Judge Sparks' Verdict
An Affirmative Defense.
This is what we have turned around. For those uninclined; An affirmative defense does not deny the underlying criminal conduct, but rather provides a legal justification or excuse for it—such as:
Self-defense
Insanity
Duress
Entrapment
Necessity
Alibi (in some contexts)
In all cases, the burden of proof shifts to the Defense as a requirement, whereas the burden is the Preponderance of Evidence or Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
The entire argument of the Defense was that ‘he had the ability to do it and that he intended to do it.’ In the Defense’s arguments in court, from the Defendant themselves, and in the Defense’s closing, This Court believes that this is a clear presentation of an Affirmative Defense presentation. This Court believes, based on the presentation and nature of this case, we go with the lower burden of Preponderance to allow for the Defense to build their claim with what was presented.
Unfortunately, however, the only evidence we have presented by the Defense is the Testimony of the Defendant.
In the Defendant’s testimony, there are claims of ‘numerous preventions of fraud’ which, to this court, comes out as a shaky response to a question built from necessity for the Affirmative Defense.
In the Defendant’s Testimony, we have alleged evidence of a meeting with two sitting Justices of the San Andreas Department of Justice. What we don’t have is testimonial evidence, via affidavit, deposition, or testimony that confirms these justices were aware of the credentials or attempts. We only have a statement backing the Defendant’s own self interests with a ‘trust me this happened’ statement. In the Closing of the Defense, we have a quote of “We all know that Justice Silas and Rose gave him this business.” Again, No, we don’t. What we have is a hearsay argument presented by the Defendant and their counsel. I would have loved to read a statement, on a date, or a conversation made by these Justices but we just don’t have it.
In the Closing of the Defense, we have numerous statements on Mr. Phisher’s intent to return the money, but there’s no proof of that other than some text messages in evidence that state it ‘may be’ returned. There were no records, no statements from the victims, no text messages from the Defense advising of this.
We have nothing.
Mr. Phisher, in your own testimony you stated that you reached out to create the business in early to mid march. You started your scams in mid February. Someone as allegedly high-ranking in Maze Bank as you claim, would be well-aware that these kind of interactions would go through the bank itself, not your personal account.
But we have rebuttal evidence presented by the State that prove this account was never touched.
We cannot sit here and claim ‘oh well the state could have waited 45 days’ well past the statute, but I find that unnecessary here.
This Court will be denying your appeal in-part, and finding you guilty on 9 counts of extortion, 2 counts of fraud, and 1 count of forgery.
The remaining counts of Fraud this court considers a stacking charge and will be placed umbrella under the extortion charges.
Further, The Court will be granting the request of the State and will be issuing an immediate seizure of the $10,500 shown from your personal records.
SO ORDERED.
