Lawsuit: Adjourned KP56 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 20

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Defense has 24 hours to ask further questions or we will move on.
 
Your honour, this case has been inactive for a while and the prosecutor handling this case has now since become a magistrate. Is it possible to get a 24-hour extension to find a new prosecutor?
 
Your honor, it has been 9 days since the witness responded, which is an exceedingly large amount of time for the defense to decide on another prosecutor. Their disorganization and failure to pay attention to who is assigned to their cases is no reason to delay this trial for even longer. I request that we move on with the trial.
 
The prosecutor in question became a magistrate a week ago. I gave a 4-day recess ten days ago. There has been ample time for the Attorney General's office to assign someone to this case, or request an extension, and yet no communication whatsoever has been received. We will be moving on, and the Defense may question their own witnesses now.
 
The Defense has no further questions, Your Honor.
 
The Plaintiff may cross-examine the Defense's witnesses, or declare that they do not wish to.
 
I do not wish to cross-examine the witnesses, your honor.
 
Thank you, we will now move on. The Plaintiff may present their closing statements.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Throughout this court case, the Plaintiff has referred to the law, specifically the Bank Robbery Act (Act of Congress - Bank Robbery Act) and the Bank Trespass Act (Act of Congress - Bank Trespass Act). In the clear and concise words of these laws, the following actions are not considered to be Bank Robbery:

1. Breaking the Bank Vault Door
2. Entering the Bank Vault
3. Specifically not robbing the bank

Meanwhile, the Defense has never mentioned a single Act of Congress, Article of the Constitution, or any other legislation that shows a Bank Robbery took place. In fact, it is the opposite: The Defense’s witness, ElainaThomas29, said, “Bank trespassing charges change into bank robbery charges when someone is found inside of the vault after a notification is given that the bank vault has been broken into and the bank alarms are going off.” Essentially, even though there was no robbery (which is necessary to be charged with Bank Robbery), the Department of Justice still charged my client with Bank Robbery.

Thank you for your time.​
 
The Defense may now present their closing statement.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

It has long since been precedent, according to the officer and the Secretary, that when the door is broken and the alarms are going off, that the person at the scene who broke the door will be arrested and charged with Bank Robbery. The plaintiff is placed at the scene when the alarms were tripped. In the Staff and DOJ tickets included in the filing of the lawsuit, you can see the plaintiff both admitting to attempting to break the door, and successfully breaking the door respectfully. You can also see the screenshot from Kanne that they were inside the vault while the door was still sealed. All the evidence points to the plaintiff breaking the door, and would incur the charge of Bank Robbery.

This must also be looked at logically. When the bank resets, the vault is sealed and the gold blocks regenerate. When the door of the vault is broken in this reset, an alarm is tripped, alerting not only the officers online but everyone online. When the bank, which has no other purpose than to be robbed for increased potential for crime roleplay, is broken into, what other reason is there for someone to initially break the door than to steal what is inside? Bank Trespassing targets the people who have gone past the “No Trespassing” signs, but have not stolen anything. This allows punishment to occur even when it has already been stolen from. In breaking the door, and all the evidence pointing to the clear intent to rob the bank, it suggests that simply breaking the door would be enough to change the charge to bank robbery.

Finally, I would ask for the court to take a look at these two 2021 cases, FCR 61 and FCR 42. In these two cases, which are both prosecutions for bank robberies, it is shown that proper evidence of the vault door being broken and the suspect being placed at the scene during the alarms is sufficient enough to consider it Bank Robbery rather than Bank Trespassing. In Commonwealth v. didna (FCR 42), the evidence against the defendant shows the alarm going off, and chat logs placing them at the crime. In Commonwealth v. Fieldmarshall (FCR 61), the case did end up in a change from Bank Robbery to Bank Trespassing. The reason for this, however, is due to a lack of evidence placing the Defendant at the scene of the crime at the time of the alarms.

Back to our current case, there is clear evidence of the alarms going off and the plaintiff at the scene of the crime. There is even an admittance of them breaking the door. I believe this is completely sufficient evidence to be considered a Bank Robbery, especially relevant to Department of Justice and Court precedents.
 
Thank you, this court is now in recess.
 
I have an objection, your honor, about the Defense's Breach of Procedure.

While of course it is encouraged that the Court look at similar cases in the past, it was improper for the Defense to bring them into this case as new information and present new arguments in their closing statement. We ask that that part of their Closing Statement be struck from the record.

Thank you.
 
The objection is sustained, and the Defense's claims in the specific section referring to cases as evidence for charging procedures will be struck from the record. Bear in mind, however, that this does not preclude my consideration of any prior cases.
 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
KP56 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 20

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff walked into the vault but did not actually steal anything.
2. According to the Bank Trespass Act, this constitutes bank trespassing, but not bank robbery.
3. The Plaintiff was charged with bank robbery and given the fine for a bank robbery charge instead of a bank trespassing charge.

II. DEFENSE’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff was charged with bank robbery for being found inside the vault after the alarms went off.
2. Bank trespassing becomes bank robbery once someone enters the vault after the alarm sounds.
3. The Plaintiff maliciously planned and executed a robbery of the bank, and was charged accordingly.

III. COURT’S OPINION
1. Bank trespassing is defined in the Bank Trespass Act as “[Trespassing] behind the “no trespassing signs” in the bank, which includes going behind the glass and/or entering the vault.”
2. Bank robbery is defined in the Bank Robbery Act as “The act or instance of stealing from a bank.”
3. The wording of the two acts is clearly complementary, so that they completely cover the possible crimes in the bank. It is possible to trespass inside the bank without actually stealing from it, which is where the Bank Trespass Act takes over. Once the trespasser has received money, they have stolen from the bank and thus committed bank robbery as it is defined.
4. In any legitimate justice system, including Redmont’s, the burden of proof in a criminal accusation lies on the prosecution. This means that the accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt guilty of having committed a particular crime in order to be found guilty and punished for said crime.
5. This rule is even more crucial when considering a crime wherein conditions of some nature must exist before a separate charge can be made. The individual must trespass into the bank, at which point they can be charged with bank trespassing, and then the individual must steal from a bank in order for them to be charged with bank robbery. If the second part does not happen, then it logically follows that the individual cannot be punished for the second crime. If they were assumed to be guilty of a second crime based on the fulfillment of the preliminary conditions, this would violate the burden of proof standards described above.
6. By this logic, the question would come down simply to this: Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the second conditions were fulfilled? Was there sufficient proof that the Plaintiff stole from a bank? (The bank trespassing charge was admitted, so I will not be questioning its validity)
7. It is the opinion of the court that there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt presented that the Plaintiff in this case stole from a bank. There is certainly proof that the Plaintiff violated the law of bank trespassing, but as noted before, this is not inherent proof that the Plaintiff also violated the additional conditions of bank robbery.

IV. VERDICT
I hereby find in favor of the Plaintiff. I order that the Plaintiff be unfined $900 to adjust for the difference in charge between bank robbery and bank trespassing, as well as $500 in legal fees, for a total of $1400.

An additional comment that I would like to make in order to clarify this verdict:
This verdict does not protect the Plaintiff under the double jeopardy clause in the Constitution from being sued to upgrade the charge again to bank robbery. It is possible that the Plaintiff was not proven beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty because different parties had had different ideas about what that proof consisted of. I am not finding the Plaintiff definitively not guilty of bank robbery, I am ruling that there has been a standard of “guilty until proven innocent” in this case that has led to a premature charge of bank robbery.

The Court thanks both parties for their time. This case is now adjourned.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top