Eclipse Government

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  Prosecution, please provide your availability on this case within the next three (3) days or provide a Motion for Continuance.
  
  Defense and the Defendant have provided availability.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Superior Court Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 — [email protected]

---

• Your Honor,
  
  The Prosecution has filed for its availability.
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  234-9321 — [email protected]

---

---

In accordance with the availability reported by parties in response to the Notice of Scheduling/time-slot application, this motions hearing shall take place at 20:30 PM on the 21st of December, 2025 at Rockford Hills City Hall, Carcer Way, Metro Los Santos, SA.

Both parties are ordered to be present in the Courtroom no later than 15 minutes prior to the above listed date. If complications occur that must result in a delay or cancellation of the trial, you are ordered to inform the court no later than 12 hours prior to the above listed date.


So ordered,


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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court notes that the scheduled Motions hearing was not possible due to a lack of appearance from the Defendant and Defense Counsel at the scheduled time.
  
  Given the Holiday period, the Court will post a new scheduling notice in the new year.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Superior Court Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 — [email protected]

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court acknowledges the recent change in Prosecution personnel.
  
  Given that scheduling notices will need to be resubmitted to ensure availability for all parties once again, the Court asks that the Prosecution notify the Court when they are ready to proceed.
  
  The Court asks that the Prosecution provide an update on their status within fourteen (14) days to ensure this case is not unduly delayed.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Superior Court Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 - [email protected]

---

---

I, Rowin Lawson, a Prosecutor of the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the State of San Andreas in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Primary Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.

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

---

• Honorable Judge Horton and pertaining parties,
  
  The prosecution would like to notify the court of our readiness to proceed with this case.
  
  Rowin Lawson
  Prosecuting Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  451-9939 - [email protected]

---

---

I, Audrey Hartwell, a Private Defense Attorney with Rockford Law, will be representing the Defendant(s), John Chapel in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Primary Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.



Managing Partner
Rockford Law
377-1669 — [email protected]

---

---

All parties in this case are encouraged to complete the following Scheduling Tool in an attempt to schedule a Motions Hearing 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 for the Motions Hearing take place and post a Notice of Motions Hearing 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.

Respectfully,


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

---

---

In accordance with the availability reported by parties in response to the Notice of Scheduling application, this Motions Hearing shall take place at 17:30 PM on 19th day of January, 2026 at Rockford Hills City Hall, Carcer Way, Metro Los Santos, SA.

Both parties are ordered to be present in the Courtroom no later than 15 minutes prior to the above listed date. If complications occur that must result in a delay or cancellation of the Motions Hearing, you are ordered to inform the court no later than 12 hours prior to the above listed date.


So ordered,


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

---

---

---

---

• Exhibit: Exhibit #1: Warrant Report - John Chapel
• Action: Accepted
• Decision:
  Entered into evidence.

• Exhibit: Exhibit #2: Case File - John Chapel
• Action: Accepted
• Decision:
  Entered into evidence.

• Exhibit: Exhibit #3: Witness Statement : Captain Bill Breacher
• Action: Accepted
• Decision:
  Entered into evidence.

• Exhibit: Exhibit #4: Witness Statement : Detective Xoza Shadow
• Action: Accepted
• Decision:
  Entered into evidence.

• Exhibit: Exhibit #5: Note Recovered from Bomb Site
• Action: Accepted
• Decision:
  Entered into evidence.

• Exhibit: Exhibit #6: Suspect Information - John Chapel
• Action: Accepted
• Decision:
  Entered into evidence.

• Exhibit: Exhibit #7: Redacted Witness Statement
• Action: Accepted
• Decision:
  Entered into evidence.

• Exhibit: Exhibit #8: Camera Footage
• Action: Accepted
• Decision:
  Entered into evidence.

• Exhibit: Exhibit #9: Bodycam footage - Police Detective Edward Linton, 05/OCT/2024
• Action: Accepted
• Decision:
  Entered into evidence.

---

---

• Exhibit: Exhibit #1: Warrant Report - John Chapel
  Requested Suppression: Entire Exhibit
  Objections: Lack of foundation
  Decision: Overruled
  Reasoning: This exhibit establishes the foundation and context for the subsequent arrest. The Court will, however, note the reference made by the Defense, which correctly points out the lack of an image included in the evidence.

• Exhibit: Exhibit #2: Case File - John Chapel
  Requested Suppression: Entire Exhibit
  Objections: Incomplete Documentation
  Decision: Overruled
  Reasoning: The Court will file a Motion to Compel Discovery for the missing evidence. Further arguments to the substantive nature of the exhibit can be made at trial.

• Exhibit: Exhibit #2: Case File - John Chapel
  Requested Suppression: Selective
  Objections: Incomplete Documentation
  Decision: Overruled
  Reasoning: References to a secondary witness that was not further questioned were objected to under the grounds of a lack of documentation. The Court notes that Exhibit #7 is the same secondary witness raised by the Defense, and as a result, overruled the objection since Exhibit #7 further references no further documentation existed.

• Exhibit: Exhibit #3: Witness Statement : Captain Bill Breacher
  Requested Suppression: Selective
  Objections: Scope; Hearsay
  Decision: Sustained
  Reasoning: "I believe this point, he successfully found some finger prints on the equipment and placed warrants for the individuals arrest due to their involvement in the creation and placement of this explosive device."
  
  will be amended to
  
  "I believe this point, he successfully found some finger prints on the equipment and placed warrants for the individuals arrest due to their alleged involvement in the creation and placement of this explosive device."

• Exhibit: Exhibit #4: Witness Statement : Detective Xoza Shadow
  Requested Suppression: Entire Exhibit
  Objections: Speculation; Conclusory Statements
  Decision: Overruled
  Reasoning: Precedent from #22-CM-0060, State of San Andreas v. Edward Greeg was used while overruling the objection. The witness statement is the arresting officer providing context as to the arrest being made, not necessarily proving the truth of the matter.
  
  
  Judge Mason states:
  "Statements are made by the law enforcement officer who wrote the arrest report in an attempt to state why they made the arrest, as opposed to prove the truth of the matter. Whether or not the statements made are the truth is an argument best saved for trial"
  
  and
  
  "The statement made is an interpretation of the evidence provided, and thus, is not evidence in itself"

• Exhibit: Exhibit #5: Note Recovered from Bomb Site
  Requested Suppression: Entire Exhibit
  Objections: Relevance
  Decision: Overruled
  Reasoning: Defense raised the argument that the Exhibit states the note was "Not left with the bomb" but later recovered on the Bomb Site. Prosecution states that the nature of the note indicates intent and is subsequently relevant.

• Exhibit: Exhibit #6: Suspect Information - John Chapel
  Requested Suppression: Entire Exhibit
  Objections: Circular
  Decision: Overruled
  Reasoning: The Defense argued that the Exhibit was circular in nature, not referencing any new information and does not bear value to the case. Prosecution points out that there were multiple references to a terminus, as well as the fact that it specifically confirms the fingerprints were on the bomb components themselves.

• Exhibit: Exhibit #7: Redacted Witness Statement
  Requested Suppression: Entire Exhibit
  Objections: Circular
  Decision: Overruled
  Reasoning: Defense made a similar argument to Exhibit #6. The Court overruled this objection given the arguments made for Exhibit #2.

• Exhibit: Exhibit #8: Camera Footage
  Requested Suppression: Entire Exhibit
  Objections: Lack of foundation; Relevance; Prejudicial
  Decision: Overruled
  Reasoning: The Defense made arguments to highlight that no identifying information could be seen in the exhibit; however did concede that the images accurately depicted a series of events of a bomb being placed.
  
  The Court overruled the objection, stating that these further arguments should be made at trial.

• Exhibit: Exhibit #9: Bodycam footage - Police Detective Edward Linton, 05/OCT/2024
  Requested Suppression: Entire Exhibit
  Objections: Breach of 5th Amendment rights
  Decision: Overruled
  Reasoning: The Defense raised an argument that no Miranda rights were read during the footage displayed.
  
  The Court overruled the objection, referencing the numerous mentions of the conversation being "hypothetical" in nature as well as the voluntary manner in which they were delivered by the defendant. The Defense was further reminded that specific arguments to the weight of evidence should be reserved for trial.
  
  (( As stated previously and on the day, this evidence will be accepted and admitted to trial, with no grounds being met for an OOC review of the footage per server rules and JB policies. ))

---

---

• Motion: Motion to Compel Discovery
  Filed By: Defense
  Decision: Accepted
  Reasoning: Defense requested Prosecution provide the referenced report in Exhibit #2, which states: "A SWAT Bomb Squad Report Would Have Been Documented by METRO". The Court agreed with the Defense's arguments and ordered Prosecution to provide such a report, if it exists.
  
  Prosecution has been provided seven (7) days to provide Discovery, or file a Motion for Continuance if required.

Respectfully,


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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court acknowledges the outstanding Motion to Compel Discovery for the Prosecution; however, to move this case along, given the extended duration it has been on the docket, we will move into scheduling the trial, as that is the only matter left. The Court would like to see both Defense and Prosecution availability presented within seven (7) days.
  
  If either party needs additional time between now and the agreed upon trial time, that can be handled on an as-needed basis through a Motion for Continuance.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Superior Court Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 - [email protected]

---

---

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 for the 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.

Respectfully,


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

---

---

In accordance with the availability reported by parties in response to the Notice of Scheduling application, this Trial shall take place at 17:00 PM on 1st day of February, 2026 at Rockford Hills City Hall, Carcer Way, Metro Los Santos, SA.

Both parties are ordered to be present in the Courtroom no later than 15 minutes prior to the above listed date. If complications occur that must result in a delay or cancellation of the Trial, you are ordered to inform the court no later than 12 hours prior to the above listed date.


So ordered,


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

---

• Honorable Justice Horton and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution has spoken with members of the arresting department in attempt to retrieve the requested document. I have been unable to confirm that the document referenced was in fact produced. Supervisors of the LSPD seemed to have had no knowledge of the "Swat Bomb Report". The prosecution requests instruction from the court on how they would like the Prosecution to proceed.
  
  Rowin Lawson
  Deputy Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  451-9939 - [email protected]

---

• Honorable Justice Horton and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution would like to submit this evidence into discovery. depending on how the court sees fit, the Prosecution would be content to present the attached document alongside exhibit #5 or as its own standalone exhibit if that is preferred. This exhibit is a response to an email sent to the arresting department requesting clarification on the title of exhibit#5 which states " Not left with the bomb", according to arresting officers it should read "Note Left with the bomb".
  
  ► Show Spoiler

  -------- Original Message --------
  Subject: Re: Fwd: 25-CM-003 State of San Andreas v. John chapel
  Date: Fri Jan 30, 2026 12:13 am
  From: Xoza Shadow
  To: Mark Payne
  

  Xoza Shadow wrote:

  

  Los Santos Police Department "TO PROTECT AND SERVE"

  ---

  • Greetings,
    
    Interesting catch, and old case. This should be 'Note' as I believe if it was 'not' I would have more likely stated where it actually came from.
    
    Thanks.

  ---

  • Regards,
    
    Police Detective Xoza Shadow,
    Detective Bureau, Major Crimes, VICE,
    Los Santos Police Department.

  

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

---

---

---

PRE-TRIAL MOTION(S)

---

• Motion: Motion to Suppress - Reference to Bomb Report in Exhibit #2
  Filed By: Prosecution
  Decision: Accepted
  Reasoning: The bomb report could not be obtained by the Prosecution. There was no contention on the motion from the Defense.
• Motion: Motion for Discovery - Clarification of Note for Exhibit #5 as a new Exhibit
  Filed By: Defense
  Decision: Accepted
  Reasoning: No contention. Exhibit #5 will be kept intact for reference, and the clarification will be added as Exhibit #5b.

---

---

• On the 5th of October, 2024, multiple civilians called 911 about a bomb at Mission Row Police Station.
• A legitimate explosive device was found and defused. Detectives found fingerprints on it, leading back to the defendant.
• A threatening note was found during the initial investigation into the device.
• A black Terminus and an individual in black were seen with two others near the station around the time of the incident.
• Body camera footage from another location shows the defendant in the background stating that his fingerprints were hypothetically on the device.

---

---

The Prosecution argues that the evidence, namely the body camera footage submitted, coupled with the defendant's fingerprints found on an explosive device, constitutes grounds that the defendant engaged in both the possession, assembly, and planting of said device at Mission Row Police Station. They also contend that the evidence proves the defendant, at the time a member of the Shadows organization, was complicit due to his dress, as captured in CCTV footage and statements recorded on a detective's body camera.

The Defense argues that the finding of fingerprints on the explosive device at Mission Row does not constitute that the defendant had any involvement in the commission of the charges he was faced with. Furthermore, they contend that without a follow-up investigation, including any questioning of the defendant, witnesses, or others, the Prosecution has not met its burden of proof. Finally, the Defense argues that fingerprints found on the device do not constitute possession of the components and could have been left there accidentally or through lawful or incidental means.

---

---

The court finds there is insufficient evidence linking Mr. Chapel to the act of placing any explosive device due to the lack of establishment of the identity of those involved at Mission Row. The only evidence presented was photograph.s that were not timestamped, with loose links to the Defendant, not a clearly established link. Ultimately, the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof that the defendant was at all involved in the placement of the bomb or the threats included with the bomb.

Reviewing the exhibits, the court finds there is sufficient evidence to prove fingerprints on components of the explosive device. While argued as incidental, the court does not find any circumstance in which fingerprints on an explosive device could be obtained without the defendant having an active role in possessing the harmful device or equally harmful components. However, the Court does find that, through the multiple circumstantial pieces of evidence, in conjunction with the fingerprints found directly on the bomb, the Defendant at some point in time must have had possession of an explosive device.

It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:

• On the count of SF01 - Domestic Terrorism, I find the defendant, John Chapel, not guilty.
• On the count of SF06 - Possessing Destructive Devices or Explosives, I find the defendant, John Chapel, 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 $39000 returned to them for fines, time, and other expenses/inconveniences incurred from the contested charges.



So Ordered,

Magistrate Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
298-3863 - [email protected]

On behalf of,


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