#23-CM-0074, State of San Andreas v. Alester Carter

[Alester Carter]

Defendant Name: Alester Carter
Defendant Phone: 301-3456
Defendant Address: Penthouse 50, Diamond Casino
(( Defendant Discord: hyphen8d#1337))
Requested Attorney: Cyrus Raven

Charging Department: Los Santos Police Department

Date & Time of Incident(s): 26/04/2023 10:20pm UTC
Charge(s):

• GM02 - Battery
• WM01 - Unlawful Brandishing of a Firearm or Weapon
• GM19 - Face Concealment (b)
• GM09 - Vigilantism

Narrative:
I wish to appeal these charges.

---

I, Alester Carter, 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. ))

[Roderick Marchisio]

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. Alester Carter

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 28th of April, 2023.

The purpose of this notice is to inform you that as of this moment I, Roderick Marchisio, will be representing the State of San Andreas in all the proceedings pertaining to the underlying case.

I will take it upon myself to reach out to the involved parties to collect and review all evidence in relation to the underlying case to ensure a proper and smooth continuation of this process.

---

Respectfully,


Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]

[Judith Mason]

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. Alester Carter

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 28th day of Month, 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.



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

[Cyrus Raven]

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. Alester Carter

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the Day of Month, Year.

I, Cyrus Raven, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Alester Carter in the underlying case.

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


Cyrus Raven
Chief Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch - Command
5356160 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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. Alester Carter

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on 29/APR/2023.

I, Hope Kant, 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 Co-Counsel alongside Attorney General Marchisio and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.



Prosecuting Attorney
Notary Public
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 321-2132 — [email protected]

[Lilian LeFay]

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. Alester Carter

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 24 of June, 2023.

I, Lilian LeFay, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Alester Carter in the underlying case.

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



Junior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 216-8336 — [email protected]

[Cyrus Raven]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Court Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• To whom it may concern,
  
  I, Cyrus Raven, will no longer be representing the Defendant, Alester Carter, in this case. The Defendant has been informed and alternative arrangements have been suggested.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Cyrus Raven
  Chief Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch - Command
  5356160 — [email protected]

  ---

[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. Alester Carter
#23-CM-0074

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above case on the 19th of July, 2023.

The case of the State of San Andreas v. Alester Carter is hereby activated by this Court under #23-CM-0074.

At this time the State has adequate representation, however, the Defendant is still seeking representation. At this time the court will delay the Order for Discovery until adequate representation has been assigned and they inform the court they are ready to proceed.

In accordance with guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court of San Andreas, this case shall operate under the docket trial format, and once the Notice of Trial has been issued, all arguments and evidence examination shall take place on the public docket.


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

[Shaun Harper]

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. Alester Carter

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 19 of July, 2023.

I, Shaun Harper, Chief Public Defender with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Alester Carter in the underlying case.

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


Chief Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

[Jacob Schmidtt]

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. Alester Carter

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 19 of July, 2023.

I, Jacob Schmidtt, Public Defender with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Alester Carter in the underlying case.

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


Junior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 309-8976
[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. Alester Carter
#23-CM-0074

A court order was entered in the above case on 31st of July, 2023.

The case of #23-CM-0074, State of San Andreas v. Alester Carter 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.


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

[Hope Kant]

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. Alester Carter
#23-CM-0074

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 4th of April, 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: Alester Carter Warrant Report - 27/APR/2023

  

  

  Los Santos Police Department WARRANT REPORT "TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"

  
  

  ---

  • SUSPECT DETAILS
    • Full Name: Alester Carter
      Phone Number: 3013456
      Officers Involved:
      • Police Captain II Jessica Nash
      • Police Officer III John Keys
      Charges:
      • GM02 - Battery
      • GM19 - Face Concealment (b)
      • GM09 - Vigilantism
      • WM01 - Unlawful Brandishing of a Firearm or Weapon
    INCIDENT NARRATIVE
    • Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to validate the justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
      • Mr Carter, a Deputy with the Los Santos County Sherriffs department, was off duty at Burgershot when he was harassed by a civilian. He brandished his firearm at said civilian, right in front of cops and endangering nearby civilians. He then around 5-6 minutes later, got off his bike with a face concealment on, and battered the civilian whom seemed to have interfered with his property, not once asking for support from the many law enforcement agencies standing nearby.
      Method of Identification
      • Identified by John Keys as Alester Carter ((Footage available))
    EVIDENCE DETAILS
    • Document the possessions confiscated from the arrested suspect.
      Illegal evidence must be documented individually, examples of documented illegal evidence are "Pistol .50" or "12 grams of Cocaine". Body camera footage/pictures may be attached as an evidence exhibit.
      
      Where possible the serial number of each firearm seized as evidence should be noted.
      • Illegal Evidence:
        Exhibit A: Footage available
        ► Show Spoiler

        https://youtu.be/ztuCyrAfzx4 - https://youtu.be/aW9pgtCLFNc - ((BODYCAMRP))
        Photograph of possessions in evidence locker (if applicable)

  
  Exhibit #2: Police Captain II J. Nash's Statement

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Incident Date: [26/APR/2023]

  Witness Information

  • Name: [Jessica Nash]
    Date of Birth: [Redacted]
    Phone Number: [Redacted]
    Occupation: [Captain II With the Los Santos Police Department]

  Witness Statement

  • I was approached on the 27th of April by Officer John Keys, whom expressed concerns of conduct displayed by an off duty sheriffs deputy identified as "Alester Carter". Upon reviewing the statement from John Keys, along with evidence, and speaking briefly with Chief Phillipe Sanchez, Charges were placed.
    
    Enclosed are the charges and reasoning behind placement;
    
    WM01 - Unlawful Brandishing of a Firearm or Weapon;
    Mr Carter aimed his firearm at a civilian in close proximity to other individuals, along with officers, within feet of a public fast food restaurant, endangering their and his own life.
    
    GM02 - Battery;
    He dismounted his bike after a civilian seemed to interfere with the storage area, beating him approximately 3-4 times with his fists.
    
    GM19 - Face Concealment (b);
    Wearing a face concealment with the intent to harm an individual, to which he did.
    
    GM09 - Vigilantism;
    At the time of this incident, Alester Carter was no on duty nor did he seem to project himself as an off duty entity, "A non law enforcement official", and proceeded to assault an individual, in the attempt to incapacitate. All whilst in the presence of law enforcement officials, whom could actually perform this task.
    
    Once the conclusion of appropriate charges were drawn, and i had referred these with the Chief Phillipe Sanchez (Briefly), i conversed with Undersheriff Harry Payne prior to placing the charges as a courtesy, outlining the situation and the next steps. He requested this be summarized in an email to the command team of the sheriffs department additionally to our conversation, to which i obliged once charges had been placed and a warrant report issued.
    
    It is to my understanding the 10-15 was then arrested by his own department without incident.
    
    It is concerning that during this situation, present law enforcement did not think to take legal action in the moment, as this is a direct contradiction of their position, considering at the time of the event, Mr Carter was NOT acting as a law enforcement official, merely a civilian like the many on scene.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Jessica Nash, 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,
    
    
    Jessica Nash,
    Captain II
    Los Santos Police DEpartment
    
    Date: [28/APR/2023]

  
  Exhibit #3: Police Officer III J. Keys' Statement

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Incident Date: [27/APR/2023]

  Witness Information

  • Name: [John Keys]
    Date of Birth: [22/SEP/2023]
    Phone Number: [221-3082]
    Occupation: [Police Officer, LSPD]

  Witness Statement

  • [Myself was at a scene at Burger Shot. Alister Carter was at that scene, off duty. He was sitting on his dirtbike with a mask on, on the sidewalk. A man suddenly jumped up and sat on the back of his dirtbike. Carter then pulled out his then registered firearm and aimed it towards the mans head, and there was multiple PD and SD units at scene, and also other citizens. The man jumped of the bike and Carter mounted back up.
    A while after another man look inside Carters storage unit and Carter responded with yelling at him to get out followed by some punches and kicks. Both of the situations Carter used a mask hiding his face. Why not ask the deputys a few meters away for help?
    As a (then) licensed firearms owner he should have knowlage about how to handle a firearm and that under what situations he could do a citizens arrest, and brandish his firearm. Read more about citizens arrests here.
    
    I can attach the bodycam footage from both situations.
    Bodycam Carter brandishing his firearm

    https://youtu.be/ztuCyrAfzx4
    Carter punches and kicks another man

    https://youtu.be/5tApVZ1F2pw
    ((
    Bodycam RP

    
    ))
    ]

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, [John Keys], 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,
    
    [John Keys]
    [Police Officer III]
    [Los Santos Police Department]
    
    Date: [28/APR/2023]

  
  Exhibit #4: Bodycam Part 1

  **Click**
  ((

  Bodycam RP

  

  ))
  Exhibit #5: Bodycam Part 2

  **Click**
  ((

  Bodycam RP

  

  ))
  Exhibit #6: First LSSD Record of Employment

  

---

Director of Public Notary
Senior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 321-2132 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

MOTION TO AMEND

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Alester Carter
#23-CM-0074

A Motion to Amend was filed in the above case on the 4th of August, 2023.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Amend, the original charges with the underlined amended charges.

• Original Charges
  • GM02 - Battery
  • GM19 - Face Concealment (b)
  • WM01 - Unlawful Brandishing of a Firearm or Weapon
  • GM09 - Vigilantism

• Amended Charges
  • GM02 - Battery
  • GM19 - Face Concealment (b)
  • WM01 - Unlawful Brandishing of a Firearm or Weapon
  • VF04 - Felony Public Endangerment

• Detailed Explanation:
  The Prosecution has chosen to remove the charge of GM09 - Vigilantism due to the defendants employment in the LSSD at the time. The law states "A non law enforcement official attempting of fulfilling the enforcement of laws." Following the law to the letter would show, that, although we feel his actions were unlawful, we cannot qualify them as acts of Vigilantism as defined by our state.
  
  That being said, we have two separate instances of wrongdoing by the defendant mixed into one court case. We have the initial brandishing of the weapon by the defendant: taking his weapon out in a public place and pointing it at a civilian without proper reasoning. Then we have the Battery that occurred, when he chose to dismount his vehicle, which was now parked and running on a side walk with civilians surrounding it.
  
  The Prosecution is asserting the defendant did knowingly and willing put the public at major risk with his actions on the day in question. We believe this for multiple reasons:
  • He knowingly and willingly pulled his bike up onto a public sidewalk, where civilians were actively standing and a police scene was ongoing.
    • #22-CM-0050, State of San Andreas v. Harley Pavlovich - "The prosecution in this case was also pursuing 3 additional charges on the defendant, with regards to the charge of VF04 - Felony Public Endangerment, the charge description states, ""Placing the public in acute danger and or putting a major risk to public safety through unsafe operation of a motor vehicle, firearm, etc." It is the decision of the courts that due to the defendants driving where she went onto the public sidewalk, shown once again in the air units footage of the situation, the defendant did in fact posse a major risk to public safety through the unsafe operation of that motor vehicle."
  • He knowingly and willingly left his bike unlocked on a public sidewalk around civilians, and when one accidentally got onto his bike (no arrest records exist for the man from either the LSSD or LSPD) the defendant pulled out his gun and pointed it towards the civilian.
  • The bodycam footage shows no evidence of the person trying to break in or posing a threat to the life of the defendant or committing any actions that were felonious in nature and would require the brandishing of a firearm as outlined by the Firearms Licensing Division in [Information] Self-Defense & Citizens Arrests
  • The defendant has shown a clear lack of remorse for his actions on the day in question in the bodycam footage as well as after the incident.
  • The defendant clearly put the public at risk as is shown in the verbal response from multiple civilians on scene as well as in the warrant report.
  
  Under plea bargaining in our handbook it states: "Personal status should have no place in bargaining. Negotiations should always be centered on achieving justice, and therefore exclude personal accolade and status among colleagues. Plea bargains should not be crafted, offered, accepted, or declined because of its effect on an attorney's personal relationships, accomplishment, status, or ego." The Prosecution believes this should also be applied to court cases and trial verdicts. It is for the reasons above that the Prosecution is seeking a felony charge against the defendant. We await any further instruction from the Judge.

Senior Prosecuting Attorney
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 321-2132 — [email protected]

[Andy Tyrie]

- - - - -

---

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Alester Carter

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 17th of August, 2023.

• I, Andy Tyrie, A Defense Attorney with Assured Law will be representing the Defendant in the underlying case.
  
  I will be taking the responsibility of Primary Counsel. I have familiarised myself with the case and await further instruction from the Presiding Judge

---

• Sincerely,
  
  Assured Services
  Assured Law, Legal Director
  Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Ave

- - - - -

[Jacob Schmidtt]

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

Honorable Judge Winejudge,

As the defendant has changed counsel, I am recusing myself from this case and removing myself from the docket.

Respectfully,




Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 309-8976 — [email protected]

[Shaun Harper]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Update "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Honorable Judge Winejudge,
  
  As the defendant has changed counsel, I am recusing myself from this case as well.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Chief Public Defender
  Director of Training & Hiring
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

[Andy Tyrie]

- - - - -

---

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Alester Carter
#23-CM-0074

A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 17th of August, 2023.

• The Defendant, Alester Carter, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Continuance, and the reasoning for the request is as follows:
  
  • Reasoning: Change in Counsel
    • Detailed Explanation: As the above docket entries will show, there has been a change in counsel from the San Andreas Judicial Branch to Assured Law. As we are two separate entities, we will now need to start from the bottom up, and as such, we are requesting a continuance of 7 Days in order to give the client a fair trial with adequate time to prepare.

---

• Sincerely,
  
  Assured Services
  Assured Law, Legal Director
  Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Ave

- - - - -

[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. Alester Carter
#23-CM-0074

A decision was reached in the above case on the 18th day of August 2023.

The legal proceedings in the case have been affected by a change in the defendant's counsel. The Court has duly acknowledged the motion for continuance submitted by the defense and will be granting them until August 24th to conduct a thorough review of all evidence and devise a strategic plan before further proceedings are initiated.

In the interim, the Court shall assess the Prosecution's motion to amend, recognizing the need for additional time to evaluate the evidence.



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

[Hope Kant]

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

---

MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Alester Carter
#23-CM-0074

A Motion for Change of Venue was filed in the above case on the 25th of August, 2023.

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

• Requested Venue: In-Person Trial
  • Detailed Explanation: The Prosecution is requesting the trial be changed from one on the docket to one in person. We believe that this is the most front facing way for the public to be able to see the hard work the Judicial Branch puts into their trial procedures. With this case being specifically unique in nature, the Prosecution believes it necessary to have an In-Person Public Trial.

Senior Prosecuting Attorney
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 321-2132 — [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. Alester Carter
#23-CM-0074

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

The defense's Motion for Continuance has concluded, and the Prosecution's motion to amend has been approved. They will present their arguments during the trial. The defense is asked to respond to the motion for a Change of Venue by agreement or disagreement. Once this is settled, we will proceed with the trial.



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

[Andy Tyrie]

- - - - -

---

• Honourable Judge Robert Winejudge
  
  We respectfully ask that you rule against the prosecution's motion for a change of venue from a docket trial to an in-person one. Our stance is solid in the belief that the current docket format better serves the principles of fairness, accessibility, and efficiency.
  
  In the prosecution's motion, they state that an in-person motion is the most front-facing way for the public to witness the proceedings. However, we oppose and argue that a docket trial allows a far-reaching audience, irrespective of geographical barriers such as time to travel and schedules. This ensures that a greater number of individuals can follow every step of the case. The accessibility of a docket trial encourages a diverse and extensive audience to engage with the trial, promoting transparency in a way an in-person trial simply couldn't achieve.
  
  The prosecution argues that an in-person trial enables the public to witness the hard work of the judicial branch. However, a docket trial provides a much greater benefit in terms of convenience. People have commitments and obligations which may make attending an in-person trial challenging or outright impossible, whereas docket trials allow the public to view the case at their own pace, in their own time, wherever they may be. This once again caters to a far-reaching audience and a demographic of people who may not otherwise be able to attend an in-person trial.
  
  In regards to allowing the public to see the work, I believe the prosecution is fundamentally incorrect. As with the above statements, a docket trial creates greater transparency by allowing the public to observe proceedings in their entirety without the constraints of time or space, like in an in-person trial where nuances and intricacies might be missed. A docket trial preserves every detail of the trial for indefinite review. This transparency ensures that the public can gain a full understanding of the case, only adding to a fair and informed discourse.
  
  The prosecution argues that the uniqueness of the case necessitates an in-person trial. However, that perspective overlooks the potential advantages of a docket trial. The unique nature of this case could even be better highlighted through well-organized multimedia presentations, expert testimonials, and detailed visual aids, which are already integrated into the docket proceedings. These tools not only enhance the greater understanding but also allow for a more impactful presentation of what some could consider complex information.
  
  We also would like to urge the court on something it possibly may not have considered in docket trials, being that docket trials not only align with environmentally conscious practices that require physical infrastructure, transportation, and resources, contributing to carbon emissions and environmental strain. Opting for the docket format would minimize the trial's carbon footprint. In-person trials also demand significant financial resources for venue arrangements, security, transportation, and other logistical considerations. In contrast, an online trial minimizes these costs, allowing resources to be allocated more efficiently to other essential areas of the legal process, such as enhancing legal aid or improving court technology, and further unforeseen costs that the judicial branch incurs.
  
  In conclusion, we urge the court to consider the broader implications of an in-person trial versus an online trial. The online format promotes accessibility, flexibility, transparency, and the effective communication of complex information. As we navigate the evolving landscape of legal proceedings, embracing technology further can enhance the legal system's ability to deliver justice fairly and efficiently. We believe that denying the motion for a change of venue is in the best interest of upholding the principles of fairness and accessibility of all parties involved, favouring the many not the few.
  
  Thank you for your consideration

---

• Sincerely,
  
  Andy Tyrie
  Assured Services
  Assured Law, Legal Director
  Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

- - - - -

[Hope Kant]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Honorable Judge Winejudge and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution would like to note several inconsistencies in the statement made by the defense. To begin, docket trials were created by the Judicial Branch in a response to the backlog of cases: [PRESS RELEASE #19] Introduction of Docket Trials, A Change of Venue. To quote: "In order to help cut down on the excessive wait time that cases coming through the Superior Court experience, we are introducing the new procedure of docket trials as the most drastic step to reduce this backlog to date." They were not created because they are more beneficial to the public or because the Judicial Branch was making an effort to go green. They were created because scheduling conflicts continued to arise and trial proceedings seemed to drag on due to these conflicts.
  
  All of these "benefits" suggested by the Defense forget one thing: In-Person trials have been and always will be the way court proceedings are meant to happen. Barring significant scheduling problems of the defense council, there should be no other objection towards in-person trials as this is how judicial proceedings are supposed to take place. All parties are actively employed by multiple Law Enforcement and Governmental Agencies, we do not believe scheduling would be an issue.
  
  Docket trials prevent the chance for both sides to object actively instead of passively after a statement has been said. In-person trials give both sides the ability to question a witness immediately. It gives both sides the ability to make their arguments in real time with the public being able to view each of these things. If the issue is the public being able to view it at a later date, then cameras can always be arranged with the final product being posted to the Government website for all to see. Either way, the change was labeled by the Associate Justice as "drastic" because it takes the courts away from their natural habitat. Trial proceedings are not meant to be had online, but in-person. We ask that the Judge respect the history of not only our Judicial Branch, but the Justice system as a whole.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Senior Prosecuting Attorney
  Director of Public Notary
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 321-2132 — [email protected]

[Andy Tyrie]

- - - - -

---

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Alester Carter
#23-CM-0074

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 26th of August, 2023.

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

• Defence Exhibit #A | Dante Archer Witness Statement

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: [N/A]
    Incident Date: [26/APRIL/2023]

  Witness Information

  • Name: [Dante Archer]
    Date of Birth: [22/OCT/1996]
    Phone Number: [546-4932]
    Occupation: [Sheriff's Department - Investigator III]

  Witness Statement

  • On the 26th of April, we were called to assist the Police Department in a bomb/hostage situation at Burgershot. Arriving on the scene, I witnessed around 5-10 individuals being held back behind the barriers, which they insisted on "rushing in" because they believed there was no bomb involved and it was all a joke. Throughout this situation, I was mostly inside with other METRO and PD/SD units, though once we realized there was no bomb and METRO units apprehended the hostage taker, I called my units which were providing scene security outside to come inside and detain everyone in the kitchen as protocol. Assigning units to conduct the detention inside, I went outside to provide scene security due to the lack of the number of units outside.
    
    While providing scene security and keeping people behind the barriers, I noticed in the crowd that a naked individual is going through the offroad motorcycle storage which the owner was mounted and had a mask on. The driver got off his motorcycle and shoved the topless individual back twice before I utilized my less-lethal and demanded both of them to get on their knees and comply.
    
    Off-duty Deputy Cater complied and got on his knees, removed his mask, and then identified himself, however, I had to tase the shirtless individual so he would comply with us. Since Mr. Carter is an employee of the Sheriff's Department, we did not put him in handcuffs but asked him to follow us to the Burgershot parking lot where we took the naked man. I started talking the shirtless man that he can be on his way if he behaves but he started saying he was drunk and did not know what he was doing. I assigned a Deputy to check his alcohol level, and the results indicated that this individual is intoxicated and it is not safe to leave him like this on the streets.
    
    I made the decision to not press any charges on Alester Carter for pushing the man away from his motorcycle because he had to right to defend his person and his property and considering the fact that I witnessed the person who was drunk go through the motorcycle compartment, it's safe to say he invaded his personal space and property, but I knew that the drunk individual was not aware of what was doing and didn't have control of his action because he was extremely intoxicated, that is why I did not charge him with GF15.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, [Dante Archer], 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,
    
    
    [Dante Archer]
    [Investigator III]
    [Sheriff's Department]
    
    Date: [28/APRIL/2023]

  
  

• Defence Exhibit #B | Leo Barnes Witness Statement

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: #23-CM-0074
    Incident Date: The day of the bodycam

  Witness Information

  • Name: Leo Barnes
    Date of Birth: 03/AUG/2000
    Phone Number: 492-9915
    Occupation: Junior Mechanic at Bayview

  Witness Statement

  • I have had a look at the docket on this case and can confirm that it is me who got on the defendant's bike in this bodycam, and you can even hear someone shout my name. However, I would like to clear this up for the court. I made a conscious choice to get on the bike, and when I was on the bike, my plan was to search through the glovebox. If there had been something in there, I would've taken it. I am not proud of this admission and am glad I can now clear this up. I am proud to say I am beyond that life and wish only to clear this situation up for those involved.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Leo Barnes, 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,
    
    Leo Barnes  
    Leo Barnes
    
    Date: 17/AUG/2023

  
  

• Defence Exhibit #C | Carlos Vidal Arrest Report

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    
    
    Full Name: Carlos Vidal
    Telephone Number: 4325672
    Licenses Revoked: No
    Charges:
    • NM05 - Public Intoxication
    
    How did the suspect plea to the above charges?
    Suspect pleaded guilty to all charges.
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :
    N/A

  
  
  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  • Vehicle A: N/A

  
  
  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: Jamie Snow
    Badge Number: 24662
    Callsign: 11-C-11

  
  
  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2023-04-27
    Deputies Involved: Jamie Snow, Dante Archer
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • It all started with me responding to a hostage situation at burgershot, but as it was being concluded this individual was being a public neusance and appeared drunk so I was instrcuted to give him a breathalyzer test to confirm it. It came back positive and he was extremely drunk, so I booked him at Mission Row and it was a brief but interesting situation. His legal items were placed into his locker as the charge was placed and he plead guilty to it all, despite how intoxicated he was at the time.

  
  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Exhibit A: N/A

  
  
  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  
  

  ---

  

• Defence Exhibit #D | Dante Archer Expert Witness Statement

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: #23-CM-0074
    Incident Date: 27/APR/2023

  Witness Information

  • Name: Dante Archer
    Date of Birth: Redacted for security
    Phone Number: Redacted for security
    Occupation: Lieutenant, Los Santos Sheriff's Department

  Witness Statement

  • ***Attached Image with Description***

    
    This photo was extracted from the provided bodycam footage of a Police Department Officer. As you can see in the picture, Carter had a clear shot if he ever decided to shoot so this means no civilians would have been in danger of crossfire.
    
    
    
    Red: indicates who was in his line of fire
    Blue: indicates who was not in his line of fire
    

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, [Dante Archer], 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,
    
    
    [Dante Archer]
    [Lieutenant, Assistant Commanding Officer, Major Crimes Division. ]
    [Sheriff's Department]
    
    Date: [N/A]

  

• Defence Exhibit #E | Crossfire Image

  

---

Sincerely,

Andy Tyrie
Assured Services
Assured Law, Legal Director
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

- - - - -

[Andy Tyrie]

- - - - -

---

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Alester Carter
#23-CM-0074

A Motion for Summary Judgement was filed in the above case on the 27th of August, 2023.

The Defendant, Alester Carter, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Summary Judgement, and the reasoning for the request is as follows;

• We, the defense, firmly believe that we can achieve not only justice through a comprehensive presentation of the evidence and legal arguments in this case but also achieve an efficient and effective resolution for this case. Our aim is to ensure the rightful dispensation of justice with a more streamlined process. The rationale for this motion is added below, as we hold the conviction that a trial is unwarranted in this matter.
  
  GM02 - Battery:
  The defense argues that Mr. Carter's actions were not only lawful but were taken in self-defense. In this case, Mr. Carter perceived a clear threat when an intoxicated individual was rummaging through his personal property. The use of force in this instance was limited to pushing the aggressor away from his belongings, an action consistent with self-defense and not a deliberate battery. ((Script limit of "Punching" when he was RPly pushing; this has been stated from the start.))
  
  WM01 - Unlawful Brandishing of a Firearm or Weapon:
  The defense maintains that Mr. Carter had a reasonable belief that his actions were necessary to prevent potential harm. The presence of a perceived felony, as confirmed by Mr. Barnes's statement in Exhibit #B, justifies the concern Mr. Carter had for his safety. Furthermore, our Exhibit #D includes an expert opinion highlighting that Mr. Carter's firearm was drawn and used as a deterrent, consistent with responsible firearm use, rather than an aggressive act.
  
  VF04 - Felony Public Endangerment:
  Contrary to the prosecution's claims, Mr. Carter's actions did not endanger the public. Unlike the precedent case referenced by the prosecution, in which the defendant was driving recklessly, Mr. Carter was stationary on the sidewalk. Both his use of the bicycle and the firearm were handled safely, ensuring that the surrounding public remained unaffected by his actions. Our Exhibit #D provides additional support for this argument.
  
  GM19 - Face Concealment (b):
  We believe that if the other charges are dropped, this can no longer be applicable as there are no crimes to go along with it. However, we would also like to emphasize that Mr. Carter did not intend to use his mask to hide his identity; purely for protection while on his bike. After he was given instructions from Law Enforcement, he immediately removed the facial covering, identifying himself and complying with said law enforcement.
  
  One of the core issues in this case is Mr. Carter's use of force, including the drawing of his firearm in response to perceived threats. The evidence, including the arrest report of the intoxicated individual and the statement from Leo Barnes, proves that the defendant's perceived threats were indeed genuine, and as such, they demonstrate that Mr. Carter acted in self-defense. The intoxicated individual's incoherence coupled with his hands being close to the defendant's firearm and lack of response to Law Enforcement when fifty-caliber weapons were pointed at him, considering that Mr. Carter witnessed him drink alcohol, raised his perceived threat level to match that of an incoherent drunk guy at a busy scene.
  
  The prosecution introduced the charge of Felony Public Endangerment based on the assertion that Mr. Carter willingly endangered the public; however, this charge is unsubstantiated. Mr. Carter's bike was stationary throughout the situation, and he did not engage in any unsafe operation. In contrast with the provided precedent, where the defendant in that case was driving recklessly and going onto a sidewalk, which is an extremely different case from what we have here. Regarding the use of his firearm, it was not pointed at any civilian or a threat to him, and no one was within the line of fire.
  
  The defense maintains that the charge of Face Concealment B should no longer apply if the other charges are dropped. Furthermore, it is important to note that Mr. Carter did not use his mask to hide his identity; instead, he wore it as a protective measure while on his bike. Upon receiving instructions from law enforcement, he promptly removed the facial covering to comply with them, demonstrating his intent to cooperate and not obstruct justice.
  
  In conclusion, we request that you grant summary judgment in favor of Mr. Carter on all charges brought against him. In light of both the evidence brought forward and the legal arguments, the circumstances surrounding the case indicate that his actions were justifiable, reasonable, and did not pose any significant danger to the public.

---

Sincerely,

Andy Tyrie
Assured Services
Assured Law, Legal Director
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

- - - - -

[Hope Kant]

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. Alester Carter
#23-CM-0074

A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 20 of September, 2023.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Suppress, and requests to following be suppressed from evidence;

• Defence Exhibit: #B | Leo Barnes Witness Statement
  Requested Evidence to Suppress: Entire Exhibit
  • Detailed Reasoning:The Prosecution believes the witness was not informed of the consequences of his statement and therefore should not be liable for what was said nor should it be allowed on the docket.

• Defence Exhibit: #C | Carlos Vidal Arrest Report
  Requested Evidence to Suppress: Entire Exhibit
  • Detailed Reasoning: Relevance/Ethical Concerns. The individual was charged with only a misdemeanor and makes no reference the defendant or his situation. Setting the precedence where officers/deputies of the LSPD/LSSD are allowed to consult on/provide expert witness statements for the defense would be an unfortunate way to move forward with cases as well as conflicts with the BAR ethics policy. The same could be said for LSSD or LSPD providing arrest reports to defendants.

• Defence Exhibit: #D | Dante Archer Expert Witness Statement
  Requested Evidence to Suppress: Entire Exhibit
  • Detailed Reasoning: Conflict of Interest/Ethical Concerns. Setting the precedence where officers/deputies of the LSPD/LSSD are allowed to consult on/provide expert witness statements for the defense would be an unfortunate way to move forward with cases as well as conflicts with the BAR ethics policy.

• Defence Exhibit: #E | Crossfire Image
  Requested Evidence to Suppress: Entire Exhibit
  • Detailed Reasoning: Conflict of Interest/Ethical Concerns. Setting the precedence where officers/deputies of the LSPD/LSSD are allowed to consult on/provide expert witness statements for the defense would be an unfortunate way to move forward with cases as well as conflicts with our own ethical policies.

Deputy Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 321-2132 — [email protected]