Urshankov

"Very well, we shall then proceed with the opening statement from the Defence's counsel." (( @JameZ @Wright ))

"The following is my judgement, and the reasons for such can be found within the descriptive paragraph." (( @Zebulon @Cryotich @JameZ ))

"I am of agreeance, whoever wishes to make a closing remark may do so now prior to me passing judgement." (( @Zebulon @JameZ ))

"Prosecution's objections are sustained, it is not relevant unless the defence is fully recognising that the original course of the vehicle was off of the roadway and then swerved over. Unless anything of legal relevancy can be brought forward, I shall ask the witness to step down from the stand." (( @JameZ @Zebulon ))

"Objection accepted, please elaborate further with the question." (( @Zebulon @JameZ ))

"Unless the Defence's council is able to provide evidence for these so far baseless claims to act as reasoning for their outburst and disruptive behaviour I shall be left not choice but to bring this to a closing prior to any circumstances warranting contempt occur. I shall ask again, does the Defence wish to continue their cross-examination of the defendant?" (( @JameZ @Zebulon ))

"That is correct" (( @Zebulon @JameZ ))

"Very well. I do find it in poor taste both legally and ethically that the actions of someone who is unfortunately unable to be present themselves is questionable, simply assuming the statement of the accused as fact rather than evidence that can be sustained within the courtroom rather than someone who would undoubtedly not say anything otherwise over fear of self incrimination, whether it be fact or faction. In doing so, I shall be approving the Prosecution's motion to suppress. Further, I do not see it suitable to suppress the diagram provided as it was presented as contextual evidence by the expert knowledge of the Trooper, who has served the State of San Andreas for multiple years. I believe that suppressing the testimony of said Trooper would in-fact create a dangerous precedent in which someone who is accredited with months if not years of training focusing primarily on interstates and various other types of roadways, and it would be a disservice to those who have worked within the Law Enforcement sphere to have their knowledge negated based on hearsay of a defendant who again would not self incriminate, especially after a 'not guilty' plea. Whilst I agree that the charge of second degree murder would not be fully applicable in this circumstance following general reasonability, I do not see it as sufficient evidence to quash any statement nor testimony made, especially when such charge is not being brought forward within this case. And so, I shall be declining the Defence's motion to suppress nor impeach the Trooper unless you are able to prove that the statement was written intentionally in bad faith and that there is some personal or professional link that would explain both the Trooper and District Attorney's Office grounds in which they would opt for a malicious prosecution. These statements are just as legally applicable as the statements made by the Defendant which were caught on another Trooper's dash-cam, which I had earlier divulged upon. Again, I shall be unable to suppress such a testimony unless there is evidence presented, otherwise it would be a clear violation of standard judicial practice and I see no reason that this case shall deviate from the norms. With that in mind, does the Defence wish to continue their cross-examination?" (( @JameZ @Zebulon ))

"I shall be calling this court to recess whilst I review the new evidence provided by the Prosecution." (( @Zebulon @JameZ @Cryotich ))

"Unless evidence can be provided I am inclined to agree with the prosecution."

"Very well, prosecution's motion accepted. The defence may continue." (( @JameZ @Zebulon ))

**Duncan Vance slowly limps into the courtroom, taking a seat in the Gallery behind the prosecution**

"Can you expand upon the objection, testimony or question?" (( @Zebulon ))

"Very well, would the defence's counsel wish to cross-examine? If so, you may do so now." (( @JameZ @Zebulon ))

"As stated, the Prosecution's question is sustained and the defendant may answer it in whichever way they please.. and no more objections on the ground of relevancy pertaining to this exact question from their counsel, please." (( @Zebulon @Cryotich @JameZ ))