#23-CM-0081, State of San Andreas v. Ed Timpson

[Guilherme Tavares]

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

---

PROSECUTION CASE-IN-CHIEF

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ed Timpson
#23-CM-0081

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this case-in-chief, and presents the following arguments and evidence analysis;

---

• Exhibit #1: Arrest Report Ed Timpson, Los Santos Police Department
  Spoiler

  All Information from the Discovery The arrest report of the Defendant as provided by Police Officer III Callum Macquoid of the Los Santos Police Department. Within, it is indicated that the Defendant was arrested following a pursuit of a Black V-STR in which shots were exchanged with the Police Department. It is detailed that the Defendant was involved in a Motor Vehicle Accident, after which he proceeded to surrender to the Police Officers.
  

  Ed Timpson Arrest Report - 21/MAY/2023

  

  

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

  ---

  MUGSHOT

  • SUSPECT DETAILS
    • 
      Full Name: Ed Timpson
      Phone Number: 5279966
      Licenses Suspended: Yes
      Officers Involved:
      • Police Officer III Callum Macquoid
      • Police Captain I Eleanor Quinn
      Charges:
      • VF01 - Evading an Officer
      • Accessory to WF02 - Shooting from a Vehicle (Drive-By)
    INCIDENT NARRATIVE
    • Incident Date: 21/MAY/2023
      
      Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
      • The suspect was in a vehicle which had shot at officers multiple times, the vehicle had also evaded multiple times. The suspect was arrested with no resistance and charged at the request of Captain Quinn.
    EVIDENCE DETAILS
    • Document the possessions confiscated from the arrested suspect.
      Possessions are to be documented individually, examples of documented illegal possessions are "Pistol .50" or "12 grams of Cocaine". Legal possessions that can be categorized may be grouped, eg. "Clothing" to describe all clothing items. 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 Possessions:
        
        
        Legal Possessions:
        
        
        Photograph of Possessions (MANDATORY)

  

  Exhibit #1 - The arrest report of the Defendant as provided by Police Officer III Callum Macquoid of the Los Santos Police Department. Within, it is indicated that the Defendant was arrested following a pursuit of a vehicle involved in multiple officer involved shootings (OIS). It also details that the Defendant was arrested after he surrendered with no resistance.
  

  ---

  
  Exhibit #2: Witness Statement Eleanor Quinn, Los Santos Police Department
  Police Captain Eleanor Quinn's Statement

  All Information from the Discovery The witness statement as provided by Police Captain Eleanor Quinn with the Los Santos Police Department
  

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Incident Date: 21/MAY/2023

  Witness Information

  • Name: Eleanor Quinn
    Date of Birth: Redacted
    Phone Number: Redacted
    Occupation: Police Officer

  Witness Statement

  • In the early hours of 21/MAY/2023, Chumash and Lifeinvader banks were hit by a group consisting of Underground and Lost MC affiliates. As multiple pursuits spun off from the situations, a black VST-R, occupied four times by Underground affiliates was involved in a traffic accident with myself at Tinsel Towers, fleeing from the scene and opening fire on my cruiser next to City Hall on Rockford Drive.
    
    Prior to the traffic collision, I witnessed an individual matching Ed Timpson's description to a tee entering the back of the vehicle (blue haircut, long light blue jacket, black jeans) and during the entire collision, he had ample opportunity to exit the vehicle, which he did not. After shots were fired at my unit from the vehicle, we lost it, however, the vehicle had been reported as having interfered in the pursuit prior and was picked up by the scrapyard on Davis Avenue with another shooting occuring. The specific details of this incident are unknown to me as, to my knowledge, Police Captain II Jason Steel and Police Officer III Grace Steel were engaged with the vehicle and it's occupants.
    
    As to what was communicated to me, Ed Timpson did surrender on-scene, however, he matched the description from the indivdual entering the same VST-R five minutes by Tinsel Towers and did not take any opportunities to disengage from the situation when able, thus he participated in the evasion and was further complicit in the drive-by charges.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Eleanor Quinn, 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,
    
    
    Police Captain I Eleanor Quinn
    Commanding Officer, Gang and Narcotics Division
    Los Santos Police Department
    
    Date: 23/MAY/2023

  

  Exhibit #2 - The Witness Statement by Police Captain I Eleanor Quinn outlines their first person perspective of the situation. Specifically, it provides background information of the situation as they outline that two banks, the Chumash Bank and the Lifeinvader Bank were being robbed by two known criminal organizations working together, ''Underground'' and ''Lost MC''.
  
  Captain Quinn mentions that multiple pursuits stemmed from these robberies, specifically the pursuit of a four times occupied Black VST-R which collided against the Captain's vehicle and then proceeded to open fire on Law Enforcement. Captain Quinn goes into further detail, placing an individual matching the Defendant's description ''to a tee'', specifically ''blue haircut, long light blue jacket, black jeans'' entering the same black VST-R moments before evading police, colliding with police and subsequently opening fire on Law Enforcement.
  
  Captain Quinn goes on to clarify that the individual had ample time to exit the vehicle directly following the collision with Law Enforcement but remained inside. 5 minutes later, the same individual is detained and arrested following another shooting in proximity to the scrapyard on Davis Avenue.
  

  ---

  
  Exhibit #3: Witness Statement Callum Macquoid, Los Santos Police Department
  Police Officer III C. Macquoid's Statement

  All Information from the Discovery The witness statement as provided by Police Officer III Callum Macquoid with the Los Santos Police Department.
  
  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Incident Date: 21/MAY/2023

  Witness Information

  • Name: Callum Macquoid
    Date of Birth: 16/MAR/2000
    Phone Number: 560-7208
    Occupation: Police Officer

  Witness Statement

  • The vehicle we arrested the suspect from had been seen to leave an area after shots had been fired at police, during the chase of the vehicle the occupants opened fire on officers from the vehicle. It is believed the vehicle had evaded a few times from officers during the pursuit before we were able to keep with the vehicle to properly pursue it. Upon stopping the vehicle Mr Timpson was found sitting inside the vehicle and arrested. It is believed he had been in the vehicle throughout the incident and was aware of what had taken place, having the opportunity to leave the vehicle multiple times before the vehicle was stopped by police. I asked Captain Quinn what charges she would like to be placed and did so accordingly.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Callum Macquoid, 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,
    
    
    Callum Macquoid
    Police Officer, SWAT D Platoon
    Los Santos Police Department
    
    Date: 05/JUN/2023

  
  [/quote]
  Exhibit #3 - The witness statement by Police Officer III Callum Macquoid further corroborates the events that Captain Quinn outlined in her statement in that the Defendant was found inside the same vehicle that was seen evading multiple times and actively shooting at Law Enforcement.
  

  ---

  
  Exhibit #4: Body-cam Footage, Police Captain Eleanor Quinn, Los Santos Police Department
  Police Eleanor Quinn's Body-cam Footage

  All Information from the Discovery The Body-cam Footage from Police Captain Eleanor Quinn of the Los Santos Police Department
  

  ► Show Spoiler

  
  
  

  (())
  Exhibit #4 - Body-cam footage provided by Police Captain Eleanor Quinn. This footage further confirms the statements by Captain Quinn and Officer Macquoid, showing the Defendant entering the VST-R prior to the collision. It further outlines that directly following the collision, the black VST-R was stationary as Law Enforcement waited before approaching at which point the driver of the vehicle restarts the engine and evades. It also further clarifies that after a short pursuit, Captain Quinn was shot at, causing her to crash into a tree. We can hear the call-outs on the footage as units continue pursuit with the same vehicle, eventually calling out further shots fired. The footage ends with Captain Quinn driving towards the shots fired scene where the Defendant, matching the individual earlier described, is seen in proximity to the black VST-R in handcuffs close to the rear passenger side.

  ---

  Sincerely,
  
  Prosecuting Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 328-1508 — [email protected]

  
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  5356160 — [email protected]

[Jay Garbanzo]

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

---

OBJECTION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ed Timpson
#23-CM-0081

An Objection was filed in the above case on the 17th of August, 2023.

The Defendant, Ed Timpson, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this objection, and requests the following be stricken from the record;

• Phrase being objected to:

  Captain Quinn goes into further detail, placing an individual matching the Defendant's description ''to a tee'', specifically ''blue haircut, long light blue jacket, black jeans'' entering the same black VST-R moments before evading police, colliding with police and subsequently opening fire on Law Enforcement.

  
  
  • Detailed Reasoning: Mistakes evidence. The prosecution's phrasing is unclear and misleads the court to believe the defendant entered the black VST-R, and then personally evaded police, personally collided with police, and personally shot at law enforcement.

• Phrase being objected to:

  Captain Quinn goes on to clarify that the individual had ample time to exit the vehicle directly following the collision with Law Enforcement but remained inside.

  
  
  • Detailed Reasoning: Lack of foundation. It is the opinion of Captain Quinn that the defendant had ample opportunity to exit the vehicle. There is a lack of specific details in Captain Quinn's testimony to conclusively justify what an "ample opportunity" is. Additionally, the definition of ample can vary from one person to the next.

• Phrase being objected to:

  The Defendant was found inside the same vehicle that was seen evading multiple times.

  
  
  • Detailed Reasoning: Lack of foundation. The witness, Officer Macquoid, is speculating that the vehicle was involved in "multiple" pursuits, based on hearsay from other officers.

• Phrase being objected to:

  It further outlines that directly following the collision, the black VST-R was stationary as Law Enforcement waited before approaching.

  
  
  • Detailed Reasoning: Mistakes evidence. The prosecution's phrasing is unclear and misleads the court to believe that law enforcement did approach the black VST-R after waiting. However, law enforcement never made an approach toward the black VST-R, prior to the initiation of the pursuit.

• Phrase being objected to:

  It also further clarifies that after a short pursuit, Captain Quinn was shot at, causing her to crash into a tree.

  
  
  • Detailed Reasoning: Mistakes evidence. The prosecution's phrasing is unclear and misleads the court to believe that Captain Quinn was shot at. However, in the bodycam video, it is clearly evident that Captain Quinn's police cruiser is shot at and not Captain Quinn.

• Phrase being objected to:

  The footage ends with Captain Quinn driving towards the shots fired scene where the Defendant, matching the individual earlier described, is seen in proximity to the black VST-R in handcuffs close to the rear passenger side.

  
  
  • Detailed Reasoning: Lack of foundation. In the bodycam video, Captain Quinn is seen arriving at the termination point of the pursuit, where the defendant is located in handcuffs. There is no evidence to support that the termination point of the pursuit is the same location as the shooting scene, which the prosecution's phrasing implies.

Junior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 523-3622 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch #23-CM-0081, State of San Andreas v. Ed Timpson "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Counselors
  
  Before I rule on the objections, I will allow the prosecution up to 48 hours to respond to the objections.

---

Respectfully,


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Cyrus Raven]

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

---

PROSECUTION RESPONSE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ed Timpson
#23-CM-0081

With regards to the first phrase being objected to, the prosecution wishes to clarify the phrase:

Captain Quinn goes into further detail, placing an individual matching the Defendant's description ''to a tee'', specifically ''blue haircut, long light blue jacket, black jeans'' entering the same black VST-R moments before the vehicle evaded ing police, collided ing with police and subsequently saw occupants opening fire on Law Enforcement.

With regards to the second phrase being objected to,

Captain Quinn goes on to clarify that the individual had ample time to exit the vehicle directly following the collision with Law Enforcement but remained inside.

the prosecution does not agree with the objection, and wishes to clarify that the state has made evident that this is the expert opinion of a Gang Detective Captain with over 3 years of Law Enforcement experience, that has had ample opportunity to see people fleeing and not fleeing from vehicles to be aware of what "ample time" is.
To further reinforce this, the evidence shows that the vehicle was stalled, and while stalls can take a variable period of time, it is enough to exit the vehicle safely.

With regards to the third phrase:

The Defendant was found inside the same vehicle that was seen evading multiple times.

The prosecution would like to note that if the Defense had wished for this to be stricken, the objection should have occurred after the discovery was posted. Additionally, there is no evidence to assert that the statement ''seen evading multiple times'' was said outside of the Officer's personal recollection and experience as a direct participant in the situation.

With regards to the fourth phrase:

It further outlines that directly following the collision, the black VST-R was stationary as Law Enforcement waited before approaching.

Opposing counsel is testifying when he says ''law enforcement never made an approach'', if the Defendant wanted to confirm or deny this statement, they could have provided a statement to the courts. Additionally, the body-camera footage provided in Exhibit #4 makes it clear that Law Enforcement waited before approaching the vehicle, at which point the vehicle restarted it's engine.

With regards to the fifth phrase:

It also further clarifies that after a short pursuit, Captain Quinn was shot at, causing her to crash into a tree.

We would like to note that the terminology is correct, and the misunderstanding is happening on the side of the Defense. The Prosecution never states the Captain was shot, but shot at, indicating that shots were fired in her direction. An example would be if someone is standing behind a barrel, and that barrel is shot, then the person behind it is being shot at.

With regards to the final phrase:

The footage ends with Captain Quinn driving towards the shots fired scene where the Defendant, matching the individual earlier described, is seen in proximity to the black VST-R in handcuffs close to the rear passenger side.

according to the provided discovery, there were two shootings, the initial shooting as witnessed by Captain Quinn and verified by the provided body-cam footage, then there was the second shooting, which according to provided discovery happened around Davis Avenue close to the scrapyard, this is the scene Captain Quinn drove towards after having been shot at, this is further corroborated by Office Macquoid's statement ''The vehicle we arrested the suspect from had been seen to leave an area after shots had been fired at police,, during the chase of the vehicle the occupants opened fire on officers from the vehicle.'' and the body-cam footage provided as the call outs for this situation can be heard mentioning additional shots being fired following the initial shooting involving Captain Quinn.


Sincerely,

Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 328-1508 — [email protected]

Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
5356160 — [email protected]

[Jay Garbanzo]

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

---

DEFENSE RESPONSE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ed Timpson
#23-CM-0081

In response to the prosecution:

the prosecution does not agree with the objection, and wishes to clarify that the state has made evident that this is the expert opinion of a Gang Detective Captain with over 3 years of Law Enforcement experience, that has had ample opportunity to see people fleeing and not fleeing from vehicles to be aware of what "ample time" is.
To further reinforce this, the evidence shows that the vehicle was stalled, and while stalls can take a variable period of time, it is enough to exit the vehicle safely.

The prosecution is claiming Captain Quinn to have an "expert opinion". The court has never once recognized an expert witness for this trial. Hence, Captain Quinn's opinion is just an opinion, nothing more. The defense would be more impressed by the opinion of a traffic collision expert, who would have more understanding of the commonality for those involved in pursuits to be disoriented following collisions. A traffic collision expert would have more knowledge of what "ample" time is following a collision and a Gang Detective likely would not.

Furthermore, the prosecution is pulling from Captain Quinn's training and experience. This is beyond the scope of discovery. The prosecutor is claiming that Captain Quinn has, "Over 3 years of Law Enforcement experience." If this is a fact to be accepted by the court, then the court and the defense should be provided Captain Quinn's personnel file. Since, never in discovery or Captain Quinn's testimony are his years of experience provided as de facto evidence. The prosecution is simply making this claim with no corroboration now in trial.

In response to the prosecution:

The prosecution would like to note that if the Defense had wished for this to be stricken, the objection should have occurred after the discovery was posted. Additionally, there is no evidence to assert that the statement ''seen evading multiple times'' was said outside of the Officer's personal recollection and experience as a direct participant in the situation.

The prosecution refuses to accept the testimony of their own witness. Officer Macquoid himself stated:

It is believed the vehicle had evaded a few times from officers during the pursuit

Even, Officer Macquoid recognizes his own speculation with the use of the word, "Believed." The witness is clearly speculating beyond his own personal experience of events.

In response to the prosecution:

Opposing counsel is testifying when he says ''law enforcement never made an approach'', if the Defendant wanted to confirm or deny this statement, they could have provided a statement to the courts. Additionally, the body-camera footage provided in Exhibit #4 makes it clear that Law Enforcement waited before approaching the vehicle, at which point the vehicle restarted it's engine.

The defense will reiterate that the prosecution has the burden of proof and not the defense. The defendant is not expected to provide prosecution any statement, as protected by the 5th Amendment of the Constitution.

The prosecution is correct that the bodycam footage in Exhibit #4 does make it clear that officers waited before approaching the black VST-R, NOT that they did approach the black VST-R.

In response to the prosecution:

We would like to note that the terminology is correct, and the misunderstanding is happening on the side of the Defense. The Prosecution never states the Captain was shot, but shot at, indicating that shots were fired in her direction. An example would be if someone is standing behind a barrel, and that barrel is shot, then the person behind it is being shot at.

The defense is not misunderstanding anything, but it is clear the prosecutor is. We, the defense, in our original objection to this Exhibit did state that, "The prosecution's phrasing is unclear and misleads the court to believe that Captain Quinn was shot at." The prosecution in response to this objection is now affirming that they are claiming Captain Quinn was "shot at".

The defense would like to note that there is a clear difference between being "shot at" and having shots fired in your general direction. The prosecution once more refuses to accept the testimony of their own witness. Even Captain Quinn does not claim to be shot at. When testifying Captain Quinn stated:

[Someone from the black VST-R was] opening fire on my cruiser next to City Hall on Rockford Drive.

Captain Quinn later furthered,

After shots were fired at my unit (common Law Enforcement terminology for vehicle) from the [black VST-R]

In reply to the prosecution:

according to the provided discovery, there were two shootings, the initial shooting as witnessed by Captain Quinn and verified by the provided body-cam footage, then there was the second shooting, which according to provided discovery happened around Davis Avenue close to the scrapyard, this is the scene Captain Quinn drove towards after having been shot at, this is further corroborated by Office Macquoid's statement ''The vehicle we arrested the suspect from had been seen to leave an area after shots had been fired at police,, during the chase of the vehicle the occupants opened fire on officers from the vehicle.'' and the body-cam footage provided as the call outs for this situation can be heard mentioning additional shots being fired following the initial shooting involving Captain Quinn.

The defense is not disputing the existence of two shootings, certainly, there is enough evidence to corroborate that existence. The defense is disputing that the scene Captain Quinn arrived at is one of those two shooting scenes and not merely the termination point of the pursuit. In the bodycam footage "shots fired" is heard audibly, notably on 07/20/23 at 12:08:20 pm. Later, Captain Quinn arrives at Davis Avenue, notably on 07/20/23 at 12:09:00 pm. It is reasonable to believe that a vehicle can travel a significant distance in a period of 40 seconds.

Furthermore, if this were a shooting scene, officers would notably begin the investigative steps to a shooting (ie. collecting shell casings, taking photographs, etc.). None of that is shown to have occurred. Hence, the evidence only supports that Davis Avenue, where Captain Quinn arrived to meet the defendant, was likely just the termination point of the pursuit, and not additionally a shooting scene.


Junior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 523-3622 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch 23-CM-0081 "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Counselors
  
  The Court notes the prosecution has made their case-in-chief, defense has crossed it, prosecution has rebutted the defense cross, and the defense re-crossed it. The prosecution may, if they wish, offer a final rebuttal. This will be due by 22/AUG/2023 at 10:05PM (48 hours after the defense re-cross). The court will rule on the objection at that time. After the court's ruling, the defense will be free to present their case-in-chief, which will be due 48 hours after the Court's ruling.

---

Respectfully,


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Guilherme Tavares]

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. Ed Timpson
#23-CM-0081

A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 21st (Twenty-First) of August, 2023 (Two Thousand and Twenty Three).

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: Current state of the prosecution
  • Detailed Explanation: With the Attorney General, which was one out of two counsels in this case, having been placed on administrative leave, the prosecution needs some time to reconsider the next steps for this case.

Sincerely,

Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 328-1508 — [email protected]

[Jay Garbanzo]

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

---

OBJECTION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ed Timpson
#23-CM-0081

An Objection was filed in the above case on the 21st of August, 2023.

The Defendant, Ed Timpson, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this objection, and requests the trial continue as scheduled or this case dismissed;

• Motion being objected to:

  MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

  
  
  • Detailed Reasoning: In response to the State’s request for a Motion of Continuance, the defense raises an objection and moves to have this court trial either continued as scheduled or be dismissed. The Honorable Judge Hugh Allgood has already announced the commencement of this trial. By doing so, this court case has already begun to minimally include opening arguments and the prosecution's case-in-chief. Under normal trial circumstances (ie. in-person trial), if the State were to request more time in front of the court during trial, it would be implausible and not allowed. This case was originally disputed and filed on May 21, 2023. The defendant has been patiently awaiting a resolution to this court matter since that date. The State now moves to delay this hearing even longer due to issues arising on their end, which is completely unfair to the defendant.
    
    The prosecution's main reason for requesting a continuance in this matter is that one of their two counselors is currently unavailable. However, the State is still being represented by Prosecuting Attorney Tavares. The State of San Andreas only requires that representation be afforded to each side of a court matter. The State of San Andreas does not require two counselors to represent each side in a court matter. Having a Primary Counsel and Co-Counsel for each court matter is a luxury and not a requirement. Seeing that Prosecuting Attorney Tavares is still available to represent the State of San Andreas, there should be no legal or logical reason for the continuance of this court matter.
    
    I hope the court confers and I request this trial be continued as scheduled or be dismissed, to prevent any further hardship from delays on the defendant. Thus, the defendant’s 6th Amendment right to, "Enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial," is protected.

Junior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 523-3622 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Re: #23-CM-0081, State of San Andreas v. Ed Timpson "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Counselors
  
  Thank you everyone for your patience. Attorney General Raven has returned to duty, and therefore, I will ask that the prosecution respond within 48 hours with any rebuttal before the defense gets an opportunity to present their case.

---

Respectfully,


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Guilherme Tavares]

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. Ed Timpson
#23-CM-0081

A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 27th (Twenty-Seventh) of August, 2023 (Two Thousand and Twenty Three).

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: Current state of the Branch
  • Detailed Explanation: With the Attorney General, which was one out of two counsels in this case, having been terminated on the same day of his re-appointment, the prosecution needs some time to reconsider the next steps for this case. Furthermore, we understand that the Co-Counsel for Defense has also resigned from the San Andreas Judicial Branch, leaving just the Primary Counsel to handle the state.

Sincerely,

Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 328-1508 — [email protected]

[Shaun Harper]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Hugh Allgood,
  
  We the Defense do not object to this motion for continuance.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Chief Public Defender
  Director of Training & Hiring
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch #23-CM-0081, State of San Andreas v. Ed Timpson "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Counselors,
  
  How much time does counsel think is necessary to be able to proceed with this matter?
  
  It should be noted I will be going on vacation this weekend, and will be gone for a week. If at all possible, I would love to get this case resolved before then. But, if it's not possible, please understand that a delay beyond the end of this week (1st of September) will delay this case for another week, as I will be out of the office until the 11th of September.
  
  I'll leave it to both sides to deliberate on the timeline. As it stands, the Court is awaiting any rebuttal from the prosecution. If no rebuttal is desired, the Court simply needs the prosecution to announce as much, and then it will be time for the defense to present their case.

---

Respectfully,


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Allgood and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution is posting this notice to let all peoples involved be made aware of the LOA of the current Primary Attorney on the case. We ask that everyone exercise patience with the current times we are in as the Prosecution department settles into new leadership. The LOA of Attorney Tavares ends on the 14th of September. We apologize for any delay in proceedings.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Deputy Attorney General
  Director of Public Notary
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 321-2132 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch #23-CM-0081, State of San Andreas v. Ed Timpson "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Counselors
  
  I would ask that someone from the State respond ASAP. This matter of awaiting the prosecution has drug on long enough. If nothing is heard from the State by the end of the day on 15/SEP/2023, I will consider the prosecution to be waiving their last rebuttal, and turn this matter over to the defense for their case-in-chief.

---

Respectfully,


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Shaun Harper]

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

---

DEFENSE CASE-IN-CHIEF

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ed Timpson
#23-CM-0081

As the defense, we'd like to present our case in chief, focusing on our assessment of the prosecution's exhibits:

Exhibit #1: We won't be conducting any cross-examination on this exhibit.

Exhibit #2: We wish to draw attention to a few key points:

The exhibit does not specify a particular individual responsible for the shooting. We anticipate that the prosecution may refer to the officer's statement, "During the entire collision, he had ample opportunity to exit the vehicle, which he did not." It's worth noting that there is no specific time frame or detailed information regarding this "ample opportunity." Furthermore, the officer in question was not present during the pursuit and did not provide a first-hand account of the events. We also highlight that officers Jason and Grace Steel, who did have first-hand experience, were not called upon for testimony by the prosecution.

The exhibit also mentions, Ed Timpson ''did not take any opportunities to disengage from the situation when able, thus he participated in the evasion and was further complicit in the drive-by charges." We will emphasize that there is no specific time or example provided to demonstrate how the defendant could have disengaged from the situation. We assert that it's a slippery slope to suggest that the defendant was participating or complicit in these charges simply for not exiting a vehicle in a situation where others were engaged in shooting, potentially placing him at risk.

Exhibit #3: We'd like to emphasize the following:

Much of the statement in this exhibit is a summary, and the officer was not personally present to witness most of the pursuit and none of the shooting. We will be vigilant regarding any attempts by the prosecution to introduce opinion testimony based on the officer's belief of events during the trial. The exhibit states, "It is believed he had been in the vehicle throughout the incident and was aware of what had taken place, having the opportunity to leave the vehicle multiple times before the vehicle was stopped by police." We have several objections here:

• This statement is opinion-based.
• It lacks specific times or examples of opportunities to leave the vehicle.
• It employs a slippery slope way of thinking.

Exhibit #4: We want to bring the following to your attention:

The body camera footage provided does not capture the person shooting at the cruiser. It's important to note this limitation. During Captain Quinn's involvement in the pursuit, the footage does not show the vehicle pulling over or stopping to allow the defendant an opportunity to exit. It's crucial to understand that Captain Quinn had no first-hand account of events from the time he hit a tree until he arrived at the pursuit's termination point.

We believe these points raise important questions about the strength of the prosecution's case.

Respectfully,


Chief Public Defender
Director of Training & Hiring
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

[Guilherme Tavares]

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

---

OBJECTION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ed Timpson
#23-CM-0081

An Objection was filed in the above case on the 18th of September, 2023.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this objection, and requests the following be stricken from the record;

The Defense Case-in-Chief has been submitted as an analysis of the Prosecution Case-in-Chief. This has already been done in the Objection to the Prosecution Case-in-Chief and the Defense Response to the Prosecution Response to the Objection to the Prosecution Case-in-Chief. The Defense Case-in-Chief should be an analysis of evidence submitted by the Defense and not by the Prosecution.

---

Respectfully,


Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 328-1508 — [email protected]

[Shaun Harper]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Hugh Allgood,
  
  To clarify the case-in-chief matter. We originally filed an objection for the statements used in the prosecutions case in chief, as you would during a trial object to a statement from the opposing party. We had not cross-examined the evidence yet. This I believe coule be described as teething troubles considering docket trials are a very new thing to the judicial branch.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Chief Public Defender
  Director of Training & Hiring
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch 23-CM-0081 "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Counselors
  
  I will grant the prosecution's objection on the defense case-in-chief. This decision is in line with handbook section 3.2.7. The defense case-in-chief is the chance for the defense to present any further evidence or witnesses they wish, and the process repeats like it did with the prosecution's case-in-chief, with allowances for the prosecution to cross-examine defense evidence, and round(s) of rebuttal.
  
  The defense analysis of the prosecution's case as filed is better reserved for closing arguments after the Court has received all of the evidence, and the parties are simply trying to explain their position as to why the Court should rule one way or the other.
  
  Despite the defense response, the Court takes notice that the defense did in-fact cross-examine the prosecution's case in-chief, and both sides were given an opportunity to respond to the objection before the court ruled on the objection. However, the Court now realizes the objection was never ruled on as the case was continued, and things got lost in the fray.
  
  To not delay this case any further, the Court will not make any formal ruling on the objection, but will rather take both arguments into consideration when it's time to impose a verdict. The Court will almost certainly mention the reasons for the verdict ultimately given with specific references to the evidence used -- therefore, a 'ruling' of sorts on any objections will be clear at that point in time.
  
  The defense will be given until the end of the day today (11:59PM), 18/SEP/2023, to file any further case-in-chief. If no case-in-chief is filed, the court will invites both parties to begin preparing closing arguments, which both sides will be given 48 hours to prepare and publish. Each side will also be given 48 hours to publish any rebuttal to the other side's arguments. This will be the time to object or argue against the evidence admitted.
  
  To not delay this case any further, there will be no further continuances granted in this matter (baring any extreme circumstance), as it has been continued and delayed long enough.

---

Respectfully,


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Shaun Harper]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Hugh Allgood,
  
  We have nothing further to file and are ready to proceed to closing statements.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Chief Public Defender
  Director of Training & Hiring
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch 23-CM-0081 "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Counselors
  
  Very well -- the Court invites the prosecution to present their closing argument. The lack of a response within 48 hours will be construed as a waiver. The defense may respond as soon as the prosecution responds, or after 48 hours, whichever occurs first.

---

Respectfully,


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Shaun Harper]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Hugh Allgood,
  

  ---

  DEFENSE CLOSING STATEMENT

  ---

  Your Honor, it has been a long and arduous journey through this trial. I want to remind you of the fundamental principles of justice that guide our legal system: the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
  
  The prosecution's case hinges on two charges: Evading an Officer and Accessory to Shooting from a Vehicle. To find the defendant guilty of Evading an Officer, the prosecution must prove that he willfully participated in the act. Yet, throughout this trial, they have failed to present a single piece of evidence that suggests Ed Timpson willingly took part in this alleged crime. The burden of proof lies squarely with the prosecution, and they have not met that burden.
  
  Likewise, the charge of Accessory to Shooting from a Vehicle requires the prosecution to demonstrate that Ed Timpson was complicit in the act of ''Discharging any type of firearm or weapon from a motorized or nonmotorized vehicle or aircraft.''. Once again, they have fallen short, failing to provide any concrete evidence that our defendant had any involvement in the shooting.
  
  Now, let us turn our attention to the so-called opportunities the prosecution claims the defendant had to exit the vehicle. They talk about "ample opportunities," but they fail to specify when or how these opportunities arose. They have painted a vague picture, suggesting that Ed Timpson could have simply stepped out of the moving vehicle, with the threat of violence looming all around him. This is not the standard by which we should judge someone's actions, especially when their life may be at risk.
  
  The prosecution also emphasizes that Captain Eleanor Quinn and Officer Macquoid did not identify the specific person responsible for the shooting. They were not present during the critical moments of the pursuit, and their testimony is based on beliefs and opinions, not concrete facts. This lack of clarity and firsthand knowledge raises significant doubts about the credibility of their claims.
  
  Furthermore, when we examine the case law and previous set precedence, we find a consistent pattern of defendants charged with Evading an Officer as passengers being found not guilty. Such as:
  
  In docket #23-CM-0064, State of San Andreas v. Truls Svartlamon, the court found the defendant not guilty. The court struggled with finding willingness of the defendant’s participation and noted:
  

  The court has found that despite the defendant's involvement as the driver at the original incident involving the alleged vandalism and the affiliation with Ms. Sojka, even with the apparent permission for her to drive the vehicle following the original incident, the court has not found a specific willingness of the defendant to participate in the evasion. For a guilty verdict to be rendered, the court must have found that the defendant's actions have violated their legal obligations. In this case, the driver (and by extension, passengers) of the Komacho were required to pull over for law enforcement officers when the traffic stop was initiated, which they did initially comply with, however, it was the actions of Ms. Sojka that began the pursuit of the vehicle.
  
  The court has found that it is from the point that the traffic stop was initiated that the defendant was considered detained and, while the actions prior to the traffic stop would help to establish an affiliation with Ms. Sojka and to establish a possible complicity in the alleged vandalism, it does not establish enough of a willingness to partake in an evasion of law enforcement to find the defendant guilty, especially considering that the court has found there to be insufficient opportunity for the defendant to safely exit the vehicle after the pursuit had been initiated, despite the assertions made by the arresting officers.

  In docket #23-CM-0063, State of San Andreas v. Jake Weed, the court found the defendant not guilty. The Prosecutor Hope Kant filed a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal due to the defendant having a lack of safe exit from the fleeing vehicle. The court accepted this dismissal. The following is noted from Prosecutor Kant’s request for dismissal:
  

  Detailed Explanation: Previous precedence as well as the witness statements and arrest reports of the officers that day paint the picture of a passenger, who got on the back of the bike possibly not knowing what was going to occur that day. That being said, the Prosecution feels, that with the lack of safe exit from a moving vehicle and compliance upon arrest the passenger in this case, the defendant should not be held accountable for the actions of the driver. It is clear in the arrest report of the driver, that the defendant was picked up after the initial pursuit. Thus, leaving the possibility for them to be an unwilling participant in the act. As the Prosecution does not want to waste the courts time with unnecessary charges, we move to have the charges removed from the record of the defendant and the amount in recompense paid.

  In docket, #23-CM-0001, State of San Andreas v. Lennox Jet, the defendant was found not guilty. The court struggled with establishing the amount of time allotted for a safe exit from the vehicle and willful participation from the defendant. The court noted the following:
  

  Throughout the trial and presentation of this evidence the prosecution made mention that multiple times it states that the pursuit stopped at multiple points which allowed the defendant to exit the vehicle. As well as stating that the defendant only got out and was arrested after the vehicle ran out of fuel.
  
  However, the prosecution was unable to provide the amount of time the vehicle was stopped during the pursuit. They also failed to provide evidence that the defendant ever did anything to prove a willingness to partake in the pursuit.

  In docket, #22-CM-0013, State of San Andreas v. Summer Valentine, the court found the defendant not guilty. The court struggled with establishing the amount of time allotted for a safe exit from the vehicle. The court noted the following:
  

  After returning to the pier, Ms. Valentine was recruited by Mr. Mcarthur to give him a ride to another location, at which point Ms. Valentine agreed under the terms that Mr. Mcarthur drive the vehicle, as she did not apparently know what their intended destination was.
  
  A traffic stop was initiated on the vehicle Mr. Mcarthur was driving, and moments later, Mr. Mcarthur took off, beginning a pursuit of the vehicle. The prosecution asserts that Ms. Valentine had ample opportunity to exit the vehicle during the subsequent pursuit, however only one specific "prolonged" instance of the vehicle stopping for approximately 3 seconds has been provided to this court.

  The common thread in these cited cases is the inability to establish the defendant's willingness to participate in the evasion. This is another (crucial) point to consider when evaluating Ed Timpson's case.
  
  In closing, I want to reiterate the importance of the principle that guides our justice system: the presumption of innocence. The burden of proof rests squarely on the prosecution's shoulders, and they have not provided sufficient evidence to meet that burden. Ed Timpson is not guilty of the charges alleged against him. I implore you to carefully weigh the evidence, or lack thereof, and find the defendant not guilty. Thank you, Your Honor.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Chief Public Defender
  Director of Training & Hiring
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch 23-CM-0081 "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Counselors
  
  Thank you for all parties for their participation in this vitally important process. I will now begin deliberations and will strive to issue a verdict soon.

---

Respectfully,


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

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

---

ISSUANCE OF VERDICT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ed Timpson
#23-CM-0081

A decision was reached in the above case on the 28th day of September, 2023.

The Court wishes to thank the parties for their patience as this case has worked its way through the process via a docket trial, which at the time of this case being initiated was a novel procedure within the State of San Andreas. As with any new procedure, there have certainly been some growing pains that come with the implementation of something new -- this case certainly provided no exception. In addition to the pains that came with the new implementation, the conclusion of this case was also complicated by multiple changes in counsel for both the prosecution and defense, which brought about its own corresponding delays.

Before this Court begins to lay out its analysis of the evidence in this case, it is important to address a previously unruled upon objection, and describe how the Court weighed the evidence in light of the objection.

The first objection was due to the defense claim of the evidence misleading the Court. The Court understood the role of the defendant as a passenger of the vehicle, and therefore the rationale for the objection did not fall on deaf ears -- and the Court also notes and appreciates the prosecution correcting the presentation of evidence in response to the defense.

The second objection was due to the defense claim of a lack of foundation on what an "ample opportunity" was in reference to the defendant's ability to exit the vehicle. The prosecution pointed to the 3 years of experience possessed by Captain Quinn, which the defense rebutted as Captain Quinn was not recognized by this Court as an expert witness. While the Court agrees with the latter, the Court disagrees that Captain Quinn need to be recognized as an expert witness to possess an opinion on whether an individual has an ample amount of time to carry out the action of exiting a vehicle. Furthermore, this is an opinion that can be held by Captain Quinn, but does not require or force the court to adopt the opinion on face value or agree with the opinion of the witness.

For the third objection, the defense raised a hearsay objection, which the Court reviewed and agrees that Officer Macquoid cannot personally testify about the vehicle being the same vehicle observed evading multiple times, as Officer Macquoid was only personally involved in the arrest of the defendant after the pursuit termination -- therefore, Officer Macquoid can only testify to the fact of the defendant being in a vehicle, and not necessarily to the vehicle being the same vehicle involved in the rest of the incident.

For the fourth objection, the defense contends the prosecution misrepresented evidence of the black VST-R being stationary as law enforcement waited prior to approaching. The prosecution pointed directly to the body camera footage itself, which shows law enforcement in-fact waiting prior to approaching the vehicle. The court agreed with the prosecution, and does not believe the evidence was misrepresented.

For the fifth objection, the defense claims misrepresentation regarding Captain Quinn being shot at, because the Captain was not shot at but their vehicle was. The Court disagrees with the defense, and ultimately determined this characterization to be irrelevant in the present matter. Firstly, shooting at someone's vehicle is in-fact the act of shooting at them -- even if the point of aim is the vehicle they are operating, the shots are being fired at the person (in this case, it just so happened that none of the shots fired towards Captain Quinn struck their vehicle and not their person). Secondly, the defendant was not charged with any alleged penal code violations where the semantics of shooting at or towards someone was important in the 'big picture'.

Lastly, the final objection was regarding the prosecution characterization that the defendant was positively identified as the same person witnessed getting into the VST-R. The Court disagreed with the defense. Captain Quinn stated the defendant was seen entering the VST-R in the moments immediately preceding the collision with their vehicle and Captain Quinn confirmed the defendant (after the end of the pursuit) to be the same person. There was no claim by the prosecution that the shooting scenes where these two observations took place to be the same.

---

Now moving on to the analysis of this case.

The defendant was charged with VF01 - Evading an Officer and WF02- accessory to shooting from a vehicle. First, it's important to define the elements of the penal code there pertaining. VF01 - Evading an Officer is defined as,

Any person who, while operating a standard road vehicle, off-road vehicle, or bicycle, willfully flees or otherwise attempts to elude a pursuing law enforcement officer, is guilty of Evading an Officer.

All occupants of a vehicle are liable to be charged with VF01 if they willfully partake in the act.

WF02 - accessory to shooting from a vehicle is defined as,

Discharging any type of firearm or weapon from a motorized or nonmotorized vehicle or aircraft.

Furthermore, specific to the WF02 charge, the defendant was specifically charged with accessory to this act. Accessory is defined as,

Any person assisting with the completion of a crime may be charged with 'Accessory to' the crime.

Therefore to find the defendant guilty of both these acts, the Court must determine that it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was a willful participant in the act of evasion, as the defendant was a passenger in the vehicle, and the Court must determine that it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant assisted another with discharging any type of firearm from a motorized vehicle.

With regard to the defendant's role in the evasion and the willingness of their participation in the act of evading law enforcement, this case hinges strongly on the opportunity for the defendant to exit the vehicle during the pursuit. In following precedence, the Court points to 23-CM-0064, State of San Andreas v. Truls Svartlamon, it is the "point that the traffic stop was initiated that the defendant was considered detained". As the evidence in this case demonstrates, the opportunity for the defendant to exit the vehicle came after the vehicle was disabled after colliding with Captain Quinn's vehicle and this is the only opportunity law enforcement and the prosecution provided for this to happen.

The defense suggests the prosecution has not provided enough information about how much time actually elapsed and therefore posits the Court is unable to determine whether the defendant had a sufficient amount of time to detach themselves from the vehicle and the subsequent acts. The court does agree the timeline to be important and notes the prosecution neither provided an exact or estimated time frame wherein the defendant had an opportunity to exit the vehicle.However, the Court also notes it was after this collision that the documented pursuit initiated. Using the analogy of a stop watch, the Court notes the initiation of the pursuit begins the proverbial clock on when the defendant's actions become important as it pertains to the defendant's willingness to evade law enforcement . By all accounts, the Court notes the evidence suggests the pursuit begin after this time period, and therefore it is from this point forward that the defendant's actions and accompanying intent become relevant. The prosecution did not provide any evidence to detail the defendant having a further opportunities to disengage from the pursuit, and by all accounts, the defendant did surrender at the conclusion of the pursuit. The Court doesn’t believe the time to exit the vehicle after the collision would have been appropriate, as the defendant was detained at that point in time and the pursuit had not begun.

With regard to the defendant's alleged assistance provided to another in the discharge of a firearm from a motorized vehicle, the Court does not believe any evidence was provided showing any assistance the defendant provided in this act. As the evidence suggests, the defendant was merely a passenger in a vehicle wherein shots were fired. There has been no evidence presented that the defendant shot at law enforcement, nor was any evidence presented that the defendant did anything to assist in this act.

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

• On the count of VF01 – Evading an Officer, I find the defendant, Ed Timpson, not guilty.
• On the count of WF02 – Accessory to Shooting from a Vehicle, I find the defendant, Ed Timpson, not guilty.

As detailed in Superior Court procedures, the defendant is entitled to reimbursement of $3,600 for fines paid for these charges and $16,000 as compensation for time spent incarcerated, for a total of $19,600. The defendant may contact any on-duty judge to receive this compensation.



Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]