Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
2,209 characters extracted
—
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CM-821
PRESIDING JUDGE: HON. KOALA
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO
DISMISS
Plaintiff
v.
XJVMMA,
Defendant
Plaintiff State of Ridgeway, hereby files this response in opposition to the Defendant’s
Rid. R. Crim. P. 13. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs respectfully move that this Court
deny defendant’s motion, and states as follows:
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
I. DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT IS ROOTED IN HEARSAY
Pursuant to Rid. R. Evid. 48(c) whereas it defines hearsay as “[a] statement that: a party
offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.” Following this
definition, it further clarifies in Rid. R. Evid. (48)(d)(2)(C) that in order for it not to be classified
as hearsay, the individual must be authorized to make a statement on the subject, or who was
authorized to make true statements. The defendant’s have failed to satisfy any evidentiary
requirements in their motion to dismiss. DavidLClarke has no part in this current grand jury and
cannot say it hasn’t changed since his time working with these individuals. By asserting a
disgruntled employee's statement as evidence in the defendant’s motion to dismiss creates
boundaries which violate the Rules of Evidence clearly.
II. GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS HAPPEN OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE CRIM. P.
Rid. R. Crim. P. (1)(b) hereby reads as follows: “These rules govern the procedure in all
criminal proceedings in the Superior Court, proceedings in the Superior Court consistent with the
State Statues, and in proceedings for post-conviction relief.” Furthermore, a grand jury occurs
prior to any criminal paperwork being filed, thus negating the Rid. R. Crim. P. (5) clause.
Furthermore, the argument that the individual’s rights were violated is false due to the
constitution only requiring a grand jury to deliberate the criminal charges; not stating it is
required to be fulfilled with bar certified individuals.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Defendant should be
dismissed.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/RyanJSyndicate
RyanJSyndicate
Deputy Attorney General; Department of
Justice
R.W. Bar #18106
Document record
File size
92.8 KB
Uploaded
Sep 3, 2022 12:00 PM
Filed
Sep 3, 2022 12:00 PM
Filing code
CRIMINAL_COMPLAINT
Uploaded by
state of ridgeway
Notes
RSC-CM-821; Response to MTD.pdf — archived from the Trello docket (https://trello.com/c/kohWyfqK)
