STATE OF RIDGEWAY
State of Ridgeway
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CM-350
Plaintiff
v.
InfinityTurtleXD
Defendant
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE
The State in the above matter respectfully submits this response to the Defendant’s motion to strike State
exhibits B-D. The Court should allow all exhibits to remain on the record.
ARGUMENT
I. THE GOVERNMENT NEED NOT AUTHENTICATE EXHIBITS TILL TRIAL.
Defendant argues that State’s exhibit B and C, which are interviews of witnesses, have not yet
been authenticated. It should be noted that they do not object to the actual authenticity of the documents,
only the ability for us to carry our burden. The Defendant reasons that “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 Defendant Motion to Dismiss, at 2 (quoting Rid. R. Evid. 55(d)).
These Defendant reads this quotation out of context. The Defendant’s citation comes from rule
55, the title is “Evidence that is self-authenticating.” We concede that this is not self-authenticating
evidence. But indeed, parties before this court are not exclusively required to submit self authenticating
evidence. That is why Rule 54, which the Defendant conviniently glosses over, provides a series of
mechanisms by which the government can prove the authenticity of the evidence. Rid. R. Evid. 54(b)(1)
clearly states that evidence can be authenticated through witness testimony. That is what the State seeks
to do here. The State cannot authenticate evidence before trial unless the evidence is self-authenticating.
Defendant is correct in observing that the exhibits submitted are not self-authenticating. But that does
not give basis for the evidence to be struck, because the State still has ample opportunity to prove the
authenticity of the evidence before this court. Exhibit B and C should remain on the record for that
reason.
II. THE OPINION TESTIMONY COMES FROM AN EXPERT WITNESS.
Defendant next objects to the opinion testimony advanced in Exhibit D, which is an investigative
report, submitted by the Government’s expert witness, Rainy_54. Defendant cites Rid. R. Evid. 50(c)(C)
which reads: “Record of investigations and inquiries conducted, either voluntarily or pursuant to
requirement of law, by public officers concerning causes and effects involving the exercise of judgment
and discretion, expressions of opinion, and making conclusions are not admissible in evidence as public
records, unless specifically authorized by statute” (emphasis added). Once again, they read this rule out
of context. This rule is found in the section of the rules of evidence that specify hearsay exceptions.
Public records are listed as hearsay exceptions. The rule that the Defendant cites simply says that if there
is an expression of opinion, then the evidence is not admissable as a public record. This is the part of
the rule that the Defendant left unquoted. It completely guts their argument.
This opinion testimony is able to be admitted because the affiant in the case is being brought as
an expert witness. Indeed, expert witnesses are able to “testify in the form of an opinion.” Rid. R. Evid.
43.
In the same argument, the Defendant suggests that the opinion testimony “taints” the view of the
court. Defendant Motion to Strike, at 3. Any evidence that points to the Defendant's guilt is going to
suggest to the Judge that the Defendant is guilty. This argument fails on its face because it claims that
evidence must be neutral and cannot favor the allegations of one side. That defeats the entire purpose of
evidence. Unless the Defendant can claim and demonstrate that the “probative value is substantially
outweighed by a danger of…unfair prejudice” they do not have basis to strike the exhibit. Rid. R. Evid.
12. They have failed to carry that burden both in their failure to allege a prejudice, and failure to prove
that the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value.
III. THE POLICE REPORT IS RELEVANT
The Defendant’s final argument is that the police report is irrelevant. Their claim is that a police
report that chronicles an investigation from start to finish by an investigator fails to make any fact “more
or less probable.” Rid. R. Evid. 10(1). They conclude from the premise that the evidence is irrelevant.
They fail, however, to demonstrate why the evidence doesn’t make a fact more or less probable.
The investigator performed an investigation, interviewed two witnesses, collected three exhibits,
and then, based upon their expertise, gave a summary of the facts and an analysis of the evidence and
applicable statutes. After the investigation, the investigator came to a series of factual conclusions based
upon his expertise in investigations, among those that the Defendant killed an individual with an axe,
that the event happened at Tom’s takeout, that the victim and the Defendant were old friends from
NUSA, that the complainant tried to run away, that the Defendant followed the complainant, and that the
defendant left the game soon after the instant, among a slew of other facts. Only in the one paragraph
conclusion does the investigator suggest guilt.
It is absurd to argue that a complete investigation that recounts a clear factual narrative based
upon a full reading of all the evidence would somehow fail to make facts more or less probable. If this
court accepts the Defendant’s suggestion, that a thorough and diligent investigation and the factual
findings that come with it fails to make facts more or less probable, it would completely erode the entire
purpose of investigations in this State. The investigation completed by the investigator makes facts more
or less probable, and is for that reason relevant to the proceedings.
Respectfully submitted.
/s/ Clifford
Clifford2, RSB#13101
