Jump to content
Zebulon

[STATE] The People V. Zachary Wilson [5/20]

Recommended Posts

"Your Honor,

 

The Prosecution shall be motioning to impeach the witness on grounds of credibility caused through inconsistent statements made in testimony. Credibility is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as ‘‘The quality that makes something worthy of belief."

 

Your Honor, in the process of this testimony, Chief Bishop has indicated that his word is not credible. Chief Bishop was asked by the prosecution... "What are the expectations regarding the upkeep and maintenance of administrative documents within the Los Santos Police Department?"

 

In response, the Chief testified that... "Obviously we seek to keep administrative documents kept updated and relevant at all times. It is important for the department and myself that administrative paperwork stays up to date and is understandable for everyone that take use of it"

 

Your Honor, generally speaking.. "A witness’s credibility may be impeached by evidence that the witness has made a statement, whether written or not, inconsistent with the witness’s present testimony."

 

Reviewing the Chief's present testimonial responses, between April 1st and 30th, of 2019, the Chief Bishop allegedly oversaw the acquisition, outfitting, testing and subsequent addition of a 2019 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1. Within that month, the Chief apparently failed to notate in any written format, such as memos, internal emails, fleet rosters or otherwise, any relevant information regarding this vehicle.

 

Looking to Exhibit 4, the court can further see that this vehicle, at the time of Officer Greene's report on the 27th of April... the same date the vehicle was used by Sergeant Wilson... that there was indeed no documented status of the vehicle as being fit for usage. This is clearly not... "At all times"

 

You Honor, one of two scenarios exist then that this court must face... That Chief Bishop is incompetent in maintaining the responsibilities the even he identified as his own, or that Chief Bishop is willfully misleading the court.

 

Regardless of the nature of the Chief's conflicting statements, the Prosecution no longer sees the Chief's word as credible and furthers that the witness should be removed from the stand and that all testimony and any further submissions regarding Chief Bishop should be struck and made in no way usable as evidence or in support of any further testimony or arguments."

 

(( @Urshankov @Restrepo @Shanks ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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 ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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:

 

Quote

 

(a) A person is disqualified to be a witness if he or she is:

(1) Incapable of expressing himself or herself concerning the matter so as to be understood, either directly or through interpretation by one who can understand him;  or

(2) Incapable of understanding the duty of a witness to tell the truth.

(b) In any proceeding held outside the presence of a jury, the court may reserve challenges to the competency of a witness until the conclusion of the direct examination of that witness.

 

 

The following section, § 702 also notes that:

 

 

Quote

 

(a) Subject to Section 801 (in ref: expert witnesses) , the testimony of a witness concerning a particular matter is inadmissible unless he has personal knowledge of the matter.  Against the objection of a party, such personal knowledge must be shown before the witness may testify concerning the matter.

(b) A witness' personal knowledge of a matter may be shown by any otherwise admissible evidence, including his own testimony.

 

 

 

Now, under CA Code, EVID § 780, the following applies in relation to the General Credibility of a witness:

 

Quote

Except as otherwise provided by statute, the court or jury may consider in determining the credibility of a witness any matter that has any tendency in reason to prove or disprove the truthfulness of his testimony at the hearing, including but not limited to any of the following:

(a) His demeanor while testifying and the manner in which he testifies.

(b) The character of his testimony.

(c) The extent of his capacity to perceive, to recollect, or to communicate any matter about which he testifies.

(d) The extent of his opportunity to perceive any matter about which he testifies.

(e) His character for honesty or veracity or their opposites.

(f) The existence or nonexistence of a bias, interest, or other motive.

(g) A statement previously made by him that is consistent with his testimony at the hearing.

(h) A statement made by him that is inconsistent with any part of his testimony at the hearing.

(i) The existence or nonexistence of any fact testified to by him.

(j) His attitude toward the action in which he testifies or toward the giving of testimony.

(k) His admission of untruthfulness.

 

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:

 

Quote

The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by any party, including the party calling him.

 

Evidence of traits of his character other than honesty or veracity, or their opposites, is inadmissible to attack or support the credibility of a witness.

 

Evidence of the good character of a witness is inadmissible to support his credibility unless evidence of his bad character has been admitted for the purpose of attacking his credibility.

 

Evidence of a statement previously made by a witness that is consistent with his testimony at the hearing is inadmissible to support his credibility unless it is offered after:

(a) Evidence of a statement made by him that is inconsistent with any part of his testimony at the hearing has been admitted for the purpose of attacking his credibility, and the statement was made before the alleged inconsistent statement;  or

(b) An express or implied charge has been made that his testimony at the hearing is recently fabricated or is influenced by bias or other improper motive, and the statement was made before the bias, motive for fabrication, or other improper motive is alleged to have arisen.

 

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:

 

Quote

"The prosecution is arguing his own witnesses and evidence as unreliable and uncredible."

 

"Your honor I ask that the matter with Chief Bishop be handled on its own accord and my case be moved forward, as not to delay the courts time any further"

 

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 ))

Edited by Urshankov
turns out I can't spell lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your Honor,

 

The Prosecution would ask the court to clarify that that on the basis that Chief Bishop has been impeached, and thus cannot be called to further validate or testify to this court, that any further testimony, that implicates alleged verbal conversations with Chief Bishop, should be denoted as hearsay, and therefore inadmissible as evidence.  Generally speaking Your Honor... The hearsay rule is a rule of evidence which prohibits admitting testimony or documents into evidence when the statements contained therein are offered to prove their truth and the maker of the statements is not able to testify about it in court. In this case, because Chief Bishop is no longer permitted in court to give testimony and has been found to be not credible, the credibility of any accounts of verbal exchanges can not be ratified. Therefore, there is a constitutional due process danger that it deprives either side of an opportunity to confront and cross-examine the Chief who would be alleged to have made any kind of statement.

 

Moving forward, the Prosecution motions to submit new evidence under a new Exhibit, being an extension of Exhibit 9, under Exhibit 10, the Bodycam & Dashcam footage, S-50 from April 28th, 2019:

Spoiler

 

 

The Prosecution would then call Captian Eileen Woodvine to the stand."

 

(( @Urshankov @Mogs @Restrepo ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**Eileen Woodvine stands up, stepping up to the witness stand**

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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 ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Objection your honor, this evidence is irrelevant. The dashcam footage the prosecution has just provided is on the 28th of April where there was no ride along, the pursuit this case is based on is the 27th of April."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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 )) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your Honor, I'd also like to motion to strike any evidence, statements, and footage provided by Officer Marley Greene or through Officer Marley Greene on the basis of perjury, his admission of untruthfulness, and his credibility. 

 

To quote Officer Marley Greene's statement "Sergeant Wilson also took his ride-along, without protection, inside this high speed interceptor vehicle to chase down a 2019 Lamborghini Urus with speeds plus +150MPH." Officer Marley Greene is knowingly making a false statement in a police report, as he was clearly seen by his own body cam footage that he was in the TED garage at the time of the pursuit and had no way of knowing the speed otherwise. 

 

Furthermore, Officer Marley Greene put forward the statement stating that I "endangered the public with his ridealong", which again he had no way of knowing due to his location at the time, yet knowingly put forward this false statement. Officer Marley Greene is also completely oblivious to the policies of the department, stating that I was riding "without proper protection", despite the fact that driving the HSIUs requires no protections. It's clear that he had no knowledge of the policies himself, and also did not have a first hand account of the events that occurred yet made assumptions and included them in his affidavit.

 

**BODYCAM FOOTAGE BY OFFICER MARLEY GREENE**

Spoiler

RscXnwU.jpg

 

(( @Urshankov @Zebulon ))

 

Edited by Restrepo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Your Honor,

 

This is the second time that the Defendant has blurted out and disrupts the proceedings.

 

The Prosecution urges the bench to maintain control of this case so that motions may be addressed in order.”

 

(( @Urshankov @Restrepo ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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 ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your Honor,

 

 

Indeed the Dash-cam footage serves a few purposes. Mainly it acts as a rebuttal to previous character evidence made in statement by the Defendant on March 27th.

 

The Defendant said:

 

"I have a certification that allows me to operate the vehicle, and in the policies which the prosecution has quoted multiple times, one of the factors when deciding to continue a pursuit is; “The ability of the pursuing officer to keep control of the their patrol vehicle”."

 

This evidence upholds that the Defendant has sustained damage to his vehicle whilst in operation of it and therefore their ability to keep control of said vehicle while in pursuit comes into question.... Questions that the Prosecution shall investigate through further questioning.

 

Your Honor, the Prosecution would move to carry on with questioning the witness on the stand..."

 

(( @Urshankov @Mogs @Restrepo ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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 ))

Edited by Urshankov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Your Honor,

 

Can the Prosecution please get clarification on your recent statement?

 

It is understood that the Defendant may only at this time raise objections to the witness and not other matters. Is that correct?”

 

(( @Urshankov ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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 ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The main goal of the pursuit policies was to iron out all the problems we had at the time. We had a lot of damages reported on our vehicles as a result of aggressive ramming. We had a vehicle completely destroyed as a result of an officer driving it on train tracks. Furthermore, we had an abundance of unmarked units taking part, and taking lead in pursuits. Our policies in regards to pursuits prior to this document were broad and lacked detail and instruction. I felt, at the time, that detailed policies and procedures needed to be put in place to avoid reports about officers becoming overly aggressive and eager in pursuits."

 

@Zebulon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Vehicle pursuits are often unpredictable and therefore can cause issues. However if an officer becomes overly aggressive in pursuits then internal punishment will follow, and that's how it's been done in the past. If officers stick to the policies and follow the procedures then they shouldn't become overly aggressive, and shouldn't take unnecessary risk. However, it ultimately falls under the officer's decision at the time as decisions in pursuits, such as whether to continue or not to continue for example, is at the officer's discretion.

 

To answer your question, not necessarily. If officers did everything according to the document, then there shouldn't be any major issues."

 

@Zebulon

Edited by Mogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Captain Woodvine, 

 

By your last testimony, you implied that is at an Officers discretion to take unnecessary risks. Is it standard protocol to deliberately expose civilian ride-alongs to these unpredictable, high-risk scenarios?"

 

(( @Mogs @Urshankov @Restrepo ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"No, it is not. However, an officer still has a job to do. A ride-along shouldn't prevent an officer from doing anything they would otherwise do on a standard Lincoln patrol."

 

(( @Zebulon ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your Honor,

 

If the Defense wishes to forego cross-examination, the Prosecution would motion to bring about closing arguments, moving to a judgement based on the evidence provided to the court thus far."

 

((@Urshankov @Restrepo ))

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The defense would like to cross examine the witness, Captain Woodvine was the vehicle in question approved on the date of April 27th?"

 

(( @Urshankov @Zebulon @Mogs ))

 

Edited by Restrepo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 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.