IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
AIWAYSPROPER,
Defendant.
Case No. RSC-CM-432
RESPONSE TO
MOTION TO DISMISS
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
The State of Ridgeway, in the above-styled matter respectfully submits its response to
the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
ARGUMENT
I. THE EVIDENCE IS NOT FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENSE OR OTHERWISE
EXCULPATORY.
Evidence violates Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 when the evidence is favorable for the
defense. But witness testimony that re-affirms each and every single allegation of the State’s
case, and fails to vindicate the Defendant falls short of that standard.
The Defendant’s argument is contrary to the actual threshold of Brady. “[A] Brady
violation occurs when the government fails to disclose evidence materially favorable to the
accused.” See Youngblood v. West Virginia, 547 U.S. 867, 870. Of which, the undisclosed
evidence was not materially favorable to the Defenses case nor would have resulted in any form
of acquittal of the Defendant.
The undisclosed evidence, specifically the interrogation of two lay witnesses, does not
constitute a Brady violation, be it provided that the contents of the interrogation itself were not
exculpatory nor favorable to the Defense. In support thereof, we can refer to one of the witnesses
preauthenticated testimony, where it was stated that the witness did not give the Defendant
permission to enter the home, subsequently followed that the Defendant was “completely
random” yet shot the Witnesses window.
The state also refers to the second witnesses’ interview, whereas sinznevermisses,
hereinafter (“the Complainant”), stated that the Defendant “somehow got inside” of the house,
subsequently killing him after making the illegal breach into the home. The complainant further
testified to the State Bureau of Investigations that he had provided further evidence of the
Defendant walking into the county annex, killing another individual.
All of this testimony is favorable to the State because it proves their allegations. It does
not undermine the State’s case and therefore, the State’s failure to disclose them is not a violation
of Brady. It is clear to the court that the undisclosed evidence does not violate Brady, be it
provided that the undisclosed evidence is not (1) Favorable to the Defense, or (2) Could have
provided grounds for acquittal for the Defendant’s case, as provided within the Defenses’ Motion
to Dismiss.
II. EVEN IF THIS COURT DOES FIND THAT THERE IS A BRADY VIOLATION,
IT SHOULD ONLY RESULT IN A MISTRIAL AND NOT A DISMISSAL OF THE
CASE.
If the court, however, does find that a Brady Violation did exist in the climate of the
undisclosed evidence, such violation should result in a mistrial and not a dismissal of the case.
The Defendant in this case was the prime suspect in the two unwarranted, unprovoked, heinous
murders of two individuals. It cannot be the case that a mere clerical error can absolve him from
those crimes.
One of the victims, sinznevermisses, was in his own private domicile when the Defendant
broke into the home and brutally murdered him on the floor. The other victim, officerjordan10,
was at the front desk in the count annex when the Defendant silently approached him from
behind, killing him with no warranted reason.
This case is not one that this court should dismiss, because this case does not meet the
threshold for dismissal. At the end of the day, such a mere error should not constitute the full
dismissal of a case against a habitual, ruthless, criminal. This court, at most, is looking at a
mistrial if a Brady violation is found.
Therefore, this court should absorb the following response to the Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss, and render a true and correct ruling as to the Motion to Dismiss based on their
supporting arguments. This court, when rendering their decision, should also absorb the
aforementioned arguments by the State, contrary to the alleged violation of the rule set forth in
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
CONCLUSION
This court, for the foregoing reasons, should DENY the Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss on the grounds of an alleged Brady Violation of the undisclosed evidence.
Date: 07/23/2022
/s/ stickza
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Criminal Division
Ridgway Department of Justice
Counsel of Record
