#22-CM-0003, State of San Andreas v. Brayden Rush

Locked
Brayden Rush
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2021 8:39 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Eclipse Role play

#22-CM-0003, State of San Andreas v. Brayden Rush

Post by Brayden Rush »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

[SAJB] Appeals Court
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Personal Information:
DEFENDANTS NAME: Brayden Rush
DEFENDANTS PHONE: 2421223
DEFENDANTS ADDRESS: N/A
ATTORNEY NAME: Letov Vladislav
ATTORNEY PHONE: 4181478
General Information:
OFFICERS NAME: (N/A)
RANK: (N/A )
BADGE NUMBER: N/A
ATTORNEY NAME: N/A
ATTORNEY PHONE: N/A
Incident Information:
DATE AND TIME OF INCIDENT(s): October 21, 11:00 P.M EST

CHARGES BEING APPEALED:
Attempted Murder Of a government employee
Possession of an illegal firearm
Possession of weapon modification


DEFENDANTS STORY/OPENING STATEMENTS: I was heading to DOC with a friend to visit another friend who just recently been arrested. When I arrived on my bike I was caught in the crosshairs of a gun fight between SD and some other people. After I was hurt and on the ground someone came over to me and placed a gun on me and drove off. I was then brought into DOC by a guard until I was able to receive medical attention, it was when I got inside, the guard informed me that I was being charged.

Signed,
Brayden Rush

Image
User avatar
Hugh Allgood
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name: HotPipinLeo

SAJB Awards

Re: Brayden Rush 22/10/2021

Post by Hugh Allgood »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: Brayden Rush charge appeal
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • San Andreas Appellate Court,

    I, Hugh R. Allgood, will represent the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department in his appeal. I will be meeting with my clients soon to go over this case and will be ready to proceed at the courts discretion.

    From


    Hugh R. Allgood
    State Attorney
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
Image
User avatar
Colt Daniels
Judicial Branch
Posts: 1966
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:01 am
ECRP Forum Name: Colt

SAJB Awards

LSSD Awards

Re: Brayden Rush v. Sheriff's Department | Docket #

Post by Colt Daniels »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: Brayden Rush v. Sheriff's Department | Docket #
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Mr. Rush,

    Please understand that Counsellor Vladislav is no longer an employee here at the Judicial Bureau, thus you may seek new counsel or employ Mr. Vladislav yourself. Understand that currently there are no regulations in place for private attorneys outside of the Bar Licensing bureau and as such you are required to do your own due diligence when employing an attorney. To continue to permit him to represent, we require a signed, authenticated contract between both parties. You will be permitted 7 days to provide one.

    If at the end of the 7 days provided we do not have said contract, a new attorney will be assigned to your case to represent you.

    From
    Image
    Appellate Judge
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 402-9713 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Darby Adler
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:53 pm
ECRP Forum Name:

Re: Brayden Rush v. Sheriff's Department | Docket #

Post by Darby Adler »

Image

San Andreas Justice Department

Re: Brayden Rush v. Sheriff's Department | Docket #

"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Appellant and respondent,

    I will be the presiding judge on this case. This case is now marked as ACTIVE. Before any motions start getting submitted to the docket I would like both sides to have appropriate representation. I will be reaching out to Attorneys to find the Appellant such support. Once an Attorney has been assigned and that is made clear on the public docket I will then give each side (7) Seven Days to submit any evidence and motions to the court. Once that is done, I will send appropriate notices of action and a hearing will be scheduled.

    Ahead of time for Counsel representing the appellant and the appellant themselves - please note that by undertaking a prima facie examination of your appeal, there is little detail for the basis of your appeal. I would expect a clear narrative to explain the allegations of the appeal that has been made, the basis of how you have come to such a position and what evidence would support them. This Court will not entertain frivolous claims and there is an ethical obligation on attorneys not to bring such.

  • Regards,

    Darby Adler
    Appellate Judge
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    San Andreas Government
Image
User avatar
Darcy Valor
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2021 3:36 am
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: Brayden Rush v. Sheriff's Department | Docket #21-10-22-AP-018

Post by Darcy Valor »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Appellant Representation
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Darby Adler,

    I will be representing Mr. Brayden Rush in this appeal. I have been in contact with my client and we are ready to proceed at the court's discretion.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Attorney at Law Darcy Lafleur
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 241-7634 — [email protected]
Image
Darcy Valor
Superior Court Judge
Training & Hiring Staff
Bar Ethics Review Board
User avatar
Darby Adler
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:53 pm
ECRP Forum Name:

Re: Brayden Rush v. Sheriff's Department | Docket #21-10-22-AP-018

Post by Darby Adler »

Image

San Andreas Justice Department

"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Dear all,

    Now we have appropriate representation I would ask the appellant to make the motions and requests it feels relevant to get this rolling.

    From there, the State can respond as it would usually.

  • Sincerely,


    Honorable Darby Adler
    Appellate Judge
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    San Andreas Government
Image
User avatar
Darcy Valor
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2021 3:36 am
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: Brayden Rush v. Sheriff's Department | Docket #21-10-22-AP-018

Post by Darcy Valor »

Motion to Compel Discovery
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion to Compel Discovery

Honorable : Darby Adler
  • We the Appellant in the case below are requesting the disclosure of the following material by opposing counsel, please find a detailed reason as to our request below.
    Brayden Rush vs. Sheriff’s Department
    Assigned Court Case Number: #21-10-22-AP-018
    Requesting Party: Appellant
    Party Members: Brayden Rush and Darcy Lafleur
    Discovery from: Los Santos Sheriff’s Department and Department of Corrections

    Type of Discovery: Physical Evidence/Document Request
    • Document Request- Arrest Report of Brayden Rush from this incident on Oct. 22 2021
      Physical Evidence- Any bodycam/CCTV footage from the incident on DOC grounds that happened on Oct. 22 2021.
    Detailed reasoning:
    • The arrest report of Brayden Rush will give us more information on what led the Los Santos Sheriff’s Department to arresting Mr. Rush during the gunfight at the Department of Corrections.
      Any bodycam/CCTV footage that the Los Santos Police Department or Department Of Correction guards may have from this incident will help us with building our case.

    Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely
Image
Attorney at Law D. Lafleur
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Darcy Valor
Superior Court Judge
Training & Hiring Staff
Bar Ethics Review Board
User avatar
Hugh Allgood
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name: HotPipinLeo

SAJB Awards

Re: Brayden Rush v. Sheriff's Department | Docket #21-10-22-AP-018

Post by Hugh Allgood »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: Brayden Rush | Appeal Application
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • San Andreas Court of Appeals,
    • We the prosecution in the case below are presenting evidence to the court.
      Brayden Rush v. Los Santos Sheriff's Department
      Assigned Court Case Number: #21-10-22-AP-018
      Requesting Party: Respondent
      Party Members: Brayden Rush, Los Santos Sheriffs Department
      Honorable Adler,

      I have been informed, via e-mail, the arrest report for Mr. Rush does not exist. Therefore, there is no documentation to release to opposing counsel in this regard. See the below attachment
      E-mail from Master Deputy S. Lee in response to request for arrest report
      Steven Lee wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 8:22 pm Image
      Image

      Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

      Personal Email
      "A TRADITION OF SERVICE"

      • December 30th, 2021
        Dear State Attorney Hugh R. Allgood,

        sadly, I can not provide you a copy of the arrest report since it does not exist in our database. I believe that it would be at your best interest if you contacted Deputy W. Reno directly, but I can not promise you that he will respond to you immediately, since I've mentioned, he's currently on a two ( 2 ) week LOA.

      • From
        Image
        Master Deputy Steven Lee
        Los Santos County Sheriff's Department
      Image
      I did obtain an official statement from the arresting deputy, Deputy W. Reno. See the attached statement.
      Witness Statement: Deputy Reno
      Wiley Reno wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:58 pm Image

      San Andreas Judicial Branch
      Official Witness Statement
      "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
      Case Information
      • Case Number: 21-10-22-AP-018
        Incident Date: [21/OCT/2021]
      Witness Information
      • Name: [Wiley Reno]
        Date of Birth: [23/MAY/1991]
        Phone Number: [314-5473]
        Occupation: [Deputy Sheriff III]
      Witness Statement
      • [On October 21st, 2021 during my Patrol I received a backup call from a unit up near the dancing disco store. The deputy informed us that there were a group of individuals wearing pink on pink bikes near the dancing disco store, at least one of which was armed. The deputy explained that they saw a silenced firearm on their hip. We quickly arrived on the scene and detained the individuals who we suspected. We attempted to efficiently clear those who were not being detained, but we weren't entirely successful. Eventually, units transported the individual in Pink to DOC.

        It is important to keep in mind this situation was before we were aware of the constant attacks on DOC by pink individuals, so we did not have sufficient protection for this transport that we should have. Upon arriving to DOC, the transport unit was fired upon and a shootout began between a couple of DOC guards and some individuals in pink. In this firefight, Mr. Rush was downed and I arrived as the sole unit on the CODE-1 scene at DOC, as units were tied up in the city with a pursuit. Upon arriving on the scene I saw Mr. Rush on the ground in pain with multiple gunshot wounds, along with a silenced Pistol .50 on his hip. Officer Alfonso Banker of the Department of Corrections explained to me that he had been involved in a shootout between DOC guards and the individuals in pink trying to release their comrade (Mr. Rush was wearing a full pink outfit). Mr. Rush adamantly decreed that he was not involved and that he was being shot at by the people in pink, not shooting at DOC. DOC requested I add the Attempted Murder of a Government Employee charge for this, which I did add.

        As for the firearm charge, when I arrived on the scene the Pistol .50 with the silencer was on Mr. Rush's hip and the only manipulation I did to it was take it off of his hip and place it in an evidence bag. It appeared to have 9 rounds discharged which only furthered my belief of DOC's testimony. Mr. Rush was transported to the hospital and then transported back to DOC. Upon his transport to DOC a CODE-1 was called by deputies on DOC grounds as Deputy Elijah Quinn was being held hostage by Mrs. Charlie Bankshot. Mrs. Bankshot negotiated with deputies for quite a while before the Sheriff's Department negotiators agreed to let those in pink go free in return for Deputy Quinn's release. Mr. Rush was released from my custody at this time, serving none of his time and exited DOC grounds on his bike. No further charges were added.

        Eventually, I believe he was arrested by the Los Santos Police Department, and no further charges came of this particular arrest. ]
      Witness Affirmation
      • I, [Wiley Reno], 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,

        Image
        [Wiley Reno]
        [Deputy Sheriff III]
        [Los Santos Sheriff's Department]

        Date: [17/JAN/2022]
      Image

      Further, I did obtain two statements from former DOC Officer Alfonzo Banker. First, Mr. Banker did not recall the incident. However, when I informed him what the situation involved, Mr. Banker provided the follow-up statement.
      Statement 1 from Alfonzo Banker
      Alfonzo Banker wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:04 am To be honest bro, I got no idea what this situation is pertaining to and if I did it was probably from such a long time ago that I wouldn't remember the details.
      Statement 2 from Alfonzo Banker
      Alfonzo Banker wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:55 am From what I remember Brayden never shot his firearm. I was the one that BLSed him and handcuffed him while he was injured because of the illegal firearm on his person. I was also the one that initially identified him. I can say without a doubt that Brayden did not shoot at anybody, the fact that the firearm wasn't checked to see if it was still hot before charging him is a bit concerning to say the least. Hope my statement helps!
      From


      Hugh R. Allgood
      Senior Attorney
      San Andreas Judicial Branch
Image
User avatar
Darcy Valor
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2021 3:36 am
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: Brayden Rush v. Sheriff's Department | Docket #21-10-22-AP-018

Post by Darcy Valor »

Motion for Summary Judgment
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion for Summary Judgment

Honorable Darby Adler,

  • We the Appellant in the case below are requesting a summary judgment.
    Brayden Rush v. Los Santos Sheriff’s Department
    Assigned Court Case Number: 21-10-22-AP-018
    Requesting Party: Appellant
    Party Members: Brayden Rush and Darcy Lafleur
    Reasoning: We believe the evidence presented to court shows that the Pistol .50 was placed on Mr. Rush after he was shot.
    Detailed explanation:
    In the witness statement from Deputy Wiley Reno it states that 9 rounds were discharged from the Pistol .50, and upon his arrival to the scene Mr. Rush was on the ground in pain with multiple gunshot wounds. Deputy Reno stated as well that the only manipulation he did to the gun was take it off his hip and place it into an evidence bag. It was not further investigated for fingerprints, temperature of the gun, nor was there a GSR test conducted on Mr. Rush. This furthers our belief that the Pistol .50 was placed onto Mr. Rush by one of the attackers at DOC. The second statement from DOC Guard Alfonzo Banker, states that Mr. Rush never shot, and without a doubt Mr. Rush did not shoot anyone. With this we believe that a motion for summary judgment should be granted.
    Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Image
Attorney at Law
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 241-7634 — [email protected]
Image
Darcy Valor
Superior Court Judge
Training & Hiring Staff
Bar Ethics Review Board
User avatar
Darcy Valor
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2021 3:36 am
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: Brayden Rush v. Sheriff's Department | Docket #21-10-22-AP-018

Post by Darcy Valor »

Motion to Stay Pending Appeal
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion to Stay Pending Appeal

Honorable Darby Adler,

  • We the Defendant in the case below are requesting a stay pending appeal.
    State of San Andreas v. Brayden Rush
    Assigned Court Case Number: 21-20-22-AP-018
    Requesting Party: Defense
    Party Members: Brayden Rush and Darcy Lafleur
    Reasoning: Errors in the trials procedures
    Detailed explanation:
    On October 22nd, 2021, my client Brayden Rush put in an application to appeal his charges. It is now March 14, 2022, and my client Mr. Rush has had his right to a speedy trial violated. It took months for Mr. Rush’s case to get counsel, then after both sides had counsel, it took two weeks for Judge Darby Adler to open the discovery phase, and it has been another week since Honorable Adler has said anything on the docket in regards to the motions. Darby Adler's inaction has delayed this case beyond a reasonable amount. This is a clear violation of my client's right to a speedy trial.

    Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Image
Darcy Lafleur
Public Defense Attorney
Image
Darcy Valor
Superior Court Judge
Training & Hiring Staff
Bar Ethics Review Board
User avatar
Hugh Allgood
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name: HotPipinLeo

SAJB Awards

Re: Brayden Rush v. Sheriff's Department | Docket #21-10-22-AP-018

Post by Hugh Allgood »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: State of San Andreas v. Brayden Rush
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • San Andreas Superior Court Judge Adler,

    From the prosecution standpoint, I wish to formally oppose defense counsel's motion for summary judgement.

    First off, from the statement submitted by Deputy Reno, when he arrived the handgun was on Mr. Rush's hip, not simply laying on his body. I cannot reasonably fathom the alleged individual who discarded their weapon upon Mr. Rush would have taken the time to secure the firearm to Mr. Rush's belt/hip. This goes against logic. Therefore, I believe the charges for possession of an illegal weapon and weapon modification should stand.

    Regarding the attempted murder of a government employee charge, Deputy Reno stated the firearm was missing 9 rounds of ammunition. Whether the gun was warm or not, this gun was used in the shootout with DOC. Although Mr. Rush claims the firearm was planted on him, as above, this goes against logic. Secondarily, I would like to point out once the Deputy was taken hostage, Mr. Rush was released from custody at the request of the hostage taker, who was wearing the same clothing as Mr. Rush. This is clear evidence that Mr. Rush is/was affiliated with whatever group was running around in pink, and therefore points to his motive for being involved in the shootout at DOC (which as Deputy Reno stated was in response to a member of this pink 'gang' being arrested and transported to DOC).

    Former DOC Officer Banks is the only DOC officer listed in the case, but there were certainly other DOC officers there. Just because former Officer Banks did not see Mr. Rush firing his weapon, simply does not mean it did not occur. Deputy Reno was told by DOC (collectively) to place the charge of attempted murder of a government employee, which Deputy Reno investigated to support the charge (the firearm on Mr. Rush's HIP, not body, the missing rounds of ammunition, and Mr. Rush's later 'release' at the request of the pink 'gang' after a LSSD Deputy was taken hostage).

    Therefore, I request the court respectfully deny this motion for summary judgement, and move this case to be set for trial.

    Lastly, I am opposing defense counsel's motion to stay these proceedings, as there has not been a decision rendered by this court to be appealed.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Senior Prosecuting Attorney
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 235-6076 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0003, State of San Andreas v. Brayden Rush

Post by Judith Mason »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Administrative Update
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • To whom it may concern,

    In a recent decision that was been made in the San Andreas State Court of Appeals, a new trial has been ordered to take place due to errors in the previous trial's procedures.

    In accordance with this order, I will be taking over as the Presiding Judge on this case, and furthermore, I will be referring this case down to the Superior Court of San Andreas under the title State of San Andreas v. Brayden Rush, with an updated case docket number of #22-CM-0003.

    Immediately following this change, I will be ordering discovery for this case. This will require the prosecution to present the entirety of it's evidence within seven days, which is then to be followed by the submission of any relevant motions by either party. I thank your for your understanding regarding the requirement for your former motions to be submitted, but I want to ensure that this new trial is done by the books and completed in a timely manner. Thank you.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0003, State of San Andreas v. Brayden Rush

Post by Judith Mason »

Image




San Andreas Judicial Branch

"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"


#22-CM-0003
Presiding Judge: Judith Mason

ORDER FOR DISCOVERY


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Brayden Rush
#22-CM-0003

A court order was entered in the above case on 18 March, 2022.


The case of the State of San Andreas v. Brayden Rush, #22-CM-0003 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.



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

Image
User avatar
Hugh Allgood
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name: HotPipinLeo

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0003, State of San Andreas v. Brayden Rush

Post by Hugh Allgood »

Motion for Discovery
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion for Discovery

Honorable Associate Justice Judith Mason,

  • We the prosecution in the case below are presenting our discovery to the court.
    State of San Andreas v. Brayden Rush
    Assigned Court Case Number: 22-CM-0003
    Requesting Party: San Andreas Superior Court
    Party Members: State of San Andreas through Senior Prosecuting Attorney Hugh R. Allgood, Brayden Rush through Public Defense Attorney Darcy Lafleur
    Exhibit #1: LSSD
    Type of Discovery:
    • Deposition (Statement from Master Deputy Steven Lee)
    Spoiler
    Steven Lee wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 8:22 pm Image
    Image

    Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

    Personal Email
    "A TRADITION OF SERVICE"

    • December 30th, 2021
      Dear State Attorney Hugh R. Allgood,

      sadly, I can not provide you a copy of the arrest report since it does not exist in our database. I believe that it would be at your best interest if you contacted Deputy W. Reno directly, but I can not promise you that he will respond to you immediately, since I've mentioned, he's currently on a two ( 2 ) week LOA.

    • From
      Image
      Master Deputy Steven Lee
      Los Santos County Sheriff's Department
    Image
    Exhibit #2: LSSD
    Type of Discovery:
    • Deposition (Statement from Deputy Wiley Reno)
    Spoiler
    Wiley Reno wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:58 pm Image

    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    Official Witness Statement
    "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
    Case Information
    • Case Number: 21-10-22-AP-018
      Incident Date: [21/OCT/2021]
    Witness Information
    • Name: [Wiley Reno]
      Date of Birth: [23/MAY/1991]
      Phone Number: [314-5473]
      Occupation: [Deputy Sheriff III]
    Witness Statement
    • [On October 21st, 2021 during my Patrol I received a backup call from a unit up near the dancing disco store. The deputy informed us that there were a group of individuals wearing pink on pink bikes near the dancing disco store, at least one of which was armed. The deputy explained that they saw a silenced firearm on their hip. We quickly arrived on the scene and detained the individuals who we suspected. We attempted to efficiently clear those who were not being detained, but we weren't entirely successful. Eventually, units transported the individual in Pink to DOC.

      It is important to keep in mind this situation was before we were aware of the constant attacks on DOC by pink individuals, so we did not have sufficient protection for this transport that we should have. Upon arriving to DOC, the transport unit was fired upon and a shootout began between a couple of DOC guards and some individuals in pink. In this firefight, Mr. Rush was downed and I arrived as the sole unit on the CODE-1 scene at DOC, as units were tied up in the city with a pursuit. Upon arriving on the scene I saw Mr. Rush on the ground in pain with multiple gunshot wounds, along with a silenced Pistol .50 on his hip. Officer Alfonso Banker of the Department of Corrections explained to me that he had been involved in a shootout between DOC guards and the individuals in pink trying to release their comrade (Mr. Rush was wearing a full pink outfit). Mr. Rush adamantly decreed that he was not involved and that he was being shot at by the people in pink, not shooting at DOC. DOC requested I add the Attempted Murder of a Government Employee charge for this, which I did add.

      As for the firearm charge, when I arrived on the scene the Pistol .50 with the silencer was on Mr. Rush's hip and the only manipulation I did to it was take it off of his hip and place it in an evidence bag. It appeared to have 9 rounds discharged which only furthered my belief of DOC's testimony. Mr. Rush was transported to the hospital and then transported back to DOC. Upon his transport to DOC a CODE-1 was called by deputies on DOC grounds as Deputy Elijah Quinn was being held hostage by Mrs. Charlie Bankshot. Mrs. Bankshot negotiated with deputies for quite a while before the Sheriff's Department negotiators agreed to let those in pink go free in return for Deputy Quinn's release. Mr. Rush was released from my custody at this time, serving none of his time and exited DOC grounds on his bike. No further charges were added.

      Eventually, I believe he was arrested by the Los Santos Police Department, and no further charges came of this particular arrest. ]
    Witness Affirmation
    • I, [Wiley Reno], 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,

      Image
      [Wiley Reno]
      [Deputy Sheriff III]
      [Los Santos Sheriff's Department]

      Date: [17/JAN/2022]
    Image
    Exhibit #3: DOC
    Type of Discovery:
    • Deposition (Two statements from former Officer Alfonzo Banker)
    Spoiler
    Alfonzo Banker wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:04 am To be honest bro, I got no idea what this situation is pertaining to and if I did it was probably from such a long time ago that I wouldn't remember the details.
    Alfonzo Banker wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:55 am From what I remember Brayden never shot his firearm. I was the one that BLSed him and handcuffed him while he was injured because of the illegal firearm on his person. I was also the one that initially identified him. I can say without a doubt that Brayden did not shoot at anybody, the fact that the firearm wasn't checked to see if it was still hot before charging him is a bit concerning to say the least. Hope my statement helps!


    Sincerely,

    Image
    Hugh R. Allgood
    Senior Prosecuting Attorney
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0003, State of San Andreas v. Brayden Rush

Post by Judith Mason »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #22-CM-0003, State of San Andreas v. Brayden Rush
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Parties,

    As no motions are being contested and there is nothing that needs to be heard at a hearing, we will move straight to trial for this case. I would ask that those involved please mark your availability using this scheduling tool.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0003, State of San Andreas v. Brayden Rush

Post by Judith Mason »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #22-CM-0003, State of San Andreas v. Brayden Rush
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Parties,

    Please use this updated scheduling tool to mark your availability for this next week.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0003, State of San Andreas v. Brayden Rush

Post by Judith Mason »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #22-CM-0003, State of San Andreas v. Brayden Rush
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Parties,

    Based on the provided responses to the scheduling tool, I will be scheduling this trial for Tuesday, April 5th at 5:30 PM (( UTC )).

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0003, State of San Andreas v. Brayden Rush

Post by Judith Mason »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #22-CM-0003, State of San Andreas v. Brayden Rush
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Parties,

    Due to unforeseen circumstances, I will be delaying this trial until further notice. A new date and time will be announced in the coming days.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0003, State of San Andreas v. Brayden Rush

Post by Judith Mason »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #22-CM-0003, State of San Andreas v. Brayden Rush
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Parties,

    Thank you for your patience regarding the rescheduling of this trial. The new date and time is set for first thing on Monday, April 11th at 12 AM (( UTC )).

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0003, State of San Andreas v. Brayden Rush

Post by Judith Mason »

Image
Form 3.0.5 - Issuance of Verdict


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

ISSUANCE OF VERDICT - 22-CM-0003


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Brayden Rush
22-CM-0003

CHARGES BEING DISPUTED:
WM03 - Possession of Weapon Modifications
WF03 - Possession of Illegal Firearms / Weapons
SF02 - Attempted Murder of a Government Employee


A verdict was entered in the above case on the 11th day of April, 2022.

  • The Court has found that based on the evidence examined during this trial, Mr. Brayden Rush was directly involved in the shootout that happened between correctional officers and a group of pink-clothed individuals at Bolingbroke Penitentiary on the 22nd of October of 2021.

    Further, although it has been disputed as to how the firearm with an attached suppressor made its way to the defendant’s hip, I have found this claim by the defense that one of the assailants in the shootout had taken the time to stop by the defendant’s pink-clothed body and place the recently discharged firearm in the defendant’s possession to be unreasonable.

    It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:
    • On the count of WM03 - Possession of Weapon Modifications, I find the defendant, Brayden Rush, guilty.
    • On the count of WF03 - Possession of Illegal Firearms/Weapons, I find the defendant, Brayden Rush, guilty.
    • On the count of SF02 - Attempted Murder of a Government Employee, I find the defendant, Brayden Rush, guilty.

    In accordance with policy set forth by the San Andreas Judicial Branch, the defendant will be required to pay the associated court fees in the amount of $15,375.

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

Return to “SAJB - Archived Criminal Cases”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests