[PROCEEDINGS FINALISED] United States of Argonath vs. The Escotta Family

[Klaus]

Part 1: Rights
The Prosecution would like to quote the following part of the Constitution of the State of Vice City

Law Enforcement in the state of Vice City are not required to inform the detainees of their rights. Unlike the constitution of the State of San Andreas, the constitution of our honorable state of Vice City has no mention of such requirement, therefore, the arrest was lawful. As seen in the interrogation of the defendant, he was informed of the reason for his arrest in accordance to the constitution. Therefore, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or any other law enforcement branch for that matter, were not required to inform the detainee of their rights, therefore, we find this statement to be absurd and have no validity in court.

I believe, even though it may not be worded within the city's constitution, that every citizen has the right to a fair trial, and also to having legal aid when necessary. I believe it is only fair, in our justice system, that anyone arrested should be told their rights and be given a chance to contact their solicitor before being interrogated. I will leave this to the Judge to make his conclusion.

Part 2: Mental Illness
The Prosecution would like to point out that Mr. Luis Escotta was articulate and understanding in the proccess of interrogation. The Bureau had no reason or cause to believe that Mr. Escotta has any mental illness, noir had the defendant made the bureau aware himself. We would like the defence to provide the court with a valid document issued by a certified medical expert that would prove the defendants illness and that there was a possibility he was not aware of his actions.

The Prosecution would also like to point out that the constitution of Vice City does not state mental illness as an extenuating circumstance, and therefore such illness should not be taken into consideration.

To keep in mind, that Luis understands that he assisted a criminal and is not using his mental disabilities as an excuse. However, he does struggle to socialise and is easily pressured into saying something he doesn't mean or doesn't intend. I will send for a medical expert to test him and come to his own conclusion (( RP yet to happen ))

Part 3: The Defendant being not aware of the intentions of the criminal.

The Prosecution would like to point out that the defence are clearly lying in their statement. Mr. Luis Escotta was very well aware of his actions. The Prosecution would like to quote the recording:
Not only does Mr. Escotta admit that he was aware that the suspect had criminal intentions, but he also admits of criminal acts, and he admits to have had affiliation with the deceased criminal by naming him as "a fellow criminal". He openly admits of being aware of the nature of his actions, and therefore, the Prosecution believes that this claim should be dismissed.

I believe its how you choose to interpret those lines. "What would you do if you were a fellow criminal, I did the same." I believe this doesn't, beyond reasonable doubt, prove my client Luis Escotta had full knowledge of what he got himself into. All he knew of the deceased man was his name, and that they committed a felony together, therefore making him a "fellow criminal" as he admits to committing a crime by assisting the deceased man. But, as mentioned previously, all he did was pilot for him and nothing more.

[Huntsman]

Federal Bureau of Investigation Vice City Division From: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Director Gabriel Adams Ocean Beach, Vice City To: The Criminal Court of Vice City, 143 Downtown State Street, Vice City Response to Defence I won't speak on behalf of the Judge, but putting fourth charges and then suddenly changing your mind has wasted valuble time and resources of the court, something that should not be taken lightly. On top of this, the damage you have you caused to my client by wrongly accusing him of such without substantial evidence to back it up. My client expects compensation for the damage caused by this mess you've created. The Prosecution would like to point out that such statement has no legal grounds whatsoever. The Court had not reviewed the case yet and had given deadline for both prosecution and defence to issue their statements, therefore, no time had been wasted on the courts behalf. As for the damages, the Prosecution had just received substantial evidence that prove Mr. Pyro Escotta's involved in organised crime. Mr. Pyro Escotta, on 2017-11-11, had been charged by the police for assisting a criminal by interfering with a pursuit. The Federal Bureau of Investigations had noted the criminal charges issued on the said individual by the police, who then continued to evade the police force, which, being a crime by itself, had automatically made his charges of "aiding" valid. Therefore, the Prosecution are additionally charging Pyro Escotta with aiding and evasion of police. The Prosecution would also like to point out that Mr. Pyro Escotta by himself is not only aware of the crimes being committed, but is involved in crime himself, which makes this entire claim fade in the nature of evidence provided. Evidence: Exhibit 8: https://imgur.com/a/SmN8h I would like the Prosecution to show some actual evidence of my client Mr Pyro Escotta committing crimes, instead of just empty allegations without substantial evidence to back it up. Elaborated in the previous statement I believe, even though it may not be worded within the city's constitution, that every citizen has the right to a fair trial, and also to having legal aid when necessary. I believe it is only fair, in our justice system, that anyone arrested should be told their rights and be given a chance to contact their solicitor before being interrogated. I will leave this to the Judge to make his conclusion. The Prosecution would like to point out that the terms "trial" and "arrest" or "detention" are two different and unrelated terms by meaning. The term "trial" refers to a prosecution in the court, when a subjected faces the judge for the crimes comitted. "Arrest" or "Detention" is merely a temporary restriction of ones freedom to interview or restrain the subject before he can face a trial. Therefore, this claim is not valid. The Prosecution would additionally like to state that the judicial system is not and should not be based on ones beliefs or opinions, but on the law system and the respectable constitution of the State of Vice City. The constitution should not be bended for ones personal gain, and therefore, as such requirement of informing the detainee of his rights is not present in the constitution, the defence has no right to claim that the arrest or the interrogation were unlawful. It is every citizens responsibility to read and be aware of their constitutional rights. I believe its how you choose to interpret those lines. "What would you do if you were a fellow criminal, I did the same." I believe this doesn't, beyond reasonable doubt, prove my client Luis Escotta had full knowledge of what he got himself into. All he knew of the deceased man was his name, and that they committed a felony together, therefore making him a "fellow criminal" as he admits to committing a crime by assisting the deceased man. But, as mentioned previously, all he did was pilot for him and nothing more. The Prosecution would once again like to point out that the question issued to the defendant Luis Escotta was very articulate, clear and straight forward. As the interrogation record proves, Mr. Escotta was very well aware of the intentions of his affiliate. The question issued, as seen in the interogation record was: [18:14:48]  Huntsman says: But you were aware that he was trying to interrupt a raid operation, yes? [18:14:53]  Luis_Escotta says: he wanted to disrupt the operation [18:14:56]  Luis_Escotta says: yes The defendant is asked specifically if he was aware that the man he was aiding had intentions to interrupt a raid operation, to which he responded "yes". Therefore, the Prosecution finds that the defence are ignoring the facts presented, resorting to assumptions, even when faced by concrete facts that prove otherwise. The Prosecution would also like the defence to aknowledge the additional charges issued on all defendants, and to answer the question raised in the previous statement: does Mr. Lonewolf_Escotta wish to remain in the plea of guilty in the light of recent additional charges issued. ((RP yet to happen)) ((I would just like to point out that aknowledgment of this kind of roleplay would really kind of be.. Strange to stay the least. To be frank, there were no roleplay indications given by Luis previously that he had or could be diagnosed with some sort of mental disease. If such roleplays were to be accepted as valid evidence in court, everyone would be able to bend the courts as they please. So in OOC note, I think it is only fair that this roleplay is not accepted as court evidence))

[Klaus]

As for the damages, the Prosecution had just received substantial evidence that prove Mr. Pyro Escotta's involved in organised crime. Mr. Pyro Escotta, on 2017-11-11, had been charged by the police for assisting a criminal by interfering with a pursuit. The Federal Bureau of Investigations had noted the criminal charges issued on the said individual by the police, who then continued to evade the police force, which, being a crime by itself, had automatically made his charges of "aiding" valid. Therefore, the Prosecution are additionally charging Pyro Escotta with aiding and evasion of police. The Prosecution would also like to point out that Mr. Pyro Escotta by himself is not only aware of the crimes being committed, but is involved in crime himself, which makes this entire claim fade in the nature of evidence provided.

Evidence: Exhibit 8: https://imgur.com/a/SmN8h

The evidence is invalid. There is no evidence here showing that you were able to identify my client as the suspect you so speak of. My client is not shown within any of the pictures. From what I understand is that the suspect escaped/evaded, so you wasn't really aware of who it was at all. It could have been anyone. (( Not accepting logs of a suspection as solid evidence that can be used in court to incriminate. No RP of how such evidence was gathered, or any way you identified the suspect within roleplay and not simply using the tag above their heads ))

The Prosecution would additionally like to state that the judicial system is not and should not be based on ones beliefs or opinions, but on the law system and the respectable constitution of the State of Vice City.

If the constitution is to be viewed as respectable, then it will grant the rights I speak of; Right to counsel and Right to silence. We will see what the Judge believes is the right way and the lawful way. The constitution is a guideline, and is not set in stone indefinitely.

The defendant is asked specifically if he was aware that the man he was aiding had intentions to interrupt a raid operation, to which he responded "yes". Therefore, the Prosecution finds that the defence are ignoring the facts presented, resorting to assumptions, even when faced by concrete facts that prove otherwise.

All my client was aware of is that the deceased criminal had plans to disrupt a raid. He did not say he himself wanted to interrupt the raid, or that he had any motive for such crime. There is no evidence that he attempted to commit any crimes himself, and all he did was pilot for the criminal. My client has admitted to assisting the criminal but did not have full knowledge of what he got himself into or the deceased criminals motive.

[Huntsman]

Federal Bureau of Investigation Vice City Division From: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Director Gabriel Adams Ocean Beach, Vice City To: The Criminal Court of Vice City, 143 Downtown State Street, Vice City Response to Defence The evidence is invalid. There is no evidence here showing that you were able to identify my client as the suspect you so speak of. My client is not shown within any of the pictures. From what I understand is that the suspect escaped/evaded, so you wasn't really aware of who it was at all. It could have been anyone. (( Not accepting logs of a suspection as solid evidence that can be used in court to incriminate. No RP of how such evidence was gathered, or any way you identified the suspect within roleplay and not simply using the tag above their heads )) ((I am justifying this as a police record was issued on him. If a person would not be identified by the police, he would not be suspected in the first place as they would not know his identity obviously. But that's up for the judge.)) If the constitution is to be viewed as respectable, then it will grant the rights I speak of; Right to counsel and Right to silence. We will see what the Judge believes is the right way and the lawful way. The constitution is a guideline, and is not set in stone indefinitely. The Prosecution would like to once again repeat itself that ones "beliefs" are not law, noir should it be considered as such. The law enforcement of the state of Vice City under the current judicial system of the state are not required to inform the suspect of his rights. Anything else is a mere opinion with no legal grounds. Any ruling that says otherwise should be considered unlawful unless the constitution was to be amended to specifically state so. And even in the event of the latter, that could not be applied to this particular case due to changes being made after the fact. All my client was aware of is that the deceased criminal had plans to disrupt a raid. He did not say he himself wanted to interrupt the raid, or that he had any motive for such crime. There is no evidence that he attempted to commit any crimes himself, and all he did was pilot for the criminal. My client has admitted to assisting the criminal but did not have full knowledge of what he got himself into or the deceased criminals motive. This statement does not contain any logic, your honor. It is absurd to claim that despite the defendant being aware of the criminal intentions of his affiliate and then proceeding to aid him in those intentions is somehow justifiable. Let us quote the constitution on the matter: Act VI     Anyone taking part in an offense is guilty of that offense. Anyone encouraging, helping to prepare or     to commit that offense is guilty of that offense. The Prosecution would once again like to state the fact that the defendant knowingly aided in comitting a crime with a complete knowledge of what he was doing, as he stated himself in his interrogation. The defendant words it rather clearly that he knew of the intentions to disrupt the raid operation and assisted the would-be sniper by piloting for him. He also confessed to helping to comit that crime. Therefore, he is guilty of the crime himself, as per the constitution of the State of Vice City The Prosecution would like to once again ask the defence whether they familiar with additional charges that had been issued on defendants Lonewolf Escotta and Luis Escotta, and if they have any comment on the matter.

[PulseEffect]

Vice City Law Courts Argonath Federal Court

From: The desk of the Honorable Alexander Treblin Address: 143 Downtown State Street, Downtown Vice City, Florida Topic: "United States of Argonath v 'Escotta Family'" Proceeding Number: VC-CR0006/2017

COURT MINUTE

Just going over a few things before I will reserve judgement in this case, to be published within two weeks.

The Matter of Miranda Rights

Whilst it is not explicitly mentioned in the Interim Constitution, the fair trial umbrella is extensive in its application. This means that a criminal defendant is entitled to the presumption of innocence, the right to legal assistance before questioning, the right to silence, right to be brought before the Courts in a timely and just manner and to be treated humanely whilst in custody awaiting trial or pending the outcome of a trial. These rights may be changed or altered further. I will discuss these a bit more in detail in the judgement.

The Government has a responsibility to ensure it is abiding by the Constitution. And it should be practice for law enforcement officials who are collecting evidence to mount a court case against a defendant to tell that defendant of their rights. Often the defendant may be in the heat of the moment, words of a defendant's rights are likely to prevent injustices occurring.

The Court will err on the side of the defence in this matter and will be ruling Exhibit 1 inadmissible.

The Matter of a Mental Illness Certificate

If the defence wishes to rely upon mental illness as a reduction in criminal liability or to reduce sentence, a certificate or medical opinion must be provided to the Court by a medical professional within two weeks or it will not be considered.

Adding Charges After The Case Has Started

It should not be common practice for prosecutors to add charges after they have submitted a criminal matter, it can be allowed in some circumstances but serious caution must be warranted when charging an individual at all. Charges represent criminal accusations by the State and are subject to civil suit by defendants against the State for defamation, more commonly known as the tort of malicious prosecution.

With regards to the dropping of charges against Pyro_Escotta, I find this to be a serious error on the part of the prosecutor and counsel him to better his evidence collection and review technique.

If there are no further submissions to be had, judgement is reserved to be handed down within two weeks.

DATED, on this 30th day of November, 2017.

Signed,

Alexander Treblin
Alexander Treblin
Judge

[Huntsman]

Vice City Police Department
Office of High Command
Chief of Police
Gabriel "Huntsman" Adams

We would like to notify the court that there has been a change in prosecution. Due to the prosecutor being transfered to VCPD, it has been agreed with the current acting director of the FBI that it should be in VCPD's responsibility to continue any previous cases made. Therefore, from this moment on, VCPD High Command is to assume the prosecution in this case.

[PulseEffect]

Vice City Law Courts Argonath Federal Court

From: The desk of the Honorable Alexander Treblin Address: 143 Downtown State Street, Downtown Vice City, Florida Topic: "United States of Argonath v Escotta Family" Proceeding Number: VC-CR0006/2017

Medium Neutral Citation:	United States of Argonath v Escotta Family [2017] AFCR 12
Date of Decision:	15 December 2017
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Treblin J
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Judge alone trial - trial verdict - defendants charged with various charges. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Discussion of right to fair trial. PROSECUTORS - Discussion on prosecutorial policy and practice.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Further Offences) Ordinance 2017 Interim Constitution
Cases Cited:	United States of Argonath v Campbell [2017] RJC 1 United States of Argonath v Corleone (2015) USADC 1562 United States of Argonath v Edgepool [2017] AFCR 6 United States of Argonath v Gvardia (Unreported, Argonath Federal Court, Stormeus CJ, 20 July 2016) United States of Argonath v Hanate (2017) USADC 27 United States of Argonath v Mustang [No. 2] [2017] AFCR 3 United States of Argonath v Ninth Avenue Razors [2017] AFCR 5 Vice City Police Department v Rapture et al. [2013] AFCR 2
Texts Cited:	None.
Parties:	United States of Argonath (Prosecution) Pyro Escotta (1st Defendant) Luis Escotta (2nd Defendant) Lonewolf Escotta (3rd Defendant)
Representation:	Gabriel Adams (P) Fernando Ulloa (D)

JUDGEMENT

[1].        By criminal summons and indictment filed on the 4th of November 2017,¹ three defendants: Mr Luis Escotta (the ‘First Defendant’), Mr Lonewolf Escotta (the ‘Second Defendant’) and Mr Pyro Escotta (the ‘Third Defendant’) are charged with various charges. I will discuss the evidence in relation to each defendant and then go over their submissions.

Luis Escotta

[2].        Mr Luis Escotta is charged with one count of being an accessory to the attempted murder of a federal agent and one count of obstruction to justice. With regards to the first charge, the prosecution stated that during a raid operation on the 30th of October 2017 against another criminal, the defendant and a deceased sniper attempted to murder a federal agent when their operation was halted. the prosecution submitted Exhibit 1, which is an interrogation of the First Defendant. That interrogation reveals a confession of the First Defendant to assisting a deceased sniper who was attempting to hinder law enforcement activities. The First Defendant is aware of the seriousness of the crime.

[3].        The First Defendant then goes on the reveal the confirmation of a ‘family’ known as the Escotta Family. The First Defendant also states that Pyro Escotta is the leader of the Escotta Family.

[4].        With relation to the second charge, the prosecution alleges that during an active crime scene incident, the First Defendant picked up evidence that may have been vital to a police investigation. They submitted Exhibit 6. That evidence shows the First Defendant picking up items from a crime scene and being suspected for it.

[5].        With relation to the first charge, the defence submitted that leniency should be applied because of the First Defendant being unaware of his rights.² The question of the ‘right to a fair trial’ and its application contained within the Interim Constitution³ is one that the Court will attempt to discuss here.

[6].        In United States of Argonath v Ninth Avenue Razors,⁴ I stated that this state’s legal system does confer civil rights on the citizens.⁵ In United States of Argonath v Gvardia,⁶ Stormeus CJ stated in an interlocutory judgement:

Regarding the following cases:

• State v. Cofiliano_Gvardia
• State v. Stiff Singh
• State v. Shady Singh (a.k.a. Stanley Mitchell)
• State v. Solis
• State v. HatDag

Section IV, Ordinance I of the interim constitution states:
In order for citizens to retain the right to a fair trial, it is imperative that they and their legal counsel are able to review all evidence of any crimes against them. In this case and all the cases named above, the Court's review of the evidence submitted is insufficient to justify the charges listed against them.

Although the Court recognizes the evidence that has been submitted to it for consideration, these cases will not be able to proceed until the defendants are given access to any relevant against them.

[Emphasis added]

[7].        Whilst this doesn't provide any useful context in the current case, the general notion that can be interpreted from this statement is that the law of Vice City demands protections for accused suspects. To follow on from Stormeus CJ’s statements about ‘citizens being able to retain the right to a fair trial’, it is necessary for citizens also to be aware of their rights. Whilst in a strict constructionist sense, the Interim Constitution doesn’t explicitly state what constitutes a fair trial. It is necessary to point out a couple of key rights that citizens do enjoy when being criminally prosecuted or about to be prosecuted. 

[8].        In United States of Argonath v Corleone,⁷ counsel for the defendant stated that the failure of the Miranda warning was not given to the defendant thus this led to the defendant being coerced into incriminating himself.⁸ Incrimination of one’s self should only be done on a voluntary basis and a defendant should always enjoy the right to test the prosecution’s case to ensure that justice is actually done safely and not in cases where the prosecution wins by a nose. This is also supported by s III ord III of the Interim Constitution. Returning to Corleone, Marcel SCLJ stated that since the prosecutor had acted recklessly in conducting the criminal investigation, of which included the interrogation, it was likely that due process had not been followed.⁹

[9].        Whilst it is a matter of public policy that the Argonath legal system does not take cases from the other place, it is necessary to recognise the following rights coming under Miranda: right to access legal and competent counsel or be assigned one at the State’s expense and right to remain silent during criminal interrogation or investigation. It comes out of this that there is an implicit need for law enforcement officials to inform defendants who are likely to be prosecuted of these rights such that they can be able to access a fair and public trial.

[10].      For the above reasons Exhibit 1 in parts 1 and 2 are inadmissible and will not be considered. With relation to parts 3 and 4 of Exhibit 1, they are admissible as they do not relate to the defendant’s criminal liability in any way or do not have any significant impact on the defendant’s sentencing.

[11].      However in considering Exhibit 5 which does show significant portions of the aftermath of the crime scene, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the First Defendant did commit the criminal acts alleged by the prosecution and accordingly find him guilty of being an accessory to the attempted murder of a law enforcement official.

[12].      With relation to the second charge, the indictment constructs the charge as: ‘theft of crime scene evidence’. I believe this charge is a valid charge when one reads s III act VIII of the Interim Constitution and passes the test for determining criminal charges validity as set out in United States of Argonath v Ninth Avenue Razors,¹⁰ with the Court adapting the reasons stated in United States of Argonath v Campbell [2017] RJC 1 at [3]-[4].

[13].      I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the First Defendant did remove evidence from a crime scene which in turn may have hindered the course of justice, this is seen in Exhibit 6. The question of whether the course of justice would’ve taken place is irrelevant to consider because reading s III act VIII: ‘[a]nyone who causes, by their presence or by disrupting the tasks of law enforcement personnel, is to be charged with obstruction of justice.’ It is clear by removing, touching or altering things in a crime scene is disrupting the tasks of law enforcement whose job it is to investigate criminal activity and plan out any further actions that may lead to justice being done.

[14].      The defence stated that the First Defendant suffered from a mental illness, it is necessary to say that those who suffer from a mental illness at the time of committing a crime are to be found not guilty by reason of mental insanity. That is because the criminal justice system operates on the notion that all individuals are rational when conducting criminal activities. Those suffering from mental illnesses cannot be tried because they were not rational. Regardless the defence failed to provide a certificate or evidence from a medical expert suggesting that the First Defendant was suffering from a mental illness as such it will not be taken into account.

[15].      With regards to sentencing, the submissions placed before me for sentencing were minimal and only asked for leniency because of the mental illness that the First Defendant allegedly suffered as well the fact that the First Defendant’s rights were violated during the interrogation.

[16].      With regards to the mental illness claim, there was no evidence adduced to support this fact and the violation of the First Defendant’s legal rights with relation to counsel and remaining silent do not preclude the fact that the evidence does show the First Defendant committing the acts for which he was found guilty of. Therefore I convict the First Defendant of one count of being accessory to attempted murder as well as one count of obstruction to justice.

[17].      Obstruction to justice is not a charge that has a sentencing guideline in any case, the research that the Court has done has only found one remotely similar case in the San Andreas jurisdiction. In United States of Argonath v Hanate,¹¹ the District Court punitively fined a defendant $86,800 ARD who pleaded innocence during a criminal investigation, thus impeding the investigation and then pleading guilty in Court. It is not necessary to say that a punitive fine is required in this circumstance, however the administration of justice is impacted when offenders attempt to obstruct, pervert or alter its course. Thus there is a strong need for specific and general deterrence.¹² I set a guideline sentence of $50,00 ARD, with regards to sentencing principles, I increase this fine by 40%, this comes to $70,000 ARD. With regards to a term of imprisonment, I find it is necessary to sentence the First Defendant to a term of imprisonment, considering sentencing principles, subsequently the First Defendant is to serve 5 years (5 minutes). With regards to time off due to delays in the Court, I deduct 1 year.

[18].      With relation to being an accessory to attempted murder, in Vice City Police Department v Rapture et al.,¹³ Demarest CJ sentenced [DC]Dodo, who was found guilty of attempted homicide as well as various other charges to 7 years imprisonment and a fine of $95,356 ARD. In relation to this case, I find 7 years too lenient and will increase this to 10 years, the monetary fine however will be reduced to $50,000 ARD. With regards to time off and the fact that the state violated the First Defendant’s legal rights, I reduce the term of imprisonment to 6 years and reduce the fine to $35,000 ARD. I find no need to apply any sentencing considerations for this defendant.

Lonewolf Escotta

[19].      The Second Defendant pleaded guilty to the one count of possession of illegal weaponry prohibited by the Crimes (Further Offences) Ordinance 2017. I merely refer to Exhibit 2 to state that the charge is made out and that the Second Defendant is guilty of the offences. As the Second Defendant did enter a plea of guilty, he is entitled to a 20% discount in sentence.

[20].      The prosecution also originally charged the Second Defendant with one count of robbery. With respect to the first count, the prosecution adduced Exhibit 2-1 and Exhibit 2-2. The evidence does show the Second Defendant selling diamonds and based on the eye witness testimony of =TRC=servin, I believe beyond reasonable doubt that the Second Defendant did commit robbery. For this I find him guilty and convict him.

[21].      The prosecution later amended the indictment to add another counts of robbery.¹⁴ Whilst in practical terms, I found the First Defendant guilty of stealing evidence despite the actual evidence not showing any ‘stealing of evidence’, it is necessary to say that chat logs from screenshots do count as evidence. The evidence relevant to the First Defendant did show a line stating that he had picked up items from a pack. However in Exhibit 7 provided to the Court it only shows the suspection line. A suspection is not equivalent to absolute proof of a crime being committed, whilst it may have been done by script, it is not enough evidence to warrant a criminal prosecution. Enough evidence constitutes law enforcement officials actually witnessing the scripted crime, aka being at the store where the robbery took place. A good example of this happening is in United States of Argonath v Edgepool,¹⁵ where the evidence showed the defendant at a common place for smuggling illegal contraband into the City.

[22].      For the above paragraph, I find the defendant not guilty of the second count of robbery.

[23].      With regards to sentencing of the charge of possession of illegal weaponry, I convict the Second Defendant and apply the base fine of $10,000¹⁶ and apply the discount. I find no need for any sentencing considerations, considering the amount of illegal items was very minimal in nature. This comes to $8,000 ARD. I find no need for a term of imprisonment for this charge.

[24].      With regards to the charge of robbery, I convict the Second Defendant and fine him $15,000 ARD and commit him to a term of imprisonment of 2 years (2 minutes). I apply time off which shall reduce the sentence by 1 year.

Pyro Escotta

[25].      With relation the Third Defendant, the Third Defendant was originally charged with illegal selling vehicles, that charge was dropped due to poor evidence mid-case. This not proper prosecutorial practice, any good advocate knows to review their case, especially the evidence, before submitting it to the Court for processing.¹⁷

[26].      The Third Defendant is also charged with one count of ‘threatening, plotting or encouraging a criminal act’ as well as one count of evading and resisting arrest.

[27].      With relation to the threatening, plotting and/or encouraging a criminal act charge, the prosecution alleges that the Third Defendant was the leader of the ‘Escotta Family’ which is allegedly a criminal organisation. The evidence adduced to support this charge consists of Exhibit I, particularly parts 3 and 4 and Exhibit 4. With regards to Exhibit I, the evidence produced does not give much support to the fact that the Third Defendant is the leader of such an organisation. Furthermore the defendant has denied his involvement and I find there is significant reasonable doubt regarding this witness testimony. There is no corroborating evidence nor any actual direct evidence showing the Third Defendant encouraging, threatening and/or plotting criminal acts. When considering Exhibit 4, the quality is pretty poor and makes any identification of any individual very hard, I will thus exclude consideration of this evidence because of the poor quality of the footage.

[28].      I conclude that there is very little evidence supporting the charge of threatening, plotting and/or encouraging a criminal act and find the Third Defendant not guilty of this charge.

[29].      With regards to the resist arrest and assisting a criminal charge, Exhibit 8 was produced by the prosecution. It shows the defendant being suspected for aiding a criminal and then a pursuit regarding him being terminated due to him being unable to locate. The Court will not consider this charge as there is no direct evidence showing the Third Defendant committing such acts, suspections do not equate to proof of criminal wrong-doing. I find the Third Defendant not guilty of this charge.

I certify that the preceding twenty-nine (29) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Treblin.

Register

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

[1].        That the first defendant: Luis Escotta, be found guilty on one count of being an accessory to the attempted murder of a law enforcement official.

[2].        That the first defendant, be found guilty on one count of obstruction of justice.

[3].        That the first defendant is to be convicted of the crimes for which he was found guilty of.

[4].        That the first defendant is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 10 years, (10 minutes) to commence at the earliest date possible when the defendant is taken into custody.

[5].        That the first defendant be issued a monetary penalty of $105,000 ARD, to be stripped from the defendant's bank accounts and/or if the defendant cannot pay the sum, for the liquidation of any property, businesses, vehicles or other assets to cover such fine with the rest of the liquidation funds to go to the State.

[6].        That the second defendant: Lonewolf Escotta, be found guilty on one count of possession of illegal weaponry prohibited by the Crimes (Further Offences) Ordinance 2017.

[7].        That the second defendant, be found guilty on the first count of robbery.

[8].        That the second defendant, be found not guilty on the second count of robbery.

[9].        That the second defendant is to be convicted of the crimes for which he was found guilty of.

[10].      That the second defendant is sentenced to an term of imprisonment of 1 years, (1 minutes) to commence at the earliest date possible when the defendant is taken into custody.

[11].      That the second defendant be issued a monetary penalty of $23,000 ARD, to be stripped from the defendant's bank accounts and/or if the defendant cannot pay the sum, for the liquidation of any property, businesses, vehicles or other assets to cover such fine with the rest of the liquidation funds to go to the State.
 
[12].      That the third defendant: Pyro Escotta, be found not guilty on one count of threatening, plotting and/or encouraging a criminal act.

[13].      That the third defendant, be found not guilty on one count of assisting a criminal and resisting arrest.

ORDERED, on this 15th day of November, 2017.

Signed,

Alexander Treblin
Alexander Treblin
Judge

_______________________
Footnotes
¹ Prosecution, ‘Indictment’, Submission in United States of Argonath v Escotta Family, VC-CR0006/2017, 4 November 2017.
² Defence, ‘First Defendant Defence’, Submission in United States of Argonath v Escotta Family, VC-CR0006/2017, 10 November 2017.
³ Interim Constitution s IV ord I.
⁴ [2017] AFCR 5.
⁵ Ibid [8] (Treblin J).
⁶ (Unreported, Argonath Federal Court, Stormeus CJ, 20 July 2016).
⁷ (2015) USADC 1562.
⁸ Defence, ‘Submissions in Reply’, Submission in United States of Argonath v Corleone, 0018-CF-22042016, 29 April 2016, [1].
⁹ United States of Argonath v Corleone (2015) USADC 1562 [7] (Marcel SCLJ).
¹⁰ [2017] AFCR 5 [31] (Treblin J).
¹¹ (2017) USADC 27.
¹² See United States of Argonath v Mustang [No. 2] [2017] AFCR 3 [11].
¹³ [2013] AFCR 2.
¹⁴ Prosecution, ‘Amendment to Indictment Submission’, Submission in United States of Argonath v Escotta Family’, VC-CR0006/2017, 11 November 2017 [6].
¹⁵ [2017] AFCR 6.
¹⁶ See Mustang [No. 2] [2017] AFCR 3 [10].
¹⁷ See also United States of Argonath v Ninth Avenue Razors [2017] AFCR 5 [162] (Treblin J).

JUDGEMENT SUMMARY
Today, the Argonath Federal Court found Mr Luis Escotta guilty of two offences, Mr Lonewolf Escotta of two offences. Both were sentenced to a term of imprisonment and issued significant fines, the Court also discussed how the Constitution provided for significant legal rights commonly known as the Miranda rights. The third defendant was found not guilty of two charges due to insufficient evidence.
 

• This statement is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s reasons.

~Distributed by authority of the Courts of Argonath~