Judge-Yee-Atrick
The Defense’s Summary Judgment Argument
(Reserving the right to post a brief response if the State submits argument but I wasn't sure when the Court's deadline is for submission given timezones so I wanted to get this here for the Court's consideration, apologies if things end up out of order).
There are two parts to this case, an Accomplice to Mayhem charge outlined in Warrant 808 stemming from March, and an arrest outlining a police chase on April 22nd in CR 26523.
I need to begin by noting the State first mentions an IR 4078 on 06/14 about 26 hours prior to a cancelled trial scheduled for 06/15. I’m not sure exactly what is in 4078 and I doubt it has much impact on this case given how descriptive and lengthy the Warrant and victim states are. That said, this case’s subpoena is from months ago and I again requested within this docket any discovery relating to this case back on May 5th. This Court should not allow whatever late evidence is in IR 4078 to be used if it’s not newly discovered. I prepared my trial arguments a long time ago and as defense counsel it’s basically a waste of time to do any prep if I don’t have access to evidence in a timely fashion. Moreover, I have never been provided with access to IR 4078 so its use would be a Brady violation.
Getting into the Mayhem charge, Warrant 808 lists five alleged incidents as the basis for Mayhem. The main problem with this case is that Ms. Lay’s name only comes up a single time during these five listed incidents. (note the first two incidents are on the same day). And that one time is to note there was a single bullet casing found with her fingerprint on it at one scene. Mayhem requires Ms. Lay to have participated in three incidents inflicting torture or EXTREME emotional distress on three separate days within a 10 day period. Even if Ms. Lay had left a bullet somewhere intentionally a single time, this comes nowhere close to her leading the type of terror routine the Mayhem statute is intended to punish. Nor does it establish she personally was targeting a specific group.
In fact, the three witnesses statements don’t even note Ms. Lay’s presence in any instance whatsoever and they certainly don’t claim she caused them extreme emotional harm somehow. (Ms. Evan's got shot but she's not the alleged targeted group and of course more importantly, Ms. Lay had nothing to do with that). The lengthy victim statements from Mr. Bloom, Ms. Nowak, and Ms. Evan’s all talk a lot about a Mr. Williams and a Mr. Salvatore but they don’t even mention having seen Ms. Lay do anything at any point. In fact, only Bloom mentions Ms. Lay at all and that is just to say he claims Ms. Lay is a sticky bandit member in general.
These reasons alone are enough to dismiss the Mayhem charge but it is also worth noting that the primary (not accomplice) person charged with Mayhem who contested their charges, Pat William’s, was found not guilty of Mayhem. https://docket.unscripted.gg/d/622-state-v-williams-moore/3 . Mr. William’s name comes up in Warrant 808s five listed incidents 12 times (compared to Ms. Lay’s 1 time) and even then, it wasn’t clear in Mr. William’s case that he’d inflicted extreme emotional distress three times on three separate days. This was mostly because of the lack of good PiD of Pat at these scenes and a lack of evidence showing extreme enough behavior for Mayhem. But if there’s arguably not even enough evidence to convict Mr. William’s then there is far less evidence of Ms. Lay's guilt.
For these reasons the accomplice to Mayhem charge should be dismissed.
Regarding the remaining charges listed in CR 26523 other than Mayhem-
The police allege Ms. Lay stole three vehicles and claim to have witnessed her steal two during a chase. However there's nothing saying the first car was stolen and the chase started due to running a red light, not bad plates. The report even notes one of the theft of mv charges is simply for driving a vehicle registered to someone other than Ms. Lay. However, there is no evidence Ms. Lay did not have permission to operate that first vehicle. There is no indication whether Ms. Lay was asked if she had permission, or that any attempt to contact the owner of that vehicle occurred, nor is there a photo of the alleged car. Without evidence that she possessed the vehicle without consent the first count of theft of a motor vehicle should be dismissed.
Regarding the Battery of a LEO charge, it is alleged that Deputy Rob O’Cop was “punched” through cell bars during processing. Battery requires physical contact to cause either harm or offense. Are we to assume that just because Deputy O’Cop is the processing officer and chose to bring this charge that she was offended or harmed by this so called “punch”? Without any statement as to the offensive nature of the contact, or harm, maybe this was more like a fight club moment where everyone consented and talked about overthrowing the government over beer afterwards. Who are we to judge?
