#24-CM-0004, State of San Andreas v. Martin James

[Colt Daniels]

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

---

NOTICE OF RECUSAL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Martin James
#24-CM-0004

A Notice of Recusal was entered in the above case on the 14th of February, 2024.

I, Colt Daniels, the Presiding Judge on this case, will be recusing myself from the underlying case. Within the coming days I will transfer all documentation pertaining this case to a new Judge who will be presiding from here forward.



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

[Lisa Winter]

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. Martin James

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 25th of FEB 2024

I, Lisa Winter, a Public Defender with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Martin James in the underlying case.

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

Lisa Winter
Senior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 233-5420 — [email protected]

[Lisa Winter]

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

---

• Included Parties,
  
  I will be taking over as primary counsel on this case and will await the courts decision on motions put forward by the previous counsel.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Lisa Winter
  Senior Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 233-5420 — [email protected]

[Martin James]

Your Honor,
From now on, I will be represented by the attorneys of Wood Law.

[Mary Burrows]

Notification Of Counsel
#24-CM-0004 State of San Andreas v. Martin James

To whom it may concern,

I, Mary Burrows, an Associate with Wood Law, will be representing the Defendant, Martin James in the underlying case.

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

Respectfully,

Mary Burrows
Associate
Bar Certified Attorney
☏ 339-5979

[David Vespucci]

Notification Of Counsel
State of San Andreas v. Martin James

To whom it may concern,

I, David Coast, an Associate with Wood Law, will be representing the Defendant, Martin James in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Co-Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge, when one is assigned.



David Coast
Associate
Bar Certified Attorney
☏ 593-1338

[Judith Mason]

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

---

NOTICE OF REACTIVATION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Martin James
#24-CM-0004

A Notice of Reactivation was entered in the above case on the 9th day of March, 2024.

The case of the State of San Andreas v. Martin James is hereby reactivated by this Court under #24-CM-0004.

The court recognizes the following pretrial motions which have not yet been ruled on:

1. Prosecution's 08/JAN Motion for Discovery of an Arrest Report, Witness Statement, and Body-camera Footage
2. Defense's 11/JAN Motion to Suppress a portion of Exhibit #2
3. Defense's 15/JAN Motion for Discovery of the Defendant's MDC Records
4. Defense's 15/JAN Motion for Involuntary Dismissal

At this point in time, I will be reviewing the above motions and the subsequent arguments that have been previously submitted to the docket. Once reviewed, the court will likely permit parties to provide final responses before a pretrial decision is rendered, however at this time, the court requests that parties refrain from providing additional responses until the preliminary review has been conducted.



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

[David Vespucci]

Notice of Recusal

I am recusing myself from this case due to a recent act of injustice.


David Coast
Associate
Bar Certified Attorney
☏ 593-1338
Small cases, big hearts…we fight for both.

[Judith Mason]

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. Martin James
#24-CM-0004

A decision was reached in the above case on the 6th day of April, 2024.

The court has reviewed the previously submitted arguments for and against the pending pretrial motions, and has come to a decision.

The prosecution's 08/JAN Motion for Discovery is granted.

The defense's 11/JAN Motion to Suppress a portion of Exhibit #2 is granted in part as follows:

• yet Mr. James continued to speed up to around 220 km/h

  
  Motion to Suppress is denied - based on the evidence provided in the witness statement and the body-camera footage, it appears that the technique of "pacing" was utilized to determine the approximate speed of the defendant's vehicle. The court has determined that the witness may testify as to the approximate speed of the traveling vehicles, however, whether or not the defendant had, in fact, reached the exact speed of 220km/h is unclear in both the body-camera footage and the witness statement. The court will allow this approximation and will take into consideration that this is not an assertion of fact, but rather, an approximation based on the similarly matched speeds of the defendant's vehicle and the speed of the pursuing law enforcement officer.
  
  

  Upon walking up to his vehicle, I asked for his drivers' license which he provided, when asked why he was speeding around, he replied that he had to hurry home.

  
  Motion to Suppress is denied - the statement does not appear to have been provided to prove the truth of the matter asserted (namely whether the defendant had to hurry home), but rather as a means to establish the defendant's statement of mind/intent during the encounter, presumably to prove the "intentional disregard" that the charge requires. As this considered an exception to the hearsay rule, the motion is denied.
  
  

  his excessive speed was nothing short of reckless, exceeding the allowed speed by 80+ km/h

  
  Motion to Suppress is granted - as previously mentioned, the referenced 220km/h speed is based on the pacing technique to determine the approximate speed of the vehicle rather than a factual representation of the defendant's speed. While the witness may testify as to the vehicle's apparent excess of the speed limit based on the clocked speed of 204km/h, the specific reference of "by 80+ km/h" shall be suppressed.
  
  

  I elected to charge him with only VM03 and not issue an additional citation for the speed on top of that.

  
  Motion to Suppress is denied - while the statement may be factually incorrect as shown in the provided 15/JAN Motion for Discovery of the defendant's record, it is not considered hearsay and thus will not be suppressed.

The defense's 15/JAN Motion for Discovery is granted.

The defense's 15/JAN Motion for Involuntary Dismissal is denied - neither the Lesser Included Offenses Doctrine nor Double Jeopardy come into play for this case to be dismissed. Firstly, this court does not issue decisions on citations issued to citizens of the state and thus will only be making a determination on the Reckless Operation criminal charge. Secondly, the prosecution has provided arguments that the charge of Reckless Operation is not solely based on the speed of the defendant's vehicle, but also for the alleged abrupt emergency stop in the middle of the highway. Finally, double jeopardy does not attach in the same way for citations as it does for criminal charges, as the pressing of a citation is not generally considered a prosecution as compared to the pressing of a misdemeanor or felony criminal charge.

Though the court had originally indicated that it would likely permit parties to provide additional responses before a pretrial decision was rendered, the court has determined that sufficient information has already been supplied. Should parties wish to challenge the decision made, the court will permit a period of 72 hours to provide a written response in favor of reconsideration by the court before moving forward to trial.



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

[Al Triton]

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

---

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Martin James
#24-CM-0004

A Motion for Summary Judgement was filed in the above case on the 07 of April, 2024.

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

• Reasoning: Observation of facts
  • Detailed Explanation: Based upon sufficient information being submitted by both the prosecution and defense in conjunction with the rulings made by the presiding judge, Associate Justice Judith Mason, on the 6th day of April, 2024, there are ample facts for summary judgement.

Al Triton
Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 318-8168 — [email protected]