Ridgeway Unified Courts

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF RIDGEWAY

Searchable full text

8,124 characters extracted

—

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY STATE OF RIDGEWAY, Plaintiff, v. BATTALIONGAVIN, Defendant. Case No. RSC-CM-750 MOTION TO DISMISS MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FOR SELECTIVE PROSECUTION Defendant BattalionGavin seeks dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the Government has charged him and singled him out for prosecution in retaliation of his candidacy in the State Senate race. His candidacy, an exercise of his right to pursue public office, was targeted by the Government in a clear effort to harm the Defendant’s campaign by loss or removal from the election due to an underlying indictment against his name. This prosecution constitutes a vindictive and selective prosecution in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. When we look at the elements of selective prosecution, the Supreme Court of the United States has specifically outlined how selective prosecution applies to discrimination of a race. Discrimination, however, ultimately consolidates with the general act of applying bias in the manner of “[o]pposing a particular person or thing in an unfair way, because of allowing personal opinions to influence[] judgment.” (“Bias,” Cambridge Dictionary). In essence, Discrimination and Bias go hand in hand in this case, and thus this court should see discrimination as if we saw it as bias. Defendant recognizes the burden of a criminal defendant to demonstrate grounds for dismissal of an indictment for unconstitutional vindictiveness and selectiveness. See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 262 F.3d 305, 314 (4th Cir. 2001); United States v. Hastings, 126 F.3d 310, 313 (4th Cir. 1997). The facts and conditions provided below more than satisfy that burden. The indictment at hand was expeditiously filed by the Government solely due to the surfaced fact that Defendant was an actively campaigning Candidate in the race for State Senate, such information allegedly being brought forth to the Government by Governor MedinaLUV. Given that the statements at hand have been confirmed, the Defendant sufficiently meets the first prong to demonstrate selective prosecution by establishing that the indictment “had a [biased] purpose” Oyler v. Boles, 368 U. S. 448, 456 (1962); see also United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 466 (1996). As to the second prong of establishing that the biased purpose “had a [biased] effect” See Ibid. We must demonstrate that the effect ultimately prejudiced the Defendant in this case. As a result of the indictment’s expeditious filing influenced by clear bias, the Defendant has been held to answer for charges that have conclusively harmed the Defendant’s career, reputation, and future in the State of Ridgeway. This court should not tolerate any further consequential sanctions all due to the bias, and prejudice pressed upon the Defendant in this case. These facts, including the Prosecuting Attorney’s own statements about the prejudicial filing of the indictment, are direct evidence that motivations other than law enforcement drove the decision to indict the Defendant. The motivations are translucently clear, and they are absolutely constitutionally impermissible. It is a violation of constitutional proportions to single out an individual for prosecution, harming them because of their pursuance of public office. Dismissal of the indictment is therefore required. I. Constitutional Standards The United States Constitution, through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, plainly prohibits the government from indicting an individual in retaliation for his pursuance of public office. a. Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution “[N]o one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” the Fifth Amendment, further “affords protection in its guarantee of due process of law.” Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 285 (1922). Due process under no circumstances should be overlooked. In this case, however, the prejudicial filing against the Defendant solely based upon the fact that he was a Senatorial Candidate overlooks that very clause. When a constitutional violation as such surfaces in a criminal case, the only remedy is “[t]he dismissal with prejudice of [the] criminal charges.” Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339, 368 (1994). b. Selective Prosecution “Selective” prosecution, which involves singling a person out for prosecution for an impermissible reason, is similarly intolerable. To adequately prove selective prosecution, a criminal defendant must demonstrate “(1) that similarly situated individuals . . . were not prosecuted, and (2) that the decision to prosecute was invidious or in bad faith.” United States v. Hastings, 126 F.3d 310, 313 (4th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted) (examining a selective prosecution claim based on political affiliation). In short, the defendant must show that the Government had “a [biased] effect and that it was motivated by a [biased] purpose.” Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 608 (1985). To obtain a dismissal of the indictment on this basis, the defendant must produce “clear evidence” on these elements. United States v. Venable, 666 F.3d 893, 900 (4th Cir. 2012); Hastings, 126 F.3d at 313. II. The Evidence Establishes that the Indictment Was Influenced by the Defendant’s Political Affiliation in the State Senate Race The annals of the Ridgeway Department of Justice’s decision to indict the Defendant establishes clearly that the indictment was selective. The misconduct ultimately proving evident from the chronology is “sufficiently strong to overcome the presumption of prosecutorial regularity,” Wilson, 262 F.3d at 315, and translucently shows that the decision to indict the Defendant was a “direct and unjustifiable penalty,” Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 384 n.19, on the Defendant’s presence as a Candidate in the State Senate race. a. On November 13, 2022, the Prosecuting Attorney stated that the reasoning for filing the indictment so soon was because the Defendant was a “senate candidate.” Early in the month of November, 2022, the Senatorial Election registration was opened to the public, providing all Citizens the opportunity to run for the vacant seats in the State Senate. The Defendant, BattalionGavin, registered for his seat in the election and began campaigning in the following days. Whether the Defendant be a Senate Candidate or not, it is an absolute miscarriage of justice to indict an individual solely: (1) Because the indictment will harm their chances of winning and/or pursuing public office; and (2) Because the individual is a Senatorial Candidate. On November 13, 2022, the question was surfaced as to why Mr. Clarke, the Prosecuting Attorney, filed the indictment if his schedule conflicted with the case. In reply, the Prosecuting Attorney made clear that he filed the indictment so soon “cuz [the defendant] is a senate candidate.” When we look behind the true intentions of the Government in this case, the facts surface of clear prejudice, and bias toward the Defendant solely because of his political affiliations within the State of Ridgeway. A prosecution “cannot be motivated by a suspect’s exercise of constitutional rights through participation in political activity.” United States v. Hastings, 126 F.3d 310, 313 (4th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). Indeed, if a prosecution is so motivated, the defendant’s indictment must be dismissed. Therefore, it is indeed improper for the Government to indict an individual solely based on their political affiliations. This court should uphold that today by dismissing the indictment in its entirety. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Mr. BattalionGavin respectfully requests the dismissal of the indictment in its entirety. Dated: November 14, 2022 Respectfully Submitted. STICKZA Managing Partner COHN, CICERO, & GOODRICH, LLC Suite 3B, Palmer Apartments Palmer, RW 33328 D: stick#0677 E: [email protected] MATTHEWSANDRINGHAM Suite 1B, Palmer Apartments Palmer, RW 33328 D: a carlyle#0924 E: [email protected] Counsel for Defendant APPENDICES APPENDIX A - Prosecuting Attorney’s Statement in Question https://streamable.com/9ref6a

RSC-CM-750_-_Motion_to_Dismiss.pdf

Original document

Searchable full text

Document record