concealment (b) charges, the law enforcement officers involved in Mr. Readick's arrest had been operating in good faith and that the arrest had been conducted based on sufficient probable cause. With the standard for arresting a suspect being lower than that of finding the suspect guilty of said crime, there can be a situation in which a suspect can be arrested and processed under a finding probable cause, however, still be found not guilty in the Superior Court.

The probable cause arrest of Mr. Readick is found to be justified, despite his lack of conviction on all of the conduct he was charged for. As such, the law enforcement officers conducting the arrest were doing so lawfully. Mr. Readick's decision to flee on foot from that lawful arrest is what earned him the resisting charge, thus, I will not be overturning the conviction on that front.

When it comes to the assertion by the appellant that the prosecution had failed to present a sufficient amount of evidence to secure a conviction in accordance with the precedence set forth in #22-CM-0040, State of San Andreas v. Gregory Gregov, the court will not be overturning the verdict issued by the presiding judge on this front either. This court has found that the decision made by the presiding judge to issue a verdict of guilty, despite the appellant's assertion that there was an insufficient amount of evidence, was not an error in the judge's interpretation of the law, but rather, a decision which is afforded to that judge while presiding in their courtroom.

The amount of evidence which is sufficient to support a conviction of a criminal charge is up to the specific judge that is presiding over a specific case, using the specific information which has been admitted into evidence. A judge is entitled to rule on whether there is sufficient evidence for a charge to be upheld in their courtroom. The decision making process in the Gregov case and in this underlying Readick case on whether to believe the prosecution's burden of proof has been met is one that is decided on a case-by-case basis. While the presiding judges in each case may have made different determinations based on the limited amount of evidence available, neither decision made is going against any established law or statute.

Thus, it is this court's determination that the presiding judge's verdict that the evidence presented in the underlying case of #22-CM-0066, State of San Andreas v. Hassan Readick was sufficient to find the defendant of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of GM04 - Resisting Arrest. The Issuance of Verdict is, therefore, affirmed by this court and this case is now closed.


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

Return to “SAJB - Archived Appeal Cases”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests