STATE OF RIDGEWAY
State of Ridgeway
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CM-432
Plaintiff/Prosecution
v.
aiwaysproper
Defendant
MOTION TO DISMISS w/ PREJUDICE
The defendant, by and through the undersigned Public Defender appointed to him in the aforementioned matter,
respectfully submits this Motion to Dismiss w/ Prejudice for grounds of a violation of the Due Process Clause
and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
ARGUMENTS
After a cross-examination of the State’s Expert Witness, Rainy_54, it has been determined that there
was an interrogation of two lay witnesses done in order to prove necessary elements in the State’s investigation
for probable cause. When asked if the interrogations contained testimony that was essential to prove certain
elements of the case, the witness responded with “yes”, therefore proving that the transcripts of the investigation
had relevance to the case. It was later confirmed that the investigation report contained these transcripts and
were handed over to the prosecution, however nothing was disclosed to the court nor to the defense. Failure to
disclose evidence to the defense is a violation of the Due Process Clause in the United States Constitution
"where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment.", See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83.
To prove a Brady violation, it is a requirement to prove (1) There was a suppression of evidence by the
prosecution, (2) That the evidence had material relevance to the case, and (3) That withholding the evidence
was prejudicial against the defendant. The defense believes it has sufficiently proven requirements (1) and (2) in
the aforementioned arguments. For requirement (3), “To show materiality does not require demonstration by a
preponderance that disclosure of the suppressed evidence would have resulted ultimately in the defendant's
acquittal." Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. at 434. “Thus, to establish Brady materiality, a defendant need not show
that the evidence, if disclosed, would have resulted in his acquittal.” See U.S. v. McCluskey, 954 F. Supp. 2d
1224. Therefore, the burden on the defense to prove prejudice does not extend all the way to an acquittal, but
rather to the preponderance standard.
The defense contends that the prosecution having withheld the interrogation transcripts did not allow the
defense to properly cross-examine those transcripts before they were used against him in the investigation
report. This develops prejudice against the defendant because the witnesses are given the chance to say anything
they please to the investigator, and have that used against the defendant, without the defendant having the
proper chance at cross-examining or contesting the statements which could have easily been prejudicial. Not
knowing the testimony said by the two lay witnesses, yet having the investigator freely use them to develop
probable cause and make assumptions which the defendant cannot challenge is easily a violation of the Equal
Protections Clause. The inability to cross-examine, not to mention even see the statements said against the
defendant, hinders his right to an equal and fair trial where the defendant can easily challenge any claim or
allegation the prosecution raises. For the foregoing reasons, we believe requirement (3), that withholding the
evidence was prejudicial to the defendant, was sufficiently met and proven.
CONCLUSION
It is for the aforementioned arguments that we allege the defendant’s rights have been violated in accordance
with Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83. Having proven the evidence being withheld and having proven the
prejudice against the defendant by hindering his ability to cross-examine under the Equal Protections Clause,
the defense submits this motion with fervor that the defendant’s rights shall be defended and represented
through all circumstances that arise in the filing of a criminal case.
By and through the Defendant’s counsel,
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/
DeputyIce, RSB#17102
Public Defender
