San Andreas Judicial Branch Public Defense Division "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
Honorable Judge AllGood and Pertaining Parties,
The defense would like to have this case tried in a public court setting, but there have been multiple trial scheduling's with multiple weeks put into each scheduling. As much as the defense would like to have this case be held in a public setting, we would also like to move this trial forward.
It has been seventy-three (73) days since the last motion that was posted. It has been three-hundred-and-five (305) days since this case was posted. It has been ninety-eight (98) days since this case has been activated. The amount of time it has taken to have this case heard has been upsetting. My client has been an accused terrorist for a long time, and this case should have been dealt with long ago. The defense is tired of waiting for this case to be heard. If we wait for this case after the previous scheduling request, it will add an extra ten (10) days to a three-hundred-and-five (305) day case.
With this being said, the defense would like to move this case to a docket trial.
Very Respectfully,
Chief Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 313 — [email protected]
Carmello's Consults
Founder October 2024 - Present
Department of Corrections
Correctional Officer I Human Resources Support - K9 - Correctional Services June 2024 - November 2024
San Andreas Judicial Branch Public Defense Division "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
Honorable Judge AllGood and Pertaining Parties,
Per the request of the defendant, the defense has decided to attempt another trial scheduling. The defense would still like it to be noted how long it has taken for this case to be heard. We hope to see this case move forward soon.
Very Respectfully,
Chief Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 313 — [email protected]
Carmello's Consults
Founder October 2024 - Present
Department of Corrections
Correctional Officer I Human Resources Support - K9 - Correctional Services June 2024 - November 2024
San Andreas Judicial Branch Superior Court of San Andreas "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
NOTICE OF SCHEDULING
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Diana Butler
#25-CM-0015
An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on 9th of June, 2025.
All parties in this case are encouraged to complete the following Scheduling Tool in an attempt to schedule a trial on the above case. When the scheduling tool has been completed by either party, please post on the docket stating as such.
In the event all parties have overlapping availability the Presiding Judge will determine the best date and time to have a trial take place and post a Notice of Trial informing all of the upcoming proceeding.
In the event some or all parties do not have overlapping availability, the Presiding Judge will continue to attempt to schedule the proceeding or seek alternative avenues to conclude the case.
If either party has the intentions of calling a witness to the stand during the proceeding they must inform the court by filing a Witness List at the time of filing their availability. If no Witness List is filed before the Notice of Trial is filed you will be unable to call a witness during the proceeding.
Respectfully,
Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Superior Court of San Andreas "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
NOTICE OF TRIAL
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Diana Butler
#25-CM-0015
A trial date was set on the above case on 15th of June, 2025.
In accordance with the availability reported by both parties in response to the Notice of Scheduling, this trial shall take place at 8:15 PM on 21st of June, 2025 at Rockford Hills City Hall, Carcer Way, Metro Los Santos, SA.
Both parties are ordered to be present in the Judges Chambers no later than 15 minutes prior to the above listed date for pretrial arrangements. If complications occur that must result in a delay or cancellation of the trial, you are ordered to inform the court no later than 12 hours prior to the above listed date.
So ordered,
Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Superior Court of San Andreas "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
ISSUANCE OF VERDICT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Diana Butler
#25-CM-0015
A decision was reached in the above case on the 21st day of June, 2025.
On the 2nd of August, 2024, a group of individuals "stormed" into City Hall. What happened shortly after is nothing short of a tragedy. A person's firearm was stolen, and a shootout unfolded in what became a literal bloodbath. During the ensuring situation, multiple people were shot, including several of the individuals who stormed the doors of City Hall at a GSB Officer. Members of the LSPD responded, and attempted to put the pieces together. The Defendant is one of those individuals who was encountered injured inside City Hall and was charged with multiple offenses ranging in severity at the conclusion of the LSPD investigation.
During tiral, several pieces of evidence were reviewed. In summary; an arrest report, multiple witness statements, and still images from City Hall CCTV. The prosecution argued that the Defendant was part of this group who stormed City Hall, stole a firearm from Scottie Cross, and used that firearm to shoot and murder a GSB agent. The defense argued the Prosecution was unable to argue that the Defendant was involved in the group who stormed City Hall, and pointed to the fact the LSPD investigation and resulting charges stemmed from lacking first hand knowledge of the situation which unfolded at City Hall. The Defense also argues the Defendant was merely at the wrong place at the wrong time, claiming the Defendant came into possession of Scottie Cross's weapon because it was handed to her by someone else involved in the situation.
After hearing all evidence and arguments, the court concludes that sufficient evidence has been shown to conclusively point out that a group of individuals did indeed make entry into City Hall, and shots were fired, resulting in the death of a GSB Agent and injuries sustained to multiple individuals in City Hall. Although second hand information, this is clearly demonstrated in the witness statements provided by the Prosecution, including first hand hearing of shots fired and responses to multiple calls, department radio calls and panic alarms at City Hall. Upon arrival, the aftermath of the situation was witnessed firsthand. And through this, the LSPD did come into contact with the Defendant, Diana Butler, video footage was reviewed, and Diana Butler was taken into custody. While the Defense argues the Defendant was the only one arrested, the Court notes the other individuals named in Exhibit 1 were also arrested and charged as reflected on their own respective records. Although a purported witness video of the events was not reviewed due to an earlier suppression granted by the Court, CCTV still images from outside City Hall was in-fact reviewed and the Defendant is clearly seen outside City Hall on the tail-end of the group that stormed inside. While the footage does not clearly show the Defendant went inside City Hall, we know she was inside City Hall given she was encountered inside by LSPD and the Defense claims that she was handed a weapon which had been stolen from someone inside City Hall. While arguing from a differing perspective, the conclusion remains the same -- the Defendant was inside City Hall during the events which transpired.
The Prosecution and Defense contest whether actions of the Defendant resulted in the death of the GSB Agent, or whether someone else did so. It is a tragedy that a GSB agent tragically lost their life in this incident. But the Court must rule on what the evidence shows. The evidence shows that Diana Butler did in-fact come into contact with Scottie Cross's weapon in some way shape or form. And multiple individuals with the Defendant were charged for murder of government employees. While the Court would have preferred there to be at least some form of evidence of ballistics or gun shot residue testing to show the Defendant had fired the weapon, the Court also must determine whether this lack of information constitutes reasonable doubt or not. We know there were shots fired, and we know the LSPD arrived very quickly to find the deceased GSB Agent, and encountered multiple individuals injured inside who had been involved in the preceding shooting. The Court can therefore conclude the GSB agent did in-fact die from wounds sustained by gunfire, and therefore does conclude that barring any other explanation, the Defendant was part of the same group who were also all summarily charged with the murder of the GSB agent. The Court does not find the argument that the someone merely handed the Defendant the weapon to be persuasive.
As far as the charges considered, the Court has reviewed the penal code definitions of all the charges and compared the acts constituting them against the evidence. In addition to the conclusions made above, the Court makes the additional following findings;
Domestic Terrorism: There has been no evidence presented that provides any suggestions as to the Defendant or the group's intentions, or whether any of the following acts occurred or were intended; "(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping." We do not know why this group stormed into City Hall and caused this tragedy.
Criminal Use of Weapon Modifications: The Defendant came into possession of a weapon that already had these modifications applied to them. While the penal code definition states these modifications have to be either used in the commission of a crime, not eligible for purchase through a legal retailer, or if these modifications are in a person's possession when charged with another weapon's felony, the Court believes the legislative intent was to cover person(s) who obtain these modifications for use in a crime, not merely stumbling into a weapon with them on it. The Court does agree the modifications were incidentally used in the commission of the crime, but notes the weapon itself was stolen prior to the crime and these modifications were not applied by the Defendant. The Court believes this to be an extra charge applied, and not one with a separate distinct showing of criminal acts.
Grand theft: Theft is a component of robbery, and therefore does constitute a double-charging of events. Whether the Defendant stole the firearm during an armed robbery or stole a firearm by other means is the difference here. The Court concludes given the circumstances of the group storming City Hall and the ensuring shootout that the firearm was stolen by means of force.
Possession of human tissue: The Court notes there has been no evidence provided to suggest Diana Butler was not authorized to manage, store, or use the human tissue. Therefore, the Court cannot make any substantive conclusions here.
Possession of a controlled substance while armed: The Defendant was only in possession of 7 marijuana plants. Possession of a controlled substance, specific to marijuana, is for the possession of more than 10 marijuana plants. Therefore, no evidence has been presented that the Defendant was in possession of a controlled substance in addition to being armed.
It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:
On the count of SF01 - Domestic Terrorism, I find the defendant, Diana Butler, Not Guilty.
On the count of SF02 - Murder of a government employee, I find the defendant, Diana Butler, Guilty.
On the count of GF03 - Armed Robbery, I find the defendant, Diana Butler, Guilty.
On the count of WM02 - Possession of a Class 1 Firearm, I find the defendant, Diana Butler, Guilty.
On the count of WM03 - Criminal Use of Weapon Modifications, I find the defendant, Diana Butler, Not Guilty.
On the count of GF20 - Possession of Human Body Tissue, I find the defendant, Diana Butler, Not Guilty.
On the count of NM03 - Unlawful Assembly, I find the defendant, Diana Butler, Guilty.
On the count of VF04 - Felony Public Endangerment, I find the defendant, Diana Butler, Guilty.
On the count of GF10 - Grand Theft, I find the defendant, Diana Butler, Not guilty.
On the count of DM04 - Possession of a Controlled Substance while Armed, I find the defendant, Diana Butler, Not guilty.
The Defendant has been reimbursed and has had their record updated to reflect today's decision. Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 — [email protected]
