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

[Lilliana Howell]

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

---

• Chief Justice Kant,
  
  Respectfully, the defense does not believe it should have to further articulate how the requested discovery would be used at trial. Doing so would require the defense to disclose aspects of its trial strategy to both the Court and the prosecution before the evidence has even been produced.
  
  The defense believes this places it in an unfair position. The purpose of discovery is to allow both parties to review the available evidence and prepare their respective cases. Requiring the defense to explain precisely how undisclosed evidence would fit into its trial strategy would essentially reveal that strategy.
  
  The defense should not be expected to explain how or why it believes the requested discovery would be beneficial after the Court has already ordered that discovery to be produced. At this stage, the issue should not be whether the requested material is relevant, but whether the prosecution has complied with the Court's order in full.
  
  The defense also does not believe it should have to debate whether the Court's own order should be complied with, particularly when the prosecution has never objected to either the Motion to Compel or the requirement to produce the requested discovery at any point during these proceedings. The defense is therefore confused as to why the focus has shifted away from whether the prosecution has complied with the Court's order and instead onto whether the defense can justify an order that has already been granted.
  
  
  
  Respectfully,
  Lilliana Hirano

[Rowin Lawson]

San Andreas Judicial Branch

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Justice Kant,
  
  I have requested that LSPD LAD team confirm that the evidence provided is in fact the complete Case file. To my knowledge what has been provided is in fact the complete case file. Once I receive a response I will provide the said response to the court.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Rowin Lawson
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  451-9939 - [email protected]

[Lilliana Howell]

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

---

• The defense respectfully struggles to understand how a case file created by an LSPD detective, which remained open for over a month, could consist solely of a handful of images with no accompanying narratives, investigative notes, descriptions, or other information explaining how, when, or where those images were obtained.
  
  Based on references throughout a longer period of time with several underlying images and situations from different detectives the defense find it difficult to believe there is nothing more to this case-file than just the images themselves. At present, the only document connecting these images to the defendant is the arrest report, which itself was written as a conclusion to the case file itself. Unless the LSPD wants to confirm to the public that their esteemed detectives do nothing but collect pictures for a slideshow as part of their month long "investigations"
  
  If that is truly the case, the defense respectfully requests that a member of the LSPD familiar with MCD Case 223944 confirm on the record and under oath that the disclosed materials constitute the entirety of the case file.
  
  Respectfully,
  Lilliana Hirano

[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 19th day of July, 2026.

The Court appreciates the clarification provided by the Prosecution, as well as its efforts to contact the relevant law enforcement office directly to obtain further information. Given the Prosecution's response, the Court considers this matter sufficiently addressed and will not entertain further argument on the issue. The Court therefore denies the Defense's assumed Motion for Dismissal.

While the Defense is correct that the Court should not require it to disclose its trial strategy prior to trial, the Defense must still provide a sufficient basis for its assertion that additional evidence should exist or be produced by the Prosecution. Without a clear explanation as to what evidence is believed to be missing, or why the evidence currently provided is insufficient to proceed, the Court is left with no basis to delay the matter further. The Court cannot continue to entertain an ongoing back and forth that produces no meaningful resolution for either party.

The Court has determined that sufficient evidence has been presented to establish at least some semblance of probable cause supporting the alleged charges. Additionally, the Prosecution has confirmed, to the best of its ability, that the complete case file and all available evidence have been provided.

Accordingly, the Court considers this issue resolved and will now move forward with scheduling the matter for trial.

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"

---

NOTICE OF SCHEDULING

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

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

An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on 19th day of July, 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,


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

[Lilliana Howell]

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

---

MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Defendant
#26-BT-0042

A Motion to Stay Pending Appeal was filed in the above case on the 20th of July, 2026.

The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Stay Pending Appeal, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

• Reasoning: The Public Defense in this case has initiated an appeal within the San Andreas Court of Appeals following the latest Court Decision.

Lilliana Hirano
Self-representing