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. Samuel Martin
#24-CM-0092
A decision was reached in the above case on the 23rd day of February, 2025.
Motion to Suppress Exhibit #1: CCTV Footage - Pillbox MD - 12.25.24
As mentioned previously, it is the burden of the defence to substantiate claims of tampering or breaks of chain of custody. It is the courts belief that in it's current form, the CCTV footage is admissible, and the statement by Mr. Crail reaffirms this. Also, Prior cases have allowed acquired CCTV footage to be admissible without a thorough chain of custody published. Therefore
the motion to suppress Exhibit #1 is denied.
((This is more about what's logistically viable within RP for CCTV.))
Motion to compel discovery of defendants bodycam
The fifth amendment protects individuals from being compelled to provide testimonial evidence against themselves. Physical/real evidence such as DNA, fingerprints, photographs, or recordings of external events is generally not deemed as testimonial. Bodycam footage is more akin to recording of external events rather than statements made by the defendant. As for the arguments about the fourth amendment rights, bodycamera footage belongs to the law enforcement agency and not the individual police officer. Also, due to the footage being part of official duties, has a reduced privacy interest.
In conclusion, due to the latter aspect of my explanation,
the motion to compel discovery is denied. A subpoena request for the footage will be reviewed after this decision instead.
Motion to stay pending appeal
The appeal has been denied therefore as will the motion to stay.
Deposition requests
Given the clear intent by both sides to wish to have all individuals called to trial as witnesses to be questioned, and that the prosecution has formally submitted a witness list for 2 of the individuals
this deposition request is denied. Ms Emilia Thalmer has no substantiative justification for being deposed or a witness therefore she will not be required to be a witness as this case is not about the injuries Ms Harrison sustained and Ms Thalmer was merely providing a statement of the medical information being released from the LSEMS and her role is purely administrative in this case.
Subpoena request for casefiles
The Court has considered the Defense’s request to subpoena “casefiles” or other evidence purportedly showing Ms. Harrison’s and Mr. Bean’s affiliations with a criminal organization. While the Defense argues these materials would demonstrate bias against Mr. Martin, such a request amounts to a speculative inquiry that risks introducing irrelevant or unduly prejudicial material. Without concrete evidence linking alleged affiliations directly to the witnesses’ testimony in this specific incident, the probative value is minimal, and the potential for unfair prejudice is considerable. Accordingly,
the Court denies the subpoena request for Ms. Harrison’s and Mr. Bean’s casefiles.
Subpoena request for list of firearms Samuel Martin is permitted to use
The Court recognizes that Captain Martin’s status as a law enforcement officer generally includes authorization for certain department-issued firearms. However, the central question concerning the government-equipment charge is not whether its possession was officially approved as the prosecution has not raised any concerns regarding whether the weapon possession was unlawful and therefore the court has no doubt at this stage to this question. As such, a detailed list of all firearms he is permitted to use does not bear materially on whether the specific alleged use in this incident was lawful. Therefore,
the Court denies this subpoena request as lacking sufficient relevance to the charges at hand.
Subpoena request for number of vehicles impounded by LSPD without owner being subject to arrest
The Defense seeks data on impounded vehicles to argue that taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent is a common police practice. The Court finds that this statistical information, standing alone, does not address the discrete legal question of whether Mr. Martin’s actions amounted to Grand Theft Auto under the circumstances alleged. General impound procedures differ substantially from the charged conduct, and allowing a broad inquiry into unrelated impounds would risk confusion of the issues. The Court therefore
denies the subpoena request for LSPD impound statistics until such a time the defence can provide a concrete link between the actions of the defendant and the law enforcement practice of impounding vehicles.
Motion to suppress Exhibit #1: Witness Statement from Police Lieutenant II Elise Cavallera
Although the Prosecution contends that Lieutenant Cavallera’s statement describes a separate incident, the Court finds sufficient overlap in the date and circumstances to render the testimony relevant. This statement establishes that the Defendant, was actively engaged in law-enforcement operations on or around December 25, 2024, and moved to the Pillbox Hospital mentioned in the indictment. While not an exact minute-by-minute account of the alleged crime, the statement supports the Defense’s argument about Mr. Martin’s whereabouts and activities leading up to or shortly after the alleged wrongdoing.
Additionally, it is plausible that a large-scale shootout or near-continuous series of events could have contributed to Martin’s state of mind, physical condition, or other circumstances surrounding the timeframe in which he is charged. Hence, any concern that the statement might confuse the issues is outweighed by its probative value: It places the Defendant on duty, at or near Pillbox, in a timeframe arguably close to the alleged offense. The Court will therefore
deny the motion to suppression of the entire exhibit.
Motion to suppress Exhibit #2: Arrest Report for Lacey Vincero
The Prosecution contends that Ms. Vincero’s arrest is unrelated to the alleged theft and assault. The Court, however, recognizes that the Defense introduced this exhibit in part to verify Lieutenant Cavallera’s testimony. The arrest report corroborates her statement that Ms. Vincero had been encountered, disarmed, and arrested in close proximity to the timeline described by Cavallera, albeit with a slight discrepancy of stated dates.
Because the arrest report references Ms. Vincero’s involvement in the same cluster of events (the shootout, injuries, and subsequent transport to the same medical facility), it can help paint a broader picture of the scene that day, particularly if the Defense suggests that Martin’s presence at Pillbox or his actions there were consistent with standard policing amid extraordinary criminal unrest. Therefore, it has at least some relevance to the defense theory. Any remaining concerns about accuracy or conflicting dates go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. Therefore
the motion to suppress this exhibit in it's entirety is denied.
It is worth noting on the final 2 decisions that the risk of confusion or prejudice is where the fact-finder could be misled or confused by the details of the events. As the fact-finder of this case, I am utilizing discretion to allow them to be introduced to the case . I appreciate the Prosecution’s position that Lieutenant Cavallera’s statement and the arrest report of Ms. Vincero may not directly address the central allegations. However, given that both documents reference activities occurring on or about the date in question and appear to involve the Defendant’s movements or surroundings, I find they could shed light on the broader context. While I acknowledge the risk of confusion, I believe that thorough cross-examination and a careful scope of inquiry will sufficiently mitigate those concerns, allowing any probative value these exhibits might hold to be properly evaluated.
Respectfully,
Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
☎ 1-000-000
✉
[email protected] 
