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. Ghost Kamado
#26-BT-0040
A decision was reached in the above case on the 21st day of June, 2026.
Facts
The facts of the case are as follows:
- A store robbery occurred, resulting in the officers pursuing a Niobe.
- A Monstrociti was spotted at one time following the pursuit.
- The driver of the Niobe hit a wall in proximity to a Monstrociti owned by the defendant.
- The defendant was seen about a block away and detained. He was on the same radio frequency as the Niobe driver.
- CCTV shows the same tattoos as the defendant during an unknown store robbery.
Arguments From Either Side
The prosecution argues that it presents a straightforward narrative supported by evidence that confirms the robbery scene through matching tattoos, a helmet, and the defendant's build, thereby establishing the defendant's involvement. They believe the defendant followed a pursuit after the robbery, was observed following the pursuit, and then abandoned his vehicle near an active crime with the intent to help the suspect being pursued. They point out that the defendant was on the same frequency as the suspect during the pursuit. They argue that, combined with further items found on his person and the location of his vehicle nearby, sufficient evidence exists to implicate his involvement in the charges.
The defense claims that the case ultimately hinges on factual questions. They assert that the defendant cannot be linked to the pursuit by mere happenstance, such as the mere spotting of a vehicle matching the defendant's. They argue that the charge of store robbery, based solely on information not presented in evidence, is invalid and unjust, and further note that no weapon or proceeds were found. They contend the vehicle used was not proven to be in the owner's possession during the robbery or pursuit, nor does its location afterward suggest any criminal intent on his part. They argue that the defendant was shot in the back and subsequently charged with all three crimes without any prior notice, contending the Court should view this during deliberation as an unlawful search, seizure, and use of force.
Verdict
It is noted for the record that Ghost Kamado has changed his name to Ghost Nixon.
Exhibit A of the arrest report and narrative statement of "inside the glovebox were his pants" is hereby suppressed as it is ruled there is no probable cause pursuant to the search of the vehicle.
The defense admits the defendant's narrative in the original submission as Exhibit B.
Finally, the Court recognizes that the prosecution failed to comply with the court order to obtain CCTV camera evidence from the bank.
The prosecution contends that the defendant was an accessory to the evading offense committed by Javier Cruz, the driver of a fleeing Niobe. To support this, the prosecution relies on three key pieces of evidence to establish the defendant's guilt: that a Monstrociti matching the description of the defendant’s vehicle was seen following the active pursuit; that after a subsequent crash of the Niobe, the driver fled in the direction of the defendant’s nearby parked vehicle; and a radio frequency match between the two individuals.
While the prosecution attempts to establish the defendant's assistance in the main suspect's evasion, the Court finds that the evidence does not establish that the defendant intentionally interfered or acted to interfere with the active pursuit. Furthermore, being on the same public frequency may amount to reasonable suspicion, but without more substantiation, it does not amount to proof of criminal collusion. Criminal intent also cannot be inferred solely from the proximity of an individual or their property to a rapidly changing and evolving crime scene. Without further evidence, mere proximity is insufficient to prove intent to criminally aid or abet.
The Court turns its attention to the charge of GF03 Armed Robbery. The prosecution introduces CCTV footage showing an individual with body art matching the defendant's distinct tattoos, and the defendant wearing the same helmet as found on his person.
While the matching physical markings strongly suggest identity, the record lacks a contextual narrative, location, or timeframe linking the incident shown in the CCTV footage to the robbery for which the defendant faces charges in this case. The Court cannot fill evidentiary gaps when presented with a lack of temporal or spatial context pertaining to the actual event. Because of this absence of context, the Court cannot connect inference to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:
- On the count of GF03 - Armed Robbery, I find the defendant, Ghost Nixon, not guilty.
- On the count of Accessory to VF01 - Evading an Officer, I find the defendant, Ghost Nixon, not guilty.
- On the count of GM19 - Face Concealment (b), I find the defendant, Ghost Nixon, not 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 $87,000 returned to them for fines, time, and other expenses/inconveniences incurred from the contested charges.
So Ordered,
Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
298-3863 -
[email protected]