#25-BT-0131 State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langley

[Izaak Scott]

Defendant Name: Lewis Langley
Defendant Phone: 418-9838
(( Defendant Discord: lewisisdrunk ))
(( Defendant Timezone: UTC ))
Type of Representation (Pick one): Private Defense Attorneys

Charging Department: GSB

Date & Time of Incident(s): 28/NOV/2025
Charge(s):

• GM01 - Assault of a Gov

Narrative:
Langley is in belief he was falsely charged.

---

I, Izaak Scott, hereby affirm that all information provided above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and understand that knowingly providing false information could result in additional charges and/or fines. (( I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means. ))

[Clara Lopez]

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

---

NOTICE OF RECEIPT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langley

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 30th day of November, 2025.

The Superior Court of San Andreas has received your filing and the case is now pending activation. Be advised that the bench trial court system operates off a time-slot scheduling system. Please look out for notifications from either the courts or your attorney in regards to scheduling your bench trial.

During this time, the defendant is encouraged to reach out to a licensed defense attorney in order to prepare a proper defense. The defendant is further encouraged to speak with an authorized individual at Rockford Hills City Hall, Mission Row Police Station, or Paleto Bay Sheriff's Office for official clarification on the specific charges received and their respective date and times, as once the case has been activated, any omitted charges will be considered abandoned and unable to be disputed within this case.


Court Clerk
San Andreas Judicial Branch
495-1265 — [email protected]

On Behalf of

Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 — [email protected]

[Clara Lopez]

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

---

NOTICE OF ACTIVATION & ORDER FOR DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langley
#25-BT-0131

A Notice of Activation & Order for Discovery was entered in the above case on the 30th day of November, 2025.

The case of State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langley is hereby activated and opened by this Court.

Be advised that the bench-trial court system runs on a weekly time-slot system. The prosecution and defense are hereby ordered to provide their evidence to the Court via Motion for Discovery within the next 30 days or file a Motion for Continuance.

If at any point in time the defendant or prosecution wishes set precedence or desire a formal criminal trial, they are welcome to file a Motion for a Change in Venue.


Court Clerk
San Andreas Judicial Branch
495-1265 — [email protected]

On Behalf of

Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 — [email protected]

[Michael Blaise]

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

---

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langley

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 2nd of December, 2025.

I, Michael Blaise, an independent Private Defense Attorney, will be representing the Defendant, Lewis Langley, in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Co-Counsel alongside Izaak Scott as primary and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.



Defense Attorney
552-8150 — [email protected]

[Izaak Scott]

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

---

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langley

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 2nd of December, 2025.

I, Izaak Scott, an independent Private Defense Attorney, hereby confirm that I will be representing the Defendant, Lewis Langley, in the above-referenced matter.

I will be acting as primary counsel and will await any further instruction or procedural orders from the Presiding Judge.




Defense Attorney
☏ 411-2330

[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. Lewis Langley
#25-BT-0131

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 25th of December, 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 - Lewis Langley, 28/NOV/2025

  

  Suspect Details

  

  
  
  Full Name: Lewis Langley
  Phone Number: REDACTED
  Time of Arrest: 28/11/2025 00:30
  
  Charges:
  Example: Attempted SF02 - Murder of a Government Employee

  • GM01 - Assault of a Government Employee

  Incident Details

  Agents/Officers Involved:
  Example: Agent III John Doe

  • Security Director Lester Conway
  • Governor Emily Whitehorse
  • Department Secretary Ren Sanchez
  • Senior Agent Tanner Brooks
  • Senior Agent Conrad Fredrico

  
  Explain what happened; sufficient detail must be given to justify the placed charges. Include a detailed summary of start to finish, try not to leave any details out.
  * Be sure to keep information such as witnesses or other accomplices to the crime, as this helps the prosecution have the full picture in a court of law. Accomplices should have their radio frequency logged.
  * Bodycam footage is located below. DO NOT link it in this section, but DO provide timestamps as they correlate to the incident.
  
  Summary: I was standing outside city hall on the pavement on the evening of the 27th of November 2025 with off-duty agent's Tanner Brooks, Conrad Fredrico, Department Secretary Ren Sanchez, a number of both civilian SASG employees and civilian non-SASG employees, and Lewis Langley.
  After a short period of time (roughly 10 minutes) of friendly conversation between all parties involved a vehicle sped past city hall, opening fire on government officials before quickly leaving the scene. One of the rounds struck my behind, leaving a clear exit wound.
  
  LSEMS was called to the scene and, after some delay, LSEMS Employee Erin Faustin assessed my injury and explained it was a clean entry-exit wound before applying gauze to stop the bleeding and quickly stitching on scene.
  Once assessment and treatment had been completed, I rose to my feet with my back facing towards City Hall and arrestee Lewis Langley. At this time, the arrestee Lewis Langley took the opportunity to light a cigarette and place the glowing lit end to my rear where my fresh wound was located. At this time, the arrestee Lewis Langley lights a cigarette and places the glowing lit end to my rear where my fresh wound was located. Once this happened, I very quickly jolted away from the burning cigarette, yelping in pain. This is when the arrestee, Lewis Langley pulled the cigarette away from my rear and continued to smoke it.
  
  At this time, I consulted Department Secretary Ren Sanchez on the matter, asking her thoughts on the situation. After our brief discussion, I told the Arrestee Lewis Langley to place his hands behind his back and turn away from me. At this point, I placed Mr Langley into cuffs and read him his Miranda rights, and informed him they he is being placed under arrest for assault of a government employee.
  
  I then requested that off-duty agents Conrad Fredrico and Tanner Brooks clock on to assist with the arrest being carried out, as I assisted the arrestee Lewis Langley into the back of my slick top Crown Victoria cruiser before radioing to the LSPD to inform them we were en route to their facility and request an officer be present to assist with processing.
  I then drove to MRPD with Department Secretary and Arrestee Lewis Langley in my cruiser with the 2 other agent's Tanner and Conrad, following behind in a separate vehicle, where we were greeted by 2 officers from the LSPD.
  
  Once in the processing area of MRPD, Arrestee Lewis Langley began to beg to be held at city hall until he was able to speak to Governor Whitehorse. I left this decision with my supervisor, Department Secretary Ren Sanchez, who approved the request.
  I then escorted Arrestee Lewis Langley back to my cruiser, and all SASG employees then drove back to City Hall, where I assisted him into the holding cells located in the GSB offices under City Hall.
  
  At this time, Department Secretary Ren Sanchez then issued a pager for Governor Emily Whitehorse and emailed her explaining the situation, requesting she fly in and clock on to assist with the situation.
  After a short period of time, Governor Whitehorse responded to the pager and discussed the charges at length with myself and Department Secretary Sanchez.
  After this, she had a short discussion with the arrestee Lewis Langley and decided to continue with the charges placed where he served his time and was released.
  

  Evidence Details

  Document the possessions confiscated from the arrested suspect. Illegal possessions are to be documented individually; examples of documented illegal possessions are "Pistol .50" or "12 grams of Cocaine". Legal possessions that can be categorized may be grouped, eg. "Clothing" to describe all clothing items.
  * Where possible, the serial number of each firearm seized as evidence should be noted.
  * Individuals with a radio on them should have the frequency of that radio logged.
  Illegal Possessions:
  Exhibit A: N/A
  
  Legal Possessions:
  Exhibit A: Fishing Rod
  Exhibit B: Knife
  Exhibit C: Cigarettes
  Exhibit D: mask
  Exhibit E: .50 pistol Registered in his name. Serial Number 1762467361656
  
  Bodycam Footage:
  Provide below your bodycam evidence. Remember, the less evidence here, the more evidence that should be written in the narrative. ((Include Proof of RP, if you have no recordings, using screenshots that show the situation is acceptable. Screenshots should show the suspect doing the crime, being identified, etc))

  Bodycam Footage

  • ((Proof of RP))
  • 
  • 

  
  

• Exhibit #2: Witness statement - Lester Conway

  

  

  
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  Official Witness Statement
  "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  Case Information

  • Case Number: [Case Number]
    Incident Date: 28/NOV/2025

  Witness Information

  • Name: Lester Conway
    Date of Birth: REDACTED
    Phone Number: REDACTED
    Occupation: Government Security Bureau Agent

  Witness Statement

  • In the late evening of the 27th of November, I had been shot in the buttocks during a drive-by shooting at the city hall.
    MD was called, and Erin Faustin responded, giving me the necessary treatment in the field.
    After my treatment was completed, I was assisted back to my feet by Miss Faustin, facing towards the road with my back facing both City Hall and Lewis Langley.
    After a short period of time, I felt a burning seering pain against my buttocks right at the recent site of my GSW.
    When I turned around, I witnessed Lewis Langley holding a lit cigarette as he quickly pulled it away from my person.
    
    I then detained mr Langley with suspicion of assault of a government employee.
    After securing Mr Langley, the CCTV across the street was checked, which clearly showed Mr Langley lighting his cigarette behind my person, holding it to my person, and my wound until he saw my reaction before quickly pulling it away and beginning to smoke it as usual.
    
    Mr Langley was transported to MRPD to be processed. He then requested to be held in the city hall holding cells so he could speak to Governor Whitehorse. This request was granted by Department Secretary Ren Sanchez.
    He was then transported to the city hall holding cells, where he carried out the rest of his sentence.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Lester Conway, affirm that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I affirm that this statement has been made voluntarily, made without promise of reward, and made not under threat, force, or coercion. ((I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means.))
    
    Signed,
    
    
    Lester Conway
    Security Director
    Government Security Bureau, San Andreas State Government
    
    Date: 13/DEC/2025

  

• Exhibit #3: Bodycam footage - Lester Conway, 27/NOV/2025

  ((Proof of RP))
  

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

[Michael Blaise]

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. Lewis Langley
#25-BT-0131

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 25th of December, 2025.

The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;

• Exhibit #1: Expert Witness Statement, Erin Faustin
  Spoiler

  

  

  
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  Official Witness Statement
  "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  Case Information

  • Case Number: [Case Number]
    Incident Date: [01/JAN/2000]

  Witness Information

  • Name: [Erin Faustin]
    Date of Birth: [26/MAR/1994]
    Phone Number: [234-8770]
    Occupation: [Jr Paramedic, LSEMS]

  Witness Statement

  • [Let me begin by acknowledging that I believe Mr Langley did, in fact, press a lit cigarette onto Mr Conway's behind.
    
    However, based on the situation, with several people on site cracking jokes and generally seeming jovial, one would not have imagined Lester to be in distress.
    
    I assumed they were friends, so I didn't immediately respond to the behaviour, as some people have unorthodox platonic love languages.
    
    Having said that, while Lewis did in act behave inappropriately, I do not think he acted with malice or the intent to harm, but rather in a very misguided attempt to render aid based on a warped understanding of wound cauterization principles.
    
    I don't know whether that distinction is important, but considering Mr Langley's unique position, he is left in a precarious situation if revoked of his firearms license and body armour privileges.
    
    Leaving him defenseless does seem a little like death by exposure in ancient Rome.]

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, [Erin Oksana Faustin], affirm that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I affirm that this statement has been made voluntarily, made without promise of reward, and made not under threat, force, or coercion. ((I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means.))
    
    Signed,
    
    [Erin Faustin]
    [MD/PhD]
    [LSEMS]
    
    Date: [04/DEC/2025]

  
  

  
  

• Exhibit #2: Character Witness Statement, Gareth Barr
  Spoiler

  

  

  
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  Official Witness Statement
  "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  Case Information

  • Case Number: #25-BT-0131#
    Incident Date: N/A

  Witness Information

  • Name: Gareth Barr
    Date of Birth: 23/JUN/1999
    Phone Number: 415-9758
    Occupation: Owner of Benny's Original Motorworks

  Witness Statement

  • My name is Gareth Barr, and I am writing to provide a character statement in support of Lewis Langley. I have known Lewis for a little over a year in the capacity of friends and also colleagues, and during this time I have come to know him as a consistently respectful, considerate, and even-tempered individual.
    
    Lewis conducts himself with a calm and thoughtful demeanour. He is someone who approaches challenges with maturity and patience, and he is known among those around him for his reliability and steady presence. In all my interactions with Lewis, I have never observed him behaving in a way that suggests impulsiveness, aggression, or hostility. On the contrary, he is often the person who seeks to de-escalate tensions and encourage constructive dialogue.
    
    Based on my long-standing experience with him, I do not consider Lewis to be someone who would be prone to engaging in assaultive or violent behaviour. Such actions are entirely inconsistent with the character he has demonstrated throughout the time I have known him. He has always shown respect for others and a clear understanding of personal responsibility.
    
    I hope this statement provides helpful insight into Lewis Langley’s character. Should you require any further information, I am willing to assist.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Gareth Barr, affirm that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I affirm that this statement has been made voluntarily, made without promise of reward, and made not under threat, force, or coercion. ((I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means.))
    
    Signed,
    
    Gareth Barr
    
    Owner
    Benny's Original Motorworks
    
    Date: [01/JAN/2000]

  
  

• Exhibit #3: Character Witness Statement, Meleri Fox
  Spoiler

  

  

  
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  Official Witness Statement
  "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  Case Information

  • Case Number: 25-BT-0131
    Incident Date:

  Witness Information

  • Name: Meleri Fox
    Date of Birth:
    Phone Number: Private
    Occupation: HR Assistant

  Witness Statement

  • To whom it may concern;
    
    My name is Meleri Fox and I am writing this character statement on behalf of Lewis Langley. I have know Lewis for a year now and consider him a very close friend of mine as well as my family's. My first meeting with Mr. Langley was while he was still in office as Governor. At that time, he was working with the Los Santos Police Department, Sheriffs Department, and GSB to determine the people behind the recent terrorist attacks at City Hall.
    
    Mr. Langley has always given his all to the city and has ensured that criminals are given second opportunities to turn themselves around and gain respect within the community. He has promoted communication across departments, implemented new and innovative programs for the impoverished, and made sure to interact with those he represents. Lewis Langley has been one of the most influential people within the city over recent years. He has always made sure those who were in need were taken care of, such as the home for the elderly of the city that he commissioned so they had some place they could call home.
    
    I have been privileged enough to work side by side with Mr. Langley on many building projects throughout the city. He will use his personal funding to help those who wish to create businesses, he provides spaces for people of all walks of life to meet and converse. His dedication to the LSPD and LSSD is shown by their respect for him as a now former Governor. He has always given back to the community and the people. LSMD has been given all they need to be able to provide excellent services across all of San Andreas as well as the people to provide training and psychiatric services to those in need. Mr. Langley cares greatly for the entirety of the state as well as every person within it. He has never shown aggression towards even those who have attempted various degrees of violence towards him. He is a forgiving and caring person who wishes the best for everyone.
    
    I hope my insights assist into the type of person Mr. Langley is.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Meleri Fox, affirm that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I affirm that this statement has been made voluntarily, made without promise of reward, and made not under threat, force, or coercion. ((I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means.))
    
    Signed,
    
    
    Meleri Fox
    
    Date: 10/DEC/2025

  
  

  
  

Private Defense Attorney
552-8150 — [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. Lewis Langley
#25-BT-0131

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 25th of December, 2025.

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

• Exhibit #4: CCTV footage

  
  ((Proof of RP))

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

[Michael Blaise]

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. Lewis Langley
#25-CM-0131

A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 26th of December, 2025.

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

• Requested Evidence to Suppress: All numbered/highlighted lines.
  Exhibit #1: Arrest Report, Lester Conway

  
  I was standing outside city hall on the pavement on the evening of the 27th of November 2025 with (1)off-duty agent's Tanner Brooks, Conrad Fredrico, Department Secretary Ren Sanchez, a number of both civilian SASG employees and civilian non-SASG employees, and Lewis Langley.
  After a short period of time (roughly 10 minutes) of friendly conversation between all parties involved a vehicle sped past city hall, opening fire on government officials before quickly leaving the scene. One of the rounds struck my behind, leaving a clear exit wound.
  
  LSEMS was called to the scene and, after some delay, LSEMS Employee Erin Faustin assessed my injury and explained it was a clean entry-exit wound before applying gauze to stop the bleeding and quickly stitching on scene.
  Once assessment and treatment had been completed, I rose to my feet with my back facing towards City Hall and arrestee Lewis Langley. At this time, the arrestee Lewis Langley (2)took the opportunity to light a cigarette and place the glowing lit end to my rear where my fresh wound was located. Once this happened, I very quickly jolted away from the burning cigarette, yelping in pain. This is when the arrestee, Lewis Langley pulled the cigarette away from my rear (3)and continued to smoke it.
  
  (4)At this time, I consulted Department Secretary Ren Sanchez on the matter, asking her thoughts on the situation. After our brief discussion, I told the Arrestee Lewis Langley to place his hands behind his back and turn away from me. At this point, I placed Mr Langley into cuffs and read him his Miranda rights, and informed him they he is being placed under arrest for assault of a government employee.
  
  (5)I then requested that off-duty agents Conrad Fredrico and Tanner Brooks clock on to assist with the arrest being carried out, as I assisted the arrestee Lewis Langley into the back of my slick top Crown Victoria cruiser before radioing to the LSPD to inform them we were en route to their facility and request an officer be present to assist with processing.
  I then drove to MRPD with Department Secretary and Arrestee Lewis Langley in my cruiser with the 2 other agent's Tanner and Conrad, following behind in a separate vehicle, where we were greeted by 2 officers from the LSPD.
  
  Once in the processing area of MRPD, Arrestee Lewis Langley began to beg to be held at city hall until he was able to speak to Governor Whitehorse. I left this decision with my supervisor, Department Secretary Ren Sanchez, who approved the request.
  I then escorted Arrestee Lewis Langley back to my cruiser, and all SASG employees then drove back to City Hall, where I assisted him into the holding cells located in the GSB offices under City Hall.
  
  At this time, Department Secretary Ren Sanchez then issued a pager for Governor Emily Whitehorse and emailed her explaining the situation, requesting she fly in and clock on to assist with the situation.
  After a short period of time, Governor Whitehorse responded to the pager and discussed the charges at length with myself and Department Secretary Sanchez.
  After this, she had a short discussion with the arrestee Lewis Langley and decided to continue with the charges placed where he served his time and was released.
  

  • Detailed Reasoning:
    
    Regarding line labeled as (1): The defense moves to strike this portion of the arrest narrative as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial.
    
    The individuals identified in this line (off-duty agents, Department Secretary Ren Sanchez, and unnamed civilian employees) are not alleged victims, not witnesses to the charged conduct, and not participants in the act forming the basis of the arrest. Their presence has no bearing on whether the elements of GM01 – Assault of a Government Employee were met.
    
    Furthermore, inclusion of this list serves no legitimate evidentiary purpose and instead invites the fact-finder in this case to infer that multiple government officials were involved in, affected by, or endorsed the arrest decision. This risks improperly bolstering the prosecution’s case by suggesting institutional gravity or governmental consensus where none is legally relevant.
    
    The probative value of identifying these individuals is minimal to nonexistent, while the risk of unfair prejudice (implying heightened governmental involvement or authority) is substantial. Accordingly, this portion of the narrative should be struck pursuant to principles of relevance and fairness, as it does not assist the trier of fact in determining any disputed issue and instead risks misleading or inflaming consideration of the charge.
    
    Regarding the line labeled as (2): The defense moves to strike or require rewording of this segment as it contains speculative intent, subjective characterization, and non-expert opinion, rather than a neutral statement regarding observable facts. The phrase “took the opportunity” constitutes an assumption regarding Mr. Langley’s mental state and motive, which the reporting officer is not qualified to assert. Determinations of intent are reserved for the judge in this case and may not be inferred through narrative phrasing in an arrest report. The narrative must be limited to what was observed, not why the officer believes it occurred or what intent is implied. Accordingly, the defense respectfully requests that this portion either be struck or reworded to reflect a neutral, fact-based description of events, removing speculative language and assumptions regarding intent.
    
    Regarding the line labeled as (3): The defense moves to strike this portion of the narrative as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. This statement describes conduct occurring after the alleged contact had already ceased and does not bear on any element of GM01 – Assault of a Government Employee, including intent or harm. The alleged offense, as described by the arresting agent, was complete at the moment of contact and immediate withdrawal of the cigarette. The inclusion of post-incident behavior that is not alleged to have caused further harm serves no probative purpose and instead risks improper character inference, inviting the judge to interpret the defendant’s demeanor or attitude as evidence of guilt.
    
    Regarding the line labeled as (4): The defense moves to strike this portion of the arrest report as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. The referenced conversation with Department Secretary Ren Sanchez occurred after the alleged conduct had already taken place and does not pertain to any factual element of GM01 – Assault of a Government Employee. Whether a third party was consulted, or what opinions were exchanged during that discussion, has no bearing on whether the defendant committed the charged offense or possessed any malicious intent at the time of the alleged contact. Moreover, inclusion of this conversation improperly suggests that the arrest decision was validated or endorsed by supervisory authority, thereby inviting the fact finder to infer of correctness or legitimacy based on hierarchical approval rather than evidentiary facts. Such language constitutes improper bolstering and risks shifting the judge’s focus away from the underlying conduct and toward internal administrative agreement.
    
    Regarding the lines labeled as (5): The defense moves to strike this section in its entirety as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. This section describes post-arrest administrative logistics and internal decision-making, including requests for assistance, transport between facilities, detention location preferences, and conversations with supervisory and executive officials. None of these facts bear on any element of GM01 – Assault of a Government Employee, nor do they assist the judge in determining whether the alleged offense occurred or whether any malicious intent existed at the time of the alleged conduct. The charged offense, if any, was complete prior to arrest. Actions taken afterward (such as which officers assisted, where the defendant was transported, or how detention was administratively handled) are procedural in nature and have no probative value as to guilt. Moreover, the repeated references to supervisory approval and executive involvement (including conversations with the Department Secretary and the Governor) constitute improper bolstering by suggesting that the arrest and charges were validated by higher authority. Such language, once again, invites the fact finder to infer that the correctness of the charges has been endorsed by governmental leadership, a determination reserved solely for the court.

• Requested Evidence to Suppress: The portion highlighted in yellow.
  Exhibit #2: Witness Statement, Lester Conway

  
  In the late evening of the 27th of November, I had been shot in the buttocks during a drive-by shooting at the city hall.
  MD was called, and Erin Faustin responded, giving me the necessary treatment in the field.
  After my treatment was completed, I was assisted back to my feet by Miss Faustin, facing towards the road with my back facing both City Hall and Lewis Langley.
  After a short period of time, I felt a burning seering pain against my buttocks right at the recent site of my GSW.
  When I turned around, I witnessed Lewis Langley holding a lit cigarette as he quickly pulled it away from my person.
  
  I then detained mr Langley with suspicion of assault of a government employee.
  After securing Mr Langley, the CCTV across the street was checked, which clearly showed Mr Langley lighting his cigarette behind my person, holding it to my person, and my wound until he saw my reaction before quickly pulling it away and beginning to smoke it as usual.
  
  Mr Langley was transported to MRPD to be processed. He then requested to be held in the city hall holding cells so he could speak to Governor Whitehorse. This request was granted by Department Secretary Ren Sanchez.
  He was then transported to the city hall holding cells, where he carried out the rest of his sentence.

  • Detailed Reasoning: The defense moves to strike the phrase “beginning to smoke it as usual” as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. This language describes post-contact behavior occurring after the alleged conduct had ceased and does not relate to any element of GM01 – Assault of a Government Employee. The alleged offense, as described by the witness, was complete at the moment the cigarette was removed. Whether the defendant continued to smoke afterward has no probative value as to intent or harm. Instead, this phrasing operates as demeanor evidence, inviting the trier of fact to infer guilt based on conduct unrelated to the charged act. Such inferences are improper, particularly where the behavior did not result in further contact or harm.
    Any marginal relevance of this detail is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.
    
    Furthermore, the defense moves to strike the remainder of the highlighted section as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. This portion describes post-detention administrative handling, including transport logistics, detention location decisions, supervisory approval, and sentence execution. These events occurred after the alleged conduct and after the witness’s detention decision, and they do not bear on any factual element of GM01 – Assault of a Government Employee. Additionally, as with the arrest report, inclusion of references to supervisory and executive approval (specifically the involvement of Department Secretary Ren Sanchez and Governor Whitehorse) constitutes improper bolstering and risks creating an impermissible inference that the validity of the charge has been endorsed by higher authority. Such determinations are reserved for the court and are not evidentiary facts.

---

Defense Attorney
☏ 552-8150

[Terence Williams]

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

---

• To all concerned parties,
  
  Unless the presiding Judge decides to deviate from protocol, the Prosecution intends to argue the Defense's arguments for suppression at trial, as is common practice at bench trials.
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  234-9321 — [email protected]

[Michael Blaise]

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

---

• Your honor and pertaining parties,
  
  The following is an example of a bench trial in which a Motion to Suppress has been considered by the court during a Bench Trial.
  
  #25-BT-0020
  
  Respectfully, the Judicial Branch's protocols do not override our client's fundamental right to a fair trial. In this instance, that certainly includes the omission of evidence that may unfairly sway the courts. Again, the distinction between a bench trial and a formal trial should have absolutely no bearing on whether or not the rules of evidence apply.
  
  The Prosecution’s assertion that it is “common practice” to deal with suppression issues exclusively at trial is not supported by past cases in full. There has only been a couple of known instances in which a Motion to Suppress has been filed in the context of a Bench Trial, at least one of which supports our position that consideration on the docket is appropriate.
  
  Given the complexity of the suppression issues at hand, the Defense is concerned that deferring admissibility determinations until the bench trial itself creates a substantial risk that evidence inconsistent with the rules of evidence may enter the record, particularly in the compressed timeframe customary to bench trials.
  
  That said, should the Court determine that the motion is more appropriately heard in the context of a formal trial, the Defense would not object to a change of venue. However, given that evidence has already been presented and in the interest of judicial efficiency, the Defense respectfully requests that this matter remain active and proceed without unnecessary delay should that course be taken.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Defense Attorney
  ☏ 552-8150

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court recognises and acknowledges the Motion to Suppress submitted by the Defense.
  
  Given the nature of the arguments presented, the Court will allow the Motion to Suppress to be heard on the Docket. As such, the Prosecution will be granted seven (7) days to present objections. If additional time is required, please file a Motion for Continuance as necessary.
  
  The Court reiterates its previous notice to the Prosecution wherein the Judiciary will be the body to decide where a Motion will be heard, as stated recently in #25-BT-0108, State of San Andreas v. Ian Walter.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Superior Court Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

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

---

STATE'S RESPONSE - MOTION TO SUPPRESS

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langley
25-BT-#0131

A State's Response to Defense's Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 2nd day of January, 2026.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this response to the Defense's Motion to Suppress, and makes the following arguments;

• Exhibit #1: Arrest Report, Lester Conway
  
  Reasoning:
  A response will be given for each line of the objection, following the same numbering convention used by the Defense.
  
  (1) The Defense contents the highlighted section should be struck due to lack of relevance and claims the statement is prejudicial, claiming the identified individuals were not witnesses, victims, or participants in the alleged act and claims the prejudice is due to a possible bias against the Defendant by mentioned several government employees brings about "suggesting institutional gravity or governmental consensus"
  
  Naturally, we disagree. The statement covering the alleged assault committed by Mr. Langley is in the second paragraph, and it is not clear whether the individuals listed were present or not. Just as the Defense claims they are not witnesses, they very much could be. We do not believe keeping mention of their names here causes any sort of prejudice against the Defendant and merely forms the contextual basis for what followed. Frankly, if the Court grants the suppression, then the statement is technically no longer factual as it would read "I was standing outside city hall on the pavement on the evening of the 27th of November 2025 with Lewis Langley.", which as we know from the statement, the Defendant and the witness were also accompanied by a number of other persons. Again, while it is the actions which followed that constituted the criminal charge against Mr. Langley, this information is part of the story of what was taking place prior to when Mr. Langley allegedly assaulted the witness and therefore it does have some relevance in the overall narrative.
  
  We also believe there is in fact probative value, as it keeps the record clean with those who may be possible future witnesses come trial.
  
  (2)The Defense this is "speculative intent, subjective characterization, and non-expert opinion, rather than a neutral statement regarding observable facts". First off, we disagree with all of the above. As the statement indicates, it is alleged the Defendant pressed a hot cigarette to the buttocks of the victim, as their back was turned towards them. This was clearly made possible by the "opportunity" and the stars aligning so it was possible - in this instance for the victim to have their back turned towards them. It does not require an expert to come to this conclusion. Every crime within the penal code is committed upon the proper opportunity, and some crimes require more than just an opportunity and require intent. Saying someone took the opportunity to commit crime x is not subjective nor speculative.
  
  (3) The Defense claims this portion to be irrelevant and prejudicial, claiming actions taken post criminal act are not important. We disagree. We can come up with a number of examples where a Defendant's actions post-crime serve some level of importance, such as demonstrating or proving their intent, and these actions would not be irrelevant, but actually very important to meet the State's burden of proof. The fact the Defendant continued to smoke the cigarette after touching it to the victim's wound is not prejudicial in anyway. It's testimony from the perspective of the victim of what actually occurred. Whether the Defendant continued to smoke the cigarette or threw it away is not prejudicial in any way. As stated in (1) suppression of the statement makes the statement and chronology of events less factual, which is prejudicial towards the State and the fact-finder having access to the full picture of what occurred.
  
  (4) The Defense claims inclusion of this statement to be irrelevant and prejudicial. We believe the fact the victim did not just immediately arrest the Defendant and instead consulted with a neutral party to be commendable as it therefore removed any bias the victim could have had consider the victimization which just occurred. However, while we disagree with the Defense, we don't feel this offers too much to the overall events, and if the fact finder believes it should be suppressed, we are fine with it. However, the State would request the Court to order the Defense to not try and then argue at trial any sort of Defense of bias on the victim arresting the Defendant and having some kind of personal conflict of interest or bias.
  
  (5) We believe this entire section to just be testimonial and provide the larger context of what happened after the arrest of Mr. Langley. We have no issues with it being suppressed if the fact-finder wishes.

• Exhibit #2: Witness Statement, Lester Conway
  Reasoning:
  Regarding the statement, "and beginning to smoke it as usual.", we disagree this statement operates as "demeanor evidence" or that it infers any sort of guilt for the alleged offense. People smoke cigarettes, its a pretty typical usual thing you do with a cigarette. Saying someone smoked a cigarette in the normal usual way is prejudicial is laughable. However, if the Court would prefer, we are fine with amending the statement to something like "proceeding the smoke the cigarette in a normal manner" or "proceeding to smoke the cigarette".
  
  The remaining highlighted section, we will take the same position as we did with (5) above.

Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 - [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

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

---

MOTION TO AMEND

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langley
25-BT-#0131

A Motion to Amend was filed in the above case on the 2nd day of January, 2026.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Amend the original charges with the underlined amended charges.

• Original Charges
  • GM01 - Assault (Gov. Emp.)

• Amended Charges
  • GM02 - Battery (Gov. Emp.)

• Detailed Explanation: After review of the evidence in this case, we believe the charge is more appropriately GM02 - Battery against a Government Employee, rather than GM01 - Assault of a Government Employee.
  
  As the evidence shows, the Defendant allegedly applied a hot cigarette to the buttocks of the Defendant, which we believe to be an "unlawful use of force or violence". Assault covers the "threat" of causing bodily harm. We believe the Defendant's actions to be more than a threat, but the actual infliction of bodily harm, and therefore believe GM02 is better suited here.

Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 - [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

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. Lewis Langley
25-BT-#0131

A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 2nd day of January, 2026.

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

• Exhibit: Exhibit #1: Expert Witness Statement, Erin Faustin
  Objection: Speculation, lack of expert credentials
  Reasoning: Globally, we believe this entire statement should be suppressed as an "expert witness statement" on the grounds the witnesses credentials as an expert are not clear. In the statement itself, they are identified as a Jr. Paramedic. While we respect and honor the service of our EMS and fire fighters, a junior anything is someone who is... well junior to the full position. Additionally, from reading the statement, there is nothing in this statement the witness can claim expert knowledge about.
  
  The witness signs their statement as MD/PhD, but there is nothing to identify what their PhD is in. And if they do in-fact have a Doctor of Medicine (MD) degree, why they are only a "Junior Paramedic".
  
  If the suppression is not granted on these grounds, we believe a line-by-line suppression would also be necessary.
  
  The statement, "However, based on the situation, with several people on site cracking jokes and generally seeming jovial, one would not have imagined Lester to be in distress."
  
  This is pure speculation, and not to mention NOT supported by the evidence. In State's exhibit #1, the witness describes the level of distress this caused them, stating: "Once this happened, I very quickly jolted away from the burning cigarette, yelping in pain." Frankly, any other person's assessment of distress has no standing here. The victim's testimony itself is good enough.
  
  The statement, "I assumed they were friends, so I didn't immediately respond to the behaviour, as some people have unorthodox platonic love languages." is clearly speculative. The witness in their own words claims assumptions and not actual firsthand knowledge.
  
  The statement, "I do not think he acted with malice or the intent to harm, but rather in a very misguided attempt to render aid based on a warped understanding of wound cauterization principles."
  
  The witnesses "assessment" of whether the Defendant acted with malice or intent to harm is irrelevant. There's also no foundation for the claim the Defendant was attempting to do wound cauterization, and therefore, the introduction of such assessment or opinion is prejudicial as it invites the Judge to weigh the Defendant's unlawful acts against a supposed legal medical procedure with no foundation or evidence to demonstrate this is what the Defendant was aiming to do.
  
  The statement, "I don't know whether that distinction is important, but considering Mr Langley's unique position, he is left in a precarious situation if revoked of his firearms license and body armour privileges.
  
  Leaving him defenseless does seem a little like death by exposure in ancient Rome."
  
  This entire section is more prejudicial than probative. It invites the Judge to consider the impact of the disposition of this case on Mr. Langley's ability to possess firearms or body armor, and concerns the judge with leaving Mr. Langley "defenseless". Also claiming such an action would be "like death by exposure in ancient Rome" seeks to chill the Judge against finding the Defendant guilty, and is prejudicial towards the State.

Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 - [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court acknowledges the State's response to the Motion to Suppress filed by the Defense on the 26th of December, 2025.
  
  The Court notes we are now outside of the holiday period, and as such, the Court will be working on the usual three (3) day response times to progress this case in a timely fashion. If additional time is required from either party, Motions for Continuance can be submitted.
  
  Defense, you will be afforded three (3) days to submit a rebuttal, if required. If you do not have any additional arguments, please notify the Court so deliberations can begin for this motion.
  
  The Court acknowledges the Prosecution's Motion for Suppression submitted on the 2nd of January, 2026. Defense, you will be afforded three (3) days to submit any counterarguments.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Superior Court Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 - [email protected]

[Izaak Scott]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Defense Rebuttal "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Your honor and pertaining parties,
  
  1 - The State argues that the inclusion of numerous named government officials and civilians is necessary for “context” and potential future witnesses. This argument fails for three reasons.
  
  • First, no individual listed in that line is identified elsewhere in the any of the evidence as a witness to the alleged conduct, nor has the State given any testimony or evidence suggesting that these individuals observed the alleged act. Speculation that unnamed persons might become witnesses does not create relevance. Evidence must be relevant at the time it is offered, not hypothetically relevant at some future stage.
  • Second, the Attorney General's claim that striking this line would render the report “less factual” misunderstands the purpose of an arrest narrative. An arrest report is not a lifeinvader post of who is hanging about; it is a factual record supporting probable cause. Naming high-ranking government officials who play no role in the alleged offense serves no evidentiary function.
  • Third, naming multiple government officials who are not alleged witnesses or victims adds little factual value and risks giving the appearance that the arrest carries added authority or validation. This does not assist the Court in determining whether the charged conduct occurred.
  2 - The State asserts that the phrase “took the opportunity” is merely descriptive and not speculative. Respectfully, this is incorrect.
  
  “Took the opportunity” is not an objective observation. It is a conclusion about motive and mental state, implying deliberation and intent. The witness did not observe an “opportunity” being assessed or seized; they observed physical conduct. Whether an opportunity existed, and whether it was knowingly exploited, are questions of intent, of which they cannot know.
  
  Arrest reports must describe what happened, not why the officer believes it happened. The Attorney General's attempt to normalize speculative language by arguing that “all crimes require opportunity” only underscores the problem: opportunity is a legal concept, not a something you can observe.
  
  3 - The State argues that post-act conduct can demonstrate intent. While that is true in the abstract, it does not apply here.
  
  The alleged offense was complete at the moment contact ceased. The continued act of smoking a cigarette:
  
  • Caused no further harm
  • Involved no further contact
  • Was not accompanied by statements or conduct indicating intent
  Its only practical function is to suggest callousness or indifference, which is evidence of his demeanor. Evidence like this unrelated to the charged act is precisely the type of evidence excluded as unfairly prejudicial, particularly where intent is disputed.
  
  This line does not clarify intent; it invites character judgment. Suppression remains warranted.
  
  4/5 - The State concedes these portions may properly be suppressed and we still agree.
  
  With respect to the State’s reply regarding the witness statement, the Defense does not contest the prosecution’s points. However, concerning the proposed amendments to the statement, we note that altering the wording of a signed witness statement without the witness’s consent raises serious concerns. To our knowledge, the witness did not provide such consent, because.. well the witness is deceased, may he rest in peace.
  
  We would prefer to have the last say on this since we introduced the motion - same as the prosecution having the last say on everything they introduce.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Defense Attorney
  ☏ 411-2330

[Izaak Scott]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Defense Response to Motion to Suppress "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Your honor and pertaining parties,
  
  The State’s motion is based on the incorrect premise that Ms. Faustin is being offered as an expert witness. This appears to be the result of a titling error when submitting the evidence. At no point did the Defense intend to present Ms. Faustin as an expert; her statement reflects her direct observations as a responding medical provider on scene. If necessary, we are prepared to reintroduce this evidence properly as a standard witness statement, in the same manner police personnel provide eyewitness testimony, without relying on expert analysis, while still conveying her firsthand observations of the incident.
  
  1 - “However, based on the situation, with several people on site cracking jokes and generally seeming jovial, one would not have imagined Lester to be in distress.”
  
  This statement reflects Ms. Faustin’s firsthand observations of the environment and demeanor of those present at the scene. It is not offered to dispute Mr. Conway’s later description of pain, but to explain how the situation reasonably appeared to the responding medical provider at the time. A witness’s perception of the scene is admissible lay testimony. The fact that another witness later experienced distress does not render Ms. Faustin’s observation speculative or inadmissible.
  
  2 - “I assumed they were friends, so I didn’t immediately respond to the behaviour, as some people have unorthodox platonic love languages.”
  
  This statement explains Ms. Faustin’s reasoning for not intervening immediately and is directly relevant to her conduct as the on-scene responder. While it reflects her assumption, it is an explanation of her own actions rather than a conclusion about the Defendant’s intent. I feel like its more suitable for The Court to consider the weight of this explanation, but it suppress it, as it describes her perception and decision-making in real time.
  
  3 - “I do not think he acted with malice or the intent to harm, but rather in a very misguided attempt to render aid based on a warped understanding of wound cauterization principles.”
  
  The Defense acknowledges that this portion includes opinion regarding the Defendant’s intent. However, the statement is clearly framed as Ms. Faustin’s personal impression, not a definitive conclusion. As a responding medical provider, her interpretation of the conduct she observed is relevant context.
  
  4 - “I don’t know whether that distinction is important, but considering Mr. Langley’s unique position, he is left in a precarious situation if revoked of his firearms license and body armour privileges.”
  
  The defense doesn't see the need to contest this suppression.
  
  5 - “Leaving him defenseless does seem a little like death by exposure in ancient Rome.”
  
  The defense doesn't see the need to contest this suppression.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Defense Attorney
  ☏ 411-2330

[Izaak Scott]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Defense reply to motion to amend "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Your honor and pertaining parties,
  
  The defense does not object to the motion to amend and we will happily fight either of these charges in court.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Defense Attorney
  ☏ 411-2330

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court recognises that the Defense has stated they intend to have the Defense Exhibit #1 re-introduced as a standard Witness Statement. Given that the Defense has promptly highlighted an error in their submission, the Court will accept this modification.
  
  Prosecution, given this change, the Court will consider your Motion to Suppress based on the "line-by-line suppression". Given the Defense's rebuttal and modification to witness type, can you please provide any additional arguments within (3) days, or inform the Court if this time is not necessary.
  
  The Court intends to conclude deliberations and provide a response to all outstanding Motions once the Prosecution has responded to the latest notice.
  
  Regarding the Notice to Amend, the Court formally recognises the amended charge to be GM02 - Battery of a Government Employee.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Superior Court Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 - [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

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

---

REBUTTAL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langley
25-BT-#0131

A Rebuttal to the Defense’s Response to the State’s Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 9th day of January, 2026.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this rebuttal;

• The statement, "However, based on the situation, with several people on site cracking jokes and generally seeming jovial, one would not have imagined Lester to be in distress."
  
  We reaffirm our previous arguments, and believe the witness, whether a lay witness or expert witness, is not relevant for the charges faced by the Defendant. However, the State acknowledges differing perspectives, and how perceptions can differ. But the State does not believe the statement, “ one would not have imagined Lester to be in distress” to be appropriate. It’s a conclusion the witness is drawing about the situation, and aims to diminish the trauma experienced by the victim.
  
  The statement, "I assumed they were friends, so I didn't immediately respond to the behaviour, as some people have unorthodox platonic love languages."
  
  We maintain our previous argument. Whether the Defendant and victim are/were friends is irrelevant. People can still commit crimes against their friends.
  
  The statement, "I do not think he acted with malice or the intent to harm, but rather in a very misguided attempt to render aid based on a warped understanding of wound cauterization principles."
  
  Again, we will reaffirm our position from earlier. There is no evidence to support the Defendant was attempting to cauterize the victim’s wound. The defense claims that it’s merely the witness’s impression and therefore it should be allowed. The State believes this rationale to be severely misguided. If the witness were, say, claiming the Defendant did what they did because they believed the Defendant had been influenced by some super secret mind control, that doesn’t make it any more or less reasonable and only seeks to detract from the alleged facts. We would recognize this claim as speculative, lacking foundation, not to mention asinine.
  
  Defense does not contest the remaining two statements being suppressed, therefore, we respectfully request the Court rule in favor of the State by default.

Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 - [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court acknowledges the most recent rebuttal from the Prosecution and intends to rule on all outstanding Motions within the next three (3) days. Once the Court Decisions have been submitted, we will move into trial scheduling.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Superior Court Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 - [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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. Lewis Langley
#25-BT-0131

A decision was reached in the above case on the 15th day of January, 2026.

---

MOTION TO AMEND

---

• Decision: Accepted
  Reasoning: The Prosecution has requested to amend the charge being contested from GM01 - Assault (Gov. Emp.) to GM02 - Battery (Gov. Emp.). As the defense has not contested this amendment, we will be moving forward with the new charge of GM02 - Battery (Gov. Emp.) at trial.

---

MOTION TO SUPPRESS

---

• Exhibit: Exhibit #1: Arrest Report, Lester Conway
  Quoted Statement:

  (1)off-duty agent's Tanner Brooks, Conrad Fredrico, Department Secretary Ren Sanchez, a number of both civilian SASG employees and civilian non-SASG employees, and
  
  (3)and continued to smoke it.
  
  (4)At this time, I consulted Department Secretary Ren Sanchez on the matter, asking her thoughts on the situation. After our brief discussion,

  Objections: Relevance, More Prejudicial than Probative, Speculation
  Decision: Overruled
  Reasoning: While the court recognizes the defenses arguments surrounding the evidence, the suppression requested are better served for courtroom conjecture than exclusion from trial discourse.

---

• Exhibit: Exhibit #1: Arrest Report, Lester Conway
  Quoted Statement:

  (2)took the opportunity

  Objections: Relevance and More Prejudicial than Probative
  Decision: Sustained
  Reasoning: While minor in nature, the court agrees with the defense when they state the language "constitutes an assumption regarding Mr. Langley’s mental state and motive". To that effect, we will be modifying the exhibits for continuity purposes. It will now read "At this time, the arrestee Lewis Langley lights a cigarette and places the glowing lit end to my rear where my fresh wound was located."

---

• Exhibit: Exhibit #1: Arrest Report, Lester Conway
  Quoted Statement:

  (5)I then requested that off-duty agents Conrad Fredrico and Tanner Brooks clock on to assist with the arrest being carried out, as I assisted the arrestee Lewis Langley into the back of my slick top Crown Victoria cruiser before radioing to the LSPD to inform them we were en route to their facility and request an officer be present to assist with processing.
  I then drove to MRPD with Department Secretary and Arrestee Lewis Langley in my cruiser with the 2 other agent's Tanner and Conrad, following behind in a separate vehicle, where we were greeted by 2 officers from the LSPD.
  
  Once in the processing area of MRPD, Arrestee Lewis Langley began to beg to be held at city hall until he was able to speak to Governor Whitehorse. I left this decision with my supervisor, Department Secretary Ren Sanchez, who approved the request.
  I then escorted Arrestee Lewis Langley back to my cruiser, and all SASG employees then drove back to City Hall, where I assisted him into the holding cells located in the GSB offices under City Hall.
  
  At this time, Department Secretary Ren Sanchez then issued a pager for Governor Emily Whitehorse and emailed her explaining the situation, requesting she fly in and clock on to assist with the situation.
  After a short period of time, Governor Whitehorse responded to the pager and discussed the charges at length with myself and Department Secretary Sanchez.
  After this, she had a short discussion with the arrestee Lewis Langley and decided to continue with the charges placed where he served his time and was released.

  Objections: Relevance and More Prejudicial than Probative
  Decision: Sustained
  Reasoning: While we agree the statement provides a larger context to the situation that occurred after the arrest, we also find that context to lack relevance to the charge being sought. For the sake of time and court resources, it is important to keep the content discussed at trial to what is important and relevant.

---

• Exhibit: Exhibit #2: Witness Statement, Lester Conway
  Quoted Statement:

  and beginning to smoke it as usual.
  
  Mr Langley was transported to MRPD to be processed. He then requested to be held in the city hall holding cells so he could speak to Governor Whitehorse. This request was granted by Department Secretary Ren Sanchez.
  He was then transported to the city hall holding cells, where he carried out the rest of his sentence.

  Objections: Relevance and More Prejudicial than Probative
  Decision: Sustained in Part / Overruled in Part
  Reasoning: The court will be removing the final paragraph for the reasons listed above.
  
  However, we will be allowing the sentence "and beginning to smoke it as usual." The court finds this statement to be related to the matter at hand and therefore cannot exclude it prior to trial. We will be allowing either side to present their arguments in regards to the statement as they please.

---

• Exhibit: Defense Exhibit #1: Witness Statement, Erin Faustin
  Quoted Statement:

  However, based on the situation, with several people on site cracking jokes and generally seeming jovial, one would not have imagined Lester to be in distress.

  Objections: Speculation
  Decision: Overruled
  Reasoning: The court will be allowing the statement due to it being observational in nature. The prosecution has not proven that the witness was not present on the scene, and the witness has signed a sworn statement saying they were. That being said, the court will be allowing the observations of individuals on scene at the alleged time of the act to be argued at trial.

---

• Exhibit: Defense Exhibit #1: Witness Statement, Erin Faustin
  Quoted Statement:

  I assumed they were friends, so I didn't immediately respond to the behaviour, as some people have unorthodox platonic love languages.
  
  I do not think he acted with malice or the intent to harm, but rather in a very misguided attempt to render aid based on a warped understanding of wound cauterization principles.
  
  I don't know whether that distinction is important, but considering Mr Langley's unique position, he is left in a precarious situation if revoked of his firearms license and body armour privileges.
  
  Leaving him defenseless does seem a little like death by exposure in ancient Rome.

  Objections: Speculation, Relevance, More Prejudicial than Probative
  Decision: Sustained
  Reasoning: The witness's opinion and their actions do not play a part in this trial as it is the role of an expert witness more than likely in the field of Psychiatry or Psychology. However, that is not the case in this instance, and the court will be ruling to suppress these statements in agreement with the prosecution's narrative.

Respectfully,


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 - [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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. Lewis Langley
#25-BT-0131

An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on 15th day of January, 2026.

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 Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 - [email protected]

[Izaak Scott]

- - - - -

• A Notice of Counsel was filed in the above-referenced matter on the 15th of January, 2026.
  
  I, Izaak Scott, a private defense attorney with Blaise & Scott, will be representing the defendant, Lewis Langley, in this case.
  
  I will be acting as Primary Counsel and will await further direction from the Presiding Judge. Obviously I was already on this case - I just want to make it known that Blaise & Scott the firm has taken over this case.

---

• 
  Izaak Scott Esq. - Founding Partner
  Criminal Defense & Constitutional Law
  ☏ 411-2330
  Your Case. Our Commitment.

- - - - -