Urshankov

"Very well, since the Defence has shown no intention of issuing a closing statement, I shall now pass judgement"

"Yes, it shall be allowed." (( @Zebulon @Ryoichi ))

"Very well, the Prosecution may state their closing argument followed by that of the Defendant." (( @Zebulon @Ryoichi ))

"I shall allow Mr. Anderson to withdraw on the basis that refusing to acknowledge or interact on a client-attorney basis with State provided legal aid, as offered within the Miranda Rights, is comparable to waiving such rights. Such shall apply in all further hearings, unless overruled by a higher court with greater jurisdiction or the Chief Justice or if there is evidence of moral or ethical objections, for example, if the Attorney had some evidential prejudice towards the Defendant - of course the burden of proof lies on the Defendant unless an Attorney voluntarily withdraws when such claims are raised. Mr. Anderson will not be able to be called as a Witness with regards to the Reckless Driving charge as that would incur a serious violation of any reasonable Code of Ethics. The Defendant may return to his seat - does the Prosecution still wish to call the Undersheriff to the stand?" (( @Zebulon @Ryoichi @JameZ ))

"That is correct, Mr. Cooper. It would be nonsensical to charge the entire Department for an offence that you, as an individual, allegedly committed - within both Traffic and Criminal Court proceedings, a Law Enforcement or Peace Officer are generally held to higher standards than the average civilian by virtue of position, it is expected that you as an actively serving LEO have a degree of professional legal knowledge. For example, if a Taxi driver were to commit an offence, the Corporation could not be held responsible unless they acted in a grossly negligent manner by hiring the individual knowing they posed a significant risk. The doctrine you are trying to cite is that of 'Qualified Immunity' and such only applies to Civil suits and so it is not applicable in any other division of this Court. It would appear that you are confused or perhaps uneducated on how Judicial proceedings work and I shall ask the District Attorney to ensure that all LEOs have the appropriate resources available for such training and education to prevent further mishaps. I shall now allow Mr. Anderson to restate his request to withdraw mid litigation." (( @JameZ @Zebulon @Ryoichi ))

**Moss briefly looks down to the Clerk of the Court as she'd hand him some papers that he'd scan through quickly** "I am inclined to agree with the Prosecution. As per the ruling of Miranda v. Arizona, the usage of testimonial evidence in the context of a Criminal Investigation, 6 rules must be applied, they are, as I quote: Evidence must have been gathered. The evidence must be testimonial. The evidence must have been obtained while the suspect was in custody. The evidence must have been the product of interrogation. The interrogation must have been conducted by state-agents. The evidence must be offered by the state during a criminal prosecution. It must be noted that all 6 of these must be satisfied prior to the rule of Miranda being legally applicable - as far as I can see, the Defendant's movement was not inhibited or restricted and so this does not amount to him being in Custody. I further cite Rhode Island v. Innis in which the Supreme Court defined an 'interrogation' as: "Any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect" The charge in question is that of Reckless Driving, and I do not reasonably believe that an individual, especially a Law Enforcement Officer of the State of San Andreas, can protest their presence in a location when operating a geographically-tagged or GPS fitted vehicle, or whilst utilising a body-worn camera unless evidence to the contrary can be given. Such procedures have been recently introduced amongst the Law Enforcement circle following technological advances which allow for enhanced safety and oversight, something which has saved many lives and furthered the course of justice. Both the District Attorney and the Undersheriff could have legally obtained the GPS logs, as seen in Exhibit 2, without the necessity of gathering a warrant or some other exemption as it does not violate any specific right enshrined within the Constitution or any of it's Amendments and so questioning attendance at a scene or a specific incident does not violate any rights and a failure to respond to such would, indeed, create some legal implications. As it currently stands in terms of legislation and judicial precedent, no Law Enforcement Officer can legally withhold information pertaining to an investigation, whether it involves themselves or not - though, in circumstances where rights are to be read, an exemption can be made - without neglecting the course of their duty since it is their profession to uphold and enforce law whilst serving the community. Any Officer who believes they can circumvent such procedures is clearly not fit for their role, and this brings serious questions into what acts other Officers could potentially be getting away with. It shall be held that no individual conducting their duties as a Law Enforcement or Peace Officer within the State of San Andreas can legally and knowingly withhold information regarding an ongoing investigation or incident to their superiors or the District or State Attorney's Office, alongside that of the State Governor's Office unless a matter of national security or by broader definitions of exigent circumstance, to preserve life, et cetera. No individual rights can be violated in such process of performing their civic duty unless said individual is subject to an indictable felonious offence, or a violation of the US Code - otherwise - all 6 conditions of the Miranda Rules must be met. In citing the State Penal Code, failure to uphold such would mean an individual is failing to "Operate appropriately to adequate standards" within a public agency, such as the LSCSD in this instance. In doing so, the Defendant's motions shall be declined and I shall ask Mr. Anderson if he wishes to cross-examine or further state his request to withdraw." (( @Zebulon @JameZ @Ryoichi ))

"What part of the contact between yourself, the Undersheriff and the Prosecution do you deem, or believe, to be unlawful?" (( @Ryoichi ))

"Mr. Cooper, are you trying to tell the courthouse that you lied to both the District Attorney and the Undersheriff on the basis that you didn't feel obligated to tell the truth since he had not announced his position?" (( @Ryoichi @Zebulon @JameZ ))

"The question holds bearing on the charges that have been raised, in addition to the recently questioned charges of contempt or perjury. Within the Affidavit it is stated that you claimed to have not been in the area at the times in question, this is your chance to raise a defence to the charges brought against you and is a vital part of cross-examination. You could have refused to take to the stand but opted not to. Objection overruled." (( @Ryoichi @JameZ @Zebulon ))

**William Moss bashes his gavel against the block, bringing the Courtroom to a controlled silence** "There shall be no outbursts in my Courtroom." **Moss then proceeds to glance towards Mike** "I shall like to remind you that Mr. Anderson, your assigned Public Defender, has served the State for a number of years and has yet to receive a complaint, to my knowledge on the basis of moral or ethical reasoning and such accusation comes as a surprise. As per judicial precedent in other US District Courts, since no ruling is such present within the State of San Andreas, I do reasonably believe that failure to comply with the advice, recommendations or even reasonable suggestions of a State Attorney is in line with waiving the Sixth Amendment right to Counsel throughout Criminal Proceedings. Doing so would mean that any further legal proceedings henceforth would mean that you are required to act 'Pro Se', or simply put, being forced to represent yourself as the State would no longer be willing to provide representation - reasonably, you cannot simply pick and choose a State Attorney because you disagree with their professional interpretation of the law. The only grounds I could see a reassignment being possible would be if there were some evidence of personal bias or legal malpractice, something I am yet to see from your Attorney, Mr. Anderson." **Moss turns his eyes away from Mike, addressing Patrick and Martin** "In order to ensure that Judicial Procedure is not made a mockery of, I shall allow the Prosecution to continue questioning until they feel as if what they have queried is sufficient enough and then I shall re-hear Mr. Anderson's request to withdraw himself from Litigation. I will, at this moment in time, not be allowing questions from the Prosecution on the matters of Mr. Anderson's request to withdraw or anything in relation to this disagreement, nor shall I allow the calling of him as a witness in relation to the charge of Reckless Driving, though, if a charge for Perjury is sought, and it is believed that Mr. Anderson is not ethically compromised, I may allow such. Now, apologies for the interruptions Mr. Masterson, please do continue with your questioning of the Defendant if you wish to so." (( @Zebulon @Ryoichi @JameZ ))

(( @Ryoichi ))

"So be it. Mr. Cooper, please take to the stand." (( @Ryoichi ))

"Very well, Mr. Cooper may take to the stand unless the Defence has any valid objections?" (( @JameZ @Zebulon @Ryoichi ))