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. Melody Frey et al.
A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 6th of MARCH, 2024.
I, Nick Hightown, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Melody Frey et al. in the underlying case.
I will be taking the responsibility of Co-Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.
Junior Defence Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 479-9153 — [email protected]
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. Melody Frey et al.
A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 9th of March, 2024.
I, Rowin Lawson, a Junior 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 and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.
Rowin Lawson
Junior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 304-6031 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Honorable Judge Duke-judge and pertaining parties,
The prosecution would like confirmation of the defendants that will be disputing their charges at trial. Is Mr. Rapkov's request for no contest valid? We appreciate the clarification prior to trial. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 505-9925 — [email protected]
Is this going to be over soon? This shit that we are being accused of doing happened like 9 months ago and was brought to trial 4 months after the alleged incident happened. I'm starting to get tired of this dumb shit hanging over my head.
If we can't appeal charges after a week we shouldn't be thrown an indictment for something that happened MONTHS ago that we didn't even participate in.
yeah this is a complete joke at this point, feels like a kangaroo court when during all this time i havent once been contacted by the people claiming to represent my case
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. Melody Frey et al.
A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on 30/April/2024.
I, Rowin Lawson, Junior Prosecuting Attorney of the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the State of San Andreas in the underlying case.
I will be taking Over as Primary and Attorney General Hope Kant will be moving to Co-Counsel we will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.
Rowin Lawson
Junior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 327-8882 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Superior Court of San Andreas "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Melody Frey et al.
#23-CM-0102
A Notice of Reassignment was entered in the above case on 7th of May, 2024.
The case of the State of San Andreas v. Melody Frey et al. is hereby reassigned to Superior Court Judge Antonio McFornell.
The presiding judge will familiarize himself with the case throughout the next 48 hours and will decide on any pending motions, if need be. Afterwards, the case will continue to move on swiftly should both parties (State and Defense) be ready for doing so.
Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Antonio José McFornell Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
Chairman of the Bar Ethics Review Board
Training & Hiring Staff
San Andreas Judicial Branch Superior Court of San Andreas "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
MOTION FOR DISMISSAL
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Melody Frey et al.
#23-CM-0102
A Motion for Dismissal was filed in the above case on the 8 of May, 2024.
The Defendants, Melody Frey, , Drew Ohara, Claire Allen and Klaus Derose., by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Dismissal, and the reasoning for request is as follows;
Reasoning: Breach of Sixth Amendment Rights
Detailed Explanation: The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the State of San Andreas guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial. Our clients were indicted on October 29, 2023, 191 days ago, and as of the current date, 8/May/2024, no trial has taken place. This substantial delay constitutes a violation of our client's constitutional rights.
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. Melody Frey et al.
#23-CM-0102
A decision was reached in the above case on the 8th day of May, 2023.
The Superior Court must determine whether the presumed delay in advancing with a trial in this particular case warrants dismissal for a presumed breach of the 6th Amendment right recognized in the San Andreas Constitution.
The presiding judge observes that the Supreme Court of San Andreas has not provided specific interpretations regarding the provisions within the 6th Amendment of the San Andreas Constitution. Particularly, this Court believes that we are faced with a circumstance of excessive indetermination, amounting to an issue of legal hermeneutics. Before proposing an interpretation of this constitutional article, the presiding judge believes it is necessary to clarify that there is no intention to overstep the boundaries set by the Constitution and the Supreme Court. However, the San Andreas Constitution states in Article 3 - Section 2 the following:
"The judicial power shall judge all cases in law and equity, with direct observance of the Constitution, the Laws of San Andreas and Treaties made."
Along with that, Article 3 - Section 2 states the following:
"The judicial power will decide all matters brought to the court’s attention according to the constitution, the law and the sources previously cited. The court will possess full discretion over issues of facts and law. Remedies, damages, and other compensations will be decided according to the constitution, law, and set precedent of the courts."
In this regard, it is a Constitutional mandate that the judicial power decides over ALL matters brought to its attention. In other words, the Superior Court of San Andreas can't refrain from deciding in a specific matter under the pretense that there is not enough constitutional interpretation on a particular topic. In conclusion, having made these reflections and bringing the constitutional articles forward, it is only reasonable for this Superior Court to continue with the decision-making process and carry out the necessary reflections that will justify the determinations to be rendered in this particular decision.
The Superior Court, in the preceding paragraphs, stated that we are faced with an issue of legal hermeneutics. It proposes the following question in order to decide in this case: Does the period of 191 days since the indictment of the defendants constitute a breach of the 6th Amendment rights?
The presiding judge finds that the Constitution, and in that regard, the original authors of the constitution, have not determined what constitutes a speedy trial and the rights recognized in the 6th Amendment in order for the Judicial Branch to determine whether a wait, delay, or period of time exceeds—or not—a speedy trial. With that in mind, in this particular case ab initio, it can be determined that waiting almost 200 days for a trial can constitute an unwarranted or unjustified wait. However, the truth that can be found within the docket of this case allows the presiding judge to reach numerous conclusions:
The indictment was filed on the 29th of October, 2023.
The defendants did not suffer any diminution to their rights. Particularly, all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Discovery wasn’t ordered until the 17th of November, almost a month after the indictment. This happened because the defendants had to be afforded enough time to express to the Court their pleas.
The defense presented a motion to suppress on the 20th of November, and the court reached a decision on the 5th of December.
On December 14th, another motion for discovery was presented, and the prosecution had been delayed due to an ongoing Leave of Absence. Afterwards, a decision was adopted on the 3rd of January of 2024. This led to a motion to stay pending appeal being presented, and the appeal—which falls outside of the power of the presiding judge—was resolved on the 5th of March, 2024.
During this time, the presiding Judge had to recuse themselves from the case, and another one was assigned on February 16th, 2024. It is worth noting that at this date the Appeal hadn’t been decided, and thus, the new judge could not decide in relation to the case and move forward with it.
With the above considerations in mind, the presiding judge concludes the following:
The original Discovery wasn’t presented, contradicted, and decided until the 5th of December. The presiding judge finds that there weren’t any unjustified delays throughout this time. This would mean that it has been 155 days since the original Discovery was presented and contradicted.
In regards to the second motion for Discovery, it was finally decided on the 14th of December. Due to a Leave of Absence, the appeal regarding that decision wasn’t presented until the 4th of January. The defense presented arguments on the 26th of January.
While it is not for the presiding Judge of the Superior Court to evaluate the arguments presented in the confines of the Court of Appeals, it can reasonably determine that the Court of Appeals found themselves in a tough position, given that it had to present reflections based mostly on the arguments of the appellant. The last intervention was presented on the 5th of February, and thus, the Court of Appeals took exactly one month in reaching a decision. The presiding Judge believes this is not an unreasonable delay for a decision of said nature, especially since it involved the study of previous—and dense—precedent, and the decision rendered established an important ruling in regards to Discovery in practice.
It has been a few days over two months since the day the appeal was decided. The presiding Judge believes that the delay, in principle, is unjustified and should be considered regarding deciding this motion.
The presiding Judge believes that there had not been any unreasonable delays that could affect the rights afforded in the 6th Amendment to the defendant until the beginning of the appeal procedure. It has been concluded that the time the Court of Appeals took to render a decision was reasonable. With that in mind, the proposed value of 191 days of delay, to this Court, appears to not take into account the fact that a trial of this nature can take time, especially since an Appeal was presented. In conclusion, this presiding Judge decides that the unreasonable delay amounts to approximately two months, and not over six months, as the defense might have hinted towards.
Does the period of 191 days since the indictment of the defendants constitute a breach of the 6th amendment rights? This Court believes that it does not. However, the Court believes that the constitutional rights of the defendant might be at risk due to the unjustified 60 day delay between the decision of the Appeal and the scheduling of trial (or alternatively, the determination of the trial to be held over the docket).
However, the presiding judge has to make one final consideration: It is necessary to ponder between the constitutional right of the defendant (6th amendment) and the constitutional interests that are being defended by the indictment. The Superior Court Judge finds that, unlike other criminal cases, the economic, political, employment and many other rights afforded to the defendant haven’t been affected (which does happen, in practice, in non-indictment cases). However, the State seeks to defend valid and constitutional protected interests by pursuing the commission of crime through this proceeding.
This Court has already extended itself enough, and thus, will make a swift conclusion: The 60 day delay between the Appeal being resolved and a decision being adopted constitutes a breach of the 6th amendment rights of the defendant. However, the rights and interests of citizens and the State would be affected in a much greater proportion if the motion for dismissal in this case were accepted. In other words, the judge considers that the burden to which the defendant is being subjected through this decision is justified based on the rules of pondering and reflections proposed here.
The motion for dismissal will not be accepted.
So ordered,
Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]
Antonio José McFornell Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
Chairman of the Bar Ethics Review Board
Training & Hiring Staff
San Andreas Judicial Branch Superior Court of San Andreas "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
NOTICE OF SCHEDULING
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Melody Frey et al.
#23-CM-0102
An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on 8th of May, 2023.
All parties in this case are encouraged to complete the following Scheduling Tool in an attempt to schedule a trial on the above case.
In the event all parties have overlapping availability the Presiding Judge will determine the best date and time to have a trial take place and post a Notice of Trial informing all of the upcoming proceeding.
In the event some or all parties do not have overlapping availability, the Presiding Judge will make one more attempt to schedule. Should this second attempt fail, a docket Trial will be ordered to avoid further delays.
If either party has the intentions of calling a witness to the stand during the proceeding they must inform the court by filing a Witness List at the time of filing their availability. If no Witness List is filed before the Notice of Trial is filed you will be unable to call a witness during the proceeding.
So ordered,
Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]
Antonio José McFornell Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
Chairman of the Bar Ethics Review Board
Training & Hiring Staff
