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 In^am 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 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

3
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
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
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

2
3

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

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

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

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

5. This stipulation is limited to the above-captioned matter and is not intended to apply to any

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
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

2
3

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

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

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

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;
5. This stipulation is limited to the above-captioned matter and is not intended to apply to any

22

other case in which Officers Ingrams credibility may have been at issue nor does it

23

constitute an admission that the information was material and exculpatory.

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
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

2
3

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

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 D^artment;

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

Lynn Uilkema, Deputy District Attomey

Diana GariRIb, D q n ^ Public ll^efender

Counsel ftr Ms. Camell

1
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

2
3

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

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

other case in which Officer Ingrams credibility may have been at issue nor does it

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
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

2
3

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

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 a^inst 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 D^artment;

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
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

2
3

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

No. 4-178504-7

STIPULATION

6
7
8

[S

R \

DEC 1 2 2016 L

Defendant.

10

By.

11
12

[L

BENJAMIN HOLLOMAN,

rr IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

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

5. This stipulation is limited to the above-captioned matter and is not intended to apply to any

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 ^uty Public Defends:

Counsel for Mr. Holloman'

1
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

2
3

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

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

rr IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

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

the Pittsburg Police Department;

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;
5. This stipulation is limited to the above-captioned matter and is not intended to apply to any

23

other case in which Officer Ingrams credibility may have been at issue nor does it

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
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

2
3

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

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

4. The parties waive any and all irregularities arising fiom the above procedures;

22

5. This stipulation is limited to the above-c^tioned matter and is not intended to apply to any

23

other case in which Officer Ingrams credibility may have been at issue nor does it

24

constitute an admission that the information was material and exculpatory.

25
26

U^

Dated:

Dated:^W c2i

Lynn Uilkema, Deputy District Attomey

Diana C^rrido, Dq)uty Public Defmder

Ck)unsel for Mr. Martinez

27
28

1
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

No. 4-178159-0

STIPULATION

D [L=3

7
8

DEC 1 2 2016

WARREN STINGLEY,

Defendant.

_ , Deputy ClKi

10
11

12

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

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 ^uty District Attorney

Diana Garrido, Deputy Publib Defender

Counsel for Mr. Stin^ey

27
28

1
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

2
3

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

No. 5-141572-8

STIPULATION
V.

6
7
8

MAKOTO TAKAL

Defendant.

10

11
12

rr IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

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

4. The parties waive any and all irregularities arising fiom the above procedures;
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

Lynn Uilkema, Deputy District Attomey

Diana Ganido, Deputy Public Defender

Counsel fiir Mr. Takai

1
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

2
3

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

No. 4-180710-6

STIPULATION
V,

7
8

BRADEN WENGER,
f'-

DEC 1 2 2016

Defendant

10

11
12

rr IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

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

the Pittsburg Police Department;

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
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

No. 4-178981-7

STIPULATION
V.

7
8

CASANDRA TOMPKINS,

I Q

[L

L
% Z016

Defendant.

10

11
12

rr IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

1. Former Pittsburg Police Department GfEcer Elisabeth Ingram (^adge #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
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

2
3

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

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

rr IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

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

the Pittsburg Police Department;

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

5. This stipulation is limited to the above-captioned matter and is not intended to apply to any

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 ^uty District Attomey

Diana Gamdo, Deputy Publio^efender

Counsel for Mr. Nguyrax

27
28