STATE SUPERIOR COURT
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
State of Ridgeway
Plaintiff(s)
v.
cream_sm
Defendant(s)
Case No. RSC-CM-264
Motion to Strike Exhibit B
MOTION TO STRIKE
COME NOW, the DEFENDANT, by and through their undersigned public defenders appointed by the
Court, hereby submits this motion to strike exhibit B from consideration before this Court on the basis that it is
against this Court’s rules.
STATEMENT OF FACT
1. On Apr 14th, the Government submitted an eight-count Criminal Information in the above-styled matter
against the Defendant. It contains nine asserted facts.
2. On Apr 15th, the Government submitted its discovery exhibits pursuant to this Court’s rules regarding
initial discovery in criminal prosecution. The submission included two exhibits of evidence.
3. Exhibit B is a url website link to the Roblox Group of an organization in which the accused is a notable
member of. The group is entitled “GDK” which is understood to stand for Gangster Disciple Killers, a
criminal organization that operates within the State of Ridgeway.
ARGUMENT
1— THE EVIDENCE IS IRRELEVANT AS THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT DEMONSTRATE A TIE
BETWEEN THE ACCUSED’S MEMBERSHIP WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION AND THE EVENT
STIPULATED IN THE GOVERNMENT’S STATEMENT OF FACTS TO THIS MATTER.
In all criminal prosecutions, the Government holds the burden of proof to demonstrate all facts in its
criminal complaint and to further apply the law as to how it may have been violated based on their set of
asserted facts. In all of the statements asserted by the Government in the Criminal Information filed in this
aforementioned matter, there is no mention of the Gangster Disciple Killers organization. Exhibit B, submitted
by the Government, is a url website which demonstrates the participation of the Defendant in a criminal
organization that operates within the State of Ridgeway.
In order for evidence to be considered relevant, it must have “any tendency to make a fact more or less
probable.” See Rid. R. Evid. 10(1). If the Government was allowed to admit this exhibit into consideration
before the Court, it does not hold any tendency to prove any of the nine sentences made by the Government in
their Criminal Information.
This Court’s rules into relevant evidence are clear as to prohibit the entry of unnecessary details that
prolong any matter. These rules are also crafted to ensure that the Government does not attempt to introduce
evidence that may paint the accused in an unfavorable light when it is irrelevant to the proceedings. In this
matter, the Government should have never admitted the exhibit. Rather, it should introduce evidence that is
material and has a tendency to prove the events that led to or contributed to the offenses of which they are
pursuing. In this matter, they have not and are, therefore, acting against the Court’s rules.
2— THE EVIDENCE, EVEN IF RELEVANT, IS HEAVILY PREJUDICIAL AND IS SUBSTANTIALLY
OUTWEIGHTED BY THE DANGER OF PREJUDICE AGAINST THE ACCUSED.
The legal maxim of “innocent until proven guilty” is a cornerstone to American jurisprudence and one
that should not be circumvented by introducing exhibits that, even if relevant, may introduce the danger of
tainting the Court or a jury with assumptions of guilt and prejudice. Even if the Government contends that this
matter is against a high-ranking member of a criminal organization, there is no exception to this principle. The
Government’s Exhibit B, if taken into consideration, is being purposefully submitted by the Government to
invoke prejudice against them due to their preformance with an organization.
Evidence, even if relevant, may be excluded if its “probative value is substantially outweighed by a
danger of [...] unfair prejudice.” See Rid. R. Evid. 12. In applying this rule to the contested exhibit, it is clear
that, even if the Court ruled that it was relevant, it cannot be considered because it has a likely tendency to
invoke prejudice agains the Defendant simply because they are involved with an organization that has
previously engaged in unlawful behavior. A reasonable person introduced with this exhibit would be susceptible
to forming their opinion and conclusion without actually considering the evidentiary value of the other exhibits.
In a hypothetical scenario in which this matter was before a real-life court with a real-life jury, the mere fact that
a Defendant previously (or still) identifies with a criminal organization would not be entertained by that court
due to its inherent nature of likely invoking bias.
This Court’s rules to prohibit material that likely invokes prejudicial bias are authored to cover incidents
akin to this matter. The Government should not be allowed to introduce evidence, even if it passes relevance
standards, to skirt around its burden of proving guilt. Each defendant, no matter their status within the state —
whether an upstanding citizen or not — is afforded the same protections against the Government. The
Government should have never attempted to admit this exhibit.
3— THE EVIDENCE, IF USED TO DEMONSTRATE GUILT OF ONE OF THE OFFENSES OF
WHICH THE ACCUSED STANDS FOR, WOULD VIOLATE THEIR FREEDOM TO EXPRESSION,
IDENTITY, AND CONGREGATION.
Another basic principle that has been violated by the introduction of this exhibit is the basic human right
to expression. Each person has an inherent right to freely associate with their peers without fear of retribution
by the Government in criminal prosecution. This freedom extends to the association with criminal syndicates so
long that the accused did not participate in any unlawful activities perpetrated by the organization. For the
Government to introduce an exhibit of evidence which relates to the support and alignment of an individual
with his peers would be fundamentally against the nature of basic human freedom.
The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the freedom to associate is “guaranteed in the First
Amendment.” See Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 US 500, 507 (1964). This fundamental protection extends
to organizations that may be considered criminal, but that “it cannot automatically be inferred that all members
shared their evil purposes or participated in their illegal conduct.” See Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353
U.S. 232, 246 (1957). The Government may attempt to backtrack and state that the evidence is merely being
used to establish a mitigating factor, but the introduction of such because “while the State was entitled to
introduce ‘bad’ character evidence to rebut [...] ‘good’ character evidence, the [...] evidence cannot be viewed
as relevant ‘bad’ character evidence in its own right.” See Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159, 159 (1992).
In consideration of the protections afforded in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,
the Government should not be able to introduce evidence that furthers (or hinders) the criminal jeopardy of an
accused defendant based on their association with another person or group of individuals with similar
ideological beliefs. In past instances in which the Government has criticiszed the participation in a group, it has
always been for political and tyrannical gain — with the most notable example including the Communist Red
Scare in the 1960s when McCarthyism was in practice by all agents of the Government. The Government
should not have attempted to submit its Exhibit B to criminalize or invoke prejudice on the Defendant’s
association.
4— THE EVIDENCE, IF USED TO DEMONSTRATE GUILT OF ONE OF THE OFFENSES OF
WHICH THE ACCUSED STANDS FOR, WOULD VIOLATE THEIR FREEDOM TO DUE PROCESS
UNDER EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.
The Government has an obligation to give every person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of
the laws” nor shall any person be revoked of their “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” See
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV(1). As I have demonstrated previously in this motion, it is inappropriate for the
Government to paint guilt by demonstrating the association of an individual with another group. Not only would
such consideration likely invoke prejudice, but it simply is prejudice being used in criminal proceedings against
an accused.
For the Court to sanction the use of association within an organization as cause to further prove or
disprove the basis of a criminal offense would open the door to unequal protection simply for the alignment of
belief or other factors. What if, instead of a criminal syndicate gang, it was the Republican or Democrat Party?
Would the Government be able to consider the political orientation of the accused? It is entirely against the
notion of due process to allow the Court to consider the association of an accused. The blindfold on Lady
Justice would be taken off in-favor of poisoning the cleanliness of a defendant before they walk in front of her
sword.
The Government cannot enter the exhibit into consideration. Whether admitted as character evidence or
as evidence to prove a criminal wrong, it is inappropriate for there to exist the admission of free-reign evidence.
Such evidence must be restrained, as the Court has provided.
CONCLUSION
The admission of the Government’s Exhibit B has been demonstrated to be grotesque to almost all
senses of the Rule of Law. This is an important matter that must be tended to urgently so as to propel fair, equal
justice that does not take into consideration factors that are irrelevant, prejudicial, and completely inappropriate
to be entertained by the Court. For the reasons that we have stipulated above in this motion, the Defense moves
that the Court completely strikes and erases Exhibit B submitted by the Government in this matter.
By and through the Defendant’s counsel,
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ TaxesArentAwesome
TaxesArentAwesome
CasuallyMental#3344
State of Ridgeway
RSB#12113
