San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
DEFENSE CLOSING STATEMENT
Honorable Judge Daniels and Included Parties,
As we reach the culmination of this trial, it is imperative that we revisit the evidence presented by the prosecution and reevaluate the charges against our defendant, Summer Haze.
Firstly, let's address Exhibit 1, the arrest report. It's important to note that while it mentions the vehicle, a Purple Jugular with the license plate MRSHAZE, being clocked at 176 miles per hour, this report
fails to definitively identify Summer Haze as the driver at that moment. The absence of
clear evidence linking her to the driver's seat is significant, as it raises reasonable doubt about her involvement in the reckless operation of the vehicle.
Both Exhibit 1 and 2 underscore the point that the vehicle was discovered at the Casino Apartments, and it is stated that Summer Haze was observed exiting the vehicle. However, these exhibits do not conclusively identify the vehicle in question. Only a fleeting glimpse of a vehicle is captured, and it remains unidentified.
Exhibit 2 states the paragon headed north on elgin from hawick, which doesn't seem to support an assumption of the casino apartments being the destination.
Moving on to Exhibit 3, the bodycam footage, we must highlight several key points that emerge upon closer examination. At the outset, the officers had difficulty catching up to the speeding vehicle, which casts doubt on whether the defendant was indeed the driver throughout the pursuit. Moreover, between timestamps 0:23 and 0:52, a substantial
29-second gap exists in the footage. During this period, the identity of the driver is obscured, making it impossible to definitively conclude that the defendant was behind the wheel during this entire interval.
Furthermore, the fact that the vehicle's license plate was not scanned upon entering the garage is a critical oversight. Without this crucial piece of evidence, we again cannot definitively establish that Summer Haze was the driver at any point during this incident.
Your Honor, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is our position that they have not met this burden. The evidence presented raises substantial questions about the identity of the driver and the defendant's involvement in the alleged reckless operation of the vehicle.
Some (of the many) questions which are left unanswered:
- Was the paragon found?
- Is there any proof the paragon was on casino property on the date/time in question?
- If so was it checked for signs of lockpicking or hotwiring?
- Was the area searched for any other suspects?
- Was Mrs. Haze questioned as to whether she had been driving her paragon?
These are all questions that could have and should have been answered by the evidence and their lack should provide significant doubt to Mrs. Haze's guilt.
In closing, I implore you to carefully consider these uncertainties and the absence of conclusive evidence. We believe the prosecution failed to prove Summer Haze’s guilt. The illogical trajectory of her car, not heading straight for the casino, suggests a possible stop before. As the police followed the correct and quickest route to the casino. This discrepancy deepens the doubt surrounding Mrs. Haze’s alleged involvement. In a case where doubt exists, the law dictates that you must find the defendant not guilty. We entrust in your wisdom to render a just verdict based on the facts and the law. Thank you for your attention throughout this trial.
Respectfully,
Junior Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 339-5979 —
[email protected]
