Dismissals of Cases

1
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA. COSTA
3
4
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

No. 5-141408-5
STIPULATION
V.
0 [L
7
8
np C i 2 2016
CARL JAMES SCHOPPE,
CLERK
10
Defendant.
n,__
11
FT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:
12
13
1. Former Pittsburg Police Dq)artment Officer Hisabeth Ingram (Badge #311) was the
14
investip.ting officer in the above captioned case, and the prosecutioiis chief witness against
15
Mr. Schoppe;
16
17
2. After Mr. Schoppe was convicted, new evidence regarding Officer Ingram was released by
18
19
the Pittsburg Police Department.

3. The parties jointly move this court to dismiss the diarges against Mir. Schoppe;
20
4. The parties waive any and all irregularities arMng fixmi the above procedures;
21
22
5. This stipulation is limited to die above-captioned matter and is not intended to apply to any
23
other case in which Officer Inâm s credibility may have been at issue nor does it
24
constitute'an admission that die information was material and exculpatory.
25
Dated:
Dated:
26
27
28
Attomey
Diaiiat^rrido, Dqjuty Pd^lic Defender

Counsel ftar hh. Schoppe
1
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
3
4
No. 5-140750-1
STIPULATION
V.
D iL
7
8
MICHAEL MOSS,
DEC A
2016
STEPHEN H. NASH CLERK

S U p lr a O R COURT OP THE STATE-JR..
COUMTY OF COMTHA C O L l?
Defendant.
10
By____________________________
11
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:
12
1. Former Pittsburg Police Department Officers Elisabeth Ingram (Badge #311) and Michael
13
Sibbitt (Badge #310) were the investigating officers in the above captioned case, and the
14
prosecutions chief witnesses against Mr. Moss;
15
16
2. After Mr. Moss was convicted, new evidence regarding Officers Ingram and Sibbitt was
17
18
released by the Pittsburg Police Department;

3. The parties jointly move this court to dismiss the charges against Mr. Moss, nunc pro tunc;
19
20
4. The parties waive any and all irregularities arising fi*om the above procedures;
21
5. This stipulation is limited to the above-captioned matter and is not intended to apply to any
22
other case in which Officers Ingram and Sibbitts credibility may have been at issue nor
23
does it constitute an admission that the information was material and exculpatory.
24
Dated:
lo 7 / i
io
Dated:
Q- j j I ^
25
26
27
28
Lynn Uilkema, Deputy District Attorney
Diana Garrido, DeputylPublic Defender

Counsel for Mr. Moss
1
2
3

4
No. 5-151403-3
STIPULATION
V.
6
7
8
FINAU SCOTLAND,
DEC i 2. 2016
Defendant.
10
S T E PH E N H . NASHCwE.*.-, u T h ' i.t

PERIO n COURT O f THE
COUNTY OF CQWri-i.'. CU ...<
) .
; -W A
By_
11
12
1. Fenner Pittsburg Police Department Officer Elisabeth Ingram (Badge #311) was the
13
14
15
16
17
18
investigating officers in the above captioned ease, and the prosecutions chief witness
against Mr. Scotland;
2. After Mr. Scotland was convicted, new evidence regarding Officer Ingram was released by
the Pittsburg Police Department;
3. The parties jointly move this court to dismiss the charges against Mr. Scotland, nunc pro
19
20
tunc;
21
4. The parties waive any and all irregularities arising Ifom the above procedures;
22
23
24
other ease in which Officers Ingrams credibility may have been at issue nor does it
constitute an admission that the information was material and exculpatory.
25
26
Dated: _
i d 1 ^ / 1^
Dated:
j f ) - j !X j !
27
d
28
Lynn Uilkema, Deputy District Attorney
Diana Garrido, Deputy P iblic Defender

Counsel for Mr. Scotlanc
1
2
3

4
No. 4-180326-1
STIPULATION
V.
6
7
8
SEAN DIALS,
DEC 1
SU PERIO R
Defendant.
/U is
COUKT'tr >
3y______
10
11
12
1. Fenner Pittsburg Police Department Officer Elisabeth Ingram (Badge #311) was the
13
14
15
16
17
18
investigating officers in the above captioned case, and the prosecutions chief witness
against Mr. Dials;
2. After Mr. Dials was convicted, new evidence regarding Officer Ingram was released by the
Pittsburg Police Department;
3. The parties jointly move this court to dismiss the charges against Mr. Dials, nunc pro tunc;
19
20
21
4. The parties waive any and all irregularities arising from the above procedures;
22
other case in which Officers Ingrams credibility may have been at issue nor does it
23
24
Dated: _
U /lS L /l ^
Dated;
1.3 //c j-
/{)
25
26
27
28
Lynn Uilkema, Deputy District Attomey
A
Diana Garrido, Deputy f ublic Defender
Counsel for Mr. Dials
1
2
3
N o. 4-177067-6
STIPULATION
V.
6
7
8
LINDA CAMELL,
9
Defendant.
10
11
1 is 2016
STEPHEN
iUPERSOBCOUMW^^
liy.
rr IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:
12
13
dec
1. Fortner Pittsburg Police Department Officer Elisabeth Ingrain (Badge #311) was the
14
investigating officer in the above captioned case, and the prosecutions chief witness against
15
Ms. CameU;
16
17
2. After Ms. Catnell was convicted, new evidence regarding Officer Ingram was released by
the Pittsburg Police Dârtment;
18
19
3. The parties jointly move this court to dismiss the c h a r^ against Ms. Camell, nunc pro tunc;
20
4. The parties waive any and all irregularities arising ftom the above procedures;
21
5. This stipulation is limited to the above-captioned matter and is not int^ded to apply to any
22
other case in which Officer Ingrams credibility may have been at issue nor does it
23
constitute an admission that the inftnmation was material and exculpatory.
24
25
26
Dated:.
I2
-j
Diited:.^ / B ' l f h l o
27
28
Diana GariRIb, D q n ^ Public llêfender

Counsel ftr Ms. Camell
1
2
3
No. 4-177067-6
STIPULATION
D 0=
7
8
RTTA EDWARDS,
DEC 1 2 2016
Defeadant.
STE PH EN H.
10
11
12
r r IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

1. Former Pittsburg Police Department Officer Elisabeth Mgiam (Badge #311) was the
13
investigating officer in the above captioned case, and the prosecutions chief witness against
14
Ms. Edwards;
15
16
2. After Ms. Edwards was convicted, new evidence regarding Officer Ingram was released by
17
18
the Pittsbuig Police Department;

3. The parties jointly move this court to dismiss the charges against Ms. Edwards, nunc pro
19
tunc;
20
21
4. The parties waive any and all irregularities arising ftx>mthe above procedures;
22
5. This stipulation is limited to the above-captioned matter and is not intended to ^ l y to any
23
24
constitute an admission that the information was material and exculpatot3|^
25
26
27
28
Daiai:
'^ jl^
_______
Dated:
Iftl
o C h A J .tC 'm A
Lyim Uilkema, Deputy District Attomey
Diaha (Miido, Deputy PubKp Defenda:

Counsel for Ms. Edwards
1
2
3
No. 4-178883-5
STIPULATION
V.
D [L
7
8
ROBERT FREENEY,
DhC i 2 Z016
Defendant.
C OUNTY O F C O N TR A C O STA
10
, D epJly
11
12
n IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

1. Former Pittsburg PoUce Department O ffice Elisabeth Ingram (Ba<%e #311) and Michael
13
Sibbitt (Badge #310) were the investigating ofELcers in the above captioned case, and the
14
prosecutions chief witnesses aînst Mr. Freeney,
15
16
2. After Mr. Freeney was convicted, new evidence regarding Officers Ingram and Sibbitt was
17
18
released by the Pittsbuig Police Dârtment;

3. The parties jointly move this court to dismiss the charges against Mr. Freeney, nunc pro
19
tunc;
20
21
4. The p artis waive any and all irregularities arising fiom the above procedures;
22
5. This stipulation is limited to the above-ctgrtioned matter and is not intended to e?)ply to any
23
other case in which Officers Ingram or Sibbitts awlibility may have been at issue nor does
24
it constitute an admission that the information was material and exculpatory.
25
26
Dated:
ip _______
Dated:
27
28
Lyim Uilkema, Deputy District Attomey
Diana Garrido, Dq>uty Public Defoider

Counsel for Mr. Freeiey
1
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFOBINIA
2
3
No. 4-178504-7
STIPULATION
6
7
8
[S
R \
DEC 1 2 2016 L
Defendant.
10
By.
11
12
[L
BENJAMIN HOLLOMAN,
1. Former Pittsburg Police Department Officer Elisabeth Ingram (Badge #311) was the
13
investigating officer in the above optioned case, and the prosecutions chiefwitnesses
14
against Mr. Holloman;
15
16
2. Afta: Mr, HoUoman was convicted, new evidence regarding Officer Ingram was relrased by
17
18
the Pittsburg Police Dq)artmit;

3. The parties jointly move this court to dismiss the charges against Mr. Holloman, nunc pro
19
tunc;
20
21
4. The parties waive any and all irregularities arising fiom the above procedures;
22
23
other case in which Offic- Ingrams credibility may have been at issue nor does it
24
constitute an admission that the information was material and ^culpatory.
25
Dated:
26
/ < ? / ^ I li^
Dated:
27
28
Lynn Uilkema, Dqraty District Attomey
Diana Garrido, D ûty Public Defends:

Counsel for Mr. Holloman'
1
2
3
No. 4-180365-9
STIPULATION
6
7
8
EMILIO MARTINEZ,
DEC 1 2 2016
Defendant.
STE PH EN H. NASH Ci-EfiK O'^TKC: CO'.WT

SU P E n iD R COURT OF THF. T,V! 5 f'F C/ L;f 1N!A
CO:jrJT/ OrCCOTH/iCOoTC
10
11
12
1. Foraier Pittsburg Police Department OflBcer Elisabdli Ingram (Badge #311) was the
13
investigating ofGcer in the above crptioned case, and the prosecutions chief witnesses
14
against Mr. Martinez;
15
16
2. After Mr. Martinez was convicted, new evidence regarding Officer Ingram was released by
17
18

3. The parties jointly move this court to dismiss the charges against Mr. Martinez, nunc pro
19
tunc;
20
21
22
4. The parties waive any and all irregularities arising ftom the above procedures;
23
24
constitute an admissinn that the information was material and ex.culpatory.
25
26
Dated:
I1
^ 1
6 / / fe?
Dated:
27
28
Lynn Uilkema, Dq>uty District Attomey
Diana Gmrido, Dq)uty Publi^ Defender

Counsel for Mr. Martinez
1
2
3
No. 4-178018-8
STIPULATION
^ D D= IM
7
8
HILARIO MARTINEZ,
.. EC i 2 2016 I
Defendant
10
_______
11
12
H . N A SH T LER K O F THE C O U R T
o f t h f . statl' o f c a u f o r n ia
CO O Y R A COSTA
c o u rt
CUUOT/
____
. , D e p u ty C le rk
r r IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

1. Former Pitteburg Police Dqjartment Ofi&CCTElisabeth Ingram (Badge #311) was the
13
investigating officer in the above captioned case, and the prosecutions chief witnesses
14
against Mr. Martinez;
15
16
2. After Mr, Martinez was convicted, new evidence regarding Officer Ingram was released by
17
18
the Pittsbmg Police Dq>artment;

3. The parties jointly move this court to dismiss the charges against Mr. Martinez, nunc pro
19
tunc;
20
21
22
5. This stipulation is limited to the above-c^tioned matter and is not intended to apply to any
23
24
25
26
U^
Dated:
Dated:^W c2i
Diana C^rrido, Dq)uty Public Defmder

Ck)unsel for Mr. Martinez
27
28
1
No. 4-178159-0
STIPULATION
D [L=3
7
8
DEC 1 2 2016
WARREN STINGLEY,
Defendant.
_ , Deputy ClKi
10
11
12

1. Former Pittsburg Police Department Office: Michael Sibbitt (Badge #310) was the
13
investigating officer in the above optioned case, and the prosecutions chiefwitnesses
14
against Mr. Stingley;
15
16
2. AAct Mr. Stingley was convicted, new evidence regarding Officer Sibbitt was released by
17
18
the Pittsburg Police Dq>ar1ment;

3. The parties jointly move this court to dismiss the charges against Mr. Stingley, nunc pro
19
tunc;
20
21
4. The parties waive any. and all irregularities arising from the above procedures;
22
5. This stipulation is limited to the above-captioned matter and is not intaided to ^ l y to any
23
otho: case in which Officer Sibbitts credibility may have berai at issue nor does it constitute
24
an admission that the informalion was material and exculpatory.
25
26
Dated;
Dated:
Lynn Uilkana, D ûty District Attorney
Diana Garrido, Deputy Publib Defender

Counsel for Mr. Stinêy
27
28
1
2
3
No. 5-141572-8
STIPULATION
V.
6
7
8
MAKOTO TAKAL
Defendant.
10
11
12
1. Former Pittsburg Police Dq)artment Offica- Michael Sibbitt (Badge #310) was the
13
investigating officer in the above ce^rtioned case, and the prosecutions chief witnesses
14
against Mr. Tafcai;
15
16
2. After Mr. Takai was convicted, new evidence regarding Officer Sibbitt was released by the
17
18
Pittsburg Police Department;

3. The parties jointly move this court to dismiss the diarges against Mr. Takai, nunc pro tunc;
19
20
21
5. This stipulation is limited to the above-captioned matter and is not intended to ^ l y to any
22
oftier case in whidi Officer Sibbitts credibility may have been at issue nor does it constitute
23
an admission that the information was material and exculpatory.
24
Dated:
25
26
27
28
Diana Ganido, Deputy Public Defender

Counsel fiir Mr. Takai
1
2
3
No. 4-180710-6
STIPULATION
V,
7
8
BRADEN WENGER,
f'-
DEC 1 2 2016
Defendant
10
11
12
1. Fenner Pittsburg Policse Department Officer Michael Sibbitt (B ad^ #310) was the
13
investigating officer in the above ce^Jtioned case, and die prosecutions diief witnesses
14
against Mr. Wenger,
15
16
2. After Mr. Wenger was convicted, new evidence regarding Officer Sibbitt was released by
17
18

3. The parties jointly move this court to dismiss the charges against Mr. Wenger, nunc pro
19
tunc;
20
21
22
4. The parties waive any and all irregularities arising fixwn the above procedures;
5. This stipulation is limited to the above-c^jtioned matt and is not intmded to apply to any
23
othCT case in which Officer Sibbitts credibility may have been at issue nor does it constitute
24
an admission that the information was material and exculpatory.
25
26
Dated:
Daed:
Lynn Uilkema, Dqmty District Attomey
Diana Garrido, Dqmty PiA^c Defender

Counsel for Mr. Weng
27
28
1
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF C^DFORNIA
No. 4-178981-7
STIPULATION
V.
7
8
CASANDRA TOMPKINS,
I Q
[L
L
% Z016
Defendant.
10
11
12
1. Former Pittsburg Police Department GfEcer Elisabeth Ingram (âdge #311) was the
13
investigatmg officer in the above c lo n e d case, and the prosecutions chief witnesses
14
E^dnst Ms. Tompkins;
15
16
2. After Ms. Tompkins was convicted, new evidence regarding Officer Ingram was released by
17
18
the Pittsburg Police Dqjartmaot;

3. The parties jointly move this court to dismiss the diarges against Ms. Tompkins, nunc pro
19
tunc;
20
21
22
4. The parties waive any and all irregularities arising fixim the above procedures;
5. This stipulation is limited to the above-captioned matter and is not intmded to e ^ ly to any
23
othCT case in which Officer Ingrams credibility may have been at issue nor does it
24
admission that the information was material and exculpatmy.

constitute an aamissv
.25
26
Dated:
'^
c> / 1
Dated:i:
27
28
Lyrm Uilkema, Dqiuty District AttomQ^
Diana Gamdo, Dqiuty Pub^c Defender

Counsel for Ms. Tompkins
1
2
3
N o. 4-180184-4
STIPULATION
V.
Q IL
7
8
DUYEN NGUYEN,
D- C 1 2 2016
Defendant
10
By-
11
12
Deputy Clerk
1. Fonner Pittsburg Police DepartmCTit Officer Michael Sibbitt (Badge #310) was the
13
investigating officer in the above captioned case, and the prosecutions chief witnesses
14
against Mr. Nguyen;
15
16
2. After Mr. Nguyen was convicted, new evidraice regarding Officer Sibbitt was released by
17
18

3. The parties jointly move this court to dismiss the charges against Mr. Nguyen, nunc pro
19
tunc;
20
21
4. The parties waive any and all irregularities arising finm the above procedures;
22
23
other case in which Offico* Sibbitts credibility may have been at issue nor does it constitute
24
an admissinn that the information was material and exculpatory.
25
26
Dated:
Dated:
Lynn Uilkema, D ûty District Attomey
Diana Gamdo, Deputy Publioêfender

Counsel for Mr. Nguyrax
27
28

Dismissals of Cases

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Dismissals of Cases

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CARL JAMES SCHOPPE,

FT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

the Pittsburg Police Department.

constitute'an admission that die information was material and exculpatory.

Diaiiat^rrido, Dqjuty Pd^lic Defender

STEPHEN H. NASH CLERK

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

prosecutions chief witnesses against Mr. Moss;

released by the Pittsburg Police Department;

Lynn Uilkema, Deputy District Attorney

Diana Garrido, DeputylPublic Defender

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

S T E PH E N H . NASHCwE.*.-, u T h ' i.t

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

Lynn Uilkema, Deputy District Attorney

Diana Garrido, Deputy P iblic Defender

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

constitute an admission that the information was material and exculpatory.

Lynn Uilkema, Deputy District Attomey

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

rr IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

constitute an admission that the inftnmation was material and exculpatory.

Lynn Uilkema, Deputy District Attomey

Diana GariRIb, D q n ^ Public ll^efender

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

r r IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

the Pittsbuig Police Department;

constitute an admission that the information was material and exculpatot3|^

Diaha (Miido, Deputy PubKp Defenda:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

n IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

prosecutions chief witnesses a^inst Mr. Freeney,

released by the Pittsbuig Police D^artment;

it constitute an admission that the information was material and exculpatory.

Lyim Uilkema, Deputy District Attomey

Diana Garrido, Dq>uty Public Defoider

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

rr IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

against Mr. Holloman;

the Pittsburg Police Dq)artmit;

constitute an admission that the information was material and ^culpatory.

Lynn Uilkema, Dqraty District Attomey

Diana Garrido, D ^uty Public Defends:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STE PH EN H. NASH Ci-EfiK O'^TKC: CO'.WT

rr IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

against Mr. Martinez;

the Pittsburg Police Department;

constitute an admissinn that the information was material and ex.culpatory.

Lynn Uilkema, Dq>uty District Attomey

Diana Gmrido, Dq)uty Publi^ Defender

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

r r IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

against Mr. Martinez;

the Pittsbmg Police Dq>artment;

constitute an admission that the information was material and exculpatory.

Lynn Uilkema, Deputy District Attomey

Diana C^rrido, Dq)uty Public Defmder

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA