STATE OF RIDGEWAY
SUPERIOR COURT
THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
v.
LivsSmoothies
[#1792051926]
Defendant
_______________________________________/
Case No. RSC-CM-2746
AMENDED JUDGMENT
Hon. Derogatoryyy
I. BACKGROUND
The government furnished charges against the Defendant on or about April 28, 2024, and
probable cause was established for second-degree murder, unlawful discharge of a firearm, and
brandishing. The Defendant entered a plea of not guilty. The government was initially
represented by s_tems but is currently being represented by SolusXervanis (#26101). The
Defendant is being represented by MatthewSandringham (#16103).
On May 25, 2024, the court returned a finding that the Defendant was guilty of second-
degree murder. It is through a review and a conference between colleagues that the court takes
notice that it has erred in its finding of guilt.
II. DISCUSSION
The government alleges that “On or about March 22nd, 2024, Defendant LivsSmoothies
caused with intent serious bodily injury and committed an act clearly dangerous to human life
that caused the death of resident sceptism, using their Barrage 1014.”
Sceptism testified as a lay witness to the government’s allegations and the government
took a shot at extracting testimony from the witness. The witness testified to an “altercation”
they had with the Defendant and the witness additionally authenticated Exhibit A which was the
government’s primary piece of evidence. The government called Arvantise afterward as an expert
in criminal investigations. Arvantise’s credentials as a criminal investigator for the State Bureau
of Investigation were established and Arvantise was therefore admitted as an expert to testify
before the court about the investigation conducted into the Defendant’s alleged conduct.
The proceedings reached summation and the court had to return a finding of guilty or not
guilty. The court reviewed the trial transcript and did not find any showing of mens rea or even
actus reus by the government. Then the court looked at the video evidence admitted by the
government and drew conclusions and made findings purely based on that video evidence which
is inappropriate. It is the job of the representative of the government to argue and demonstrate to
the court that these things exist, and that the Defendant committed these crimes and is guilty of
them beyond a reasonable doubt.
“In a bench trial, the court assumes the role of the fact finder.” S.T.S. International, Ltd.
v. Laurel Sea Transport, Ltd., 932 F.2d 437, 440 (5th Cir. 1991) (citing Elevating Boats, Inc. v.
Gulf Coast Marine, Inc., 766 F.2d 195, 199 (5th Cir. 1985)). Therefore, this court will assess not
only the legal questions but also the defendant’s guilt or innocence. This gives the judge a lot of
leeway. However, it is imperative that the judge remember his role in the proceedings and avoid
lifting the burden off the government to prove its case. “The government must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt every element of a charged offense.” Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 5 (1994)
(e.g. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970)). For the government to successfully reach a conviction
for second-degree murder, the government must prove that the Defendant “intentionally or
knowingly caus[ed] death of an individual; or [caused], with intent, serious bodily injury and
commit[ed] an act clearly dangerous to human life that cause[d] death of an individual; or
[committed] or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in
furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or
attempt, he commit[ed] or attempt[ed] to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life.” R.C.C.
§ 3.10.
The government intended to prove, as set forth in the information, that the Defendant
caused the death of the victim with the explicit intent to cause serious bodily injury and that he
did so through committing an act clearly dangerous to human life. First, the court will notice that
the government had not proven by itself that the Defendant even killed the victim and that the
court made that conclusion strictly through the evidence. The government had not proven that a
killing occurred, that a deadly weapon or a weapon at all was used, that the Defendant committed
this killing with intent to bring serious bodily injury upon the victim, or that the action carried
out by the Defendant was clearly dangerous to human life. Instead of returning a finding of not
guilty upon all of these deficiencies, the court took judicial notice of every single element
through one video. Judicial notice is a principle that should be used sparingly and only when a
fact is simply so concrete and discernible that it is virtually indisputable. Only issues of common
knowledge should be subject to the principle of judicial notice and the Defendant’s guilt, or
innocence is certainly not an issue of common knowledge.
No honest judge could conceal the truth in fear of being incorrect, because it is harmful to
the inimitable principles of the judicial system. Judges in Ridgeway are charged with upholding
the principles of justice. “A judge must participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing
high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and
independence of the judiciary will be preserved.” See Canon One of the Ridgeway Code of
Judicial Conduct. If the court were to let the conviction remain after these egregious errors made
by the court, then this court would be abrogating the principles that the judge has been sworn to
safeguard and therefore to uphold the principles of justice and preserve the integrity of the
judiciary, the Defendant’s conviction of second-degree murder in violation of R.C.C. § 3.10 is
reversed.
IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED on this 11th day of June 2024, that
the Defendant’s conviction of second-degree murder in violation of R.C.C. § 3.10 in the case of
RSC-CM-2746 is reversed in the interests of justice as the only appropriate remedy to the errors
made by the court.
By:
Derogatoryyy
Magistrate Judge
Ridgeway Superior Court
