[ ] Motion to be overturned
[ ] Errors in the trials procedure
[ ] Errors in the judge's interpretation of the law
[ ] New evidence proving appellants innocence
Grounds for Appeal:(Maximum 150 words)
#22-CM-0054, State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov - Motion for Summary Judgement granted and BOTH sides allowed to give their statements. #23-CM-0050, State of San Andreas v. Jason Sligmov - Motion for Summary Judgement granted and BOTH sides allowed to give their statements.
Any cases that happened previous to these, I assume both sides were allowed to give their arguments at Motions Hearings. The prosecution is asking that not only the ruling, but the entire case be thrown out due to the mishandling of the case by the Judge on file. We do not wish for another trial, as the defendant has gone through enough. However, the courts must make a ruling on the attempt to deliver a verdict prior to the completion of both sides giving their argument, as it only works to circumvents the judicial system and disservice both the Prosecution and Defense.
San Andreas Judicial Branch San Andreas Court of Appeals "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
NOTICE OF ACTIVATION
IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS
State of San Andreas v. Moe Feed
#23-AP-0010
A Notice of Activation was entered in the above appeal on the 7th of July, 2023.
The case of State of San Andreas v. Moe Feed is hereby activated by this Court under #23-AP-0010.
Both parties in this case are now hereby ordered to submit an initial written brief within the next seven days outlining their position of this appeal and giving any legal arguments as to why the court should rule in their favor.
Once submissions have been received, the court will either issue a decision or ask that parties submit an additional response for clarification, if required. If after seven days one of the parties in this appeal have failed to submit their brief the court will make a decision based on the information it has available.
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Honorable Judge Daniels and pertaining parties,
The Judge on the original case, #23-CM-0057: State of San Andreas v. Moe Feed, chose to circumvent fairness in our Judicial Branch in favor of what he felt was fair. He made no attempt to get an argument from either side once the Motion for Summary Judgement was submitted. This assumes that neither side would've presented an argument or shown evidence in a light the Judge had not seen previously. This assumes the Judge is all-knowing and does not need to use either the Defense or the Prosecution on a case.
While Discovery and Motions are used to present the facts behind an argument, they are not the be all end all of the arguments. The space below motions for explanation are supposed to be used as the introduction to the motion, which if objected to or approved is then expanded. However, that is not the case the Defense or Prosecution experienced.
The Prosecution will start by referencing back to our May Monthly Meeting Notes sent out to the entire department.
"We discussed the timeline for cases involving a granted Motion for Summary Judgement, leading to the ultimate decision that a more specific timeline be specified: prosecution has 72 hours to present initial arguments, defense has 72 hours for initial arguments in response, prosecution has 72 hours for counter-arguments, then defense has 72 hours for counter-arguments."
The interesting thing about the meeting is that we were focused on the time given for arguments, not on whether or not they would be allowed. Insinuating all parties involved felt that both sides would ALWAYS be given the chance to present their arguments, but also establishing that both parties WOULD have time to present their arguments. To note: The verdict for Moe Feed was posted on June 5th 2023, whereas the monthly meeting notes were posted on May 5th, 2023.
Let's review the past/present cases that have gone on the docket, which have allowed the Prosecution and Defense to present their arguments.
Prior to these cases, there were motions hearings. The Prosecution finds it very hard to believe that in each Summary Judgement Motions hearing prior to the application of docket hearings, both the Defense and Prosecution were told to sit down and not say anything as the Judge had already made a decision.
All this being said, if the appeal is accepted and it is to be handled as stated by the Judge on the previous appeal made by the Prosecution, then the Prosecution will rescind their appeal and accept the outcome of the case.
Chief Justice Mason - "To be clear, there are few circumstances in which the court would grant an appeal submitted by the prosecution after a finding of a not guilty verdict. These types of situations must present a significant legal error that had a direct impact on the fairness of the case. Should such an error exist, the court may, simply put, set aside the not guilty verdict rendered in the Superior Court and order a remedy to mitigate the error, effectively causing the original case to remain open for the defendant's right to a fair trial to be observed."
We feel that "setting aside" a case after the fact when a verdict has already been reached does breach double jeopardy, as the defendant would be forced to sit through a second trial/wait longer, not because of what they did or their attorney, but because of the Judges errors. If the courts were to observe this stance, then the motion to stay pending appeal would've been filed by the Prosecution after the verdict. As no Precedence was set for the Prosecution to take those actions, re-doing a case because of Judges errors would breach double Jeopardy.
When errors have been made by the Judge or a process circumvented the courts have dealt with it honestly and accordingly. For reference, 22-CM-0044, State of San Andreas v. Bo Jet
The Prosecution requests that the courts redact the verdict (leaving the charges as is) and set official Precedence (that arguably was already set during our Staff Meeting) to state that once a Motion for Summary Judgement is presented, BOTH sides have a right to give their arguments, unless they revoke that right.
Respectfully,
Senior Prosecuting Attorney
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 321-2132 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Honorable Justice Daniels and pertaining parties,
The Prosecution has presented their case and waited a reasonable amount of time. We now await the instruction from the Associate Justice. We would like to bring this case to a close, if possible.
Respectfully,
Senior Prosecuting Attorney
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 321-2132 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Honorable Associate Justice @Colt Daniels,
The Prosecution would like to note that we have been respectful and patient for a reasonably long time with this case. The Prosecution feels we've almost reached the point of impropriety as the case has dragged on despite the lack of LOA from the presiding Judge. Is there a timeline by which we can hope to get this case resolved?
Respectfully,
Senior Prosecuting Attorney
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 321-2132 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch San Andreas Court of Appeals "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
COURT DECISION
IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS
State of San Andreas v. Moe Feed
#23-AP-0010
A decision was reached in the above case on the 12th day of September, 2023.
In the case of #23-CM-0057, State of San Andreas v. Moe Feed, the defense filed a Motion for Summary Judgement on the 5th of June, 2023 at approximately 8:18am. Less than two hours later the presiding Judge in this case granted the Motion for Summary Judgement, which asks the judge to make their ruling on the case as there are no dispute on the facts and only a decision of law needs to be decided. That is precisely what the presiding Judge did in this case, however, the court acknowledges that prior precedent has been set and our own policy which allows both the prosecution and defense forty-eight hours to file arguments on why they believe the court should rule in their favor, giving their interpretation of the law that is being ruled on in that case. The court does not wish to overturn that prior precedent or revoke the right of either side proper time to give arguments.
The court also acknowledges that a overturning the presiding Judges verdict and sending it back to the Superior Court would breach the defendants constitutional rights to double jeopardy, therefore, the court will not be doing so. Instead the court will be making ruling of precedent only on how all cases involving a Motion for Summary Judgement will be handled moving forward.
The court believes that when a Motion for Summary Judgement is filed they give a brief argument on why that case should be ruled on in this case. If the opposing council agrees that there are no dispute about the facts and only a decision of law needs to be decided then the court knows that the Motion for Summary Judgement should be granted. However at this time the court should not render a verdict. The court should allow the prosecution seventy-two hours to present their initial arguments to the court on why they should rule in their favor. The defense will then be given the same opportunity the prosecution was to give a response. At that point the prosecution will then be given another seventy-two hours for any counter-arguments to be made, once again allowing the defense the same opportunity after. Once both sides have been given their opportunity to make their stance on the case known, the judge will then render their decision and issue a verdict.
It is with the above considerations that this court overturns the decision rendered in the Superior Court granting the Motion for Summary Judgement as the prosecution was not given time to make arguments for the state. This court however will not be remanding the case back to the Superior Court as the verdict is still intact and overturning such verdict would violate the defendants constitutional right. This case is now closed.
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]
