San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
ISSUANCE OF VERDICT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
The State of San Andreas v. John Chapel
#25-CM-0031
A decision was reached in the above case on the 1st day of February, 2026.
PRE-TRIAL MOTION(S)
- Motion: Motion to Suppress - Reference to Bomb Report in Exhibit #2
Filed By: Prosecution
Decision: Accepted
Reasoning: The bomb report could not be obtained by the Prosecution. There was no contention on the motion from the Defense.
- Motion: Motion for Discovery - Clarification of Note for Exhibit #5 as a new Exhibit
Filed By: Defense
Decision: Accepted
Reasoning: No contention. Exhibit #5 will be kept intact for reference, and the clarification will be added as Exhibit #5b.
Facts
- On the 5th of October, 2024, multiple civilians called 911 about a bomb at Mission Row Police Station.
- A legitimate explosive device was found and defused. Detectives found fingerprints on it, leading back to the defendant.
- A threatening note was found during the initial investigation into the device.
- A black Terminus and an individual in black were seen with two others near the station around the time of the incident.
- Body camera footage from another location shows the defendant in the background stating that his fingerprints were hypothetically on the device.
Arguments Made at Trial
The Prosecution argues that the evidence, namely the body camera footage submitted, coupled with the defendant's fingerprints found on an explosive device, constitutes grounds that the defendant engaged in both the possession, assembly, and planting of said device at Mission Row Police Station. They also contend that the evidence proves the defendant, at the time a member of the Shadows organization, was complicit due to his dress, as captured in CCTV footage and statements recorded on a detective's body camera.
The Defense argues that the finding of fingerprints on the explosive device at Mission Row does not constitute that the defendant had any involvement in the commission of the charges he was faced with. Furthermore, they contend that without a follow-up investigation, including any questioning of the defendant, witnesses, or others, the Prosecution has not met its burden of proof. Finally, the Defense argues that fingerprints found on the device do not constitute possession of the components and could have been left there accidentally or through lawful or incidental means.
Verdict
The court finds there is insufficient evidence linking Mr. Chapel to the act of placing any explosive device due to the lack of establishment of the identity of those involved at Mission Row. The only evidence presented was photograph.s that were not timestamped, with loose links to the Defendant, not a clearly established link. Ultimately, the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof that the defendant was at all involved in the placement of the bomb or the threats included with the bomb.
Reviewing the exhibits, the court finds there is sufficient evidence to prove fingerprints on components of the explosive device. While argued as incidental, the court does not find any circumstance in which fingerprints on an explosive device could be obtained without the defendant having an active role in possessing the harmful device or equally harmful components. However, the Court does find that, through the multiple circumstantial pieces of evidence, in conjunction with the fingerprints found directly on the bomb, the Defendant at some point in time must have had possession of an explosive device.
It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:
- On the count of SF01 - Domestic Terrorism, I find the defendant, John Chapel, not guilty.
- On the count of SF06 - Possessing Destructive Devices or Explosives, I find the defendant, John Chapel, guilty.
The defendant should make their way to City Hall at their earliest convenience to have the change to their record noted as well as the payment of $39000 returned to them for fines, time, and other expenses/inconveniences incurred from the contested charges.
So Ordered,
Magistrate Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
298-3863 -
[email protected]
On behalf of,
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 -
[email protected]
