Case Closed CRIMINAL APPEAL - Burgess Jacobwitz- Withdrawn

[NiaLiviaus]

Username: NiaLiviaus

Select the type of case you wish to file with the court:
CRIMINAL APPEAL

Defendant:
Michael Blood [zynurix]

I. Statement of Claim
On September 21st, 2023 Michael Blood was served an Arrest Warrant regarding an alleged Bank Robbery that occurred on October 16 and October 18, 2022, involving the defendant Michael Blood. It has come to my attention that the statute of limitations concerning this alleged crime is a crucial issue that warrants immediate investigation and legal action.

1. The Defense is claims that in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions and legal precedents applicable to this case, the statute of limitations for prosecuting crimes such as robbery in the jurisdiction where the incident occurred is 60 days from the date of the alleged crime. This 60-day limitation period is crucial in ensuring a timely and fair legal process, as it balances the need for justice with the preservation of individual rights and the avoidance of prolonged legal uncertainties.

2. The Defense claims that it has come to our attention that the arrest warrant executed in connection with this case, as part of the investigation into Michael Blood's involvement, has exceeded the statutory time limit of 60 days. This exceeds the lawful timeframe permitted for collecting evidence and pursuing legal action in the matter, potentially compromising Mr. Blood's right to a fair trial and due process under the law.

3. The Defense asserts that the exceeding of the statute of limitations in this case is a grave procedural violation that must be addressed promptly. This violation threatens to undermine the integrity of any potential legal proceedings against Mr. Blood and may have far-reaching consequences on the administration of justice in this jurisdiction. It is imperative that corrective action is taken to rectify this situation.


In light of the aforementioned circumstances, we respectfully request the following relief:

1. An immediate review of the arrest warrant executed in connection with the alleged bank robbery on October 16 and October 18 2022, and a determination of whether it has exceeded the statutory 60-day limit.
2. If the arrest warrant has indeed exceeded the statutory limit, we request that all evidence obtained beyond this limit be deemed inadmissible in any legal proceedings related to the alleged robbery.
3. A thorough examination of the impact of this statutory violation on the case against Michael Blood, including a review of the evidence and any pending legal actions.
4. Any other appropriate legal actions or remedies necessary to address this violation of the statute of limitations and ensure a fair and just resolution of this matter.

II. Charge(s)

(10/18/2022)

Possession of Class 2 Weapon

x1

(10/18/2022)

Felony Evading a Peace Officer

1

(10/16/2022)

Armed Robbery of a Bank

x1.

(10/16/2022)

Kidnapping

x1

III. Representative
Nia Liviaus [selliee]
Devyn Little [sleighwhite]

IV. Officers Involved
Jeremie Rodriguez

V. Evidence

VI. Actions Taken
200 Months | $4,300 Fine

VII. Witnesses
The Defense is not calling any witnesses at this time; however, we reserve the right to add witnesses in the future until the Discovery period has ended.

 

[Teddy]

The state would like to to get clerical error in the warrant cleared up. The dates should not read October 18th, 2022 as those are the default. I have asked the owner of that document to remove the dates from the warrant request form for the time being, but that still has not happened.

I talked to Mr. Rodriguez and he saw the dates prefilled but didn't think to change them as it wasn't blank, the dates should read 09/16/2023.

Thanks,

 

[NiaLiviaus]

The defense firmly requests that the court address the recurring issue of clerical errors in arrest warrants, as this case is far from being an isolated incident. On numerous occasions, we have observed a disconcerting pattern where arrest warrants are routinely filled out and signed by chiefs without the necessary diligence to correct inaccuracies, specifically pertaining to dates. This systematic failure to rectify such errors raises significant concerns about the overall quality of oversight within the law enforcement agency.

It is our contention that these repeated occurrences, where warrants bearing improper dates are approved and executed, are not simply isolated mistakes but indicative of a more pervasive problem rooted in negligence. We emphasize that the fundamental duty of a chief, in signing such warrants, extends beyond the mere formality of a signature; it necessitates a thorough review to ensure the legality, accuracy, and validity of the warrant in its entirety.

Given this consistent oversight, we question whether the chiefs responsible for signing these warrants have been reading them closely enough to discern critical discrepancies, such as the improper dates. If they have allowed such conspicuous errors to persist unchecked, it naturally raises doubts about their ability to scrutinize the warrant for sufficient probable cause before authorizing an arrest.

In light of these concerns and the repeated instances of clerical errors, we implore the court to not only consider the specific circumstances of this case but also to examine and address the broader issue of negligence in the warrant approval process. We believe that a ruling on this matter is essential not only for the present case but also for upholding the integrity of the criminal justice system as a whole.

 

[Teddy]

It will be fixed when warrants are submitted through the MDT. It was my issue for not looking at the dates when I signed it because it’s a small issue.

I will take the blame with the dates and if you do throw those out then we will handle the restitution and then we will just write a new warrant for the same charges with correct charges. Since it won’t be double jeopardy because it’s a different date, so different charges.

We as chiefs are focused on the actual warrant information and not a date listed for the charge that is irrelevant to the warrant as a whole. We have created a checklist for warrants that chiefs will use which will include checking for these little issues that make no difference to the actual charges

 

[NiaLiviaus]

The defense respectfully requests that the court issue a ruling in this matter. We believe it is imperative to address a critical issue that has arisen during these proceedings, which pertains to the potential threat of prosecuting our client for the same alleged incident but with different dates. We contend that such actions would constitute a violation of the principle of double jeopardy, and we seek the court's clarification on this matter to prevent any further ambiguity.

Furthermore, we implore the court to address this issue within the same response, as it would expedite the legal process and conserve valuable resources. The assertion that the dates on which an incident occurred are irrelevant is a viewpoint that we find to be both factually incorrect and concerning from a departmental standpoint. It raises questions about the prosecution's approach to this case and their regard for fundamental principles of justice.

The cornerstone of our justice system is the principle of due process, which ensures that individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Pursuing charges against our client for the same alleged incident with different dates challenges this fundamental tenet, and we believe it is essential for the court to provide clear guidance and establish a precedent in this matter.

We thank the court for its attention to this important issue and anticipate a ruling that will help clarify the legal landscape and protect the rights of our client and all individuals involved in this case.

 

[Teddy]

Your honor, the defense filed this court docket the only thing they are appealing is the fact that the dates fall under the statute of limitations and not the crimes themselves. Their motion is nothing but a bunch of words to take away from the fact that we have enough evidence to prosecute this individual and if they truly believe in the “cornerstones of the justice system” then they would be fine with a change of dates.

If the dates are not able to be changed then this would turn into an issue for statute of limitations for a crime that apparently happened on October 18th of 2022 which would then be dropped because we do not have any evidence for those charges. However we do have evidence for charges that happened on 9/16/23. Which with what they are fighting for would be completely different charges and different incidents.

The defense does not get to fight statute of limitations and then claim a new warrant would be the same charges and double jeopardy would be in effect because that is the opposite of what they are arguing.

Again I will wait for a possible in person court date to discuss this motion instead of using legal jargon in the docket.

Thanks,

 

[Teddy]

Can we get a response on this as it's been a week since the previous talks? Just need to know how to proceed with this case, thanks.

 

[Brundoggy]

@Teddy We need to ensure that we are accurate with the submission of warrants. As for having the incorrect date, that will not be sufficient enough to have an entire case thrown out. We will be continuing to discovery and to scheduling. @NiaLiviaus

 

[Teddy]

If the dates are allowed to be changed then the prosecution would like to motion to dismiss the appeal.

The basis of the defenses appeal is that statute of limitations was not followed, however this did take place within the allowed limitations therefore their sole claim on the appeal isn’t relevant anymore.

 

[Brundoggy]

And as far as the

If the dates are allowed to be changed then the prosecution would like to motion to dismiss the appeal.

The basis of the defenses appeal is that statute of limitations was not followed, however this did take place within the allowed limitations therefore their sole claim on the appeal isn’t relevant anymore.

So just to get a full understanding of this, Mr. Blood was booked and charged at the appropriate times which were September 16th, 2023. He then filled an appeal under the grounds of their being a clerical error and stating that it has been over a year since the charge, therefore the Statute of Limitations would have been met?

 

[Teddy]

that is my understanding from reading the appeal. It’s all about the date in question and nothing about the actual charges.

 

[Brundoggy]

@NiaLiviaus Do you have any rebuttal?

 

[Brundoggy]

@NiaLiviaus I will be giving until the 15th to give a rebuttal, if no answer then, the case will be thrown out.

 

[NiaLiviaus]

The DA's office has again failed to correct the court on the sequence of apparent events. Mr. Blood was not "Booked and charged at the appropriate times which were September 16, 2023." He was brought in on the 21st on a warrant for charges alleged to have taken place in 2022. That is when he filed the appeal.

This is much more than a clerical error, but a history of gross negligence within PD and the DAs office to not only write but sign and then execute warrants without doing their due diligence of ensuring the charges are appropriate.

Respectfully - this has been a longstanding issue, one that we've let go multiple times in the past and have tried to correct outside of court to no avail. If the court doesn't find negligence to be "sufficient" then we will seek to appeal that decision, potentially with a judge that has had more recent involvement with similar issues that have been warned against multiple times.

 

[Teddy]

It has only officially happened once and there was not a "official warning" that if it was done again it would be dropped and it wasn't even in a formal docket that this happened it was just in a chat between attorneys. Yes he was brought in on the 21st but he was booked and charged for the crimes that happened on September 16th, 2023 as you asked previously.

Thank you,

 

[Brundoggy]

A clerical error will not prevent someone from evading arrest, and/or allowing someone to potentially being found not guilty. Let it be known, however, any other sort of error, let it be in the actual report, or major detail left out, will be acted upon accordingly by the DOJ.

 

[Brundoggy]

Scheduling for the next couple weeks?

 

[NiaLiviaus]

The defense wishes to withdraw this case from the docket. We are not pursuing any future appeals