#25-CM-0039 State of San Andreas V. Nathaniel Luceran

[Terence Williams]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran
#25-CM-0039

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 28th of August, 2025.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;

• Exhibit #1: Arrest report - Nathaniel Luceran, 11/JAN/2025

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    
    
    Full Name: Nathaniel Luceran
    Telephone Number: Redacted
    Licenses Suspended: Yes
    • Driver
    • Trucker
    
    Charges:
    • NM08 - Abuse of Government Public Safety Radio Frequencies or Hotlines
    • GM25 - Possession/Unlawful use of Government Equipment
    • GF10 - Grand Theft of a Gov. employee
    • SF01 - Domestic Terrorism
    • SF04 - Kidnapping of a Gov. employee
    • GF14 - False Impersonation of a Gov. employee
    • GF11 - Grand Theft Auto of a Gov. employee
    • GF05 - Extortion of a Gov. employee
    • GF21 - Prison Break
    • NM06 - Trespassing of a Gov. employee
    • NM03 - Unlawful Assembly
    
    
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :

  
  
  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  
  
  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: James Valor
    Badge Number: 6374
    Callsign: 3-Z-10

  
  
  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2025-01-11
    Deputies Involved: Investigator III Arnold Rimmer, Investigator II James Valor, Investigator I Louise Hoffman
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • arrested via the conclusion of casefile #187266.

  
  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: N/A

  
  
  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  
  

  ---

  

• Exhibit #2: Arrest report - Alistair Vespucci, 10/JAN/2025

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    Full Name: Alistair Vespucci
    Telephone Number: Redacted
    Licenses Suspended: No
    Charges:
    • NM03 - Unlawful Assembly
    • NM06 - Trespassing of a Gov. employee
    • GF21 - Prison Break
    • GF05 - Extortion of a Gov. employee
    • GF10 - Grand Theft of a Gov. employee
    • GF11 - Grand Theft Auto of a Gov. employee
    • GF14 - False Impersonation of a Gov. employee
    • SF04 - Kidnapping of a Gov. employee
    • SF01 - Domestic Terrorism
    • GM25 - Possession/Unlawful use of Government Equipment
    • NM08 - Abuse of Government Public Safety Radio Frequencies or Hotlines
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :
    Suspect was arrested in Mirror Park on his drag

  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: Mathew Handley
    Badge Number: 12823
    Callsign: 3-W-30

  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2025-01-10
    Deputies Involved: Investigator Handley, Sheriff Black, Sheriff Payne, Investigator Hoffman, Captain Rosselli, Investigator Valor, IIT Callas, IIT Lawless
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • In conclusion to casefile #187266.

  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: N/A

  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  
  

  ---

  

• Exhibit #3: Arrest report - Cortez Rivera, 11/JAN/2025

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    Full Name: Cortez Rivera
    Telephone Number: Redacted
    Licenses Suspended: No
    Charges:
    • WM02 - Possession of a Class 1 Firearm
    • WM03 - Criminal Use of Weapon Modifications
    • NM03 - Unlawful Assembly
    • NM06 - Trespassing
    • VF04 - Felony Public Endangerment
    • GF21 - Prison Break
    • GF05 - Extortion of a Gov. employee
    • GF11 - Grand Theft Auto of a Gov. employee
    • GF14 - False Impersonation of a Gov. employee
    • SF04 - Kidnapping of a Gov. employee
    • SF01 - Domestic Terrorism
    • GF10 - Grand Theft of a Gov. employee
    • GM25 - Possession/Unlawful use of Government Equipment
    • NM08 - Abuse of Government Public Safety Radio Frequencies or Hotlines
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :

  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: Vincenzo Callas
    Badge Number: 17063
    Callsign: 3-Z-10

  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2025-01-11
    Deputies Involved: James Valor, Cole Lawless, John Kemp, and more SIB
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • He was arrested through the conclusion of casefile #187266.
      Upon arresting him we found a Pistol .50 in the glovebox of his vehicle.

  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: Sandy Station
    Exhibit A: Pistol .50 with 45x ammo Serial number: 1734881882973;
    Exhibit B: 1x Suppressor
    
    Photo of the evidence in the locker (if applicable)

    

    ---

  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  Vincenzo Callas
  

  ---

  

• Exhibit #4: Arrest report - David Vespucci, 11/JAN/2025

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    Full Name: David Vespucci
    Telephone Number: Redacted
    Licenses Suspended: No
    Charges:
    • NM03 - Unlawful Assembly
    • GF21 - Prison Break
    • GF05 - Extortion of a Gov. employee
    • GF11 - Accessory to Grand Theft Auto of a Gov. employee
    • SF04 - Kidnapping of a Gov. employee
    • SF01 - Domestic Terrorism
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :
    Suspect was arrested at MRPD.

  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: Louise Hoffman
    Badge Number: 20109
    Callsign: 3-X-21

  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2025-01-11
    Deputies Involved: Investigator Handley, Sheriff Black, Sheriff Payne, Investigator Hoffman, Captain Rosselli, Investigator Valor, IIT Callas, IIT Lawless
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • In conclusion to casefile #187266.

  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: N/A

  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  
  

  ---

  

• Exhibit #5: Witness statement

  Under seal

• Exhibit #6: Witness statement

  Under seal

• Exhibit #7: LifeInvader post - Cobb Blogg news report

  
  Source

• Exhibit #8: Footage - Cobb Blog news report

  ((RP))

  * Solomon Cobb would have attached several files to this email, containing the raw unedited clips of what is found in this video.
  * The content of the footage would be the same, except there'd be no overlays, no sound effects and no pausing, zooming, cuts or edits.))

• Exhibit #9 A/B: Phone records / Consent form

  Under seal

• Exhibit #10: Admission of Guilt

  Under seal

• Exhibit #11: 911 call log

  Under seal

• Exhibit #12: Arrest report

  Under seal

• Exhibit #13: MDC record

  Under seal

• Exhibit #14: Image - 10 Mirror Park Blvd.

  Under seal

• Exhibit #15: Document - 10 Mirror Park Blvd. ownership record

  Under seal

• Exhibit #16 A/B: Records - Nathaniel Luceran phone records / Search warrant

  A - Phone records

  
  ((Proof of RP))

  B - Search warrant

  

  
  
  

  San Andreas Judicial Branch SEARCH WARRANT "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  ---

  • To:
    The Los Santos Sheriffs Department operating within the State of San Andreas and their respective investigative and tactical divisions:
    
    You are hereby directed to conduct a search of iFruit Phone Company for the following designated records:
    
    • Nathaniel Luceran's phone records from 12/AUG/2024 - 19/AUG/2024
    [X] Any evidence of crimes in violation of the San Andreas Penal Law Article GM to SF, included but not limited to:
    
    • GF21 - Prison Break
    • SF04 - Kidnapping of a Gov. Employee
    You are directed to execute this warrant between the hours of:
    
    • [ ] 06:00 - 21:00
    • [X] 08:00 - 22:00 (Hours of Operation for the Bank of San Andreas)
    • [ ] Any time day or night.
    A copy of this warrant may be kept from the owner of the phone to preserve the integrity of the investigation. The court requires a copy of all evidence seized to be submitted to the warrant application for internal archive.
    

    ---

    This warrant is issued on 11/DEC/2024 and is effective for 7 days. Should an extension be required, please submit a notice no less than 12 hours prior to this warrant's expiration.
    
    Respectfully,
    
    Superior Court Justice
    Branch Administrator
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    505-9925 — [email protected]

  

• Exhibit #17 A/B: Alistair Vespucci phone records / Search warrant

  A - Phone records

  
  
  

  B - Search warrant

  

  
  
  

  San Andreas Judicial Branch SEARCH WARRANT "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  ---

  • To:
    The Los Santos Sheriffs Department operating within the State of San Andreas and their respective investigative and tactical divisions:
    
    You are hereby directed to conduct a search of iFruit Phone Company for the following designated records:
    
    • Alistair Vespucci's phone records from 05/AUG/2024 - 19/AUG/2024
    [X] Any evidence of crimes in violation of the San Andreas Penal Law Article GM to SF, included but not limited to:
    
    • GF21 - Prison Break
    • SF04 - Kidnapping of a Gov. Employee
    You are directed to execute this warrant between the hours of:
    
    • [ ] 06:00 - 21:00
    • [X] 08:00 - 22:00 (Hours of Operation for the Bank of San Andreas)
    • [ ] Any time day or night.
    A copy of this warrant may be kept from the owner of the phone to preserve the integrity of the investigation. The court requires a copy of all evidence seized to be submitted to the warrant application for internal archive.
    

    ---

    This warrant is issued on 14/DEC/2024 and is effective for 7 days. Should an extension be required, please submit a notice no less than 12 hours prior to this warrant's expiration.
    
    Respectfully,
    
    Superior Court Justice
    Branch Administrator
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    505-9925 — [email protected]

  

• Exhibit #18 A/B: Bodycam footage

  Under seal

Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]

[Jay Wellberg]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

SUBPOENA REQUEST

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran
#25-CM-0039

A Subpoena Request was filed in the above case on the 28 of August , 2025.

The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, respectfully requests the issuance of a subpoena for the following documents and/or testimony:

• Documents/Information Requested: *** FILED UNDER SEAL ***
  • Purpose/Reasoning for Subpoena: *** FILED UNDER SEAL ***

Jay Wellberg
Assured Services
Attorney, Assured Law
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

[Jay Wellberg]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran
#25-CM-0039

A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 29 of August , 2025.

The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Continuance, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

• Reasoning: Requesting a 48 hour continuance to finalize and post two (2) motions.
  • Detailed Explanation: With how late the discovery was provided to us, we are requesting a 72 hour continuance, to allow us to analyze the discovery and post two (2) motions of our own, one of them being a motion for discovery of our own.

Jay Wellberg
Assured Services
Attorney, Assured Law
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Personal Email
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Mr. Wellberg,
  
  Typically defense gets 7 days to file motions. Are you requesting an additional 2 days for a total of 9? If so, that's fine.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Superior Court Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Jay Wellberg]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

Honorable Judge Allgood,

That would be correct, we are requesting the additional on top of what is already allowed to us.



Jay Wellberg
Assured Services
Attorney, Assured Law
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

[Terence Williams]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Honorable Judge Allgood and pertaining parties,
  
  This notice is to indicate the Prosecution's intent to respond to opposing motions and requests filed on the docket in the format Your Honor deems appropriate for a formal trial, and when such an order has been announced.
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  234-9321 — [email protected]

[Terence Williams]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran
#25-CM-0039

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 5th of September, 2025.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;

• Exhibit #19: CCTV footage

  UNDER SEAL

Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

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. Nathaniel Luceran
#25-CM-0039

An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on 5th of September, 2025.

All parties in this case are encouraged to complete the following Scheduling Tool in an attempt to schedule a motions hearing on the above case. When the scheduling tool has been completed by either party, please post on the docket stating as such.

((Using the same scheduler for all related cases, btw. This is intended))

In the event all parties have overlapping availability the Presiding Judge will determine the best date and time to have a motions hearing take place and post a Notice of Motions Hearing 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 any unresolved motions prior to trial.

Respectfully,


Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 — [email protected]

[Jay Wellberg]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

Honorable Judge Allgood,

The defense has posted their availability. Could the courts confirm if we should post our motions here on the docket or wait for the motions hearing to bring them up?



Jay Wellberg
Assured Services
Attorney, Assured Law
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

[Hugh Allgood]

As your continuance was granted, you may post your motion here if you have it ready. But if I am correct the continuance is over and motions are due. So they need to be posted no later than within 24 hours. The motions hearing will only be for arguments on any filed motions, and perhaps we will have time to take up any easier motions.

[Jay Wellberg]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

SUBPOENA REQUEST

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran
#25-CM-0039

A Subpoena Request was filed in the above case on the 07 of September , 2025.

The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, respectfully requests the issuance of a subpoena for the following documents and/or testimony:

• Documents/Information Requested: *** FILED UNDER SEAL ***
  • Purpose/Reasoning for Subpoena: *** FILED UNDER SEAL ***
  
  
  
  Jay Wellberg
  Assured Services
  Attorney, Assured Law
  Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

[Jay Wellberg]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran
#25-CM-0039

A Motion to Compel Discovery was filed in the above case on the 07 of September, 2025.

The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Compel Discovery, and requests as follows;

• Requested Discovery:*** FILED UNDER SEAL ***
  • Detailed Reasoning: *** FILED UNDER SEAL ***

• Requested Discovery: A list of all organization and individuals involved in carrying out the official investigation for this case, Prosecution
  • Detailed Reasoning: As part of the defense, we require a complete list of all organizations and individuals who participated in this investigation beyond what is already publicly known (e.g., the Los Santos County Sheriff’s Department). This information is necessary to establish the full scope of involvement, identify potential custodians of relevant records, and is a key part to our defense strategy.

Jay Wellberg
Assured Services
Attorney, Assured Law
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

[Jay Wellberg]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

MOTION TO SUPPRESS

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran
#25-CM-0039

A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 07 of Sep, 2025.

The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Suppress, and requests to following be suppressed from evidence;

• Exhibit #2,3,4: Arrest report : Alistair Vespucci, Cortez Rivera, David Vespucci,
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibits

  • Detailed Reasoning: The only information provided in these arrest reports is the single line: “He was arrested through the conclusion of casefile #187266.” This statement offers no factual detail, no context, and no evidentiary value related to the current matter before the court.
    
    Because it does not establish any connection to the defendant, the alleged incident, or the charges outlined in this case, it is wholly irrelevant. Admitting such a vague and unsupported reference would add nothing to the record except confusion and prejudice. For these reasons, the defense respectfully requests that this exhibit be excluded from evidence.

• Exhibit #5: **FILED UNDER SEAL**
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: **FILED UNDER SEAL**

• Exhibit #6: **FILED UNDER SEAL**
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: **FILED UNDER SEAL**

• Exhibit #9: **FILED UNDER SEAL**
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: **FILED UNDER SEAL**

• Exhibit #10: **FILED UNDER SEAL**
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: **FILED UNDER SEAL**

• Exhibit #11: **FILED UNDER SEAL**
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: **FILED UNDER SEAL**

• Exhibit #12: **FILED UNDER SEAL**
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: **FILED UNDER SEAL**

• Exhibit #13: **FILED UNDER SEAL**
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: **FILED UNDER SEAL**

• Exhibit #14: Image - 10 Mirror Park Blvd.
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: This exhibit is nothing more than a still image. It does not depict any unlawful act, nor does it connect the defendant to the alleged incident in question. It shows nothing of evidentiary value and provides no meaningful or probative information to this case.

• Exhibit #15: **FILED UNDER SEAL**
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: **FILED UNDER SEAL**

• Exhibit #16: Records - Nathaniel Luceran phone records / Search warrant
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: The search warrant was issued for “Nathaniel Luceran’s phone records from 12/AUG/2024 – 19/AUG/2024; Any evidence of crimes in violation of the San Andreas Penal Law Article GM to SF, included but not limited to: GF21 – Prison Break, SF04 – Kidnapping of a Gov. Employee.”
    
    The provided phone records show nothing related to this. Instead, they simply reflect two individuals having regular, everyday conversations. One message is nothing more than arranging to meet, which does not in any way establish evidence of a prison break, a kidnapping, or any other offense covered by the scope of the warrant.
    
    Because these records do not connect to the crimes listed in the warrant, they hold no probative value to this case. Introducing them would only serve to confuse or prejudice the proceedings. For this reason, the defense asserts that the exhibit is irrelevant, outside the scope of the warrant, and should be excluded from evidence.

• Exhibit #17: Alistair Vespucci phone records / Search warrant
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: This exhibit again has no relevance to this case. First of all, these phone records have nothing to do with the defendant, as they are between three completely different individuals. Additionally, the content of these records has no connection to what is outlined in the original warrant request.
    
    The conversations between Alistair Vespucci, Cortez Rivera, and Shaggy Sin are nothing more than routine exchanges, they are sharing radio frequencies and holding regular discussions. None of this material relates in any way to GF21 – Prison Break or SF04 – Kidnapping of a Government Employee, the specified crimes under the warrant.
    
    Because the records neither involve the defendant nor provide evidence of the alleged offenses, they lack any probative value. Their inclusion would only serve to distract, confuse, or unfairly prejudice the proceedings. For these reasons, the defense respectfully requests that this exhibit be excluded from evidence.

• Exhibit #18: **FILED UNDER SEAL**
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: **FILED UNDER SEAL**

• Exhibit #19: CCTV footage
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: Simply put, it has been 9 days since the end of the discovery period. The prosecution should not be allowed to submit evidence so late after they have had multiple continuances related to this same discovery.

Jay Wellberg
Assured Services
Attorney, Assured Law
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

NOTICE OF MOTIONS HEARING

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran
#25-CM-0039

A motions hearing date was set on the above case on 12th of September, 2025.

In accordance with the availability reported by parties in response to the Notice of Scheduling, this motions hearing shall take place from 6:00 to 7:45 PM on the 20th of September, 2025 at Rockford Hills City Hall, Carcer Way, Metro Los Santos, SA.

Both parties are ordered to be present in the courtroom no later than 5 minutes prior to the above listed date in order to maintain decorum and complete the hearing in a timely manner. If complications occur that must result in a delay or cancellation of the motions hearing, 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]

[Terence Williams]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• ((Exhibit #18 Proof of RP for hidden bodycam))
  
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  234-9321 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran
#25-CM-0039

A decision was reached in the above case on the 4th day of October, 2025.

Following the motions hearing held on the 20th of September, 2025, the Court heard oral arguments on several motions. These motions are listed here;

• Subpoena Request - 28/AUG/2025
• Motion to Suppress - 7/SEP/2025
• Motion to Compel Discovery - 7/SEP/2025
• Subpoena Request - 7/SEP/2025

In consideration of the arguments, both written and oral, the Court has ruled on each motion.

Motion to Suppress, 7/SEP/2025, filed under seal

The Defense seeks to suppress several exhibits within the Prosecution's discovery.

Exhibits 2-4, the arrest reports of Alistair Vespucci, Cortez Rivera, David Vespucci, arguing the exhibits contain no factual detail or evidentiary value or no connection to the Defendant.

Upon review of this exhibit, this motion will be denied. It has been long held that arrest reports are admissible in criminal cases, and as this Court has heard in previous other motions, it is alleged these other individuals were co-conspirators. The connection is also supported by the fact "casefile #187266" is the same case file number cited in Exhibit 1, which is the arrest report of this Defendant. Furthermore, this Defendant has been charged with NM03 - Unlawful Assembly, which requires a showing of "Two or more people, gathering together to do something illegal or who are disobedient to law enforcement instruction". Therefore, the inclusion of these exhibits is a necessary aspect of the significant burden or proof to be met by the State, and these exhibits will be admissible. Defense arguments about the sufficiency or strength of this evidence, given the omission of any pertinent details, can come through for further consideration at trial at which time the Court will assess all evidence and determine if the State has met their burden. Motion denied.

Exhibit 5, ** FILED UNDER SEAL**

Exhibit 9, the phone records and accompanying consent form from Solomon Cobb, arguing lack of relevance.

First off, the Court reviewed the consent form signed by Mr. Cobb. In that form, Mr. Cobb authorized the retrieval of his phone records covering the dates of 17th to the 25th of August, 2024. As the Defense argues, the exhibits details a phone call placed to Mr. Cobb on the 24th of August, 2024. The Defense also points to Mr. Cobb's witness statement, stating he had been contacted on the 18th and 21st of August, 2024.

As far as admissibility, the Court finds this exhibit can be admitted given Mr. Cobb's consent authorized such collection, and therefore for the purposes of suppression, finds no error in the admissibility. As noted above, the Court believes Defense arguments are arguments of sufficiency of evidence, which goes to the weight of the evidence not the admissibility.. Motion Denied.

Exhibit 10, **FILED UNDER SEAL**

Exhibit 13,**FILED UNDER SEAL**

Exhibit 14, an image of the front door of 10 Mirror Park Blvd, arguing lack of relevance and connection.

While it is correct the image by itself does not show anything unlawful, this address was noted in other exhibits and an alleged connection between the Defendant and this image have been noted in other exhibits. As noted above, this is a question of sufficiency of evidence, not admissibility, and this motion will be denied.

Exhibit 15, **FILED UNDER SEAL**

Exhibit #16: Records - Nathaniel Luceran phone records / Search warrant

((The content of these text messages are to be ignored. The exhibit should be reviewed as just a log of texts sent/received, not the content. This has been discussed and decided by the Administration Team and LFM.))

The records show logs between the Defendant and Alistair Vespucci, who has also been charged in this incident. Therefore, the Defense questions and arguments are more about sufficiency of evidence, not admissibility. It will be up to the Prosecutor how they intend to use this information to meet their burden. This motion is denied.

Exhibit #17: Alistair Vespucci phone records / Search warrant

((Same OOC note as above.))

The records show logs between the Defendant and several individuals, several of which have also been charged in this alleged incident. Therefore, again a question of sufficiency not admissibility and this motion is denied.

Exhibit # 18: **FILED UNDER SEAL**

Exhibit #19: CCTV footage

The Defense argues the suppression of this exhibit should be granted as it had been 9 days past discovery. This motion for the CCTV footage was filed on the 5th of September, 2025. The initial discovery was provided on 28th of August, 2025, after discovery was ordered on the 21st of August, 2025. Meaning discovery was due by 28th of August, 2025.

Reviewing precedence, primarily set in 24-AP-001, the Court of Appeals provided guidance on how to evaluate late submissions of evidence in discovery;

When it comes to the late introduction of evidence that comes beyond the specifically allotted window for discovery outlined in the Order for Discovery, the court will chiefly examine whether or not the admission of the disputed evidence presents prejudicial circumstances against the adverse party. Additionally, the court must examine the circumstances which contributed to the delay in presentation of the evidence and evaluate the reasonableness of the explanation provided, taking into account the timing of the disclosure and it's proximity to the trial date in relation to the adverse party's ability to prepare an adequate defense in light of the late disclosure. Lastly, the court will review the importance of the exhibit as it relates to the general underlying case and whether disallowing the exhibit would present unfair circumstances against the disclosing party.

The prosecution responded stating they received this evidence 2 days before it was provided on the docket, and also argued the Defense has a reasonable amount of time to examine the exhibit. The Prosecution also pointed to 24-CM-0030, State of San Andreas v. Mike Luigi as support for their arguments on the allowance of late exhibits. This Court, while being intrinsically aware of the facts of this case as this Judge was a participating counsel, reviewed the case further. In this decision, the Defense objected to the introduction of evidence submitted beyond the established deadline of the Court, following very similar arguments made by the Defense in this case. The Court allowed the introduction of one exhibit, finding its inclusion did not prejudice the defense and noted the Defense had already sought to compel it. The Court did not allow the exhibit of another exhibit, noting the prosecution's delay in introducing the exhibit was not justified, and therefore disrupted the orderly progression of the case.

Reviewing the Court of Appeals precedence, this Court reviews the contested exhibit in line with the criterion used; (1) whether the admission unfairly prejudices the adverse party, (2) the circumstances contributing to the delay in evidence presentation, (3) reasonableness in the explanation provided for the delay, (4) the proximity to the trial date, and (5) the importance of the exhibit in the general underlying case.

As already noted, the prosecution claims this information was only received by them 2 days prior to the discovery, which is 7 days beyond the initial discovery period closing. The Court believes this address two of the five prongs to be used in evaluation - the circumstances and explanation provided are reasonable; the prosecution cannot disclose evidence it does not have. And whether this information was provided on the same day received or when it was, it was still over the deadline and the same arguments would have likely been made by the Defense. As far as proximity to the trial date, a trial has not been scheduled in this matter, therefore, the introduction of this evidence does not preclude the defense from mounting a defense against it. For the importance of the exhibit, the Court notes CCTV footage from within the DOC grounds forms a central component of this case, even without reviewing the footage, as the Defendants are facing charges for their involvement in a prison break. Lastly, unfair prejudice. The Court does not find the introduction of this exhibit unfairly prejudices the Defense, as the Defense has not made any arguments about this other than the 9 day late disclosure.

Therefore, this motion is denied.

Subpoena Request, 28/AUG/2025, filed under seal

**FILED UNDER SEAL**

Subpoena Request, 7/SEP/2025, filed under seal

**FILED UNDER SEAL**

Motion to compel discovery, 7/SEP/2025, filed under seal

**FILED UNDER SEAL**

Regarding the list of individuals involved in the investigation, the Court does not see how a list of individuals involved in the investigation would offer up anything for this case. However, the Court does agree that the Defense case and investigation may be stunted by the inability to identify any potential custodians of records. As argued at the motions hearing in #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci, the agencies involved in this investigation can be derived from the exhibits currently on the docket - LSSD, SASG (housing records), and DOC (CCTV footage). If the Prosecution knows of any other agencies, the Prosecution is hereby ordered to make notice of such on the docket.
Respectfully,


Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

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. Nathaniel Luceran
#25-CM-0039

An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on 21st of October, 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]

[Terence Williams]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Honorable Judge Allgood and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution has filed for its availability.
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  234-9321 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Personal Email
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• All,
  
  Still waiting for availability to be filed by either of the two defense counsel assigned.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Superior Court Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Jay Wellberg]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Personal Email
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Judge Allgood,
  
  Defense is unable to fill out the schedule at this time as availability for the next few weeks is unknown. We will inform the courts as soon as we are able to.
  
  ((As explained over DM's to Allgood, I am busy with irl stuff so I need to confirm when I can be free first. I am still unsure at this time.))
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Jay Wellberg
  Assured Services
  Attorney, Assured Law
  Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

[Hugh Allgood]

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. Nathaniel Luceran
#25-CM-0039

A SECOND attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on 11th day of November, 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]

[Terence Williams]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Honorable Judge Allgood and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution has filed for its availability.
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  234-9321 — [email protected]

[Jay Wellberg]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Personal Email
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Judge Allgood,
  
  Defense is has filled their availability. As per the scheduling notice, we will be filing our witness list shortly.
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Jay Wellberg
  Assured Services
  Attorney, Assured Law
  Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

[Jay Wellberg]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

WITNESS LIST

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran
#25-CM-0039

A Witness List was filed in the above case on the 18 of November, 2025.

• The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Witness List, designating the following list of individuals as witnesses, who may be called to the stand.
  
  Name of Witness:
  Nathaniel Luceran
  Type of Witness: (eye, fact, expert, or other type of witness)
  Fact
  Relevance to the case:
  Defendent.
  
  Name of Witness:
  Vito Saint
  Type of Witness: (eye, fact, expert, or other type of witness)
  Eye / Fact
  Relevance to the case:
  As mentioned in the motions hearing, we asked to have this witnessed call so we can cross examine them during trial.

Jay Wellberg
Assured Services
Attorney, Assured Law
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

[Terence Williams]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

OBJECTION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran
#25-CM-0039

An Objection was filed in the above case on the 21st of November, 2025.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this objection, and requests the following be stricken from the record;

• Witness being objected to: Vito Saint
  
  • Detailed Reasoning: The Defense cannot call a Prosecution witness to testify. Not only would it be considered a breach of the Code of Ethics section V - Relationship to the Adverse Party, but the witness cannot be compelled to testify for or by the Defense.

Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]