#23-CM-0038, State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar

[Shawn Morningstar]

Defendant Name: Shawn Morningstar
Defendant Phone: 246-4312
Defendant Address: Floor 66 Del Perro Apartments
(( Defendant Discord: ShawnsBeard#7294 ))
Requested Attorney: Johnnie Everdeen

Charging Department: Los Santos Police Department & Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

Date & Time of Incident(s): 03/FEB/2023 03:10
Charge(s):

• Reckless Endangerment
  Possession of Illegal Weapons

Narrative:
I was attempting to get gas at the gas station located at the Dancing Disco nearby Paleto Bay. As I exited my vehicle and attempted to pay at the pump, a shootout occurred between an individual and the Los Santos Police Department. The individual was shot and injured quickly by Police Officer Joseph Sanchez, badge number 19238, as I re-entered my vehicle in fear of my own life. As I attempted to drive away from the shootout, Officer Sanchez switched his automatic weapons fire to me and my vehicle. With the position that Sanchez was located at, I was forced to flee for my life in the opposite lane of travel where I quickly experienced a head on collision with a Sheriff's Department vehicle. I exited my vehicle and surrendered myself to the officers of both departments, and repeatedly asked why I was fired upon for nothing. To Joseph Sanchez's knowledge, I was a completely unarmed individual who was attempting to get gas. Me and my vehicle were then searched, where a .50 caliber pistol was found in the glovebox and a pump shotgun was found in my bag. I asked Sanchez for his badge number, and told him that I would see him in court. I was then charged with possession of illegal weapons and reckless endangerment. On scene, I pleaded guilty to the possession of illegal weapons charges and not guilty to the reckless endangerment charges. In conclusion, I was shot at, directly next to a gas pump mind you - which could have very well resulted in a large explosion, for absolutely no reason besides the assumption of officer Joseph Sanchez. When I proceeded to flee for my life from heavy weaponry fire, I was then charged with reckless endangerment and searched which lead to the possession of illegal weapons charge as well.

---

I, Shawn Morningstar, hereby affirm that all information provided above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and understand that knowingly providing false information could result in additional charges and/or fines. (( I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means. ))

[Colt Daniels]

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

---

NOTICE OF RECEIPT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 12th of February, 2023.

The Superior Court of San Andreas has received your filing and the case is now pending activation. Be advised that the court system runs on a first-come, first-served basis and will only activate cases out of order for special circumstances.

During this time, the defendant is encouraged to reach out to a licensed defense attorney in order to prepare a proper defense, otherwise, a court-appointed attorney will be assigned to the case upon its activation.

The defendant is further encouraged to speak with an authorized individual at Rockford Hills City Hall, Mission Row Police Station, or Paleto Bay Sheriff's Office for official clarification on the specific charges received and their respective date and times, as once the case has been activated, any omitted charges will be considered abandoned and unable to be disputed within this case.



Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]

[Dmitri Leroy]

Rockford Law State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar

---

• Chief Justice Daniels,
  
  Rockford law has had communication with the defendant and has familiarized itself with the facts pertaining to the case. I will be lead counsel representing our client, Shawn Morningstar, with Johnnie Everdeen acting as my co-counsel. We eagerly await the prosecution and its discovery going forward.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  CEO | Rockford Law
  (909) 219-4084 — [email protected]

[Sai Modi]

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. Shawn Morningstar

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 21st of March, 2023.

I, Sai Modi, a Prosecuting Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the State of San Andreas in the underlying case.

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



Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 364-9436 — [email protected]

[Greg Kumerow]

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. Shawn Morningstar

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 3rd of March, 2023

I, Greg Kumerow, a Prosecuting attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the State of San Andreas vs. Shawn Morningstar in the underlying case.

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


Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 219-6537 — [email protected][/list]

[Robert Winejudge]

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

---

NOTICE OF ACTIVATION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar
#23-CM-0038

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above case on 23rd of March, 2023.

The case of the State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar is hereby activated by this Court under #23-CM-0038.

Both the State and Defendant have adequate representation in the case, as such, immediately following this notice, the Presiding Judge will be filing the Order for Discovery.


Court Clerk
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-4223 — [email protected]

[Robert Winejudge]

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

---

ORDER FOR DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar
#23-CM-0038

A court order was entered in the above case on 23rd of March, 2023.

The case of the State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar, #23-CM-0038 is hereby opened and acknowledged by the Court.

The prosecution is hereby ordered to provide all evidence collected from the arresting Law Enforcement Agency and submit it to the Court via Motion for Discovery within seven days. If additional time is needed, the prosecution can file a Motion for Continuance.

Once evidence has been submitted to the official docket the defense can begin filing motions.




Court Clerk
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-4223 — [email protected]

[Greg Kumerow]

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. Shawn Morningstar
#23-CM-0038

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 23rd of March, 2023

The State of San Andreas by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;
Exhibit #1:
Type of Discovery: Arrest report

Spoiler

All Information from the Discovery The arrest report provides information about why the charges were placed.

• Arrest Report for Shawn Morningstar

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    
    
    Full Name: Shawn Morningstar
    Telephone Number: 2466312
    Licenses Revoked: Yes
    • Driver
    • Trucker
    
    Charges:
    • WF03 - Possession of Illegal Firearms/Weapons
    • VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle
    
    How did the suspect plea to the above charges?
    Suspect pleaded guilty to some of the charges.
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :

  
  
  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  • Vehicle A: Black, Sultan Classic, LP NOHOES, RO Shawn Morningstar

  
  
  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: Alester Carter
    Badge Number: 18042
    Callsign: 11-C-33

  
  
  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2023-02-02
    Deputies Involved: Johnson, Jones, Stanford
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • We had moved into Braddocks following a call about drug cooking happening and witnessed a Jugular drive away into the ditch to get away as well as a couple of other vehicles. I had witnessed the suspect nearby earlier pulled on the side of the road and recognized his vehicle driving out of there as well. With only 3 Deputies all coming to respond, we had to pick a vehicle and after some time a chase of the suspect's vehicle led to an engagement at the North Store. When I arrived I was told to cuff the suspect, who I Mirandized and searched. I found a shotgun in his bag and a .50 was found in the vehicle, both illegal. Deputy Stanford said he witnessed the suspect driving on the wrong side of the road leading to the engagement and Agent Johnson confirmed that Deputy Standford would be placing that charge.
      
      
      ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
      
      

      ---

Exhibit #2:
Type of Discovery: Witness statement

• Witness statement

Spoiler

All Information from the Discovery information here

• Witness Statement from Deputy Alester Carter

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: [Case Number]
    Incident Date: [01/JAN/2000]

  Witness Information

  • Name: [Alester Carter]
    Date of Birth: [06/MAR/2023]
    Phone Number: [301-3456]
    Occupation: [Deputy Sheriff]

  Witness Statement

  • We had moved into Braddocks following a call about drug cooking happening and witnessed a Jugular drive away into the ditch to get away as well as a couple of other vehicles. I had witnessed the suspect nearby earlier pulled on the side of the road and recognized his vehicle driving out of there as well. With only 3 Deputies all coming to respond, we had to pick a vehicle and after some time a chase of the suspect's vehicle led to an engagement at the North Store. When I arrived I was told to cuff the suspect, who I Mirandized and searched. I found a shotgun in his bag and a .50 was found in the vehicle, both illegal. Deputy Stanford said he witnessed the suspect driving on the wrong side of the road leading to the engagement and Agent Johnson confirmed that Deputy Standford would be placing that charge.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, [ALESTER CARTER], 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,
    
    
    [Alester Carter]
    [Deputy Sheriff II]
    [Los Santos Sheriffs Department]
    
    Date: [06/MAR/2023]

  

Exhibit #3:
Type of Discovery: Items on person

• Physical evidence

Spoiler

All Information from the Discovery Shows the items held by the defendant at the time of his arrest

• EVIDENCE DETAILS
  • Exhibit A: .50 Pistol
    Exhibit B: Pump Shotgun
    Exhibit C: Radio, Mask
    
    Photo of the evidence in the locker (if applicable)

    

Exhibit #4:
Type of Discovery: Witness statement

• Witness statement

Spoiler

All Information from the Discovery iAgent stanford describes the situation and why Mr. Morningstar was charged with reckless driving

• Witness Statement from Agent Peter Stanford

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: [Case Number]
    Incident Date: [006/Mar/2023]

  Witness Information

  • Name: Peter Stanford
    Date of Birth: 08/24/1999
    Phone Number: 3018277
    Occupation: Sheriff's Deputy, Los Santos Sheriffs Department

  Witness Statement

  • I responded to a call about someone cooking drugs at Braddock's, we pursued a vehicle (forgot due to the lengthy-time period) and the vehicle led us to an ambush of pursuit, I was the fourth or fifth unit to arrive and I was smashed into by a BLACK Sultan classic driving in the incorrect lane of travel, driven by Shawn Morningstar after he crashed into me, he stalled and surrendered. I can't remember much after that due to being high on adrenaline and sitting down to get treated by medics. I have a picture of the vehicle driving in the incorrect lane of travel here:

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Peter Stanford, 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,
    
    
    Peter Stanford
    Los Santos Sheriff's Department
    
    Date: 03/MAR/2023

  

Exhibit #5:
Type of Discovery: Bodycam footage

• bodycam footage

Spoiler

All Information from the Discovery Picture from a bodycam showing Mr. Morningstar driving down the wrong lane in traffic

• Spoiler

  

  ► Show Spoiler

  ((RP proof
  ))

Exhibit #6:
Type of Discovery: Witness statement

• Witness statement

Spoiler

All Information from the Discovery Agent Johnson describes the events that transpired and why the charges were placed.

• Witness Statement from Agent Bunkie Johnson

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: [Case Number]
    Incident Date: [02/FEB/2023]

  Witness Information

  • Name: Bunkie Johnson
    Date of Birth: 14/JUN/1998
    Phone Number: 5162021
    Occupation: Agent, Sheriffs Department

  Witness Statement

  • What lead to units on scene pursuing after "Shawn Morningstar"?
    
    I responded to the JTAC late. I know units were pursuing a Jugular and that Mr. Morningstar had made contact with Deputy Stanford in the form of a vehicular accident, but beyond that, I do not know what happened.
  • What was the probable cause behind searching "Shawn Morningstar"?
    
    Mr. Morningstar was going to be arrested for VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle. This stemmed from the accident between Mr. Morningstar and Deputy Stanford.
  • What did "Shawn Morningstar" do to constitute the charge of "VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine vehicle"?
    
    I stated above that he had a vehicular accident with Deputy Stanford and it was deemed reckless in nature by the deputy. As I was not there, I strongly encouraged Stanford to be 100% positive on the placement of the charge.
  • Was "Shawn Morningstar" at any point fired upon by Law Enforcement on scene?
    
    I am unsure as I arrived as the scene began to cool down.
  • If "Shawn Morningstar" was "chased" why were they not charged with "VF01 - Evading an Officer"?
    
    I don't recall Mr. Morningstar ever being pursued. He might have been pursued before I was on scene.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Bunkie Johnson, 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,
    
    
    Bunkie Johnson
    Agent
    Los Santos Sheriffs Department
    
    Date: 6/MAR/2023

  

Exhibit #7:
Type of Discovery: Witness statement

• Witness statement

Spoiler

All Information from the Discovery In this statement, Officer Sanchez explains that while Mr. Morningstar did not himself fire at law enforcement, his passenger did. Additionally, he also explains that Mr. Morningstar was armed and that the perpetrators of the shootout included several known gang affiliates, giving officers a reasonable belief that he was a threat as well.

• 

  
  

  Los Santos Police Department Legal Affairs Unit, Office of the Chief "TO PROTECT AND SERVE" LEGALLY PRIVILEGED

  ---

  • Re: [Court Request] (Case #023-LAU-23), State of San Andreas v. State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar
    
    The Los Santos Police Department's Legal Affairs Unit has completed your request in relation to #023-LAU-23 State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar.
    
    Please note that the Los Santos Sheriff's Department handled the arrest and related reports. They should be able to give you the related Arrest Reports and other details. A statement from the Officer mentioned in the appeal is below.
    
    The requested evidence/statements where obtainable can be found below:
    
    Officer Statements
    Police Officer III+1 J. Sanchez's Statement

    

    

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

    Case Information

    • Incident Date: 03/FEB/2023

    Witness Information

    • Name: Joseph Sanchez
      Date of Birth: 20/APR/2000
      Phone Number: Confidential
      Occupation: Patrol Supervisor

    Witness Statement

    • To begin, as I'm being made aware of this case over a month after the incident happened, my bodycam is no longer available.
      
      On February 3rd, 2023, at around 3:00 AM, Shawn Morningstar was charged with WF03 and VM03. We were in some kind of pursuit in the Sheriff's Department's jurisdiction, where we got shot at by a black vehicle passing Braddock's Tunnel. A few seconds later, we were shot at by more black vehicles at the gas station north of the tunnel. Frank Haswell and Shawn Morningstar were both there and armed. Frank Haswell was the only one who shot, but an effort was still made to disable Shawn Morningstar's vehicle since he was a threat to our safety and letting him escape could result in a threat to the safety of others if he was not apprehended immediately. This is clearly proven by his possession of two illegal firearms, one of them being a shotgun.
      
      While I was only involved in protecting the Police Officers and Sheriff's Deputies on the scene, I never played a role in the placing of charges; however, there is clearly nothing wrong with the charges applied by the Sheriff's Department. Driving in the incorrect lane of travel warrants VM03, and as the defendant said himself, he pleads guilty to WF03.
      
      Shawn Morningstar being seen outside of his vehicle while we were being shot at by other known affiliates of his, such as Frank Haswell, with whom he has committed multiple felonies & gang activities together with on various occasions, clearly identifies him as a threat while present on the scene of the ambush, reinforced by the fact that he was carrying not only a handgun, but a shotgun as well. The decision to eliminate the threat was one well-made which resulted in the confiscation of two weapons which could possible be used to harm civilians or officers in the future.

    Witness Affirmation

    • I, Joseph Sanchez, 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.))
      
      Best Regards,
      
      Police Officer III+1 Joseph Sanchez
      Patrol Supervisor, Vespucci Patrol Division
      General Operations Bureau
      Los Santos Police Department
      
      Date: 09/MAR/2023

    
    Please acknowledge that you have received the requested evidence/statements, should you need any additional evidence/clarifications just include these in your acknowledgement.

  ---

  • Kind Regards,
    
    Police Lieutenant I Alex Schill
    Court Liason Officer, Legal Affairs Unit
    Los Santos Police Department

  

[Dmitri Leroy]

Rockford Law #23-CM-0038, State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar

---

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. Defendant
#23-CM-0038

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 29th of March, 2023.

The Defendant, Shawn Morningstar, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;

• Exhibit #8: Gunshot Medical treatment Records, Pillbox Medical
  Spoiler

  Below you will see a detailed medical report proving that our client Shawn Morningstar was shot and injured at the scene. This information backs up and reasserts the truth given in our clients appeal; Mr. Morningstar was fleeing for his life PRIOR to ever entering the incorrect lane of travel. ((time displayed in RP is personal time zone- which is the time of event))
  
  
  
  
  (( RP Acquiring of medical records.
  Spoiler

  
  ))
  
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Tidus Law
  CEO | Rockford Law
  (909) 519-4022 — [email protected]

[Dmitri Leroy]

Rockford Law #23-CM-0038, State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar

---

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

---

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar
#23-CM-0038

A Motion to Compel Discovery was filed in the above case on the 29th of March, 2023.

The Defendant, Shawn Morningstar, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Compel Discovery, and requests as follows;

• Requested Discovery: Peter Stanford Body Cam Footage, Los Santos Sheriffs Department
  • Detailed Reasoning: We do not believe the still image from exhibit #5 is enough to convey the situation that transpired. We are requesting the full video. The full video unedited will show Shawn Morningstar running for his life prior to being in the wrong lane of travel and making contact with a vehicle and subsequently being charged with VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine vehicle. The video will show our client bleeding from a gunshot wound as he instantly surrenders as well as numerous bullet holes in his vehicle. This is very important to the case, because any reasonable person would agree that fleeing for ones life after being shot is clear justification for driving in such a manner.

• Requested Discovery: Joseph Sanchez Body Cam Footage, Los Santos Police Department
  • Detailed Reasoning: The defense is certain body camera footage will show Joseph Sanchez shooting his weapon a different direction than the defendant at a separate individual from a separate vehicle, then turning his weapon towards Mr. Morningstar who was there the whole time alone at the gas pump prior to the chase coming through. It will show him shooting our client while he was getting into his vehicle to flee from the shootout. You will Never see Mr. Morningstar have a passenger or anyone else with him, because he was alone. The video will show his bullets striking both Mr. Morningstar himself once as well as his vehicle numerous times prior to him entering the wrong lane of travel fleeing from the gunshots. This is collaborated in the medical logs present in exhibit #8. Mr. Morningstar informed Officer Sanchez to save his body camera footage specifically because he would be making this case.

• Requested Discovery: Bunkie Johnson Body Cam Footage, Los Santos Sheriffs Department
  • Detailed Reasoning: The defense believes the body camera video presented by Officer Bunkie Johnson would display the vast amount of bullet damage to the defendants vehicle as well as the bullet wound to our clients shoulder.

• Requested Discovery: Photographic evidence, both LSPD and LSSD
  • Detailed Reasoning: Any and all photographic evidence taken on scene would show the bullet holes in Mr. Morningstar's car as well as the gunshot wound he suffered.

Sincerely,

Tidus Law
CEO | Rockford Law
(909) 519-4022 — [email protected]

[Robert Winejudge]

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. Shawn Morningstar
#23-CM-0038

A decision was reached in the above case on the 2nd of April, 2023.

The court will be granting the motion to Compel Discovery that was filed by the Defense Counsel on the 30th of March 2023 if law enforcement still have the footages required. (( If not, and the deputies feel comfortable enough about the event, they can also /ldo them)) At this moment, I will allow the Prosecution 7 days to present the requested evidence or to inform the court about why it cannot be provided. If additional time is needed, please file a Motion for Continuance before the 7 day period expires.



Court Clerk
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-4223 — [email protected]

[Dmitri Leroy]

Rockford Law #23-CM-0038, State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar

---

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

---

MOTION FOR INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Defendant
#23-CM-0038

A Motion for Involuntary Dismissal was filed in the above case on the 9th of April, 2023.

The Defendant, Shawn Morningstar, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Involuntary Dismissal, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

• Reasoning: The prosecution has failed to make contact with the court or provided the required discover in the allotted time. The evidence currently present is insufficient to establish probable cause.
  
  Detailed Explanation:
  As the burden of proof lies on the prosecution it is imperative they provided substantial evidence to show that defendant committed the crimes they are accused of. Because they has failed to due this the defense is seeking an Involuntary Dismissal with prejudice in this case. In the witness statements as presented below, and to my client on scene, it has been stated numerous times that the probable cause for searching Shawn Morningstar's vehicle was solely due to the charge of VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle.
  
  Spoiler

  Exhibit #2 Deputy Carter Witness Statement:
  
  Deputy Stanford said he witnessed the suspect driving on the wrong side of the road leading to the engagement and Agent Johnson confirmed that Deputy Standford would be placing that charge.
  
  Spoiler

  Exhibit #6 Sheriff Johnson Witness Statement:
  
  What was the probable cause behind searching "Shawn Morningstar"?
  Mr. Morningstar was going to be arrested for VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle. This stemmed from the accident between Mr. Morningstar and Deputy Stanford.
  
  What did "Shawn Morningstar" do to constitute the charge of "VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine vehicle"?
  I stated above that he had a vehicular accident with Deputy Stanford and it was deemed reckless in nature by the deputy. As I was not there, I strongly encouraged Stanford to be 100% positive on the placement of the charge.
  
  Was "Shawn Morningstar" at any point fired upon by Law Enforcement on scene?
  I am unsure as I arrived as the scene began to cool down.
  
  The defendant has laid out a narrative, under oath, that has not been contested in anyway and only substantiated by the little evidence there is; He was at the gas station when he heard gunshots and fled. He was then shot at numerous times and hit once by Joseph Sanchez while he was fleeing for his life. He then drove into the wrong lane before hitting another officer. The defense has provided the medical results proving our client was indeed shot and hit at the scene which can be seen in exhibit #8 below. Our client was only charged with reckless operation and was not charged with evasion or other violent crimes, because he was never a threat to the officers in any way and only ever fled for his life after being shot at.
  
  Spoiler

  Exhibit #8:
  
  Below you will see a detailed medical report proving that our client Shawn Morningstar was shot and injured at the scene. This information backs up and reasserts the truth given in our clients appeal; Mr. Morningstar was fleeing for his life PRIOR to ever entering the incorrect lane of travel. ((time displayed in RP is personal time zone- which is the time of event))
  
  
  
  With the provided evidence by the defense showing bullet injuries, substantiating our clients narrative of having been shot at prior to violating traffic laws, we believe there is an increased burden of proof of the defense to demonstrate their claims of our clients guilt and one still Image taken from a body cam does not suffice, and in-fact only demonstrates the shattered windshield of our client caused by the bullets he was fleeing from.
  
  It is clear that the nature of searching a suspects car for 'reckless operation' AFTER actively shooting at them and they are fleeing for their life is UNREASONABLE and such actions should never give probable cause. Due to this the search of Shawn Morningstar's vehicle was done in violation of the 4th Amendment. As such the Defense asks the court to dismiss this case with prejudice and reimburse Shawn Morningstar for his damages and time.
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Tidus Law
  CEO | Rockford Law
  (909) 519-4022 — [email protected]

[Greg Kumerow]

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

---

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar
#23-CM-0038

A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 9th of April, 2023

The State of San Andreas by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Continuance, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

• Reasoning: Continued effort by the Sheriff's department to grab whatever evidence they can find.
  • Detailed Explanation: ((The main officer with bodycam is on ooc leave and we can't get in touch with him in-game because he's on either very sporadically or not at all.))

Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 219-6537 — [email protected][/list]

[Robert Winejudge]

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. Shawn Morningstar
#23-CM-0038

A decision was reached in the above case on the 10th of April, 2023.

I will be granting the Prosecutions motion for continuance. The Prosecution has 7 days from this moment to provide the evidence requested in the Motion to Compel Discovery. If the evidence is not provided, they are to give a reasonable explanation as to why the evidence could not be gathered. As for the Defense's Motion for Involuntary Dismissal, as I just granted a continuance the prosecution, is this motion something you still wish to proceed with or can I consider it withdrawn for now?



Court Clerk
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-4223 — [email protected]

[Dmitri Leroy]

Rockford Law #23-CM-0038, State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar

---

The defense will hold our move for dismissal at this moment as we firmly believe that any of the discovery we have requested being presented will substantiate our claims and prove our clients innocence beyond doubt. We still hold true that current evidence presented fails to meet the burden of proof for VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle. As seen in exhibit #8 and in the appeal Shawn Morningstar was fleeing for his life from gunfire by Law enforcement prior to the alleged traffic violation by Law enforcement making the arrest and search thereafter unlawful. Based on the pending discovery the defense will reevaluate the motion.

Sincerely,

Tidus Law
CEO | Rockford Law
(909) 519-4022 — [email protected]

[Greg Kumerow]

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. Shawn Morningstar
#23-CM-0038

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the Day of Month, Year.

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


Exhibit #8:
Type of Discovery: Bodycam footage

Spoiler

All Information from the Discovery This bit of bodycam footage shows the defendant driving directly into Agent Stanford, which sends him flying out of the car.

• **Attatched Bodycamera Footage from Agent Peter Stanford**

  
  ((RP proof
  ))

This was all the additional evidence I was able to obtain. The remaining was either not collected or not available. You will notice in exhibit #7 that Officer Sanchez states his bodycam is no longer available. No photography was performed on the scene and to the best of my knowledge such a thing is rarely done outside of bodycam footage.

((Bunkie couldn't find proof of RP and nobody else felt comfortable or confident enough to do /ldos. Stanford came back to give that bit of RP but he's still on an OOC leave so compelling him to come back for RP isn't really an option. ))


Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 219-6537 — [email protected]

[Greg Kumerow]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
RE:#23-CM-0038, State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Regarding the motion to dismiss,
  
  The defense asserts that Mr. Morningstar was fired upon before fleeing. This could very well be accurate. They notably fail to mention WHY he was fired upon. Although it is noted that Mr. Morningstar was not actively shooting at police, consider the situation surrounding the circumstances in which he was shot at;
  
  • He drove into an active shootout
  • He was with several known gang members that he was affiliated with and this fact was recognized by the deputies and officers on the scene
  • He was carrying not only a handgun but an illegal shotgun on his person
  • Mr. Morningstar was spotted previously before the ambush with the people who fired upon police, as Officer Sanchez notes.
  Mr. Morningstar can only be said to have acted defensively in the sense that he continuously put himself in situations where he would have no other choice but to respond recklessly or with violence.
  
  Additionally the prosecution notes that being at the scene of an active shootout and being a known affiliate of the participants in said shootout would happily meet the standard for detainment and search.
  
  Regarding the defense's specific claims
  

  The defendant has laid out a narrative, under oath, that has not been contested in anyway and only substantiated by the little evidence there is; He was at the gas station when he heard gunshots and fled.

  This is directly contradicted by exhibit #7. See here;
  

  We were in some kind of pursuit in the Sheriff's Department's jurisdiction, where we got shot at by a black vehicle passing Braddock's Tunnel. A few seconds later, we were shot at by more black vehicles at the gas station north of the tunnel.

  The gunshots had already started, meaning if it were a shootout he was looking to avoid, he would have been actively driving away by the time they later got to the north store (which is only a short drive away) and not have fled when he was fired at while standing next to a known associate who just happened to be trying to gun down law enforcement.
  
  Consider as well that the defense asserts Mr. Morningstar was attempting to avoid the shootout. Fair enough, considering he was packing illegal weaponry. It boggles the mind, then, why he would drive the wrong way (keep in mind the north store is on the northern side of Senora freeway/Great Ocean Highway meaning that when exiting you would have to turn right towards Paleto to be driving in the correct lane), TOWARDS deputies who were being ambushed. Because Great Ocean Highway/Senora is divided at the north store, you would have to drive over a substantial dirt median to go through baradocks tunnel. Driving in the correct lane of travel to the right not only avoids the shootout but the incoming deputies, as well.
  
  One might even consider this behavior reckless operation of a motor vehicle. The kind that shows no regard for the lives of others.
  
  Furthermore, the defense asserts
  

  With the provided evidence by the defense showing bullet injuries, substantiating our clients narrative of having been shot at prior to violating traffic laws, we believe there is an increased burden of proof of the defense to demonstrate their claims of our clients guilt and one still Image taken from a body cam does not suffice, and in-fact only demonstrates the shattered windshield of our client caused by the bullets he was fleeing from.

  The prosecution notes that despite the lengthy argument from the defense, as well as the gusto of their presentation, the only thing they have presented is the fact that Mr. Morningstar was fired at and hit, neither of which were being contested in the first place.
  
  It is with this in mind that the prosecution asks the honorable presiding judge to deny their motion for involuntary dismissal. Clearly the evidence presents a vigorous opportunity for debate to be settled in a court house and not on a website, and you need only look at the past few paragraphs for examples.
  
  
  
  
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Prosecuting Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 219-6537 — [email protected]

[Dmitri Leroy]

Rockford Law #23-CM-0038, State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar

---

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

---

MOTION FOR INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Defendant
#23-CM-0038

A Motion for Involuntary Dismissal was filed in the above case on the 9th of April, 2023.

The Defendant, Shawn Morningstar, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Involuntary Dismissal, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

• Reasoning: The act of VM03 - Reckless Operation, cited multiple times as the probable cause for searching the defendants vehicle, has been proven by the evidence to be unintentional and therefore wrongfully placed.
  
  Detailed Explanation:
  In the witness statements as presented below by the arresting officers, and to my client on scene, it has been stated numerous times that the probable cause for searching Shawn Morningstar's vehicle was solely due to the charge of VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle.
  
  Spoiler

  Exhibit #2 Deputy Carter Witness Statement:
  
  Deputy Stanford said he witnessed the suspect driving on the wrong side of the road leading to the engagement and Agent Johnson confirmed that Deputy Standford would be placing that charge.
  
  Spoiler

  Exhibit #6 Sheriff Johnson Witness Statement:
  
  What was the probable cause behind searching "Shawn Morningstar"?
  Mr. Morningstar was going to be arrested for VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle. This stemmed from the accident between Mr. Morningstar and Deputy Stanford.
  
  What did "Shawn Morningstar" do to constitute the charge of "VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine vehicle"?
  I stated above that he had a vehicular accident with Deputy Stanford and it was deemed reckless in nature by the deputy. As I was not there, I strongly encouraged Stanford to be 100% positive on the placement of the charge.
  
  Was "Shawn Morningstar" at any point fired upon by Law Enforcement on scene?
  I am unsure as I arrived as the scene began to cool down.
  
  As shown in the medical records as well as Joseph Sanchez witness statement below, the defendant was shot at numerous times and hit once by Officer Sanchez. Shawn then, while fleeing for his life, unintentionally drove into the wrong lane before colliding with another officer. Its very important to note that the evidence of Shawn Morningstar being shot immediately prior to the accused crime stated as the probable cause is overwhelming and undeniable.
  
  
  Spoiler

  Exhibit #8:
  
  Below you will see a detailed medical report proving that our client Shawn Morningstar was shot and injured at the scene. This information backs up and reasserts the truth given in our clients appeal; Mr. Morningstar was fleeing for his life PRIOR to ever entering the incorrect lane of travel. ((time displayed in RP is personal time zone- which is the time of event))
  
  
  Spoiler

  Exhibit #7
  an effort was still made to disable Shawn Morningstar's vehicle since he was a threat to our safety
  
  It is clear that the nature of searching a suspects car for 'reckless operation' AFTER actively shooting at them and they are fleeing for their life is UNREASONABLE and such actions should never give probable cause. Due to this the search of Shawn Morningstar's vehicle was done in violation of the 4th Amendment. As such the Defense asks the court to dismiss this case with prejudice and reimburse Shawn Morningstar for his damages and time.
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Tidus Law
  CEO | Rockford Law
  (909) 519-4022 — [email protected]

[Robert Winejudge]

((Duplicate))

[Robert Winejudge]

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. Shawn Morningstar
#23-CM-0038

An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on the 23rd of April, 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.

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.


Court Clerk
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-4223 — [email protected]

[Dmitri Leroy]

Rockford Law #23-CM-0038, State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar

---

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

---

MOTION TO SUPPRESS

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar
#23-CM-0038

A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 23rd of April, 2023.

The Defendant, Shawn Morningstar, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Suppress, and requests to following be suppressed from evidence;

---

• Exhibit #7: J. Sanchez's Statement
  Requested Evidence to Suppress: The highlighted portion
  

  Shawn Morningstar being seen outside of his vehicle while we were being shot at by other known affiliates of his, such as Frank Haswell, with whom he has committed multiple felonies & gang activities together with on various occasions, clearly identifies him as a threat while present on the scene of the ambush, reinforced by the fact that he was carrying not only a handgun, but a shotgun as well. The decision to eliminate the threat was one well-made

• Detailed Reasoning: The defendant was outside of his vehicle as can be seen in the underlined portion in the witness' statement above. However the highlighted portion incorrectly gives off the impression that the defendant was carrying a weapon in his hands at the time he was outside of his vehicle trying to get gas. It implies that it could be seen at that moment in time that the defendant had firearms and that is what constituted him as a threat.
  
  As detailed in evidence #2, "I found a shotgun in his bag and a .50 was found in the vehicle", the weapons found were in a bag as well as in the vehicles glovebox, not in the defendants hands, and not visible. If that were the case surely he would have been given assault or brandishing, surely THAT would have been the probable cause to search the vehicle rather than the stated one of reckless operation. No firearms were known about until after a search was conducted.

---

• Exhibit #7: J. Sanchez's Statement
  Requested Evidence to Suppress: The highlighted portion

  Driving in the incorrect lane of travel warrants VM03, and as the defendant said himself, he pleads guilty to WF03.

  Detailed Reasoning: It is clear by this appeal that the defendant is not currently pleading guilty to WF03. Because of this its evident Sanchez is recalling statements made in the past by someone other then himself constituting hearsay.

---

• Exhibit #2 & #1: Alester Carter Statement
  Requested Evidence to Suppress: The highlighted portions of the exhibits

  We had moved into Braddocks following a call about drug cooking happening and witnessed a Jugular drive away into the ditch to get away as well as a couple of other vehicles. I had witnessed the suspect nearby earlier pulled on the side of the road and recognized his vehicle driving out of there as well. With only 3 Deputies all coming to respond, we had to pick a vehicle and after some time a chase of the suspect's vehicle led to an engagement at the North Store. When I arrived I was told to cuff the suspect, who I Mirandized and searched. I found a shotgun in his bag and a .50 was found in the vehicle, both illegal. Deputy Stanford said he witnessed the suspect driving on the wrong side of the road leading to the engagement and Agent Johnson confirmed that Deputy Standford would be placing that charge.

  Detailed Reasoning: The officer is mistaking the defendant with the driver of the Jugular who he recognized from earlier and then pursued north from braddocks. The defendant was, instead, in a Sultan Classic at the gas station before going south and colliding with the officer as can be seen in the dash camera and still image from exhibit #5 as well in exhibit #4 "I was smashed into by a BLACK Sultan classic driving in the incorrect lane of travel, driven by Shawn Morningstar". The defense is just requesting the phrase "suspect" in the yellow portions of exhibit 2 & 1 be replaced with 'the Jugular' and the blue portion to be replaced with 'Shawn Morningstar" for accuracy.

Sincerely,

Tidus Law
CEO | Rockford Law
(909) 219-4084 — [email protected]

[Dmitri Leroy]

Rockford Law #23-CM-0038, State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar

---

Motion to Compel Discovery

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion to Compel Discovery

Honorable Winejudge,

• We the Defense in the case below are requesting the disclosure of the following material by opposing counsel, please find a detailed reason as to our request below.
  

  ---

  State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar
  Assigned Court Case Number: #23-CM-0038
  Requesting Party: Defense
  Party Members: Rockford Law firm, Shawn Morningstar

  ---

  Discovery from: Sheriffs Department
  
  Type of Discovery: Document Request
  • Impound records of Frank Haswell.
  Detailed reasoning:
  • The impound records of Frank Haswell will show that he was the driver of the Jugular that the witnesses said evaded from Braddock's in Exhibit 1&2 NOT the defendant. Frank Haswell was not together with the defendant in a vehicle. The defendant was alone in his own vehicle up north at the gas station.
    
    In exhibit #7 Officer Sanchez stated "Frank Haswell and Shawn Morningstar were both there and armed. Frank Haswell was the only one who shot, but an effort was still made to disable Shawn Morningstar's vehicle.".
    
    Based off this statement the prosecution alleges in exhibit #7 "In this statement, Officer Sanchez explains that while Mr. Morningstar did not himself fire at law enforcement, his passenger did.".
    
    We believe this evidence to be crucial for this case.
  Sincerely,
  
  Tidus Law
  CEO | Rockford Law
  (909) 219-4084 — [email protected]

[Greg Kumerow]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
RE: #23-CM-0038, State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Honorable Winejudge,
  
  In regards to the motion to suppress:
  
  The prosecution is indifferent on the first two parts of the motion. However, the last part of the motion is simply egregious.
  
  Quoting the defense;
  

  The officer is mistaking the defendant with the driver of the Jugular who he recognized from earlier and then pursued north from braddocks.

  There is no softer way to refute this other to than say it's just wrong and likely misread by the defense. Quoting Deputy Carter here:
  

  We had moved into Braddocks following a call about drug cooking happening and witnessed a Jugular drive away into the ditch to get away as well as a couple of other vehicles. I had witnessed the suspect nearby earlier pulled on the side of the road and recognized his vehicle driving out of there as well.

  Notice how he says that he witnessed a jugular driving away and in his next sentence, notes the suspect (Shawn Morningstar) driving away from the area, ending the sentence with "as well". This is the deputy clearing referring to a distinction between the two vehicles. This motion to suppress, if allowed, would be a horrendous miscarriage of justice, allowing the defense to redefine the words to fit their narrative. It's far more likely that Deputy Carter was speaking about a different suspect only in the third line, here:
  

  With only 3 Deputies all coming to respond, we had to pick a vehicle and after some time a chase of the suspect's vehicle led to an engagement at the North Store.

  As this is the only one that actually has any incongruence with the other evidence. Let me explain;
  
  So we know that Officer Sanchez for example notes Mr. Morningstar at the gas station. If the defense's suppression of evidence is to be believed, Deputy Carter states that he saw a black jugular and several other vehicles leaving Braddocks tunnel and drive into the ditch. Now, note the terrain of Braddocks tunnel. I have taken it upon myself to do some amateur photography and I would posit it to the court that these photographs are evidence of public knowledge, in this case the terrain of the area as it exists right now.
  
  You will notice This shot facing south from the north entrance of Braddocks tunnel, and this shot from the same spot facing the north entrance. Additionally take into consideration this facing the south exit of Braddocks tunnel. ((proof of rp)) Notice that only on the north side is there anything resembling a ditch. The southern side is walled off by concrete and metal dividers and the plain between the divided roads is level meaning there is nothing resembling a ditch. Therefore, it stands to reason that the people mentioned by the deputy were on the north side. It follows, then, that the deputies followed a vehicle through Braddocks tunnel and circled back around to the ambush as described by numerous pieces of evidence, which would logically allow Mr. Morningstar to be stationed at the north store having exited out the north entrance.
  
  As opposed to the defense's narrative which seems to indicate Mr. Haswell drove through the ditch in his jugular and then Mr. Morningstar, who was alone at the gas station, was caught in the crossfire with.... nobody in particular? Only to then return and begin the set of events that would lead to his arrest.
  
  
  Finally, the prosecution asks that the motion for compelled discovery be denied on procedural grounds; for something that is critical for the defense's case, they have taken a very long time to request it and indeed have already asked for compelled evidence in which they failed to mention it. At this point this case will never see trial on account of the defense's continued need for more evidence.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Prosecuting Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 219-6537 — [email protected]

[Dmitri Leroy]

Rockford Law #23-CM-0038, State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar

---

Honorable Winejudge,

The prosecution has described our 3rd motion as "simply egregious" however we believe this to be a simple misunderstanding that is rather easy to explain. When talking about 'Braddock's' and its 'ditch' the prosecution is incorrect in thinking the officers are talking about Braddock's tunnel. Nobody is cooking drugs in the highway tunnel.

Use the highlighted portions below for refence:

"We had moved into Braddocks following a call about drug cooking happening and witnessed a Jugular drive away into the ditch to get away as well as a couple of other vehicles. I had witnessed the suspect nearby earlier pulled on the side of the road and recognized his vehicle driving out of there as well. With only 3 Deputies all coming to respond, we had to pick a vehicle and after some time a chase of the suspect's vehicle led to an engagement at the North Store. When I arrived I was told to cuff the suspect, who I Mirandized and searched. I found a shotgun in his bag and a .50 was found in the vehicle, both illegal. Deputy Stanford said he witnessed the suspect driving on the wrong side of the road leading to the engagement and Agent Johnson confirmed that Deputy Standford would be placing that charge."

The portion that has been highlighted in yellow is referring to a well known farm that is repeatedly raided for drug production and is commonly known as "Braddock's". The ditch being referred to is on the east side of this farm next to the east highway. This is a farm that is raided extremely often for drug cooking. I have attached an image for context about the farm. Once the police moved into the known lab, the jugular fled through the ditch onto the east highway and went north to the store.

The above portions highlighted in blue make it clear that when talking about the 'suspect' the witness is referring to the individual who was chased in the jugular. Just looking at the witness statements made by the officers its clear that the jugular was UNDENIABLY the vehicle being chased from Braddock's farm starting with Exhibit #6; Agent Bunkie Johnsons statement of "I responded to the JTAC late. I know units were pursuing a Jugular". On top of these officer statements proving it was the jugular chased, its painfully obvious that, if the defendant was chased they would have been charged with evading.

The prosecution has produced images and an explanation based on incorrect information about where the chase started. We believe this explains many of the differences in the way we are going about this case. It explains why the prosecution incorrectly asserts in the description of exhibit #7 that Frank Haswell was the defendants passenger when Shawn was alone at the north store the entire time. This image perfectly sums up the basics of this case.

In regards to the motion to compel discovery;

"Finally, the prosecution asks that the motion for compelled discovery be denied on procedural grounds; for something that is critical for the defense's case, they have taken a very long time to request it and indeed have already asked for compelled evidence in which they failed to mention it."

The defense recently was made aware that Frank Haswell's vehicle was impounded on the scene and immediately made the motion to compel discovery with this new information, despite having an open motion already. Given the arguments made by the prosecution that assert Frank and the defendant were together in a vehicle it is obvious this information is critical. The defense has ALWAYS maintained that Shawn was ALONE and at the gas station the whole time.

Sincerely,

Tidus Law
CEO | Rockford Law

[Greg Kumerow]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: #23-CM-0038, State of San Andreas v. Shawn Morningstar
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Honorable Winejudge,
  
  Regarding the defense's continued motion to suppress;
  
  The prosecution notes a few things, retracting its previous no contest to several points. Consider the following;
  

  Exhibit #7: J. Sanchez's Statement
  Requested Evidence to Suppress: The highlighted portion
  
  Shawn Morningstar being seen outside of his vehicle while we were being shot at by other known affiliates of his, such as Frank Haswell, with whom he has committed multiple felonies & gang activities together with on various occasions, clearly identifies him as a threat while present on the scene of the ambush, reinforced by the fact that he was carrying not only a handgun, but a shotgun as well. The decision to eliminate the threat was one well-made
  
  Detailed Reasoning: The defendant was outside of his vehicle as can be seen in the underlined portion in the witness' statement above. However the highlighted portion incorrectly gives off the impression that the defendant was carrying a weapon in his hands at the time he was outside of his vehicle trying to get gas. It implies that it could be seen at that moment in time that the defendant had firearms and that is what constituted him as a threat.
  
  As detailed in evidence #2, "I found a shotgun in his bag and a .50 was found in the vehicle", the weapons found were in a bag as well as in the vehicles glovebox, not in the defendants hands, and not visible. If that were the case surely he would have been given assault or brandishing, surely THAT would have been the probable cause to search the vehicle rather than the stated one of reckless operation. No firearms were known about until after a search was conducted.

  This fails to account for the fact that Mr. Morningstar would have had the opportunity to simply hide his guns. Putting a handgun in the glove box from the driver's seat is a trivial endeavor, and even had he not been wearing the shotgun on his person, having the handgun would be enough. As the defense does not currently possess omnipotence, it is a matter to be decided in court rather than on the public docket.
  
  The prosecution also finds it bizarre to request the suppression of the statement that the defendant plead guilty to WM03 when, as noted on the arrest report, he did plea guilty to it immediately following the arrest. Ultimately, this sentence is of little consequence.
  
  In regards to the motion to compel discovery, the defense may assert that Mr. Morningstar was alone at the gas station, but notably failed to request the information be compelled before. The continued motions delay the trial while the defense struggles to come up with a coherent narrative, as evidenced by the fact that supposedly critical information is coming out weeks after the initial motions despite no facts in the case changing.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Senior Prosecuting Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 219-6537 — [email protected]