Urshankov

"I shall allow it" (( @Restrepo @Zebulon @Mogs ))

"Very well, Captain Woodvine may return to her seat. I shall ask the defence to restate their motion regarding the evidence provided to the prosecution by Officer Greene and then allow the prosecution to respond appropriately." (( @Restrepo @Zebulon ))

Agreed. This always comes up once or twice a year and it really is pointless. I'd much rather see script changes or modifications that make investigations or whatever (from an leo perspective) easier for both sides and require less of admins needing to go through pages of logs or consult back and forth between the involved parties to try and correlate events. Shoutout to @Unitts for fixing the helmet and cctv stuff.

"Very well. Would the Defence wish to cross examine Captain Woodvine?" (( @Restrepo ))

"I shall now be issuing a summary judgement based on the evidence provided." **Justice Nolan bashes his gavel** (( @Wright @DaLuppo ))

"Yes, I misspoke. I was allowing time for the Defence to present an objection prior to Captain Woodvine's questioning. As I intended to say, all other evidence that has already been presented to the court, either party may object to after the questioning, since Mr. Wilson has already raised his concerns regarding the exhibits relating to Ofc. Greene. Please continue." (( @Zebulon @Mogs @Restrepo ))

"Very well, we shall continue with the questioning of Captain Woodvine whilst she is here prior to moving onto the concerns regarding Ofc. Greene's statement afterwards. That is, of course, unless the Defence has something to add regarding such." (( @Zebulon @Mogs @Restrepo ))

"Yes.. Mr. Wilson, for the final time, please refrain from passing multiple objections at once and leave ample time for the Prosecution to respond in due course, otherwise such proceedings shall not be as fluid and may take more time than necessary. I shall now allow the prosecution to respond to your initial objection regarding the newly submitted dashcam footage prior to the objection regarding the information provided by Ofc. Greene, and then moving on to questioning of the Captain." (( @Zebulon @Restrepo ))

"Very well, the IA report filed by Ofc. Greene was filed a day before this recording submitted. It may, however, serve as proof that you had operated the vehicle on multiple occasions - how does the prosecution wish to respond?" (( @Zebulon ))

"I am in agreeance with that, I was simply noting how any further or existing documentation from the department would not be automatically struck due to it's relation to the Chief by default, as I am sure you know. So long as the defence has no objection to the evidence, I shall allow the motion and let Captain Eileen Woodvine take the stand." (( @Zebulon @Restrepo @Mogs ))

"The Court shall now resume it's session from recess. After Deliberation with senior representatives of the Supreme Court of the State of San Andreas, including Chief Justice Vanderbilt and it is duly declared that the State shall utilise the Judicial Precedence from the State of California with relation to matters of Evidence and the manners in which it is presented. In doing so, I have noted every aspect of this case and have attempted to pair it to the relevant codes. CA Code, EVID § 701 states the following: The following section, § 702 also notes that: Now, under CA Code, EVID § 780, the following applies in relation to the General Credibility of a witness: In this instance, since Chief Vincent Bishop of the Los Santos Police Department was called by the District Attorney Steven Spade, CA Code, EVID § 785, 786, 790 & 791 may also be taken into account: I had made note prior to the recess that I shall be allowing statements regarding the District Attorney's motion to impeach the witness and the only such statement I had received was by the Defendant, Mr. Zachary Wilson who expressed concerns regarding the duration of his own trial. Within such he stated the following: Due to the lack of evidence presented against the claims by the Prosecution I am left with no choice but to sustain their motion to impeach. Whilst the Chief has previously demonstrated significant professionalism throughout the duration of his multiple Law Enforcement Careers I am only legally allowed, as both a sentencing judge and decider of guilt (similar to that of the jury) to take into account the physical evidence provided at this individual trial. It is reasonable to assume that such documentation of vehicle acquisition, storage and modifications of a department vehicle should be kept or recorded in one way or another, be it through a notice of purchase to the Government or as some form of internal manifest for the purposes of oversight - since it is safe to assume that such a purchase would be publicly funded by the taxpayers. Referring to the local law, the Law Enforcement Oversight Ordinance of 2018, signed by Commissioner Nicholas Howard, I do find it as a shambles of judicial proceedings since the District Attorney is unable to utilise his scope of powers (the authority to direct, instigate, and oversee any criminal, civil or internal investigation conducted by a Law Enforcement Agency) in relation to the criminal prosecution of a member of their own Department - a significant lack of documentation or relevant evidence. I do not see evidence of intentional misleadings (which may lead to perjury inquiry - no accusation of such has yet been presented by the DAO) and do instead find the LSPD, Chief Bishop and those responsible with relevant administrative documents incompetent and incapable of properly maintaining their contractually and somewhat legally bound responsibilities and shall be removing the Chief from the stand as a witness and strike all evidence and statements provided by him thus far as inadmissible. However, I do see it as too extreme to strike everything involving the Chief or responsible persons as evidence due to their status (which may make key pieces of evidence to this case inadmissible by virtue of relation). I shall now ask if the Prosecution wishes to present anything further to the court or if they are willing to allow the Defence to represent themselves or call a witness in relation to the criminal case at hand." (( @Zebulon @Shanks @Restrepo ))

"The Court shall take note of the Prosecutions motion and in doing sk enters the court into a period of recess of no longer than 24 hours whilst a case and character examination is conducted. This shall include an internal review by myself of all evidence submitted as part of the case and a review of every statement within this exchanged, which the Clerk has taken word for word note of in order to compare the grounds for witness impeachment in line with Supreme Court precedent and that of the Federal Rules of Evidence. As of current the Rules being noted are 608, 613 and, of course, 615. If either party wishes to bring further statements or evidence to light then they are able to submit them to my Office for the duration of the recess, this applies to the DAO with regards to criminal allegations too." (( @Zebulon @Restrepo @Shanks ))

"Objection overruled, the distinction in the question is how long the vehicle was in possession of the LSPD, not just how long it was stored within the TED fleet. I am interested within this as it may aid in discovering the duration of the trial period or any other important legal factors, etcetera." (( @Zebulon @Restrepo @Shanks ))

as someone who works for the fbi, I can confirm

"The objection shall be sustained but on the basis of asked and answered rather than that of lack of relevancy or being leading. The Chief has already given answer to the condition of the LSPD's administrative affairs as a whole and the question brings no further information of legal usage to light. The standards within such written policies have been affirmed to be up to date." (( @Zebulon ))