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 ))