Ridgeway Unified Courts

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF RIDGEWAY

Searchable full text

2,644 characters extracted

—

SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF RIDGEWAY STATE OF RIDGEWAY DOCKET NO. RSC-CM-821 STATES 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 THE DEFENSE’S MOTION TO DISMISS I. DEFENSE’S ARGUMENTS ARE INVALID BASED ON CURRENT RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE The defense’s sole argument is based upon the fact that the Grand Jury was composed of Law Enforcement Officers. Pursuant to Rid R. Crim. P. (5), an indictment may not “be set aside on the basis that the grand jury is composed of persons who are not active attorneys”. This amendment wholly invalidates any arguments made by the defense regarding the composition of the grand jury. This court is not the venue for the defense to argue the legality of the composition of the jury based on the above listed facts. Furthermore, this court has no standing to overrule the amendment of the Supreme Court to the Rules of Criminal Procedure. II. SELECTION OF THE GRAND JURY Peters v Kliff 407 U.S. 493 (1972), states that a defendant cannot be indicted by a grand jury “that has been selected in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner contrary to federal constitutional and statutory requirements''. Firstly, the Memo of Law1 submitted by Justice siteowner to the court provides an outline of the process used to select the empanelled jurors; therefore the jury was not empanelled in an arbitrary manner. There is 1 MEMO OF LAW.pdf no appearance of unfairness, seeing as there was no apparent predisposition shown towards either party. The grand jury also wholly met the requirements set out in the constitution for it. III. SCOPE OF GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS The grand jury in this case was conducted before any criminal paperwork was filed. Pursuant to these facts, this negates the Rid. R. Crim. P. (5) clause, based on the fact that the Rules of Criminal Procedure only govern activities taking place during the trial (See Rid. R. Crim. P. (1)(b)). Furthermore, the defense’s argument that the defendant’s due process rights were violated, is based on falsehood. The State of Ridgeway Constitution only provides the right to a trial by grand jury, but does not provide a requirement of it being filled with bar certified attorneys. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Defendant should be dismissed. /s/ JOSH LOCKE STATE ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Government Annex Palmer, RW 33328 RSB #19118 COUNSEL OF RECORD

RSC-CM-821%3B_Response_to_MTD2.pdf

Original document

Searchable full text

Document record