The FBI has released documents related to the investigation into Shanquella Robinson’s case, likely in response to public pressure for transparency. While the release is minimal, it is a start, and hopefully, more information will follow.
📂 FBI Documents
https://icanticant.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Shanquella-Robinson-Part-01-Final-1-merged-1-1.pdf
At the same time, defendant Khalil Cooke has filed a motion to dismiss, attempting to avoid responsibility by claiming improper venue and arguing that the case should be handled in Mexico. Cooke's legal team insists he was merely a bystander, etc.
1. Legal Basis for Dismissal
Khalil Cooke is requesting that the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina dismiss the case against him under Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure due to improper venue.
He argues that the lawsuit should not be heard in North Carolina because the incident in question occurred in Mexico, making it an inappropriate forum under the legal doctrine of forum non conveniens.
2. Key Arguments in the Motion
Cooke’s Alleged Role
The motion states that Cooke was merely a bystander and was not involved in the physical altercation that led to Shanquella Robinson’s death.
There are no allegations that he touched anyone or participated in any act of violence.
Location of Key Witnesses
Cooke argues that the most important witnesses in the case, including:Mexican medical personnel who treated Shanquella
Hotel staff who were present
Mexican law enforcement who responded to the scene
The coroner’s office that examined her body
These individuals are all located in Mexico, making it difficult to compel their testimony in a U.S. court.
Applicability of Mexican Law
Cooke’s attorneys state that since the incident happened in Mexico, Mexican law would apply to the claims against him.
They argue that Mexico has a functioning civil justice system where these claims should be adjudicated instead.
3. Legal Precedents Used
Cooke’s legal team cites U.S. Supreme Court rulings that support dismissing cases when another country is a more appropriate jurisdiction: Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp. – Established that cases can be dismissed early if a foreign court is a more suitable venue.
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert – Outlined factors for determining whether a case should be moved based on convenience, including: Access to evidence
Ability to compel witnesses
The burden of trying a case in a location unrelated to the incident
4. Conclusion and Request
Cooke’s motion asks the court to dismiss the claims against him because:
- The case should properly be heard in Mexico, not the U.S.
- Critical evidence and witnesses are in Mexico.
- He was not directly involved in the altercation.
Cooke’s attorneys also certified compliance with court rules on the use of artificial intelligence in drafting the document, stating that legal research was done manually except for Westlaw, Lexus, FastCase, and Bloomberg.
This motion is now awaiting a court ruling on whether the case against Cooke will proceed in North Carolina or if the court will dismiss it based on improper venue.
📂 Khalil Cooke’s Motion to Dismiss
https://icanticant.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/KHALIL-MOTION-TO-DISMISS-1-merged.pdf
Share this petition and spread the word.