Appellant Name: Prosecution for the State of San Andreas Appellant Attorney(s): Attorney General Terence Williams
Trial Docket Number: #24-CM-0035 Presiding Trial Judge: Antonio McFornell Notice of Appeal Filed:#24-CM-0035 docket notice
[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)
The Court granted the Defense's Motion to Suppress for specific exhibits on the grounds of relevance. The Prosecution argues that the suppressed exhibits are relevant by providing context to the narrative in proving the defendant's guilt.
Appellant Name: Andy Tyrie Appellant Attorney(s): Hugh R. Allgood
Trial Docket Number: 24-CM-0035 Presiding Trial Judge: Supreme Court Justice Tony McFornell Notice of Appeal Filed:
[X] Before Verdict
[ ] After Verdict
Reason for Notice of Appeal:
[ ] Motion to be overturned
[ ] Errors in the trials procedure
[X] Errors in the judge's interpretation of the law
[ ] New evidence proving appellants innocence
Grounds for Appeal:(Maximum 150 words)
The Defense had initially decided to not appeal at this particular stage. However, now that the State has opened this door, the Defense also wishes to file an appeal in-tandem and believes the appellate court should consider both the State's motion and the Defense's.
In the Court decision pertaining to the request Defense suppression of exhibit #5, the Court concluded the Defense's argument in support of the suppression of this exhibit was "reasonable" but then ruled, "given the special nature of the evidence in this exhibit, the Court will allow it to remain of the docket. "
The Defense reaffirms the original argument this exhibit is a classic example of hearsay. An out-of-court statement used to prove the truth of the matter (the prove State's case that the Defendant stole the Constitution, took a photograph of the Constitution at old City Hall and later posted it anonymously on LifeInvader). The Defense has no way of identifying the person responsible for providing this information, and therefore cannot cross-examine the evidence, either through cross-examination of the evidence itself or via its own evidence. The prosecution has claimed this statement was made by Rudi Edel, and claims Mr. Edel called Ms. Kant immediately prior to the recording. However, there is no proof of this.
((I have also raised OOC concerns on the exhibit - the RP is that Hope Kant used her phone to record a radio call. But the IC arguments are suggesting this was an anonymous phone call.))
The judge erred in the interpretation of the law, specifically the law regarding the admission of hearsay statements, citing the "special nature" of the evidence. The Defense does not believe a hearsay statement, no matter how "special" it is to the State's case should be accepted and believes this sets dangerous precedence.
San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
To whom it may concern,
The Prosecution would request that the Defense for Andy Tyrie file their own appeal in a separate filing and not in this one, as the current filing is inappropriate, considering they are appealing a different matter. The Prosecution also requests that the Defense file their own Motion to Stay, following protocol to notify the court of a pending appeal.
Regards, Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 234-9321 — [email protected]
Allgood Law State of San Andreas v. Andy Tyrie "Right Firm. Right Now"
Court of Appeals,
Defense will await further instruction from the Court, but believes the State's request to be tantamount to merely wasting the time of the Court, considering the case is stayed pending the outcome of an appeal. So whether the appeal is considered under 1 docket number or 2 docket numbers, should not matter in the grand scheme and believes it to be frivolous to file another motion to "notify the court of a pending appeal" when the Prosecution has already notified said Court of an appeal.
Respectfully,
Owner/Attorney
Allgood Law
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]
