Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
9,102 characters extracted
—
RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
VEROGAMESTUDIOS,
Defendant.
Action No. RSC-CM-7765
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO DISMISS
Defendant VeroGameStudios (“Defendant”), by and through the Ridgeway Public
Defense Office, pursuant to Rid. R. Crim. P. 13, respectfully moves the court to
reconsider the finding of probable cause by the magistrate and dismiss the information
for lack of probable cause. A memorandum of law in support and proposed order is
attached.
Dated: April 16, 2026
Palmer, Ridgeway Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Nicklaus_s
NICKLAUS_S (Rid. Bar No. 10241)
Supervisory Public Defender
Ridgeway Public Defense Office
Division of Appeals & Litigation
1 Jackson Road
Palmer, Ridgeway 22093
(123) 456-7890
[email protected]
Attorney for Defendant
RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
VEROGAMESTUDIOS,
Defendant.
Action No. RSC-CM-7765
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND TO DISMISS
NICKLAUS_S (Rid. Bar No. 10241)
Supervisory Public Defender
Ridgeway Public Defense Office
Division of Appeals & Litigation
1 Jackson Road
Palmer, Ridgeway 22093
(123) 456-7890
[email protected]
Attorney for Defendant
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 13 of the Ridgeway Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that “a defense or
objection which is capable of determination without trial of the general issue shall be
raised before trial by motion.” Rid. R. Crim. P. 13(c)(2). “A criminal proceeding shall be
commenced” by filing a “criminal information.” Id. at 3(a). “Any person having
knowledge…of the facts constituting the offense for which the information is
sought…shall convey to the court” in a complaint “the facts constituting the basis for the
information” and sign such statement “under oath.” Id. at 3(f)(1). A criminal information
“shall not be authorized” unless the complaint “establishes probable cause to believe that
the person against whom the information is sought committed an offense.” Id. at 3(f)(2).
ARGUMENTS
I. The affidavit of probable cause is insufficient to establish probable cause.
The defendant moves to dismiss all counts charged in the information, as the
affidavit of probable cause is wholly conclusory and fails to set forth the specific facts
necessary to establish probable cause as to either count. In particular, count two warrants
dismissal with particular force because the affidavit makes no reference to the statutory
offense charged, much less establishes the elements of obstruction of transit authority
personnel. Count one must likewise be dismissed, and on two independent grounds: the
affidavit is equally conclusory as to the murder charge, and the information further
compounds that deficiency by charging first-degree murder under four distinct
theories—murder willfully and intentionally, felony murder predicated on obstruction,
murder of a civil department employee, and murder with malice aforethought—without
particularizing which theory the prosecution proceeds or providing facts sufficient to
1
support any of them, depriving the defendant of fair and adequate notice of the offense he
is called to answer.
“Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances…are sufficient in
themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has
been…committed.” Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175–76 (1949) (cleaned up);
Dumbra v. United States, 268 U.S. 435, 441 (1925) (holding that in determining whether
probable cause exists for the issuance of a search warrant part of the question is whether
“the apparent facts set out in the affidavit are such that a reasonably discreet and prudent
man would be led to believe that there was a commission of the offense charged”). Mere
conclusory assertions are not enough. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 239 (1983) (“A
mere conclusory statement…gives the magistrate virtually no basis at all for making a
judgment regarding probable cause. Sufficient information must be presented to the
magistrate to allow that official to determine probable cause; his action cannot be a mere
ratification of the bare conclusions of others.”); Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28
(1927); Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480 (1958); Nathanson v. United States,
290 U.S. 41 (1933).
The affidavit of probable cause makes two substantive statements supposedly
establishing probable cause for the offenses charged:
4. On March 23th, 2026, at 9:54 PM EST, the Major Case Unit
received a tipline submission from a complainant alleging that the
defendant had murdered them.
5. Exhibit A shows that the defendant murders the complainant
at 00:08 with the use of a Komrad full-automatic rifle, while they were
trying to tow a vehicle.
* * *
2
7. Based on the foregoing, your affiant submits there is probable
cause to believe that VeroGameStudios violated § 3.09, which makes it a
crime to commit murder of a peace officer or civil department employee
discharging a lawful or official duty; or of committing murder with malice
aforethought; and § 5.01, which makes it a crime to unlawfully possess
firearms sourced from an illegal dealer.
Aff. of Prob. Cause at 2.
That is all the affidavit says. There is no description of what the exhibit depicts, no
identification of the individuals shown, no explanation of what conduct is visible, no
indication of where or how the recording was obtained, no basis for the assertion that
what appears in the video constitutes murder rather than some lesser or non-criminal act,
and no facts whatsoever bearing on the state of mind of the defendant. Most importantly,
the allegations do not bear on any of the elements of first-degree murder or obstruction of
transit authority personnel. Conclusory allegations, e.g., Aff. of Prob.
Cause ¶ 4 (“alleging that the defendant had murdered them”); id. ¶ 5 (“shows that the
defendant murders the complainant”); id. ¶ 6 (“defendant can be seen murdering the
complainant”), without more, are insufficient to establish probable cause for any offense,
because they do not set forth the who, what, when, where, or why of the conduct at issue.
Nor can the exhibit do the heavy lifting here. The constitutional requirement that
probable cause be determined by a neutral and detached magistrate, not by the officer
engaged in ferreting out crime, Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14 (1948), is not
satisfied by attaching a piece of evidence and asking the magistrate to draw inferences by
the officer from it. The magistrate must be presented with the underlying facts—not the
evidence itself and an invitation to reach the same conclusion the officer did. Aguilar v.
Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 113–14 (1964) (“The magistrate must be informed of some of the
underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the suspect was engaged
3
in criminal activity.”). An affidavit that simply gestures at a video and asserts that it
shows a murder delegates the entire probable cause determination to the affiant, leaving
the magistrate with no independent basis to assess whether the evidence actually supports
the charge—which is precisely what is forbidden. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S.
443, 449 (1971). Nor does the existence of the video cure the failure to establish the
reliability and provenance of the evidence itself because the court must have some basis
in the affidavit to assess whether the evidence presented is trustworthy—its source, how
it was obtained, whether it has been authenticated, and how the defendant was identified
in it. Gates, 462 U.S. at 230. A video of entirely unknown provenance, presented without
any foundational facts, gives the magistrate nothing to assess and cannot substitute for the
specific articulable facts that the law requires. Nathanson, 290 U.S. at 47.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court should dismiss with prejudice.
Dated: April 16, 2026
Palmer, Ridgeway Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Nicklaus_s
NICKLAUS_S (Rid. Bar No. 10241)
Supervisory Public Defender
Ridgeway Public Defense Office
Division of Appeals & Litigation
1 Jackson Road
Palmer, Ridgeway 22093
(123) 456-7890
[email protected]
Attorney for Defendant
4
RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
VEROGAMESTUDIOS,
Defendant.
Action No. RSC-CM-7765
[PROPOSED] ORDER
UPON CONSIDERATION of Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration and to
Dismiss, and good cause appearing, it is this __ of ________, 2026, by the Superior
Court of Ridgeway for Ridgeway County:
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration and to Dismiss is
GRANTED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the finding of probable cause by the magistrate judge
is VACATED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that no probable cause is found; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that all counts of the information are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Order to Show Cause is VACATED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to amend the information is DENIED as the
deficiency is substantive and incurable by amendment.
/s/
Superior Court Judge
