Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Loxxon Husky

The People of The State of California v Richard Baer

Recommended Posts

On 9/20/2021 at 2:49 PM, Tom Najail said:

@Richard baer Do you have an attorney or would you like the services of the public defenders office?

Considering that I have not heard from my lawyer since the incident I will be going with the public defenders office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your Honor,

My client wishes to plea not guilty to all charges.


On another note. At what point does my client get his rights read? At no point in the evidence provided by the state do i hear anyone mention ANY part of the Miranda rights nor that he has been giving a Rights Card.

Without evidence by the state showing that my client was informed of his rights on the spot where he was questioned by the SWAT members his statements are inadmissable in court as the Supreme Court rulled with the caselaw from Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your Honor,

In Exhibit A the Defendant's rights where read at 2:06 the Sheriffs Deputy reads Mr Baer's Rights. At 2:30 the Sheriff Deputy gives Mr Baer's Rights card. 

Your Honor, it is pretty Clare that the Defendant's rights where read and was given his rights card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless the defence can offer any evidence to the contrary, the court finds that there is enough evidence to support the State's assertion that Mr. Baer was read his rights in accordance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

 

I am available on Tuesday, Friday and Saturday from 16:00 to 21:00 EST.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your Honour,

I have multiple issues with the case being presented to me. I would like to address them and have these concerned duly noted as these issues me violate my client's right to a fair trial.

1. I would like to argue the issue of Exhibit A. Within the video it is clear that my client has not been read his rights until 2 minutes into the video if not a little more. My client was not in full understanding of his rights at this time, this was made clear by a deputy telling him that he is going to give my client a rights card. Without proof of the deputy giving my client a rights card, my client's right against self incrimination is still in effect.

2. Anything said within the video up to the alleged part of my client understanding his rights in full cannot be used against him due to my clients right to self incrimination and that selection being inadmissible in court.

3. My client has a god given right to defend himself from harm and that right is extended to his property, as stated within the Constitution of The United States.

4. Use of force in these matters to defend ones self and their property is not applicable, it is only a police standard operating procedure to match force with criminals. Not a matter of civilians to match force.

5. If the police knew that a possible crime was committed, and did nothing to secure the possible suspect, them they have failed within their duties and failed their oath to protect and serve.

6. I would like to have Exhibit A & B as they do not add any value to this case, A only leads to confusion and may mis lead the judge and the other adds no value to the case at all. I Invoke Rule 504: Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion or Waste of Time.



As of now i do not know my scheduel for the next week so i do not know my availability but i will get back to you on that ASAP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your concerns are noted, counsellor.

1. The time your client was read his rights is irrelevant, provided that it was prior to interrogation. The assertion that your client didn't understand his rights needs to be founded with some form of evidence to suggest that this is the case as currently, the court finds probable cause to believe that he did understand them.

2. The People's claim of a confession happens, allegedly, after your client was read his rights.

3, 4 & 5. Irrelevant at this stage. We are merely discussing the admissibility of the evidence.

6. The evidence is relevant. Unless the defence can expand on why the evidence leads to confusion, your motion is overruled.

Thank you, do you have an idea when you will have your availability?  

  • usmart 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your Honour, 

The time my client was read his rights and given a rights card is a key part of the admissibility of evidence.

If my client was never properly read his rights then the prosecution cannot use his own words against him. "Anything you say can and will be used against you in court of law" as the rights are said. You yourself said "provided" which means there is a chance he was never properly read his rights at all. 

As you said "The peoples claim of confession, allegedly, happens after your client was read his rights." I have know you to be a judge that acts in the scope of law and facts never on the basis of alleges and unproven facts. This statement alone backs my point that he never understood his rights.

Now, in the eyes of the judge it wasn't a certain fact that he was read his rights correctly at all. 

4 & 5 are key notes of my defense of my client, they quote my clients right and to have them disregarded as irrelevant begs some serious concern so I urge you to look again. 

The evidence is not relevant as it only show my client was on bail for alleged crimes that we are now looking at. What does bail bring to the value of this case your honour as I am confused and see no value to added to case because of a bail post.


In adition I ask the removal of all witnesses bar the arresting officer & the officer who who apparently read my client their rights.

At the current moment, the amount of witnesses given who can give record of events are overwhelming to say the least, for us to go over all the witnesses who would be describing the exact same events and the events seen in Exhibit A, would be a massive waste of time and has been interpreted by the defence as a tactic employed to slow the defence.

I would like to invoke Rule 708. Exclusion of Witnesses. At the request of a party the court may order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses, and it may make the order on its own motion.

I invoke this rule as their is concern that the multiple witnesses may just copy each other as the statements are given which would be, of course un fair and prejudicial towards my client.


Should get my scheduel tomorrow so will post my availability around then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your Honor, @Tom Najail

The Defence Council is clearly misunderstanding the video recording it seems.

I shall State and quote what the Sheriff Deputy has said to the Defendant: at 2:06 " Alright Sir, You have the right to remain silent, Anything you say or do can will be used against you to court of law, You have the right to an attorney & if you can not afford one, one will be appointed to you by the State if available at this current time. Do you understand the rights as I have read them to you? " At 2:17 the Deputy Finished reading the rights to the defendant. At 2:31 the Sheriff Deputy hands over the Defendant's rights card from their the questioning starts.

Its out right clear that the defendant did understand their rights but refused to reply back to officers. 

Your Honor, 

I really don't see how the eyewitness can be waste of time when all of those eyewitness I have listed in this court have the right to give testimony if they wish to do so.

In regards to Rule 708. The eyewitness can be separated from the court until that eyewitness is done finishing talking.

I really don't see the reasoning to removing the 6 eyewitness.

Your Honor, 

The Defence council are arguing an agreement made by Honourable Judge @Orest Howson "Orest M. Abernathy II"  in which the Judge gave and allowed the Bail for Mr Baer.

Now if the court wants to wish to speak to the other Judge who approved the Bail by all means the State shall respect the Judge's review of the Bail matter.

This case was made because of the Bail once the Bail was given the Arresting Officer gave me the evidence which is exhibit A.

Your Honor,

The Defendant clearly gave confession on seen of the accident. The Defendants rights where read and he was given his rights card, But the defendant refused to reply back to the arresting officer if he understand them. At this point the it is pretty Clare the Defendant did understand them and which he gave confession in which he thought he could get away from the crime in which what the Defence council is arguing as of right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Matt Pad I am satisfied that your client was read his rights and that he understood them, the prosecution's evidence shows as much. Unless you are going to give the court some actually evidence that, for whatever reason, your client didn't understand his right, the matter is closed.

The "allegedly" in that sentence was regarding your client confessing.

You're just cherry-picking words out of my response now, counsellor. "3, 4 & 5. Irrelevant AT THIS POINT. We are merely discussing the admissibility of the evidence." This is not the place to argue these points, they need to be argued at trial. They have no bearing on the admission of evidence. 

The state's exhibit B is relevant, it will not be excluded at this time. 

I am certainly not going to disqualify witnesses because it is inconvenient to defence counsel. Counsel will be able to raise objections at trial and cross-examine witnesses which the court will then rule on, witnesses can't be disqualified on the grounds of repetition before they have even testified.

@Loxxon Husky Unless the People can bring a valid objection to the defence's request to sequester eye witnesses, the court will allow it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tom Najail said:

Saturday, 17:00 EST would be good for me, @Loxxon Husky?

Yeah I can do 5pm EST sounds good to me.

If something comes up I might not be able to come du to other personal issues I might have to attend in the matter 

Edited by Loxxon Husky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By viewing ANZUSGaming's website you agree to our Terms of Use