Jump to content
Unitts

[STATE] The People V. David Whitefield

Recommended Posts

"This court has been notified that the Defendant has been found to be in direct breach of the terms of their bail. With this noted, the Defendant shall be held in custody for the remainder of this trial, and forfeit their bond payments.

 

Additionally, the Defendant shall be found in contempt of court, and shall be held for one year (( one day )) past the date of these proceedings, to be in addition to any judgement if the Defendant were to be found guilty.

 

In relation to the statement presented by the Defense, Exhibit Two shall be struck unless the Prosecution has anything to say for why it should be sustained. With this in mind, the Court finds that enough evidence persists that this case may still be heard."

 

(( @Wright @Unitts @TheNeonGuy ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your honor,

 

Surely someone under such a high dosage of medication wouldn't have even been a fit state to give a witness statement. The prosecution feels its relevant to mention that the witness was a passenger of the Mr Whitefield's vehicle and openly admitted in witness statements "I wanted to see how fast it went, so I kinda..  Told him to hit it..". The prosecution feels this is a clear indication that Mr Saitou is withdrawing his statement to benefit Mr. Whitefield.

 

Due to the circumstances your honor the prosecution feels the witness statement should stick."

 

(( @Zebulon @Wright @TheNeonGuy ))

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Unfortunately, the court is only able to rule on evidence that is presented by either party. Unless the Prosecution has some kind of evidence to support it's claims the records shall be struck.

 

The Prosecution is free to call a witness or make further argument on behalf of the State."

 

(( @Unitts @Wright @TheNeonGuy ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(( @Unitts)) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your Honor, it is our feeling that the prosecution is dragging this case on because of their lack of evidence and convincing arguments they can bring to the table.

 

As it stands, there is no proof of felony public endangerment nor has an argument been made for it. If we observe The State v. Whitefield, a prior case, the courts deemed someone simply travelling in high speeds and changing lanes is not a felony nor is it endangering anyone, especially if vehicles are not behind them. Additionally, Huw Edwards in The State v. Edwards, was travelling at speeds in excess of 250km/h on the very same road way as my client and he was not charged for a felony, despite driving through the red light and having no regard for others on the road way.

 

As it stands currently, the facts of the case are, my client was simply travelling in a direction and passed a vehicle (which is not illegal nor improper to do when driving), and additionally the officer has no recorded speed limit nor does he know how fast my client was actually going. We argue that my client was not speeding nor was he acting recklessly, and instead, the officer uses excessive and dramatic language to imply my client is speeding, using vocabulary such as "blowing past" and "overtaking" without any proof for these accusations.

 

In truth, the reason for my clients crash was that when he turned the corner, the driver of said motorcycle which is parked in the photos the prosecution has provided, was in the middle of the road observing his motorcycle. My client, despite not travelling over the speed limit, hit the brakes and lost control because of this reckless behavior the owner of the motorcycle exhibited. And as we all know, having a car crash is not criminal in a majority of cases especially when not at fault. Additionally, there is no recording of the crash so who are the troopers to say what happened? They didn't see it, as they didn't see the speeding either.

 

Therefore, I ask for a summary judgement based on the arguments I just have provided.

 

Thank you,

Your Honor."

 

(( @Unitts @Zebulon @TheNeonGuy ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(( @Unitts ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ybpo8xbw

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

 

 


 

Judgment

Court of San Andreas, District of Los Santos

 

In the matter of The People vs David Whitefield

 

The court finds that there is insufficient evidence that supports a conviction of Felony Public Endangerment. With that being said, the Defence has not suppressed the testimony made by Trooper Richards which still stands as valid evidence against Mr. Whitefield, supported by video footage. It is well documented that an Officer is able to engage in a traffic stop based upon their professional opinion that a vehicle appears to be operated in violation of the law. This includes evaluations of speed. Arguments presented by the Defence regarding the cause of the crash and the speed of the Defendant are both non-sequiturs in the eyes of the law:

 

VC041 - Reckless Driving States

Driving in a manner that endangers property, vehicles or life including breaking multiple road rules.

 

Based on the evidence submitted by the State, and without the actual suppression of evidence outside of the witness statement made by Haruko Saitou the court finds that;

 

The defendant is found not guilty of; 

TF007 - Felony Public Endangerment

 

The defendant is found guilty of; 

VC041 - Reckless Driving

MO041 - Contempt Of Court
 

-and hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) and to be released after spending one year, and four months in the custody of the Los Santos Department of Corrections. Furthermore, the Defendant shall have their license suspended for one year (( 1 week )) past time of release after being found in contempt.

 

(( @TheNeonGuy @Wright @Unitts @Swanker ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(( @Zebulon can you explain me the veredict like the toddler i am please? No idea how to RP what's to come. Or what to do on a OOC basis.))

Edited by TheNeonGuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Your honor,

 

May I request my client be given time served considering the length of this case? Additionally, the vehicle was seized and given that he was not charged with a felony charge would it be possible to have his vehicle returned?

 

Thank you”

 

(( @Zebulon I will explain the verdict to him as well ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/22/2019 at 2:28 AM, Zebulon said:

-and hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) and to be released after spending one year, and four months in the custody of the Los Santos Department of Corrections. Furthermore, the Defendant shall have their license suspended for one year (( 1 week )) past time of release after being found in contempt.

 

(( Player released from the jail as he had confirmation from QueenC that Zebulon has given her the GO to have David Whitefield released. ))

(( Player paid the 10k fine as required (  IQAdg2h.png).  ))

(( Player's license was suspended for 1 week as required (  7C30Ass.png ). ))

(( Player's vehicles were given back. ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and follow our Guidelines.