STATE OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CM-350
Defense’s Motion to Strike Exhibits B-D
Plaintiff
v.
InfinityTurtleXD
Defendant
MOTION TO STRIKE
The Defense, by and through the undersigned public defenders assigned by the Ridgeway Superior
Court, makes this motion to strike Exhibit B-D entitled below.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1.) On May 10th, the State of Ridgeway filed an information in the aforementioned matter charging the
defendant with one count of 3 S.C.C § 10 - Second-Degree Murder.
2.) On May 14th, the State of Ridgeway submitted all exhibits of evidence pursuant to a motion for
discovery made by the Defense on the 10th of the same month. See State of Ridgeway v.
InfinityTurtleXD, RSC-CM-350 [“Prosecution’s Discovery”].
3.) In their discovery, the State of Ridgeway submitted four exhibits of evidence.
4.) Exhibit B is a photographic copy of an interview with an individual who the state identifies as the victim
of the Defendant. The interview was conducted on Discord, a third-party communications service that
allows online messaging.
5.) Exhibit C is a videographic copy of an interview conducted by the Ridgeway State Police and the
Defendant. The interview was conducted on Discord, a third-party communications service that allows
online messaging.
6.) Exhibit D is the original copy of the investigative report conducted by the Ridgeway State Police. The
report was authored by Senior Special Agent Rainy_54, who is also listed as a witness on behalf of the
State of Ridgeway. The report concludes that the defendant is guilty of one count of 3 S.C.C § 10 -
Second-Degree Murder based on the exhibits submitted by the State of Ridgeway in this aforementioned
matter.
ARGUMENT
I. THE GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED TO AUTHENTICATE BOTH EXHIBITS OF EVIDENCE
In the Government’s discovery, they included two exhibits (Exhibit B and Exhibit C) regarding
interviews conducted by the Ridgeway State Police’s State Bureau of Investigations. Both interviews were
conducted over Discord.
Exhibits from Discord may be submitted as evidence as long as the party that submits them
“authenticate identities through a client reload and display of Discord ID.” See Rid. R. Evid. 55(d). In both
submissions by the Government, neither exhibits demonstrate a client reload or a Discord client number.
The Court requires that all exhibits of Discord be authenticated through this manner as it is incredibly
easy for a party to altercate or provide false evidence. Without such measures of authentication, the evidence
presented to this Court would be under constant scrutiny as to whether it could be trusted to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt. No exception should be allowed as this is a matter of ensuring that the integrity of the Court
is maintained when handling evidence. The Government should have instead included authenticated copies of
the interview, however, they have not done so in this matter. Therefore, it is not in compliance with the court’s
rule of authenticating evidence from Discord.
II. THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT SUBMIT A WRITTEN INVESTIGATIVE OPINION FROM THE
POLICE AS EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT IS CONCLUSIVE
Exhibit D of the Government’s discovery is a police report authored by Senior Special Agent Rainy_54
of the Ridgeway State Police State Bureau of Investigations, who the Government has called as a witness to this
matter. The record or report of an inquiry conducted by a public official may be admitted as evidence as long as
it is not “involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, expressions of opinion, and making conclusions.”
See Rid. R. Evid. 50(c)(C).
The report uses terminology that can be strongly construed as drawing a conclusion to this matter before
the trial has even begun. One very clear example of this conclusive, tainted language is when the report states
on its second page that the Ridgeway State Police “found that the defendant InfinityTurtleXD is deemed
guilty of [3 S.C.C. § 10 - Second Degree Murder].”
The purpose of the Court’s rule prohibiting conclusive evidence is so that the Government does not taint
a matter before the Court with the assumption of guilt against the defendant. The Government should have not
made an attempt to enter this report into the record, however, they have attempted to do so. Therefore, it is not
in compliance with the Court’s rule of police reports that call a conclusion on the matter.
III. THE POLICE REPORT IS IRRELEVANT AND DOES NOT MAKE A FACT MORE PROBABLE
For the purposes of evidence admitted into the Court’s record, a submission of evidence is relevant if it
“has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” See Rid. R.
Evid. 10(1). The introduction of the police report in Exhibit D does not make a fact more probable, instead, it
only demonstrates that the police did investigate the incident. If the report was struck from consideration before
the court, it would provide absolutely no evidentiary value to benefit the case. The Government should have
instead used the report internally to decide whether it would proceed with charges against the Defendant, not
use it in court as relevant evidence; however, they have attempted to do so. Therefore, it is not in compliance
with the Court’s rule of admitting relevant evidence only.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, the Court should accept this motion to strike Exhibit B-D submitted by the Government and
should further waive the requirement of a memorandum of law under Rid. R. Crim. P. 13(a)(4).
By and through the Defendant’s counsel,
Respectfully Submitted,
TaxesArentAwesome, RSB#12113
