Page 1 of 1
#25-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Winston Yin (Sandwill)
Posted: 10 Jun 2024, 21:41
by Winston Yin
Defendant Name: Winston Sandwill
Defendant Phone: ###-####
Defendant Address: n/a
(( Defendant Discord: ghostmg711 ))
Requested Attorney: N/A
Charging Department: Los Santos Police Department
Date & Time of Incident(s): 06/10/2024 15:00
Charge(s):
- VF01 - Evading an Officer
- Face Concealment
Narrative:
I have been wrongfully accused and wish to dispute these charges.
I,
Winston Sandwill, hereby affirm that all information provided above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and understand that knowingly providing false information could result in additional charges and/or fines.
(( I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means.
))
Re: State of San Andreas v. Winston Sandwill
Posted: 12 Jun 2024, 02:18
by Antonio McFornell
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
NOTICE OF RECEIPT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Winston Sandwill
The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 11th of June, 2024.
The Superior Court of San Andreas has received your filing and the case is now pending activation. Be advised that the court system runs on a first-come, first-served basis and will only activate cases out of order for special circumstances.
During this time, the defendant is encouraged to reach out to a licensed defense attorney in order to prepare a proper defense, otherwise, a court-appointed attorney will be assigned to the case upon its activation.
The defendant is further encouraged to speak with an authorized individual at Rockford Hills City Hall, Mission Row Police Station, or Paleto Bay Sheriff's Office for official clarification on the specific charges received and their respective date and times, as once the case has been activated, any omitted charges will be considered abandoned and unable to be disputed within this case.
Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]
#25-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Winston Sandwill
Posted: 16 Jan 2025, 00:33
by Hope Kant
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
NOTICE OF ACTIVATION
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Winston Sandwill
#25-CM-0005
A Notice of Activation was entered in the above case on 15th of January, 2025.
The case of the State of San Andreas v. Winston Sandwill is hereby activated by this Court under #25-CM-0005.
Both the State and Defendant in this case are still awaiting adequate representation. At this time the court will delay the Order for Discovery until adequate representation has been assigned for the Defendant and a State Prosecutor has been assigned to the case and both parties inform the court they are ready to proceed.
In accordance with guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court of San Andreas, this case shall require an in-person trial. Once all pretrial matters have been resolved, a Notice of Scheduling will be issued to arrange an appropriate time for trial.
Respectfully,
Superior Court Justice
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]
Re: #25-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Winston Sandwill
Posted: 18 Jan 2025, 04:33
by Hugh Allgood
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. Winston Yin
A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on 18/Jan/2025.
I, Hugh R. Allgood, a Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the defendant, Winston Yin, in the underlying case. It should be noted, the Defendant has notified Counsel of a name change from Winston Sandwill to Winston Yin.
I will be taking the responsibility of Primary Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.
Court Clerk / Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]
Re: #25-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Winston Sandwill
Posted: 19 Jan 2025, 20:48
by Finlay Mcculloch
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. Defendant
A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 19th of January, 2025.
I, Finlay McCulloch, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the defendant, Winston Sandwill, in the underlying case.
I will be taking the responsibility of Co-Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.
Court Clerk / Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 274-4300 - [email protected]
Re: #25-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Winston Sandwill
Posted: 20 Jan 2025, 03:47
by Hope Kant
Re: #25-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Winston Sandwill
Posted: 20 Jan 2025, 05:45
by Larin Tai
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. Winston Sandwill
A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 19th of January, 2025.
I, Larin Tai, a Prosecutor 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 Primary Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.
Larin Tai
Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
244-5389 — [email protected]
Re: #25-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Winston Sandwill
Posted: 21 Jan 2025, 22:51
by Hope Kant
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
ORDER FOR DISCOVERY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Winston Sandwill
#25-CM-0005
A court order was entered in the above case on 21st of January, 2025.
The case of #25-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Winston Sandwill is hereby opened and acknowledged by the Court.
The prosecution is hereby ordered to provide all evidence collected from the arresting Law Enforcement Agency and submit it to the Court via Motion for Discovery within seven days. If additional time is needed, the prosecution can file a Motion for Continuance.
Once evidence has been submitted to the official docket the defense can begin filing motions.
So ordered,
Superior Court Justice
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]
Re: #25-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Winston Yin (Sandwill)
Posted: 27 Jan 2025, 01:05
by Larin Tai
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Winston Yin
#25-CM-0005
A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 25th of January, 2025.
The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;
Los Santos Police Department
ARREST REPORT
"TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"
|
MUGSHOT
- SUSPECT DETAILS
-
Full Name: Winston Sandwill
Phone Number: 5849942
Licenses Suspended: Yes
Officers Involved:
- Police Lieutenant II Elise Cavallera
- Police Detective I Joseph Couch
Charges:
- VF01 - Evading an Officer
- GM19 - Face Concealment (b)
INCIDENT NARRATIVE
- Incident Date: 10/JUN/2024
Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
- 3-K-2 Elise Cavallera tried to pull over a person on BMX that was driving in the incorrect lane of travel. The suspect ( Winston Sandwill ) decided to drive away from the traffic stop for which Elise Cavallera called in a Pursuit in TAC-1. The suspect then decided to jump from Upper pillbox onto the Highway bellow and then from the Highway onto the Lower Pillbox. Officers lost the visual of the suspect for around 30 seconds, but then found the suspect at the Railroad.
3-K-2 Elise Cavallera detained the suspect and with the partial match from clothing, flashlight , the same color of BMX and voice as the suspect spoke originally on the suspect, she matched the suspect with the original person on the BMX.
Clip from the suspect speaking on the original scene (( ))
Clip from the suspect speaking while detained (( ))
EVIDENCE DETAILS
- Document the possessions confiscated from the arrested suspect.
Possessions are to be documented individually, examples of documented illegal possessions are "Pistol .50" or "12 grams of Cocaine". Legal possessions that can be categorized may be grouped, eg. "Clothing" to describe all clothing items. Body camera footage/pictures may be attached as an evidence exhibit.
Where possible, the serial number of each firearm seized as evidence should be noted.
-
Illegal Possessions:
Legal Possessions:
Exhibit A: 1x GPS
Exhibit B: 1x Flashlight
Exhibit C: 1x Radio
Exhibit D: Clothing
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Official Witness Statement
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Case Information
- Incident Date: 10/JUN/2024
Witness Information
- Name: Elise Cavallera
Date of Birth: 15/MAY/1993
Phone Number: 2873081
Occupation: Police Lieutenant II, Los Santos Police Department
Witness Statement
- 3-K-2 was patrolling near Legion Square when a person on a BMX drove from sidewalk infront of a traffic stop and then started travelling in the incorrect lane of travel towards the Legion Square, just cruising at very slow speeds. I tried to pull him over, to which he did and he started speaking to me. I dismounted the vehicle at which point he said another sentence to me and then started to evade from me. I jumped back in my scout and called in a pursuit. The suspect then jumped the railing from Upper Pillbox onto the highway and from the highway towards Lower Pillbox where units lost sight of him. The [A] suspect was found again, driving away from the Train depot behind the main bus station at Lower Pillbox around a minute later, driving from the depot towards Mission Row. Elise Cavallera pulled over the suspect and detained him. The suspect changed his pants, top and a mask, but was wearing the same shoes and same gloves, [was] driving a BMX that was the same color as the suspect, [Winston Sandwill]. As I spoke to him, I recognized his voice and he even spoke the same sentence as he did prior to evading
Voice clip prior to evading: (( ))
Image of the BMX prior to evading: (( ))
Clothing before: (( ))
Voice clip after detaiend: (( , ))
Image of the BMX: (( ))
Clothing after: (( ))
(( RP Proof: ))
Witness Affirmation
- I, Elise Cavallera, affirm that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I affirm that this statement has been made voluntarily, made without promise of reward, and made not under threat, force, or coercion. ((I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means.))
Signed,
Elise Cavallera
Elise Cavallera
Police Lieutenant II
Los Santos Police Department
Date: 20/JUN/2024
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Official Witness Statement
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Case Information
- Incident Date: 10/JUN/2024
Witness Information
- Name: Joseph Couch
Date of Birth: 28/SEP/1994
Phone Number: On-file (DO NOT RELEASE TO PUBLIC)
Occupation: Police Detective I, Los Santos Police Department
Witness Statement
- Upon responding to the pursuit, I was informed that the suspect had jumped from a height. While searching the trainyard, I observed an individual riding on the rail tracks, leaving the area. I assisted in detaining the suspect and searched for any clothing they might have left at the trainyard but did not find anything.
Witness Affirmation
- I, Joseph Couch, affirm that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I affirm that this statement has been made voluntarily, made without promise of reward, and made not under threat, force, or coercion. ((I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means.))
Signed,
Joseph Couch
Police Detective I
Los Santos Police Department
Date: 19/JUN/2024
Larin Tai
Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
244-5389 —
[email protected]
Re: #25-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Winston Yin (Sandwill)
Posted: 29 Jan 2025, 01:55
by Hope Kant
Re: #25-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Winston Yin (Sandwill)
Posted: 29 Jan 2025, 19:56
by Hugh Allgood
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Winston Sandwill (Yin)
#25-CM-0005
A Motion to Compel Discovery was filed in the above case on the 29th of January, 2025.
The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Compel Discovery, and requests as follows;
- Requested Discovery: Body Camera Footage in full, Police Lieutenant II Elise Cavallera & Police Detective I Joseph Couch
- Detailed Reasoning: Within the arrest report and witness statements, still images and audio clips from this incident are attached. However, the remainder of the body camera footage was not included. We believe in order for the Defense to properly cross-examine the evidence, we need the full clip as this case hinges very heavily on Officer statements and observations.
Court Clerk / Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 — [email protected]
Re: #25-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Winston Yin (Sandwill)
Posted: 29 Jan 2025, 19:57
by Hugh Allgood
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
MOTION TO SUPPRESS
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Winston Sandwill (Yin)
#25-CM-0005
A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 29th of January, 2025.
The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Suppress, and requests to following be suppressed from evidence;
- Exhibit #1: Arrest Report: Winston Yin (10/JUN/2024)
Requested Evidence to Suppress:
Los Santos Police Department
ARREST REPORT
"TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"
|
MUGSHOT
- SUSPECT DETAILS
-
Full Name: Winston Sandwill
Phone Number: 5849942
Licenses Suspended: Yes
Officers Involved:
- Police Lieutenant II Elise Cavallera
- Police Detective I Joseph Couch
Charges:
- VF01 - Evading an Officer
- GM19 - Face Concealment (b)
INCIDENT NARRATIVE
- Incident Date: 10/JUN/2024
Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
- 3-K-2 Elise Cavallera tried to pull over a person on BMX that was driving in the incorrect lane of travel. The suspect ( Winston Sandwill ) decided to drive away from the traffic stop for which Elise Cavallera called in a Pursuit in TAC-1. The suspect then decided to jump from Upper pillbox onto the Highway bellow and then from the Highway onto the Lower Pillbox. Officers lost the visual of the suspect for around 30 seconds, but then found the suspect at the Railroad.
3-K-2 Elise Cavallera detained the suspect and with the partial match from clothing, flashlight , the same color of BMX and voice as the suspect spoke originally on the suspect, she matched the suspect with the original person on the BMX.
Clip from the suspect speaking on the original scene (( ))
Clip from the suspect speaking while detained (( ))
EVIDENCE DETAILS
- Document the possessions confiscated from the arrested suspect.
Possessions are to be documented individually, examples of documented illegal possessions are "Pistol .50" or "12 grams of Cocaine". Legal possessions that can be categorized may be grouped, eg. "Clothing" to describe all clothing items. Body camera footage/pictures may be attached as an evidence exhibit.
Where possible, the serial number of each firearm seized as evidence should be noted.
-
Illegal Possessions:
Legal Possessions:
Exhibit A: 1x GPS
Exhibit B: 1x Flashlight
Exhibit C: 1x Radio
Exhibit D: Clothing
- Detailed Reasoning: The content of this arrest report is written in 3rd person, from the perspective of "3-K-2 Elise Cavallera". This suggests the arrest report itself was actually written by another person who is not directly identified. Statements made outside of Court from a 3rd party are hearsay and therefore inadmissible. Also the statement, "The suspect ( Winston Sandwill ) decided to drive away from the traffic stop for which Elise Cavallera called in a Pursuit in TAC-1" assumes facts not in evidence; Whether the Defendant is the same person from the original evasion remains to be proven -- this is presented as fact, and asserted guilt when guilt has not been decided by this Court.
- Exhibit #2: Witness Statement: Police Lieutenant II Elise Cavallera
Requested Evidence to Suppress:
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Official Witness Statement
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Case Information
- Incident Date: 10/JUN/2024
Witness Information
- Name: Elise Cavallera
Date of Birth: 15/MAY/1993
Phone Number: 2873081
Occupation: Police Lieutenant II, Los Santos Police Department
Witness Statement
- 3-K-2 was patrolling near Legion Square when a person on a BMX drove from sidewalk infront of a traffic stop and then started travelling in the incorrect lane of travel towards the Legion Square, just cruising at very slow speeds. I tried to pull him over, to which he did and he started speaking to me. I dismounted the vehicle at which point he said another sentence to me and then started to evade from me. I jumped back in my scout and called in a pursuit. The suspect then jumped the railing from Upper Pillbox onto the highway and from the highway towards Lower Pillbox where units lost sight of him. The suspect was found again, driving away from the Train depot behind the main bus station at Lower Pillbox around a minute later, driving from the depot towards Mission Row. Elise Cavallera pulled over the suspect and detained him. The suspect changed his pants, top and a mask, but was wearing the same shoes and same gloves, driving a BMX that was the same color as the suspect. As I spoke to him, I recognized his voice and he even spoke the same sentence as he did prior to evading
Voice clip prior to evading: (( ))
Image of the BMX prior to evading: (( ))
Clothing before: (( ))
Voice clip after detaiend: (( , ))
Image of the BMX: (( ))
Clothing after: (( ))
(( RP Proof: ))
Witness Affirmation
- I, Elise Cavallera, affirm that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I affirm that this statement has been made voluntarily, made without promise of reward, and made not under threat, force, or coercion. ((I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means.))
Signed,
Elise Cavallera
Elise Cavallera
Police Lieutenant II
Los Santos Police Department
Date: 20/JUN/2024
- Detailed Reasoning: The highlighted statements are written in a way to suggest the individual who initially evaded is the same individual detained by PD after losing sight. These are facts that are not in evidence, and therefore, it is prejudicial against the Defendant. These statements are presented as assuming the guilt of the Defendant, when in fact he is innocent until and unless found guilty in Court. Whether the Defendant was the same person that evaded the earlier traffic stop remains to be proven by the Prosecution.
Court Clerk / Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 —
[email protected]
Re: #25-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Winston Yin (Sandwill)
Posted: 01 Feb 2025, 19:50
by Larin Tai
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
Rebuttal
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Winston Yin (Sandwill)
#25-CM-0005
A Rebuttal was filed in the above case on the 1st of February, 2025
The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Rebuttal, and requests the following to be left;
- Exhibit #1: Arrest Report - Winston Yin (10/JUN/2024)
3-K-2 Elise Cavallera tried to pull over a person on BMX that was driving in the incorrect lane of travel. The suspect ( Winston Sandwill ) decided to drive away from the traffic stop for which Elise Cavallera called in a Pursuit in TAC-1. The suspect then decided to jump from Upper pillbox onto the Highway bellow and then from the Highway onto the Lower Pillbox. Officers lost the visual of the suspect for around 30 seconds, but then found the suspect at the Railroad.
3-K-2 Elise Cavallera detained the suspect and with the partial match from clothing, flashlight , the same color of BMX and voice as the suspect spoke originally on the suspect, she matched the suspect with the original person on the BMX.
Clip from the suspect speaking on the original scene (( ))
Clip from the suspect speaking while detained (( ))
- Detailed Reasoning:
The defense claims that the bulk of the arrest report should be suppressed on grounds of hearsay as the report is written from a third person viewpoint. The Judiciary has made a clear and explicit exception to be allowed under the guidelines of Hearsay. Subsection d. under hearsay exceptions states, "Records made in the regular course of business are writings made as a record of an act or event by a business or governmental agency. To qualify as a business record, the following conditions must be established: 1. The writing was made in the regular course of a business. 2. The writing was made at or near the time of the act or event. 3. The sources of information and method of preparation are trustworthy." Subsection e. of exceptions under Hearsay states, "Official records by public employees are writing made by a public employee as a record of an act or event. The writing must be made within the scope of duty of a public employee." An arrest report made by a public servant to the State of San Andreas qualifies under both of these provisions as being an exception to hearsay. Regardless how the official choses to present the evidence, whether first person or third, is irrelevant to the case as the arrest report is to relay the facts of the event as they occurred.
The defense in addition believes that the statement made by Police Lieutenant Cavallera "The suspect decided to drive away from the traffic stop for which Elise Cavallera called in a pursuit in TAC-1" is presumed to not be a factual statement as the defendant has not been found guilty in the court of law. Lieutenant Cavallera at the time of the report, deduced that defendant was the same person in the initial traffic stop on grounds of similar build, voice, color and style of bicycle, and items of clothing as well as proximity to the initial traffic stop.
- Exhibit #2: Witness Statement: Police Lieutenant II Elise Cavallera
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Official Witness Statement
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Case Information
- Incident Date: 10/JUN/2024
Witness Information
- Name: Elise Cavallera
Date of Birth: 15/MAY/1993
Phone Number: 2873081
Occupation: Police Lieutenant II, Los Santos Police Department
Witness Statement
- 3-K-2 was patrolling near Legion Square when a person on a BMX drove from sidewalk infront of a traffic stop and then started travelling in the incorrect lane of travel towards the Legion Square, just cruising at very slow speeds. I tried to pull him over, to which he did and he started speaking to me. I dismounted the vehicle at which point he said another sentence to me and then started to evade from me. I jumped back in my scout and called in a pursuit. The suspect then jumped the railing from Upper Pillbox onto the highway and from the highway towards Lower Pillbox where units lost sight of him. The suspect was found again, driving away from the Train depot behind the main bus station at Lower Pillbox around a minute later, driving from the depot towards Mission Row. Elise Cavallera pulled over the suspect and detained him. The suspect changed his pants, top and a mask, but was wearing the same shoes and same gloves, driving a BMX that was the same color as the suspect. As I spoke to him, I recognized his voice and he even spoke the same sentence as he did prior to evading
Voice clip prior to evading: (( ))
Image of the BMX prior to evading: (( ))
Clothing before: (( ))
Voice clip after detaiend: (( , ))
Image of the BMX: (( ))
Clothing after: (( ))
(( RP Proof: ))
Witness Affirmation
- I, Elise Cavallera, affirm that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I affirm that this statement has been made voluntarily, made without promise of reward, and made not under threat, force, or coercion. ((I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means.))
Signed,
Elise Cavallera
Elise Cavallera
Police Lieutenant II
Los Santos Police Department
Date: 20/JUN/2024
- Detailed Reasoning:
The prosecution would argue the defense's position that the statement written by Lieutenant Cavallera gives prejudice against the defendant. Lieutenant Cavallera was able to deduce based on the voice and the bicycle being similar and in close proximity, that the suspect at the time was the same person in both instances. Lieutenant Cavallera was able to personally watch the suspect jump from Upper Pillbox to the highway and then onto Lower Pillbox near the train tracks. During this time, no other person was observed by officers around the area and up to the point of finding the suspect. Even with loss of direct sight of the suspect for a brief time, the persons being found in the surrounding location of the initial traffic stop, similar clothing, voice, and bicycle are enough circumstantial evidence that the suspect is the same person. Further, a voice match analysis was able to definitively match the voice in the initial traffic stop with that of the person placed under arrest. The prosecution requests that these statements remain as they give clear probative value that may outweigh any potential prejudicial value.
Larin Tai
Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
244-5389 — [email protected]
Re: #25-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Winston Yin (Sandwill)
Posted: 04 Feb 2025, 21:12
by Hugh Allgood
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Public Defense Division
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
- Honorable Justice Hope Kant,
As the petitioning party, the Defense presents it's rebuttal to the State's response to our motion to suppress.
For the requested suppressions on Exhibit 1 - the State claims largely the suppression should be denied because of the hearsay exception covering business records.
While we agree the exception for business records exists, we believe there is potential for abuse by not subjecting certain records, like arrest reports, to additional scrutiny. In this particular instance, a "business record" has the potential to deprive an individual of their right to liberty, especially if the record is written from the third hand perspective and not subject to any scrutiny or any suppression on grounds of hearsay. It is important to consider the intent of the hearsay rule of evidence -- to ensure out of court statements (such as this arrest report) are reliable and subject to challenge. Statements made not under oath are inherently unreliable and under the prosecution's current response not subject to challenge. Importantly the rule prevents the use of these statements from a third party to convict someone, which is precisely what the State is intending to do here.
In their argument the State presents the three-prong test for what makes something qualify as a business record, and we would argue the third prong has not been met -- "The sources of information and method of preparation are trustworthy". While the Judiciary has given great deference to arrest reports in the past, this is typically for arrest reports written from a first-hand perspective. Hence, an Officer who made either direct observations of an individual doing something, or an Officer detailing investigative steps they personally were involved with. Here we have seemingly another Officer who is reporting what another Officer told them. This information is subject to a number of errors, either intentional or non-intentional. For example, if "Officer A" (the direct witness) tells "Officer B" (the author of an arrest report) they observed a suspect possessing a "long gun" over the phone or radio, and then Officer B writes in an arrest report the suspect was seen with a shotgun. While the suspect could have had a shotgun, or any other form of long gun such as an assault rifle, this demonstrates the fallibility of accepting a third-hand arrest report.
The State goes on to suggest that just because the arrest report is made by a public servant because it was written within their scope of duty is a farce. If this were true without exception, then written statements too would not be subject to hearsay challenges. However, this Court regularly accepts these challenges within written statements for the same reasons highlighted above -- written statements are generally written after the fact and therefore do not meet all of the requirements under the business rule exception.
Therefore we believe that due to the lack of reliability of a third person statement, the State has not met the requirements of the hearsay business rule exception, and therefore, we respectfully request the Court to suppress this statement.
For the requested suppressions on exhibit 2 - The State effectively claims the Defendant's guilt in this statement as their reasoning for why the requested suppressions should not be ordered. Stating, "Lieutenant Cavallera was able to deduce based on the voice and the bicycle being similar and in close proximity, that the suspect at the time was the same person in both instances...no other person was observed by officers around the area and up to the point of finding the suspect. Even with loss of direct sight of the suspect for a brief time, the persons being found in the surrounding location of the initial traffic stop, similar clothing, voice, and bicycle are enough circumstantial evidence that the suspect is the same person."
These conclusive statements have not been proven in Court, and therefore have no place within evidence. The evidence is what the evidence is. Lieutenant Cavallera attempted to stop an individual on a bicycle wearing a particular set of clothing, that individual fled the traffic stop and Lieutenant Cavallera lost visual. At some point later, the Defendant was located and detained riding a bicycle wearing different clothing than Lieutenant Cavallera observed. Until and unless the State can prove these are the same person, making statements such as "The suspect was found again" and "The suspect changed his pants, top and a mask, but was wearing the same shoes and same gloves," have not been proven.
The Defense believes the Court should suppress the statement in full, or the State needs to adopt an amendment to not being a conclusory statement which presumes the guilt of the Defendant who is innocent until and unless found guilty. It's would be a dangerous precedent if this Court convicts an individual because of the shoes and gloves they wore and a short statement of "What's going on" that was subjected to "a voice match analysis". The State has not presented any expert witness testimony to "voice match analysis".
Therefore, we stand with our previous objection. The Prosecution making conclusory statements have unfairly prejudiced the Defendant. The Prosecution is certainly free to make arguments at trial that the Defendant was the same individual who evaded from the traffic stop, however, the Prosecution must meet their burden of proving this. This burden has not been met as of yet. We respectfully request the Court to strike these statements from the exhibit, and/or formally adopt judicial notice in an amendment of the statement to cure the prejudicial concerns.
Respectfully,
Court Clerk / Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]
Re: #25-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Winston Yin (Sandwill)
Posted: 13 Feb 2025, 16:20
by Hope Kant
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. Winston Yin (Sandwill)
#25-CM-0005
A decision was reached in the above case on the 13th day of February, 2025.
To both defense and prosecution, I want to apologize for the unnecessary delay in the case. Moving on to the rulings I will go motion by motion starting with the Motion to Compel Discovery submitted by the defense on the 29th of January.
The court will be approving the defense motion to compel, and will require the prosecution to present the bodycam in full to the court. ((If proper or sufficient /me and /do cannot be completed by either party (individual arrested or arresting officer(s)) that was present at the time please just state ICly that the footage has been corrupted. We just ask that you try your best and only pull from memories you are certain occurred.))
The court will now be reviewing the Motion to Suppress for exhibit #1 submitted on the 29th of January. While we understand the defense counsels concerns of the author of the arrest report. The court confirms that this is standard operating procedure of the LSPD to speak in 3rd person for better clarity on arrest reports. This SOP was initiated after individuals found in court found it hard to determine at times who the party being referred to was. For the above reasons, the court will be partially denying the defenses motion.
As for the specific statement "The suspect ( Winston Sandwill ) decided to drive away from the traffic stop for which Elise Cavallera called in a Pursuit in TAC-1". The court will be approving the suppression of the defendants name. Making the statement read "The suspect decided to drive away from the traffic stop for which Elise Cavallera called in a Pursuit in TAC-1."
The court will now be reviewing the Motion to Suppress for exhibit #2 submitted on the 29th of January. The court will be approving the suppression in part. The phrase "The suspect was found again, driving away from the Train depot behind the main bus station at Lower Pillbox around a minute later, driving from the depot towards Mission Row. Elise Cavallera pulled over the suspect and detained him. The suspect changed his pants, top and a mask, but was wearing the same shoes and same gloves," will now be changed to "TheA suspect was found again, driving away from the Train depot behind the main bus station at Lower Pillbox around a minute later, driving from the depot towards Mission Row. Elise Cavallera pulled over the suspect and detained him. The suspect changed his pants, top and a mask, but was wearing the same shoes and same gloves was driving a BMX that was the same color as the suspect (Winston Sandwill)."
The edits have been done to improve clarification and maintain the standard of evidence for the court. The officers on scene lost sight of the suspect at some point in time and did not visually see the individual change his clothes. It has not been 100% confirmed via any evidence in discovery that the individual was the exact same person on the initial bike.
If no appeals are filed in the next few days, the courts will move to schedule a trial.
So Ordered,
Superior Court Justice
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]
Re: #25-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Winston Yin (Sandwill)
Posted: 16 Feb 2025, 16:00
by Hope Kant
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. Winston Yin (Sandwill)
#25-CM-0005
An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on Day of Month, 2025.
All parties in this case are encouraged to complete the following Scheduling Tool in an attempt to schedule a trial on the above case. When the scheduling tool has been completed by either party, please post on the docket stating as such.
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 continue to attempt to schedule the proceeding or seek alternative avenues to conclude the case.
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.
This notice is assuming that the motion to compel discovery granted by the courts will have some response in an adequate amount of time prior to trial date.
Respectfully,
Associate Justice
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]
Re: #25-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Winston Yin (Sandwill)
Posted: 16 Feb 2025, 23:28
by Larin Tai
Re: #25-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Winston Yin (Sandwill)
Posted: 19 Feb 2025, 01:15
by Anna Winchester
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. Winston Yin
A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the Day of Month, Year.
I, Anna Winchester, a Prosecutor 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.
Title
San Andreas Judicial Branch
###-#### — memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=29675
Re: #25-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Winston Yin (Sandwill)
Posted: 19 Feb 2025, 16:45
by Larin Tai
Re: #25-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Winston Yin (Sandwill)
Posted: 19 Feb 2025, 16:51
by Finlay Mcculloch
Re: #25-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Winston Yin (Sandwill)
Posted: 26 Feb 2025, 02:43
by Hope Kant
Re: #25-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Winston Yin (Sandwill)
Posted: 26 Feb 2025, 02:46
by Hope Kant
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. Winston Yin (Sandwill)
#25-CM-0005
An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on 25th of February, 2025.
All parties in this case are encouraged to complete the following Scheduling Tool in an attempt to schedule a trial on the above case. When the scheduling tool has been completed by either party, please post on the docket stating as such.
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 continue to attempt to schedule the proceeding or seek alternative avenues to conclude the case.
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.
Respectfully,
Associate Justice
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]
Re: #25-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Winston Yin (Sandwill)
Posted: 01 Mar 2025, 23:49
by Hope Kant
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
NOTICE OF TRIAL
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Winston Yin (Sandwill)
#25-CM-0005
A trial date was set on the above case on 1st of March, 2025.
In accordance with the availability reported by both parties in response to the Notice of Scheduling, this trial shall take place at 8:30 PM on 8th of March, 2025 at Rockford Hills City Hall, Carcer Way, Metro Los Santos, SA.
Both parties are ordered to be present in the Judges Chambers no later than 15 minutes prior to the above listed date for pretrial arrangements. If complications occur that must result in a delay or cancellation of the trial, you are ordered to inform the court no later than 12 hours prior to the above listed date.
So ordered,
Associate Justice
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]
Re: #25-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Winston Yin (Sandwill)
Posted: 07 Mar 2025, 19:33
by Sayaka Yukimura
Re: #25-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Winston Yin (Sandwill)
Posted: 09 Mar 2025, 20:38
by Hope Kant
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
ISSUANCE OF VERDICT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Winston Sandwill
#25-CM-0005
A decision was reached in the above case on the 8th day of March, 2025.
Typically I begin my verdicts by reviewing the facts of the case. However the court will have to agree with the defense when they stated that this case is muddy. Instead of looking at the facts, the court will instead be faced to look at the inconsistencies.
- The prosecution has presented multiple witness statements with conflicting times between initial view of the suspect and later identification of the defendant.
- The defense and prosecution both agree that an individual cannot go far on a bike. The arrest report states there was 30 seconds in-between the first and second encounter. However, the clothing of the first individual was never located by law enforcement. Leaving the defendant in possession of clothing that did not match the initial suspect.
- The arrest report and witness statements confirm a blue BMX, but the impound release report states a different color for the BMX. Whether or not this was human error, the court cannot determine.
- The prosecution presented voice recognition of 3 words with 0 analysis or expert means for the court to be able to definitively analyze.
The court finds there to be too many inconsistencies to reconcile that a reasonable person would find the defendant guilty given the circumstances presented to the court.
It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:
- On the count of VF01 - Evading an Officer, I find the defendant, Winston Sandwill, not guilty.
- On the count of GM19 - Face Concealment (b), I find the defendant, Winston Sandwill, not guilty.
The defendant should make their way to City Hall at their earliest convenience to have the change to their record noted as well as the payment of $27,500 returned to them for fines, time, and other expenses/inconveniences incurred from the contested charges.
Associate Justice
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]
