#24-AP-0001, State of San Andreas v. Melody Frey et al.

[Hope Kant]

Appellant Name: Hope Kant
Appellant Attorney(s): Hope Kant

Trial Docket Number: #23-CM-0102
Presiding Trial Judge: Colt Daniels
Notice of Appeal Filed: viewtopic.php?p=740642#p740642

• [X] Before Verdict
  [ ] After Verdict

Reason for Notice of Appeal:

• [X] 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)

• 1. The regulations cited by the Judge have no true legal baring. Timelines are put on discovery to ensure that evidence has enough time to be reviewed prior to trial. There is no actual legal reason to deny evidence outside the discovery window unless it conflicts with the above sentence, and even then it would be grounds for an appeal on the side of the defense. I assume the regulation was put in place when there was more of a backlog and time spent waiting for evidence on cases.
  2. The regulations cited by the Judge allow for evidence to be presented after the discovery period due to exigent circumstances. I will expound on this more during the actual appeal narrative.
  3. The Prosecution, Defense and courts have given the Judges more than enough time to respond to verdicts. Waiting months at times to hear from a Judge about a motion or verdict. The Prosecution is requesting the same consideration that we've given to Judges, especially considering for a while we had less Prosecutors than Judges.

[Judith Mason]

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. Melody Frey et al.
#24-AP-0001

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above appeal on the 24th of January, 2024.

The case of the State of San Andreas v. Melody Frey et al. is hereby activated by this Court under #24-AP-0001.

The appellant is 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 received, the respondent will be given seven days to respond with any legal arguments of their own.

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 one of the parties in this appeal have failed to submit their brief within the allotted time, the court will make a decision based on the information it has available.



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

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Mason and pertaining parties,
  
  Thank you for hearing our appeal. The Prosecution has requested this appeal for multiple reasons:
  
  1. The Judge has reference regulations outside of trial precedence. While these regulations are good and allow for the trial to continue in a timely manor, there is no legal rhyme or reason as to why the Prosecution is not able to present discovery outside the 7 day timeline. I assume the initial regulations were put on Prosecution to speed up court cases and ensure that discovery was being presented within enough time for all parties to review it properly. As long as those two points are being upheld, what legal reason is there to deny the Prosecution the full presentation of their evidence? The Prosecution does not have the right as the defense does to appeal a case based off of new evidence. We have one time to present all our evidence.
  
  The 7 day timeline given to Prosecution should be used for the bulk of the Case-in-chief, but, much like the defense does with witnesses, we should always be allowed to submit evidence. The only thing that should keep Prosecution from filing evidence is if the defense does not have proper time to review it. In this case the Prosecution was presenting a singular photo. A mugshot that typically would be viewable by the public regardless. Our city does not support that infrastructure, but the point remains the same.
  
  2. The courts, Prosecution, and Defense have all made concessions for Judges time and time again when it takes months for verdicts to be reached or search warrants to be signed. Prosecution and Defense may complain, but no true punishment exists like the ones put on Prosecution or Defense.
  
  3. The regulations cited by the Judge also allow for extenuating circumstances, so let's also consider the exigent circumstances surrounding the current state of the Prosecution Division. The Prosecution was stripped down to 2 Prosecutors: the Attorney General and a Senior Prosecuting Attorney. Myself was already putting in over 30 hours almost a week, including running two separate divisions and attempting to hold others accountable outside of my own division. At what point in time are concessions to be made for the Prosecution? The average mistake made by a Prosecutor allows for them to grow and learn in their career. Missing this bit of evidence does not hope to teach any other lesson than we need more Prosecutors. For when everything falls on the shoulders of one person things can fall through the cracks, even if the person is trying their best.
  
  4. Witness Lists and Motion for Discovery are the same thing: Case Discovery. Witness questioning can require even more work than Motions for discovery, depending on the amount of exhibits. Typically the Prosecution does not put up much of a stink about defense witnesses, but in reality defense has a habit of giving Prosecution little to no time to prepare for the witness, determine if they want to depose the witness, or review prior to having the witness take stand. There have been many times the Defense has presented a witness list outside of their noted length of Discovery and it was accepted by the courts. A singular mugshot should not be any different.
  
  5. These regulations quoted by the Judge on the case are from a different time, where there was a different Prosecution. The Prosecution no longer takes months to present discovery or come up with evidence. We do not try to blindside the defense. The Prosecution did not present evidence that was lengthy, but a singular picture. The time it would take to review and prepare for a picture is much less than that required to review and prepare for a witness and witnesses are allowed in court as long as they are presented within 24-48 hours.
  
  We appreciate your time and consideration and await any notice from the defense or Judge as to how to proceed.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Attorney General
  Director of Public Notary
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 321-2132 — [email protected]

[Jay Wellberg]

Rockford Law #24-AP-0001, State of San Andreas v. Melody Frey et al.

---

Your honor we keep our argument brief. The prosecution were given plenty of time to prepare any evidence they wanted. The alleged incident happened around 7 months ago and the indictment was filed around 3 months ago. The prosecution had plenty of time to gather any and all evidence they needed for this case. Furthermore, the discovery period was already over for the prosecution and as set by the courts, they are not allowed to present evidence after that period is gone. As stated in our original objection precedence does not exist. Both parties are allowed to provide a witness list after the notice of scheduling is posted as what was done in the case #23-CM-0094, State of San Andreas v. Linden Thuynsma. This is even stated in the notice itself, "If either party has the intention 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." The circumstances of this case is completely different as the prosecution is not presenting a witness list but photo evidence.

The prosecution are also trying to say that because the AG is different that the large amount of precedence should just be ignored and they should be allowed to submit evidence whenever. This is an outrageous thought and would be detriment to the judicial system if this is allowed. Trying to push change in a middle of a case to gain an advantage is not just and is a huge middle finger to those in prior cases who stuck to the established rules.

With all of this, we kindly ask you to rule in the favor of the defense, this has already been going on for so long and it is has already been a disadvantage to my clients as some are trying to pursue legal avenues of work and this is holding them back.

---

Respectfully,

Defense Attorney | Rockford Law
(909) 2956979 — [email protected]
[/list]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Mason and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution appreciates the ability of the defense to copy and paste from LifeInvader, but we ask that the discourse used on the public docket and in court be respectful and conscious of the medium through which he is speaking.
  
  As the defense has stated "Both parties are allowed to provide a witness list after the notice of scheduling is posted as what was done in the case #23-CM-0094, State of San Andreas v. Linden Thuynsma". Meaning both parties are allowed to submit discovery after the initial discovery period, as witnesses are considered and have always been defined as discovery.
  
  Despite the length of time sited by the defense, the Prosecution has changed hands on this case at least 3 times during the investigation and each handled things differently. It is understandable that all things take time especially considering 1. the time for investigation, 2. the time for review, 3. the time for conversations between departments, 4. the amount of cases on the desk of the Prosecution, and 5. the number of prosecutors at the time.
  
  We thank you for hearing our side, and await a ruling from the Judge on this case.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Attorney General
  Director of Public Notary
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 321-2132 — [email protected]

[Judith Mason]

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. Melody Frey et al.
#24-AP-0001

A decision was reached in the above case on the 5th day of March, 2024.

The court would like to apologize for the length of time for this decision since the filing of arguments in this case and I thank those involved for their patience while I have been temporarily unavailable.

On the 4th day of January, 2024, the presiding judge in the case of #23-CM-0102, State of San Andreas v. Melody Frey et al. issued a Court Decision to deny the prosecution's December 14th Motion for Discovery, which had presented a single exhibit, being a mugshot of Claire Allen, one of the named defendants in the underlying criminal case. The basis for this denial stemmed from the length of time since the November 18th Order for Discovery, given that the motion was filed approximately 19 days after the traditional window for discovery had closed, as well as being after a Notice of Scheduling had been issued by the presiding judge.

As outlined in the prosecution's original motion and supported in statements made for this case, the appellant argues that the Motion for Discovery should have been granted given unequal established discovery procedure of allowing the filing of a Witness List after a Notice of Scheduling was issued, citing #23-CM-0094, State of San Andreas v. Linden Thuynsma. The appellant draws the comparison between the presentation of evidence through a Motion for Discovery to the presentation of a witness, whose role it is to provide evidence in the form of testimony for the court to consider, arguing that current procedure allows for witness testimony to be presented at trial even so long as the Witness List document is filed prior to a Notice of Trial being issued by the presiding judge. The appellant suggests that the disputed motion in question evokes significantly less preparation work as compared to the presentation of a witness at trial as the exhibit is merely a single photograph of a named defendant compared to the open-ended nature of witness examination at trial.

The appellant further claims that the regulations (dated 25/NOV/2022) quoted by the presiding judge in relation to the Order for Discovery do not amount to binding authority as there is no valid legal reasoning to prevent the presentation of evidence after the traditional 7 day window for discovery has elapsed, provided the disclosure is not unfairly prejudicial to the defendant. The appellant asserts that the cited regulations (which the court notes as only being available internally) were intended to provide a guideline for proper court procedure in a timely manner and to allow for all parties to properly prepare for trial with all of the evidence being available to them.

Furthermore, the appellant points out that the quoted regulations specifically allow for certain circumstances in which evidence may be admissible regardless of being filed outside the allotted 7 day timeline outlined in the Order for Discovery. To fulfill this stipulation, the appellant points to the limited capacity of the prosecution division at the time in which the disputed motion was filed in addition to the changing hands of the case, which is claimed to have occurred several times throughout the duration of pretrial. The appellant asserts that these compounding factors contributed to the delay in the presentation of the exhibit and that, as the bulk of the evidence had been provided within the timeframe outlined by the Order for Discovery, the defense would not be prejudiced due to the late inclusion of a single photograph.

Conversely, the respondent has asserted that the ruling in the trial court is reasonable given the specific timeline laid out in the Order for Discovery, especially given the length of time the prosecution has already had to prepare for the case to get to the point of trial. The respondent notes that the incident is alleged to have occurred over four months prior to the indictment of the defendants being filed in the Superior Court, with the disputed exhibit being filed almost two months later. The respondent asserts that the Order for Discovery is clear and that the prosecution should not be allowed to provide evidence after the allotted window for discovery has passed.

In addressing the appellant's comparison between the disputed exhibit and the filing of a Witness List close to the time of trial, the respondent notes that the Notice of Scheduling specifically outlines the established procedure of filing an intent to call a witness at the time of filing availability for trial, asserting that the disputed Motion for Discovery and the filing of a Witness List is done under clearly different circumstances and the inclusion of an additional piece of evidence outside the window for discovery presents an unfair disadvantage to the defendants in the case.

The court has carefully considered the arguments posed by both parties in this case and the potential implications of the following ruling and the court must weigh a variety of different aspects in order to ensure a fair trial. When it comes to the late introduction of evidence that comes beyond the specifically allotted window for discovery outlined in the Order for Discovery, the court will chiefly examine whether or not the admission of the disputed evidence presents prejudicial circumstances against the adverse party. Additionally, the court must examine the circumstances which contributed to the delay in presentation of the evidence and evaluate the reasonableness of the explanation provided, taking into account the timing of the disclosure and it's proximity to the trial date in relation to the adverse party's ability to prepare an adequate defense in light of the late disclosure. Lastly, the court will review the importance of the exhibit as it relates to the general underlying case and whether disallowing the exhibit would present unfair circumstances against the disclosing party.

The court's evaluation as to the potential prejudicial nature of the inclusion of the exhibit is rooted in the defense's ability to analyze, evaluate, and prepare a proper defense against the exhibit in question prior to trial. The defense must have the opportunity to carefully examine the exhibit and determine if trial strategy may need to be altered given the new disclosure. In this case, with the late disclosed exhibit being a single photograph, the court has determined that the inclusion of a mugshot of a named defendant does not present a prejudicial circumstance, as the inclusion of the photograph is highly unlikely to alter the trial strategy of the defense, and thus, is unlikely to prevent the defense from having ample time to examine the exhibit and prepare for it's inclusion.

The court's examination of the circumstances surrounding the late inclusion of the exhibit must assess whether or not the exhibit can or should have been presented earlier in the process and whether or not the explanation for the late disclosure is objectively reasonable. The court notes the statements made by the appellant, asserting that the prosecution division's capacity had been limited at the time of the disclosure and also notes that the late disclosure occurred approximately 9 hours following the notification of co-counsel by Prosecuting Attorney McNamara. Given these assertions, the court has found that the late disclosure had been reasonable and the mistaken omission had been rectified very shortly after additional prosecutorial resources had been allocated to the case.

The court's assessment of the exhibit as it relates to the case as a whole has found that it's importance, while albeit limited in scope, is justified given the charges being alleged and the core of the case being the disputed identities of those pictured in various photographs and videos committing the crimes alleged. For the court to disallow the presentation of the defendant's mugshot would effectively prevent the prosecution from drawing the comparison between the defendant and the evidence of the crimes. While this court will not adjudicate whether these comparisons are significant enough to result in a conviction, this court will allow the comparisons to be made in the court of original jurisdiction.

The court recognizes that the late disclosure of relevant evidence is not ideal and should not become a regular occurrence, however, the court must balance this against the ultimate goal of ensuring a fair and unbiased trial. The fact of the matter is that some situations will present unintentional delays in the disclosure of evidence and this court seeks to provide clarity for determining a just outcome.

It is with the above considerations that this court reverses the denial of the prosecution's December 14th Motion for Discovery and remands the case back to the Superior Court of San Andreas to prepare for trial.



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