Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Zebulon

[TRAFFIC] The People v. Mike Cooper - 08/09/2019

Recommended Posts

“Your Honor,

 

If the Defendant continues to stall for time and waste taxpayer money, the Prosecution will be seeking a summary judgement and additionally petition the court to level charges of contempt.”

 

(( @JameZ @Urshankov @Ryoichi ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Looks over to the Judge and raises his hands in a confused manner* 

 

Will the Prosecution give me time to respond?  The defense is not at fault for not accepting a 5000 grand fine out the goodness of the word of the prosecution. If it was up to me no trail was ever to be taken place. Also, The prosecutions seems to make un-relevant comments with each question. 

 

To answer the question asked by the prosecution, There was an old lady on her way to the sheriffs department at Sandy shore who had waved me over while on patrol to tell that a burglar had broken into her home on Joshua Road. I went there to investigate the situation. 

 

(( also you need to chill with these responses that i am not answering your questions i have not had much time to play lately ))

 

 

Edited by Ryoichi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

** Martin Anderson heaves a deep sigh after a very heated discussion with Mike Cooper, before rising up and addressing the judge. **

 

"Your Honor,

 

It seems like my client is refusing to comply with my legal advise, and appears to believe he has a far greater knowledge in law. I would have to ask you to allow me to withdraw from this case, as it seems like his attitude isn't getting us anywhere in this case."

 

(( @Urshankov @Zebulon ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Stands up from the bench and turns over to the judge in again in a surprised and defenseless stance* 

 

"Your Honor, 

 

I am not sure what my lawyer is talking about, I have been on this bench the whole time. This such a crazy situation, quite an unprofessional behavior shown from the public defenders office,

I have no choice but to request a new representative to represent me in this case"

 

Edited by Ryoichi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**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 ))

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Deputy Cooper,

 

When being addressed after the incident by both the Undersheriff and the District Attorney, why did you lie about you whereabouts at the time, and deny that the incident ever had occurred?”

 

(( @Urshankov @Ryoichi ))

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Your honor,

 

Seeing how my lawyer refuses to object to this line of questioning i’d Like to object, this line of questioning has no relevance to the reckless driving charges made by the prosecution”

Edited by Ryoichi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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 ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Deputy Cooper? Please answer the question. In following conversations with the Undersheriff and District Attorney, you denied ever having seen the District Attorney, or being in the area at the time. As you recently testified, you were indeed in the area, allegedly responding to a bystander in distress. What were your intentions in taking the path of denial?"

 

(( @Urshankov @Ryoichi @JameZ ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Due to the improper handling by the district attorney whom had not announced his active role as member of the governmental institution I felt under no circumstance obligated to answer his questions truthfully and in some way help him pin a crime to my name.

 

The district attorney was trying to get me to admit to a crime without mentioning my rights nor following the correcting  structure such as the Internal affairs department which has been an active department for complaints such as these and is also instated to protect a deputy of baseless complaints with the help of fact finding intensive investigations into these complaints

 

The undersheriff was at the time not a member of the internal affairs department, would he have been then i should have been informed to have a lawyer present at the questioning. But this at all fronts seemed to be a unofficial questioning 

 

I there for refused to answer his questions truthfully at the time and I had to do this because I was not given a chance to refuse their line of unlawful questioning nor given the chance to be represented by legal council, Only after the questioning and even this court case was an official complained filed by the internal affairs department which is what i ultimately hoped for.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Ryoichi
  • Salty 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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 ))

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your Honor,

 

Deputy Cooper dug himself a hole he is only now trying to get out of, by any means, including presenting fallacies as legitimate excuses for his sub-standard behavior. Either that or Deputy Cooper has no tangible understanding of how to conduct himself as a Law Enforcement Officer.

 

 If the Prosecution put the Undersheriff on the stand, the court would hear that Deputy Cooper was given ample and extensive opportunity to take accountability for this actions. In fact, he was specifically told that the whole ordeal could be solved with some explanation, however, Mike Cooper carried on with his charade of denial and landed himself in court.

 

Yes, this case was presented to the court on the grounds that Mike Cooper violated the law, but it was only exasperated by Deputy Coopers unprofessionalism as a public servant, and his agenda of dishonesty.  Is this really the kind of person that we should expect accountability from when it comes to protecting our community and children? Clearly not."

 

(( @Urshankov @JameZ @Ryoichi ))

 

Edited by Zebulon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Just as an aside Your Honor,

 

There is a clear distinction between refusing to answer questions, and lying to a Law Enforcement Officer with intent to deceive; but at this point, the Prosecution is certain that the Defendant is not able to comprehend that."

 

(( @Urshankov @Ryoichi @JameZ ))

 

 

Edited by Zebulon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Objection your Honor, Prosecution is testifying. 

 

To answer your question, your honor, It is not what i am trying to tell the court, I am trying to tell the court that the questioning was unlawful, and that this was the only way for me to be able to get out of of this unlawful situation without accidentally falling into a trap where i'd admit to something i didn't do. If i were to invoke my right to remain silent, my supervisor could interpreter this the wrong way and fire me on the spot.  

 

The prosecution mentions in his own argument that only by admitting to a crime i could get myself out of these charges, I quote the following statement from the prosecution. "If the Prosecution put the Undersheriff on the stand, the court would hear that Deputy Cooper was given ample and extensive opportunity to take accountability for this actions. In fact, he was specifically told that the whole ordeal could be solved with some explanation, however, Mike Cooper carried on with his charade of denial and landed himself in court."

to this day I have yet to see any evidence of an actual crime being committed and even now the prosecution is aiming for me to admit to a crime i did not commit. 

 

This was a serious organised investigative questioning by the prosecution to get me to admit to a crime i didn't do, I there for humbly ask that the court strike the contents of this questioning from the record as it was unlawfully gained and should be inadmissible in court.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Ryoichi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your Honor,

 

Any investigative questions with regards to the charges brought before the court by the prosecution deem to be inadmissible due to the in proper handling of the District attorney. 

I was not informed that this was a official line of questioning which was on the record and able to be used in court as it is being used now.

 

There was also no mentioning that i could have had a lawyer present at the time nor that i had the rights to remain silent and there was also no mentioning that i was under oath when answering these questions.

 

if the district attorney would have gone through the proper channels such as the Internal affairs bureau that handles these kinds investigations of misconduct, then the situation would have been investigated professionally without any rights being neglected.

 

@Urshankov

 

Edited by Ryoichi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Patrick Masterson shakes his head a couple of times*

 

"Your Honor,

 

This is a spaghetti argument, and a flurry of red-herrings. None of what the Defendant is spout off is a correct application of legal doctrine and we are not getting paid to educate the Deputy on these topics.

 

The Prosecution has no further questions for the Defendant, and unless the Defence wishes to cross-examine the witness, the Prosecution motions to move these proceedings to closing arguments followed by a judgement on this matter."

 

(( @Urshankov  @Ryoichi @JameZ ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**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:

  1. Evidence must have been gathered.
  2. The evidence must be testimonial.
  3. The evidence must have been obtained while the suspect was in custody.
  4. The evidence must have been the product of interrogation.
  5. The interrogation must have been conducted by state-agents.
  6. 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 ))

Edited by Urshankov
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies your honor, 

 

in your ruling you mention that I was not in custody, to further explain, I was in custody when the questioning happened. The undersheriff literally detained me twice when this happened, I was not allowed to leave.

 

I am am also being charged as an individual and not as a law enforcement officer, were this the case then this case would have been the people versus the los santos county sheriffs department, as I was on duty when this incident happened, rather then me personally. Which ultimately means that I as person should be protected by the same institutions as any other citizen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your Honor,

 

I am sorry to interrupt, but I feel like now would be an appropriate time to re-review my request of withdrawal from this case."

 

 

(( @Urshankov ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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 ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Thank you, your honor. I shall now repeat my request to withdraw from the case, as it appears that Mr. Cooper has repeatedly refused to comply with my legal advice, and appears to believe he has a far greater knowledge in law. With these two conditions being applied, I don't believe there'd be any further need for my services, when it could've gone to help another potentially innocent civilian of our great country."

 

(( @Urshankov @Zebulon ))

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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 ))

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your Honor,

 

The Prosecution has no need to call further witnesses to the stand and believes the evidence provided to the court thus far is sufficient to move towards closing arguments."

 

(( @Urshankov @Ryoichi )) 

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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • 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.