#26-BT-0042 State of San Andreas v. Lilliana Hirano

[Lilliana Howell]

Defendant Name: Lilliana Hirano
Defendant Phone: N/A
(( Defendant Discord: .kempi ))
(( Defendant Timezone: UTC+1 ))
Type of Representation (Pick one): Public Defender

Charging Department: LSPD

Date & Time of Incident(s): 21/APR/2026 03:10 PM
Charge(s):

• VF01 - Evading an Officer
• GF03 - Armed Robbery
• GF03 - Armed Robbery

Narrative:
I wish to appeal the charges as they were placed on me without any information given.

---

I, Firstname Lastname, 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. ))

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

NOTICE OF RECEIPT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

The State of San Andreas v. Lilliana Hirano
#26-BT-0042

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 25th day of April, 2026.

The Superior Court Bench Trial system runs off of defendant responsiveness. If defendants are interacting with the court or their attorney, a Notice to Schedule will be posted with all parties being able note their availability. A Judge will then pick the most suitable time for trial. Once a trial has been scheduled, the court will consider most submissions to be final.

Prior to scheduling, 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.

Respectfully,


Associate 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 ACTIVATION & ORDER FOR DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

The State of San Andreas v. Lilliana Hirano
#26-BT-0042

A Notice of Activation & Order for Discovery was entered in the above case on the 25th day of April, 2026.

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

The Superior Court Bench Trial system runs off of defendant responsiveness. If defendants are interacting with the court or their attorney, a Notice to Schedule will be posted with all parties being able note their availability. A Judge will then pick the most suitable time for trial. Once a trial has been scheduled, the court will consider most submissions to be final.

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 defense or prosecution wishes set precedence or desire a formal criminal trial, they are welcome to file a Motion for a Change in Venue

Respectfully,


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

[Rowin Lawson]

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. Lilliana Hirano
#26-BT-0042

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 25th day of May, 2026.

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

  

  

  Los Santos Police Department WARRANT REPORT "TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"

  
  

  ---

  • SUSPECT DETAILS
    • Full Name: Lilliana Howell
      Phone Number: 4857557
      Officers Involved:
      • Police Detective II Mick Wegman
      Charges:
      • GF03 - Armed Robbery
      • GF03 - Armed Robbery
      • VF01 - Evading an Officer
    INCIDENT NARRATIVE
    • Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to validate the justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
      • On 11/APR/2026 Detective Wegman from the Los Santos Police Department managed to locate an active store robbery and move in arresting Joe Ryan and Lilliana Howell.
        
        On 12/APR/2026 a Store Robbery was called out over the BOLO Database, it can be seen both suspects match identical with the same clothing and tattoos on the CCTV of RanchoRetail at 18:51 12/APR/2026, 20 Hours after being arrested from the arrest on 11/MAR/2026.
        
        Later in the day we located both Lilliana Howell and Joe Ryan at Legion square and attempted to pull them over which they refused and led to a short chase where they evaded, shown by case 223944 the driver can match the same physical features as Lilliana Howell & Driver of BF400 matches to Joe Ryan from roughly 20 hours ago.
        
        On 28/MAR/2026 Detective Knight located Lilliana Howell and managed to identify Lilliana Howell on a BOLO during an arrest wearing the same outfits. Lilliana matched 2 Bolos' from 20:16 28/MAR/2026 & 20:23 28/MAR/2026.
        
        Lilliana matched pictures taken on 12/MAR/2026 & 28/MAR/2026 of active robberies grabbing cash from a store. Lilliana Howell also matched the description of a driver of a vehicle that took off evading from officers.
        
        Joe Ryan matched pictures taken on 12/MAR/2026 aiming a gun during an active robbery allowing Lilliana Howell grab cash then evade. Joe Ryan also matched the driver of the BF400 that evaded from officers after locating them at Legion Square after robbing stores.
        
        Related to case 223944 MCD
      Method of Identification
      • VISUAL IDENTIFICATION
    EVIDENCE DETAILS
    • Document the possessions confiscated from the arrested suspect.
      Illegal evidence must be documented individually, examples of documented illegal evidence are "Pistol .50" or "12 grams of Cocaine". Body camera footage/pictures may be attached as an evidence exhibit.
      
      Where possible the serial number of each firearm seized as evidence should be noted.
      • Illegal Evidence:
        
        
        Photograph of possessions in evidence locker (if applicable)

  

Rowin Lawson
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
451-9939 - [email protected]

[Lilliana Howell]

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. Lilliana Hirano
#26-BT-0042

A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 25th of May, 2026

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

• Exhibit #: Highlighted areas, Arrest Report
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Exhibit #1 Arrest Report

  

  

  Los Santos Police Department WARRANT REPORT "TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"

  
  

  ---

  • SUSPECT DETAILS
    • Full Name: Lilliana Howell
      Phone Number: 4857557
      Officers Involved:
      • Police Detective II Mick Wegman
      Charges:
      • GF03 - Armed Robbery
      • GF03 - Armed Robbery
      • VF01 - Evading an Officer
    INCIDENT NARRATIVE
    • Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to validate the justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
      • On 11/APR/2026 Detective Wegman from the Los Santos Police Department managed to locate an active store robbery and move in arresting Joe Ryan and Lilliana Howell.
        
        On 12/APR/2026 a Store Robbery was called out over the BOLO Database, it can be seen both suspects match identical with the same clothing and tattoos on the CCTV of RanchoRetail at 18:51 12/APR/2026, 20 Hours after being arrested from the arrest on 11/MAR/2026.
        
        Later in the day we located both Lilliana Howell and Joe Ryan at Legion square and attempted to pull them over which they refused and led to a short chase where they evaded, shown by case 223944 the driver can match the same physical features as Lilliana Howell & Driver of BF400 matches to Joe Ryan from roughly 20 hours ago.
        
        On 28/MAR/2026 Detective Knight located Lilliana Howell and managed to identify Lilliana Howell on a BOLO during an arrest wearing the same outfits. Lilliana matched 2 Bolos' from 20:16 28/MAR/2026 & 20:23 28/MAR/2026.
        
        Lilliana matched pictures taken on 12/MAR/2026 & 28/MAR/2026 of active robberies grabbing cash from a store. Lilliana Howell also matched the description of a driver of a vehicle that took off evading from officers.
        
        Joe Ryan matched pictures taken on 12/MAR/2026 aiming a gun during an active robbery allowing Lilliana Howell grab cash then evade. Joe Ryan also matched the driver of the BF400 that evaded from officers after locating them at Legion Square after robbing stores.
        
        Related to case 223944 MCD
      Method of Identification
      • VISUAL IDENTIFICATION
    EVIDENCE DETAILS
    • Document the possessions confiscated from the arrested suspect.
      Illegal evidence must be documented individually, examples of documented illegal evidence are "Pistol .50" or "12 grams of Cocaine". Body camera footage/pictures may be attached as an evidence exhibit.
      
      Where possible the serial number of each firearm seized as evidence should be noted.
      • Illegal Evidence:
        
        
        Photograph of possessions in evidence locker (if applicable)

  • Detailed Reasoning: The highlighted statements are demonstrably false, the defendant was not arrested on the 11th nor 12th of April as evidenced by their criminal record.

• Exhibit #: Highlighted areas, Arrest Report
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Exhibit #1 Arrest Report

  

  

  Los Santos Police Department WARRANT REPORT "TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"

  ---

  • SUSPECT DETAILS
    • Full Name: Lilliana Howell
      Phone Number: 4857557
      Officers Involved:
      • Police Detective II Mick Wegman
      Charges:
      • GF03 - Armed Robbery
      • GF03 - Armed Robbery
      • VF01 - Evading an Officer
    INCIDENT NARRATIVE
    • Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to validate the justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
      • On 11/APR/2026 Detective Wegman from the Los Santos Police Department managed to locate an active store robbery and move in arresting Joe Ryan and Lilliana Howell.
        
        On 12/APR/2026 a Store Robbery was called out over the BOLO Database, it can be seen both suspects match identical with the same clothing and tattoos on the CCTV of RanchoRetail at 18:51 12/APR/2026, 20 Hours after being arrested from the arrest on 11/MAR/2026.
        
        Later in the day we located both Lilliana Howell and Joe Ryan at Legion square and attempted to pull them over which they refused and led to a short chase where they evaded, shown by case 223944 the driver can match the same physical features as Lilliana Howell & Driver of BF400 matches to Joe Ryan from roughly 20 hours ago.
        
        On 28/MAR/2026 Detective Knight located Lilliana Howell and managed to identify Lilliana Howell on a BOLO during an arrest wearing the same outfits. Lilliana matched 2 Bolos' from 20:16 28/MAR/2026 & 20:23 28/MAR/2026.
        
        Lilliana matched pictures taken on 12/MAR/2026 & 28/MAR/2026 of active robberies grabbing cash from a store. Lilliana Howell also matched the description of a driver of a vehicle that took off evading from officers.
        
        Joe Ryan matched pictures taken on 12/MAR/2026 aiming a gun during an active robbery allowing Lilliana Howell grab cash then evade. Joe Ryan also matched the driver of the BF400 that evaded from officers after locating them at Legion Square after robbing stores.
        
        Related to case 223944 MCD
      Method of Identification
      • VISUAL IDENTIFICATION
    EVIDENCE DETAILS
    • Document the possessions confiscated from the arrested suspect.
      Illegal evidence must be documented individually, examples of documented illegal evidence are "Pistol .50" or "12 grams of Cocaine". Body camera footage/pictures may be attached as an evidence exhibit.
      
      Where possible the serial number of each firearm seized as evidence should be noted.
      • Illegal Evidence:
        
        
        Photograph of possessions in evidence locker (if applicable)

  • Detailed Reasoning: The highlighted segments reference something that another officer witnessed but is writing if off as fact, as such it should be suppressed as hearsay.

• Exhibit #: Highlighted areas, Arrest Report
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Exhibit #1 Arrest Report

  

  

  Los Santos Police Department WARRANT REPORT "TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"

  ---

  • SUSPECT DETAILS
    • Full Name: Lilliana Howell
      Phone Number: 4857557
      Officers Involved:
      • Police Detective II Mick Wegman
      Charges:
      • GF03 - Armed Robbery
      • GF03 - Armed Robbery
      • VF01 - Evading an Officer
    INCIDENT NARRATIVE
    • Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to validate the justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
      • On 11/APR/2026 Detective Wegman from the Los Santos Police Department managed to locate an active store robbery and move in arresting Joe Ryan and Lilliana Howell.
        
        On 12/APR/2026 a Store Robbery was called out over the BOLO Database, it can be seen both suspects match identical with the same clothing and tattoos on the CCTV of RanchoRetail at 18:51 12/APR/2026, 20 Hours after being arrested from the arrest on 11/MAR/2026.
        
        Later in the day we located both Lilliana Howell and Joe Ryan at Legion square and attempted to pull them over which they refused and led to a short chase where they evaded, shown by case 223944 the driver can match the same physical features as Lilliana Howell & Driver of BF400 matches to Joe Ryan from roughly 20 hours ago.
        
        On 28/MAR/2026 Detective Knight located Lilliana Howell and managed to identify Lilliana Howell on a BOLO during an arrest wearing the same outfits. Lilliana matched 2 Bolos' from 20:16 28/MAR/2026 & 20:23 28/MAR/2026.
        
        Lilliana matched pictures taken on 12/MAR/2026 & 28/MAR/2026 of active robberies grabbing cash from a store. Lilliana Howell also matched the description of a driver of a vehicle that took off evading from officers.
        
        Joe Ryan matched pictures taken on 12/MAR/2026 aiming a gun during an active robbery allowing Lilliana Howell grab cash then evade. Joe Ryan also matched the driver of the BF400 that evaded from officers after locating them at Legion Square after robbing stores.
        
        Related to case 223944 MCD
      Method of Identification
      • VISUAL IDENTIFICATION
    EVIDENCE DETAILS
    • Document the possessions confiscated from the arrested suspect.
      Illegal evidence must be documented individually, examples of documented illegal evidence are "Pistol .50" or "12 grams of Cocaine". Body camera footage/pictures may be attached as an evidence exhibit.
      
      Where possible the serial number of each firearm seized as evidence should be noted.
      • Illegal Evidence:
        
        
        Photograph of possessions in evidence locker (if applicable)

  • Detailed Reasoning: The highlighted segments lack relevance to the defendants arrest

Lilliana Hirano
Self Representing

[Lilliana Howell]

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. Lilliana Hirano
#26-BT-0042

A Motion to Compel Discovery was filed in the above case on the 25th of May, 2026

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

• Requested Discovery: MCD Case 223944
  • Detailed Reasoning: MCD case 223944 is referenced several times within in the arrest report as the ground for the defendants arrest and as such should be added in full to discovery for the defendant to properly be able to defend themselves.

• Requested Discovery: BOLOS referenced in Arrest Report
  • Detailed Reasoning: There are several BOLO images referenced throughout the arrest report which solidified the grounds for the visual identification, these images should be attached to the arrest report for the defendant to be able to properly defend themselves.

Lilliana Hirano
Self-Representing

[Hope Kant]

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

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

The State of San Andreas v. Lilliana Hirano
#26-BT-0042

A decision was reached in the above case on the 5th day of June, 2026.

The Court apologies for the delay in their response. That being said, we have reviewed the Motion to Suppress followed by the Motion to Compel. The Court find the Motion to Compel to be a standard request based off of information referenced in the arrest report. If the prosecution can provide said information, that will greatly change the Courts position on whether certain information should be allow to remain or be removed from the docket.

The Court is giving the Prosecution seven (7) days to comply with the Motion to Compel or submit a Motion for Continuance with a valid reason for additional time. If this is not adhered to, the Court will be forced to make a ruling on the discovery as presented.

So Ordered,


Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 - [email protected]

[Rowin Lawson]

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. Lilliana Hirano
#26-BT-0042

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 8th day of June, 2026.

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

• Exhibit #02: CCTV Footage

  18:51 PM 12/MAR | 2x Suspects | Armed Robbery & Evading an officer| Black BF400 [W44JKI48] & Black Sentinel XS [0HSIWBRH] | CCTV: https://i.ibb.co/Z6TBGnrt/Discord-pet-GWDb-SVS.jpg
  CCTV Footage

• Exhibit #03: Lilliana Hirano - 11/MAR/2026

  Enter any evidence such as CCTV footage, Fingerprints, DNA, etc.
  Lilliana Hirano - 11/MAR/2026

• Exhibit #04: Joe Ryan - 11/MAR/2026

  Enter any evidence such as CCTV footage, Fingerprints, DNA, etc.
  Joe Ryan - 11/MAR/2026

• Exhibit #05: Vehicle Lilliana Arrived in

  Enter any evidence such as CCTV footage, Fingerprints, DNA, etc.
  

• Exhibit #06: BF Jow arrived in

  Enter any evidence such as CCTV footage, Fingerprints, DNA, etc.
  

• Exhibit #07: Vehicle driven by Lilliana during the evasion

  Picture of the driver;
  https://i.ibb.co/h1TKkqHR/image.png
  Black Sentinel XS [0HSIWBRH]
  Vehicle driven by Lilliana during the evasion
  

• Exhibit #08: BF of joe Ryan During the pursuit

  Black BF400 [W44JKI48]
  

• Exhibit #09: CCTV Footage of Route 68 Store Robbery

  Enter any evidence such as CCTV footage, Fingerprints, DNA, etc.
  

  

• Exhibit #10: CCTV Footage of Los Santos Gun Club Store Robbery

  Enter any evidence such as CCTV footage, Fingerprints, DNA, etc.
  

  

Rowin Lawson
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
451-9939 - [email protected]

[Rowin Lawson]

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

---

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Lilliana Hirano
#26-BT-0042

A Motion To consolidate cases was filed in the above case on the 9th day of June, 2026.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion To consolidate cases;

Upon review of the evidence submitted from the GND case file, there is a large overlap in evidence between 26-BT-0042 and 26-BT-0049 Due to the overlap The prosecution wishes to consolidate both cases into one.

Rowin Lawson
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
451-9939 - [email protected]

[Rowin Lawson]

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

---

MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Lilliana Hirano
#26-BT-0042

A Motion for Change of Venue was filed in the above case on the 9th day of June, 2026.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Change of Venue, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

• Requested Venue: Formal Criminal Trial
  • Detailed Explanation: Due to the amount of evidence and the potential complexity of this case the Prosecution wishes to escalate this trial to a formal criminal trial. If the motion to consolidate cases is denied, we would like to cancel this motion in attempt to avoid stretching out both cases unnecessarily.

Rowin Lawson
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
451-9939 - [email protected]

[Lilliana Howell]

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. Lilliana Hirano
#26-BT-0042

A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 9th or June, 2026.

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

• Exhibit #: 3 through 10
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Exhibits 3 throughout 10

  • Detailed Reasoning: The Court granted a motion to compel specific discovery. The prosecution's subsequent disclosure of unrelated evidence exceeds the scope of the order and circumvents the discovery deadline. Therefore, the evidence should be excluded and the prosecution should be expected to provide MCD Case 223944 in full, not provide cherry-picked evidence after the discovery window has been closed.

Lilliana Hirano
Self Representing

[Lilliana Howell]

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

---

REBUTTAL TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Lilliana Hirano
#26-BT-0042

A Rebuttal to the Defense’s Motion to consolidate cases was filed in the above case on the 9th day of June, 2026.

While the Defense acknowledges that there is some overlap between the two cases, it notes that the Defendant shares only one charge of Armed Robbery with Joe Ryan, while they are appealing a total of three charges.

It remains unclear whether Mr. Ryan had any involvement in the Defendant's additional charges of Evading an Officer and the second count of Armed Robbery.

Given that the majority of the charges at issue are unrelated to Mr. Ryan, the Defense respectfully urges the Court to deny consolidation. Consolidating these matters would unnecessarily delay the Defendant's right to a speedy trial while providing little benefit in terms of judicial efficiency.

Furthermore, the Prosecution has effectively acknowledged that consolidating these cases would increase their complexity to the point of requiring a Formal Criminal Trial. This further supports the Defense's position that the matters should remain separate.


Lilliana Hirano
Self Representing

[Lilliana Howell]

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

---

REBUTTAL TO MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Lilliana Hirano
#26-BT-0042

A Rebuttal to the Defense’s Motion for change of venue was filed in the above case on the 9th day of June, 2026.

The Defense respectfully opposes the Prosecutions Motion for Change of Venue.

The Prosecution argues that this matter is sufficiently complex and involves a substantial amount of evidence to warrant a Formal Criminal Trial. However, the Prosecution also acknowledges that if the Motion to Consolidate is denied, it no longer believes a Formal Criminal Trial is necessary. In doing so, the Prosecution effectively concedes that this case can be adequately managed through a standard bench trial when considered on its own merits.

Accordingly, the Defense respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion for Change of Venue and permit this matter to proceed as a bench trial, thereby preserving the Defendant's right to a speedy resolution rather than subjecting them to the unnecessary delays associated with scheduling a Formal Criminal Trial.


Lilliana Hirano
Self Representing

[Rowin Lawson]

San Andreas Judicial Branch

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Justice Kant and Ms. Hirano,
  
  The Prosecution would like to make several clarifications regarding the supplemental discovery before addressing the Defendant's motions. First, Exhibits #3 through #10 were all derived from the underlying GND case file. Specifically, Exhibits #3 and #4 are the photographs utilized in the BOLOs referenced within the arrest report and requested by the Defendant in their Motion to Compel Discovery.
  
  With respect to the Defendant's Motion to Suppress, there is no legal basis for the requested relief. The supplemental discovery was provided pursuant to the Court's June 5th Order directing the Prosecution to comply with the Motion to Compel. Furthermore, this evidence was produced only after being specifically requested by the Defendant and subsequently ordered by the Court. The Defendant identifies no procedural rule, evidentiary rule, or constitutional violation that would justify suppression. Instead, the Defendant argues only that the discovery provided was not what they expected to receive. Disagreement with the content of discovery is not a recognized basis for exclusion. The Court ordered the production of additional information related to the arrest report and visual identifications contained therein, and the Prosecution complied with that Order.
  
  Turning to the Motion to Consolidate Cases, the Prosecution's request is based upon the substantial overlap between the underlying incidents, witnesses, and evidence associated with both defendants. The relevant inquiry is not whether every charge is identical between the two defendants, but whether the underlying evidence substantially overlaps. Here, it does. Consolidation would promote judicial economy, conserve judicial resources, and prevent the Court from being required to hear the same evidence multiple times in separate proceedings. The Prosecution believes the Defendant may misunderstand the practical effect of consolidation. Consolidation would not alter the charges faced by either defendant. Rather, it would simply allow the overlapping evidence and testimony to be presented once before the Court, thereby increasing efficiency while preserving the rights of all parties.
  
  Finally, with respect to the Defendant's opposition to the Motion for Change of Venue, the purpose of the Prosecution's request is not to delay these proceedings. The reference in the Motion for Change of Venue regarding withdrawal of the request if consolidation were denied was not intended to minimize the complexity of this matter, but rather to avoid unnecessarily expending judicial resources in circumstances where the same evidence would otherwise need to be presented across multiple proceedings. If consolidated, this matter would involve multiple felony offenses, multiple defendants, and numerous exhibits requiring careful review. Under those circumstances, the Prosecution believes it would be in the best interest of the Court and all parties involved for the matter to proceed as a Formal Criminal Trial so that the evidence may be evaluated with the highest degree of scrutiny and completeness.
  
  In conclusion, the Defendant requested that additional evidence be compelled, the Court ordered compliance with that request, the Prosecution complied with the Court's Order, and the Defendant now seeks suppression of the very evidence produced in response to that request. The Defendant has failed to articulate any lawful basis for suppression. Additionally, the Defendant's speedy trial concerns are speculative. No trial date has been scheduled, no continuance has been requested, and no actual prejudice has been identified. The Court ordered the production of additional discovery, the Prosecution complied with that Order, and the Prosecution's pending motions are intended to promote judicial efficiency and ensure that all relevant evidence is presented in the most appropriate forum. For the foregoing reasons, the Prosecution respectfully requests that the Defendant's Motion to Suppress, Rebuttal to Motion to Consolidate, and Rebuttal to Motion for Change of Venue be denied.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Rowin Lawson
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  451-9939 - [email protected]

[Lilliana Howell]

San Andreas Judicial Branch

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Respectfully, the prosecution was ordered to produce MCD Case 223944 in discovery. The Court's order did not require the production of selected pieces of evidence from an alleged "underlying GND case file"; rather, it required the submission of the MCD case itself.
  
  Accordingly, the defense respectfully requests that the Court either order the prosecution to produce MCD Case 223944 in its entirety, consistent with the original discovery order or exclude any additional discovery submissions that do not comply with that order.
  
  With respect to the prosecution's request to consolidate the cases, the defense would not oppose consolidation if it did not necessitate converting this matter into a formal trial. However, doing so would likely result in a substantial delay potentially several months, if not over a year thereby infringing upon the defendant's right to a speedy trial. For that reason, the defense heavily opposes consolidation under the present circumstances.
  
  Simply put, the defense believes it would be far more efficient for the Court to conduct two bench trials rather than a single formal trial. As demonstrated by prior proceedings, the Court is capable of hearing and resolving multiple bench trials in the time it often takes for a singular formal trial to be scheduled and heard.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Lilliana Hirano
  Self Representing

[Hope Kant]

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

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

The State of San Andreas v. Lilliana Hirano
#26-BT-0042

A decision was reached in the above case on the 14th day of June, 2026.

To begin, Prosecution, the Court notes an apparent discrepancy within the warrant report regarding the date of the initial arrest. While the opening paragraphs reference 11/APR/2026 and 12/APR/2026, subsequent portions of the report, newly submitted evidence, and the defendant's criminal record consistently reference events occurring in March 2026. Based on the totality of the submitted materials, the Court finds that this discrepancy appears clerical in nature rather than substantive.

Accordingly, the Prosecution shall clarify the referenced dates and, if necessary, submit a corrected report or supplemental statement to ensure the record accurately reflects the underlying events. Additionally, while obtaining this information, the Court requests that the Prosecution confirm whether all evidence contained within the case file has now been provided to the Court. The Prosecution shall also confirm whether the exact same evidence is intended to be used in both cases.

The Court will be denying the defendants' Motion to Suppress on the grounds that the accompanying Motion to Compel Discovery also requested the referenced BOLOs, which have since been provided to the Court.

The Court will be denying the Prosecution's Motion for Change of Venue. The Court finds that the additional information submitted does not substantially alter the scope or complexity of review. Specifically, while the Prosecution has provided multiple photographs for consideration, the Court does not find the inclusion of additional videos, extended witness statements, or similarly expansive materials, which may be sufficient to warrant a change in venue at this time.

As to the Motion to Consolidate Cases, the Court will reserve ruling at this time pending a response from defense counsel in #26-BT-0049, State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan, which the court will give their attorney 7 days to respond. Defense, the Court assures you that regardless of whether consolidation is ultimately granted, each defendant will be considered individually with respect to whether the evidence presented establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

So Ordered,


Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 - [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

The State of San Andreas v. Lilliana Hirano
#26-BT-0042

A decision was reached in the above case on the 18th day of June, 2026.

The Court notes the response from both defense attorneys/representatives on each docket. While we sympathize with the prosecution in the fact that these exhibits do appear to overlap with one another in time/location, we cannot in good faith move forward with the Motion to Consolidate. Both the representative and defense attorney on these cases have cited various reasons requesting it be denied: differing plans of execution, allegedly unrelated charges, etc. That being said, the court is denying the prosecutions Motion to Consolidate Cases.

To note, the court is still awaiting a response from the prosecution, to remind more than repeat, the court previously stated here.

"To begin, Prosecution, the Court notes an apparent discrepancy within the warrant report regarding the date of the initial arrest. While the opening paragraphs reference 11/APR/2026 and 12/APR/2026, subsequent portions of the report, newly submitted evidence, and the defendant's criminal record consistently reference events occurring in March 2026. Based on the totality of the submitted materials, the Court finds that this discrepancy appears clerical in nature rather than substantive.

Accordingly, the Prosecution shall clarify the referenced dates and, if necessary, submit a corrected report or supplemental statement to ensure the record accurately reflects the underlying events. Additionally, while obtaining this information, the Court requests that the Prosecution confirm whether all evidence contained within the case file has now been provided to the Court. The Prosecution shall also confirm whether the exact same evidence is intended to be used in both cases."

The prosecution has until the end of day on the 21st of June to respond.

So Ordered,


Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 - [email protected]

[Rowin Lawson]

San Andreas Judicial Branch

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Chief Justice Kant,
  
  We would like to acknowledge that the deadline for response to the previous docket notice expires today. An inquiry has been submitted to the arresting department, and we are awaiting a response.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Rowin Lawson
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  451-9939 - [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  Thank you for the acknowledgment of the timeline expiration. The court understands the prosecution being a singular individual as well as the time that it may take for law enforcement to respond. That being said, we will afford the prosecution 3 additional days to retrieve the evidence. If not presented to the courts by then, we will be forced to move forward with the docket.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Chief Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  505-9925 - [email protected]

[Lilliana Howell]

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

---

• Chief Justice Kant,
  
  While we appreciate a deadline being set for the discovery of evidence they've been compelled to include we do not believe that failing to abide by the request should result in the case moving forward. This would simply reward the prosecution and arresting department for not supplying the evidence they've been ordered by the courts to provide.
  
  The prosecution was ordered by yourself to provide MCD Case 223944 in full on the 5th day of June, 2026. Failing to provide said evidence as ordered should not just be ignored with the courts moving forward.
  
  The courts cannot order the prosecution to provide evidence A & B and then ignore the fact that the prosecution only provided the bits and pieces of the evidence they find favorable, they were ordered to submit the case in full and should be held to doing just that, the courts should not accept some cherry-picked pictures from the case as having complied with the order.
  
  As such the defense respectfully requests that the original motion to compel be enforced in full before this case moves forward, or alternatively requests that any cherry-picked pieces of said evidence ( Meaning any discovery made after the 25th of May, 2026 ) be stricken from the record if for some reason the LSPD cannot comply with the court-mandated order to supply said evidence.
  
  Respectfully,
  Lilliana Hirano

[Rowin Lawson]

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. Lilliana Hirano
#26-BT-0042

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 25th day of June, 2026.

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

• Exhibit #11 Arresting Officer Clarification

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Incident Date: 12/MAR/2026

  Witness Information

  • Name: Mick Wegman
    Date of Birth: 20/08/1993
    Phone Number: 2681
    Occupation: Police Detective II, Los Santos Police Department

  Witness Statement

  • On 12/MAR/2026, myself & Tom Jaywood were on an Adam where we responded to a Store Robbery, upon arrival we gathered CCTV Footage located within the store of Rancho Retail. Shortly on patrol we spotted the vehicle on CCTV at Legion Square same with the BF of Joe Ryan, we then attempted pursuit of the Sentinel which she refused to stop eventually getting away then with the BF same occurrence officers were not able to chase.
    
    I matched 1 of the main suspects to a suspect I arrested on 11/MAR/2026 of Lilliana Howell, the clothing and tattoos were an exact match to the suspect I arrested that day. I then opened a Casefile towards Lilliana which led to several more store robberies, on the 28/MAR/2026 Lilliana Hirano was once again arrested with the same Clothing as 11/MAR/2026 matching CCTV from Store Robberies.
    
    
    Throughout the case I believe I had significant evidence to attach Lilliana Hirano to 3 Armed Robberies, conducted on 12/MAR/2026, 29/MAR/2026, and 03/APR/2026. Paperwork was not organized that the robbery of 03/APR/2026 was not attached to the case to lead to charges.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Mick Wegman, 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,
    
    
    Mick Wegman
    Police Detective II
    Los Santos Police Department
    
    Date: 01/JUN/2026

  
  

Rowin Lawson
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
451-9939 - [email protected]