Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Wright

[STATE] The People v. Abram Reznikov

Recommended Posts

"Your Honor,

 

The proposed allegations brought against Mr. Reznikov are far from what the reality is. The involved officers wrote a very subpar narrative with no details whatsoever, which to furthermore prove their negligence did not comply with the prosecution's request to provide footage of the incident which is fital for this case. Due to this, we can't establish whether the officers had probable cause to search the vehicle, neither do we have any bodycam footage (which should exist) supporting the narrative given.

 

Furthermore, my client was arrested based on items being found in his possession, with no effort whatsoever from the police to compare fingerprints or to collect substantial evidence that would prove his guilt, not to mention alone the search could have been performed illegally."

 

(( @Urshankov @Wright @Brodyaga - I'm very sorry for the late response, I was extremely busy IRL. ))

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your Honor, this is an attempt by the defense to twist the narrative into something that is not true. It was viewed by the officer that Mr. Reznikov was exiting the home and the tools found on him correspond to the damage on the home. Are we to believe that the torch he had on him was not used to damage the lock of the home in an attempt to burglarize the home? Furthermore, why did he have a ski mask and other tools along with a bag to carry them? We cannot be led to believe this was all by chance."

 

(( @Urshankov @JameZ ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your Honor,

 

The prosecution is forgetting an important element here which is that the burden of proof relies on them. There is yet to be presented any evidence which suggests the search was indeed lawful, and with the LSPD refusing to comply with the subpoena, it only shows an attempt to cover-up on events that had occurred during the situation."

 

(( @Urshankov @Wright ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Whilst the narrative may be considered 'subpar', I am inclined to agree with the Prosecution with regards to probable cause. The tools in the Defence's possession are more than circumstantial, as I see no evidence that he is a maintenance or construction worker, or any other genuine reason for those tools to be carried. Nonetheless, these chains of events will be hard to prove due to the span of time between them.

 

Is it possible to verify that the 'potentially stolen goods' mentioned in the narrative actually belonged to the owner of the property?"

 

(( @Wright @JameZ ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Los Santos Police Department did not make a follow up investigation to this burglary but nonetheless it does not change the facts of the case. Furthermore, the prosecution is not charging for possession of stolen items. We are pressing charges for felonious burglary and possession of burglary tools."


(( @Urshankov @JameZ ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JameZ said:

 

 

(( Due to being unable to verify the exact contents of the admin 911, it can be treated as if it was just a call regarding the break-in and the noise of the entry without a description unless an admin is able to provide logs of that call ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your Honor,

 

The defense would like to add the fact that the 911 call in question had not specified any information regarding the alleged break-in attempt rather than the fact that noise was heard. Police did not have any probable cause to search Mr. Reznikov and under this pretense, his 4th Amendment was violated. Any evidence that has been collected falls under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

 

With the Los Santos Police Department refusing to give us footage of the incident, there is no way we can even support the statement given by Office Weber, it is very evident that police had no probable cause at the time of the search, and therefore any evidence that was collected should not be admissible in this court."

 

(( @Urshankov @Brodyaga - I'm very sorry for the late reply, just noticed this wasn't replied to. ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Very well, following the non-compliance of the LSPD in gathering footage I find it hard to gather any evidence of forced entry by the defendant, and due to the lack of evident stolen goods, there is no sign that Mr. Reznikov had done so, and only 'could have' conducted the burglaries, though the possession charge may still be applicable.

 

Does the Defence have anything they'd wish to add?"

 

(( @JameZ @Wright ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

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