STATE OF RIDGEWAY
State of Ridgeway
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CM-942
Plaintiff/Prosecution
v.
sniiperace
Defendant
MOTION TO DISMISS W/O PREJUDICE
COMES NOW, the Defendant sniiperace, through undersigned counsel in the aforementioned matter,
respectfully moves this Honorable Court to Quash Exhibit D from the State’s Discovery. Furthermore, the
defense seeks to disqualify State Investigator Marinify from testifying as a witness, stemming from his use of
evidence obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights.
The basis for this motion is set forth below:
ARGUMENTS
I. EXHIBIT B DIRECTLY VIOLATES SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT
Exhibit D in the State’s discovery document contains depositions of Detective Marinify who,
through Discord Direct Messages, questioned the defendant on the case, while skipping the mandated
step of reading to the defendant their Miranda rights. The Supreme Court has long recognized that
before questioning a suspect in custody, law enforcement must inform the suspect of their right to
remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the consequences of waiving those rights, as seen in Miranda
v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Furthermore, failure to do so renders any subsequent statements
obtained inadmissible in court, as seen in Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000).
We assert that the preceding argument illuminates the glaring inadequacies of the State in their efforts to
prosecute the defendant, revealing their negligence and disregard for the defendant's constitutional
rights. The State's failure to properly acknowledge and uphold these fundamental rights has led to a
regrettable and unacceptable error that must be rectified. In light of the foregoing, we respectfully move
to quash Exhibit D.
II. DETECTIVE MARINIFY IS BIASED THROUGH ILLEGAL EVIDENCE— ”FRUIT
FROM THE POISONOUS TREE”
As seen in Exhibit D, Detective Marinify failed to read the defendant their Miranda rights before
questioning them, which resulted in the collection of evidence that is considered "fruit from the
poisonous tree," meaning that it is inadmissible in court, See Nardone v. United States, 302 U.S. 379
(1939).
Furthermore, the use of evidence obtained through illegal means undermines the credibility of an
investigator and their testimony, and raises concerns regarding bias against the defendant. This issue was
addressed in the case of Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963), where the Supreme Court held
that evidence obtained through illegal means may taint the entire case and render the testimony of the
investigator unreliable.
Detective Marinify’s use of illegally obtained evidence calls into question his impartiality and renders
him an unreliable witness. This impartiality at its root is caused by knowledge he gained questioning the
defendant. The fact of the matter is, he irreversibly knows information about the case and the defendant
that was illegally obtained. This knowledge can unintentionally affect testimony and the detective’s
point of view, up to the extent that there is a risk of further infringement of constitutional rights should
he be taken to trial, and the detective produce tainted testimony.
It is our belief that any evidence produced by Detective Marinify in relation to this case is irredeemably
tainted and would implicate further tainted evidence during the trial proceedings. The admission of such
evidence, thus, constitutes a grave threat to the fundamental fairness of the trial and poses an acute risk
to the integrity of the justice system, which the court must strive to avoid at all costs. Therefore, we
strongly contend that Detective Marinify can no longer be considered a credible witness for the
production of inculpatory evidence.
CONCLUSION
The defense has proven through the aforementioned arguments that there was a clear violation of
Supreme Court Precedent. We continue to contend that State Investigator Marinify is no longer credible
and deemed safe to testify in court. Bringing him in as a witness inevitably increases the risk of
infringing the defendant’s constitutional rights, and we believe it's in the courts best interest to phase out
any unwanted risk, and prepare for a truly fair trial as per the Sixth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
By and through the Defendant’s counsel,
Submitted at the mercy of Justice,
/s/
DeputyIce, RSB#17102
Public Defender
