Page 2 of 3
Re: #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
Posted: 06 Sep 2025, 00:40
by Hugh Allgood
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. Alistair Vespucci
#25-CM-0034
An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on 5th of September, 2025.
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.
((Using the same scheduler for all related cases, btw. This is intended))
In the event all parties have overlapping availability the Presiding Judge will determine the best date and time to have a 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 any unresolved motions prior to trial.
Respectfully,
Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 — [email protected]
Re: #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
Posted: 07 Sep 2025, 05:08
by Alistair Vespucci
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. Alistair Vespucci
#25-CM-0034
A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 7th of September, 2025.
The Defendant filed this Motion to Suppress, and requests the following be suppressed from evidence;
- Exhibit #19: CCTV Footage
Requested Evidence to Suppress:
Entire Exhibit.
- Detailed Reasoning:
This exhibit was submitted a staggering nine days after the close of the discovery period. This was a deadline that was already extended once through a motion for continuance, also submitted by the attorney general himself. I, personally, do not appreciate the prosecution attempting to sneak in a last-minute exhibit following the defense's submission of their motions, and would expect a higher level of professionalism from an Attorney General.
The prosecution has had more than enough time to submit its evidence. That window has closed. Per my understanding, the discovery period is not a suggestion, and it exists to ensure fairness and order. Allowing the prosecution to circumvent this rule outright makes a mockery of the court and undermines the very purpose of these proceedings.
315-6876
Re: #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
Posted: 07 Sep 2025, 05:11
by Alistair Vespucci
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. Alistair Vespucci
#25-CM-0034
Your honor,
The defendant, Alistair Vespucci, submits this notice to inform the court that they have scheduled their availability for the above-mentioned motions hearing.
315-6876
Re: #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
Posted: 12 Sep 2025, 22:05
by Hugh Allgood
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
NOTICE OF MOTIONS HEARING
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
#25-CM-0034
A motions hearing date was set on the above case on 12th of September, 2025.
In accordance with the availability reported by parties in response to the Notice of Scheduling, this motions hearing shall take place from 6:30 to 7:45 PM on the 21st of September, 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 5 minutes prior to the above listed date in order to maintain decorum and complete the hearing in a timely manner. 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 Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 — [email protected]
Re: #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
Posted: 21 Sep 2025, 00:14
by Terence Williams
Re: #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
Posted: 04 Oct 2025, 03:30
by Hugh Allgood
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. Alistair Vespucci
#25-CM-0034
A decision was reached in the above case on the 4th day of October, 2025.
Following the motions hearing held on the 21st of September, 2025, the Court heard oral arguments on several motions. These motions are listed here;
- Motion to compel Discovery, 1/SEP/2025
- Motion to Suppress - 1/SEP/2025
- Motion to Suppress - 7/SEP/2025
In consideration of the arguments, both written and oral, the Court has ruled on each motion.
Motion to Suppress, 1/SEP/2025
The Defense seeks to suppress several exhibits within the Prosecution's discovery.
Exhibit 1, arrest report of the Defendant.
The Court will provide additional details in the decision rendered on the discovery of the case file itself.
For the Defense argument of lack of foundation - the Court notes an arrest report is an official record of the arrest, and does not need to suffice on its own for the entirety of the case. The foundation of the case comes in this matter through the remaining exhibits which are subject to review by this Court. Therefore, the Court rejects the argument this exhibit lacks foundation - in fact, suppression of this exhibit could cause other exhibits to lack foundation.
Regarding the argument of prejudicial versus probative value. While this exhibit independently may not produce immense probative value, it also lacks any prejudicial value. As noted above, an arrest report is very commonly admitted in most cases, and does not provide any prejudicial value to the Defendant. The Court will require the State to meet their burden of proof on each and every charge, and this arrest report does not tip the scale against the Defendant in any way. In fact, the Defense arguments on this exhibit are pointing towards the lack of evidence contained within this exhibit, which go towards a showing of reasonable doubt, and these arguments are better suited for trial.
Exhibits #2-4: Arrest reports David Vespucci, Nathaniel Luceran, and Cortez Rivera, arguing lack of relevance to the Defendant
The Court will be adopting the same decision rendered in State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran as to this exhibit, which is as follows
Upon review of this exhibit, this motion will be denied. It has been long held that arrest reports are admissible in criminal cases, and as this Court has heard in previous other motions, it is alleged these other individuals were co-conspirators. The connection is also supported by the fact "casefile #187266" is the same case file number cited in Exhibit 1, which is the arrest report of this Defendant. Furthermore, this Defendant has been charged with NM03 - Unlawful Assembly, which requires a showing of "Two or more people, gathering together to do something illegal or who are disobedient to law enforcement instruction". Therefore, the inclusion of these exhibits is a necessary aspect of the significant burden or proof to be met by the State, and these exhibits will be admissible. Defense arguments about the sufficiency or strength of this evidence, given the omission of any pertinent details, can come through for further consideration at trial at which time the Court will assess all evidence and determine if the State has met their burden. Motion denied.
Exhibit 5, ** FILED UNDER SEAL**
Exhibit 6, ** FILED UNDER SEAL **
Exhibit 7, Cobb blog, arguing it to be hearsay and not a sworn statement. Defense also argued this was not relevant to the Defendant and argues the Prosecution was attempting to use public perception of Defendant to prove guilt and "convict by narrative". The State rebutted acknowledging the statement was not a sworn statement, but was a witnesses first hand account of information they obtained through a media investigation.
The Court has reviewed precedence as it pertains to the use of "Cobb Blog" features. The only case located was #25-CM-0015, State of San Andreas v. Diana Butler. In that case, the point of contention was the use of footage on Cobb Blog, but there were no exhibits or posts from Cobb Blog. The Court has however allowed the use of LifeInvader posts from other media outlets, namely Weazel News, in other proceedings. One such example from recent memory was State of San Andreas v. Andy Tyrie.
The Court does this is not an official statement, but believes this to be an argument of how much weight should be given to this evidence, or to its sufficiency in aiding the State in meeting their burden of proof, not a matter of whether it shall be admitted. Motion denied.
Exhibit 8, cobb blog, arguing that it can't be proven the footage was unedited and the same arguments as the previous exhibit. The Prosecution asserts the footage is unedited, and depicts the raw footage of the events in question ((Prosecution also affirms the footage was unedited OOC, noting the gaps are a results of going in and out of the camera script item.)).
The Prosecution and Defense are arguing opposite sides of this issue - the Prosecution asserts this is unedited, raw footage, and the Defense argues it cannot be proven that the footage was unedited. However, the latter argument offers no evidence or proof that the footage is edited. Therefore, the Court will allow the exhibit to stand. Motion denied.
Exhibit 9-13 ** FILED UNDER SEAL**
Exhibit 14, image of the front door of 10 Mirror Park Blvd, arguing lack of relevance to the Defendant or foundation.
The Court will be adopting the same decision rendered in State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran as to this exhibit, which is as follows;
While it is correct the image by itself does not show anything unlawful, this address was noted in other exhibits and an alleged connection between the Defendant and this image have been noted in other exhibits. As noted above, this is a question of sufficiency of evidence, not admissibility, and this motion will be denied.
Exhibit 15, ** FILED UNDER SEAL **
The Court will be denying the suppression, as this is a question of sufficiency of evidence and not admissibility.
Exhibit #16: Records - Nathaniel Luceran phone records / Search warrant, arguing the warrant itself does not describe the particular places to be seized or searched and argues the exhibit only shows that texts were exchanged between some individuals.
The Court disagrees with the Defense argument. The warrant clearly describes the place to be searched (iFruit Phone Company) and the items to be seized (Nathaniel Luceran's phone records from 12/AUG/2024 - 19/AUG/2024). The records show logs of communication between the Defendant and another Defendant. Therefore, any arguments for relevance are arguments for sufficiency of evidence and not admissibility. Suppression denied.
((The content of these text messages are to be ignored. The exhibit should be reviewed as just a log of texts sent/received, not the content. This has been discussed and decided by the Administration Team and LFM.))
Exhibit #17: Alistair Vespucci phone records / Search warrant
((Same OOC note as above.))
The records show logs between the Defendant and several individuals, several of which have also been charged in this alleged incident. Therefore, again a question of sufficiency not admissibility and this motion is denied.
Exhibit # 18: ** FILED UNDER SEAL**
Motion to compel discovery
The Defense seeks to compel the discovery of the entirety of case file #187266, which as the Defense points out is directly mentioned in the applicable arrest reports designated as exhibits 1-4 in the prosecution's case. The Prosecution argued against this motion, citing precedence as well as noting the case file itself was broken apart to form the exhibits themselves and there is nothing additional in the case file. The Prosecution also noted the case file had been previously provided to the judiciary during initial stages of this case.
The Court has reviewed the case file. But, the Court does not see a compelling reason to break precedence. Investigative case files are not normally subject to review, especially on a public docket. After the Court's review of the case file, the Court does note the case file contains additional content not submitted as exhibits, but the material are more investigative case notes and not substantive material. There does not appear to be anything exculpatory within the case file and does not believe any further review of the investigative file would provide anything substantive in this matter. This motion is denied.
Respectfully,
Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 — [email protected]
Re: #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
Posted: 21 Oct 2025, 18:40
by Hugh Allgood
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. Alistair Vespucci
#25-CM-0034
An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on 21st of October, 2025.
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,
Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 — [email protected]
Re: #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
Posted: 24 Oct 2025, 20:05
by Alistair Vespucci
Your honor,
I have scheduled my availability.
Re: #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
Posted: 24 Oct 2025, 23:04
by Terence Williams
Re: #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
Posted: 02 Nov 2025, 20:59
by Hugh Allgood
Re: #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
Posted: 02 Nov 2025, 21:04
by Alistair Vespucci
Your honor,
I am not self representing in this case. I have already retained both Quentin DeLaVentura and Jay Wellberg with Assured Law as my counsel months ago. I am unsure why they have not scheduled their availability at this time. I certainly hope they do soon, as I do not feel like digging for Assured Law's refund policy!
Re: #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
Posted: 04 Nov 2025, 02:45
by Jay Wellberg
Re: #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
Posted: 11 Nov 2025, 21:04
by Hugh Allgood
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. Alistair Vespucci
#25-CM-0034
An SECOND attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on 11th of November, 2025.
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,
Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 — [email protected]
Re: #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
Posted: 16 Nov 2025, 21:14
by Terence Williams
Re: #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
Posted: 17 Nov 2025, 23:19
by Jay Wellberg
Re: #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
Posted: 18 Nov 2025, 23:13
by Jay Wellberg
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
WITNESS LIST
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
#25-CM-0034
A Witness List was filed in the above case on the 18 of Nov , 2025.
- The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Witness List, designating the following list of individuals as witnesses, who may be called to the stand.
Name of Witness:
Vito Saint
Type of Witness: (eye, fact, expert, or other type of witness)
Eye / Fact
Relevance to the case:
As mentioned in the motions hearing, we asked to have this witnessed call so we can cross examine them during trial.
Jay Wellberg
Assured Services
Attorney, Assured Law
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue
Re: #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
Posted: 21 Nov 2025, 20:18
by Terence Williams
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
OBJECTION
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
#25-CM-0034
An Objection was filed in the above case on the 21st of November, 2025.
The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this objection, and requests the following be stricken from the record;
- Witness being objected to: Vito Saint
- Detailed Reasoning: The Defense cannot call a Prosecution witness to testify. Not only would it be considered a breach of the Code of Ethics section V - Relationship to the Adverse Party, but the witness cannot be compelled to testify for or by the Defense.
Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]
Re: #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
Posted: 21 Nov 2025, 20:38
by Jay Wellberg
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Docket Response
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
- Judge Allgood,
Vito Saint provided a sworn statement that was disclosed and entered into the docket. Once a witness provides a statement for the prosecution, they become a witness of the court, not the exclusive property of the State. The Defense has the right to examine or cross-examine that witness to test the accuracy and credibility of their prior statement.
Further, in motion hearing, the Defense specifically asked the Court whether we may reserve the right to call this witness for cross- examination. The Court stated that the Defense is free to do so and there were no objections from the prosecution then. Additionally, calling a witness to testify in open court, with the opposing party present and the court supervising the examination, is entirely proper and ethical. It is not “contact with the adverse party”; it is lawful cross examination.
Respectfully,
Jay Wellberg
Assured Services
Attorney, Assured Law
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue
Re: #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
Posted: 21 Nov 2025, 21:16
by Terence Williams
Re: #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
Posted: 09 Dec 2025, 20:34
by Hugh Allgood
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. Alistair Vespucci
#25-CM-0034
A decision was reached in the above case on the 9th day of December, 2025
On the 18th of November, 2025, the Defense filed a witness list listing Vito Saint as a witness to be called. On the 21st of November, 2025, the Prosecution objected citing the Defense's request would breach Attorney Code of Ethics Section V - Relationship to the Adverse Party, stating henceforth the Defense could not compel the witness to testify for the Defense. The Defense countered noting Vito Saint was a witness for the Court and not the "exclusive property of the State", noting the Defense has a right to cross-examine the witness.
After review of these arguments, the court has reviewed Code V - Relationship to the Adverse Party. This code covers how attorneys are to interact with the adverse party. The Court believes the State is using the subsection stating, "An attorney shall not come into any contact with the adverse party without the knowledge of the party's counsel or without the knowledge of his or her own client."
The Court respectfully disagrees with the Prosecution's assertion that the Defense calling Vito Saint as a witness violates Code V. Code V specifically mentions the "adverse party", not a witness. An "adverse party" in this instance refers to the party on the opposing side. The two parties in this case as the State of San Andreas (represented by Attorney General Williams) and Alistair Vespucci (represented by Jay Wellberg). According to Rule V, Mr. Wellberg cannot come into contact with Mr. Williams and Mr. Williams cannot come into contact with Mr. Vespucci "without the knowledge of the party's counsel or without the knowledge of his or her own client." The latter is more applicable here, prohibiting the Attorney General from having contact with the Defendant without the knowledge of Mr. Wellberg.
Upon review of Mr. Wellberg's assertions, the Court agrees. Vito Saint has provided a sworn statement, and therefore is a witness of this Court. The Defense does have a right to cross-examine the witness if they so choose. This is also affirmed in the Constitution, as the Defendant has the exclusive right to "be confronted with the witnesses against them; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for their defense." Not only is cross examination wholly appropriate, it's adequate representation. Neither side can introduce evidence without allowing a chance for the other side to cross examine the same. In other words, when one side "opens the door" to an issue or piece of evidence, the other side is allowed to go through that door and explore what is inside. This is the only way for the Court to fully seek the truth and to have a complete understanding of the facts and arguments.
The prosecutions objection is overruled, and the Defense is free to call Vito Saint as a witness.
However, the Court does note the issues with scheduling a trial in this matter, having gone through two scheduling attempts, with a third following this. This Court will not delay scheduling a trial simply because of the lack of availability of Vito Saint as a witness. It is the Defense's responsibility to notify Vito Saint of their intent to call them as a witness, and get Vito Saint to log their availability, and the Court will try and find a time which works with all parties. But, the Court will not hesitate to schedule a trial without Vito Saint if a time is realized where both the State and Defense are represented.
Respectfully,
Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 — [email protected]
Re: #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
Posted: 09 Dec 2025, 20:37
by Hugh Allgood
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. Alistair Vespucci
#25-CM-0034
An THIRD attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on 9th of December, 2025.
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,
Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 — [email protected]
Re: #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
Posted: 10 Dec 2025, 04:16
by Alistair Vespucci
I have submitted my availability.
Re: #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
Posted: 13 Dec 2025, 21:40
by Terence Williams
Re: #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
Posted: 16 Dec 2025, 02:35
by Jay Wellberg
Re: #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
Posted: 06 Jan 2026, 00:00
by Hope Kant
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE IN COUNSEL
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
25-CM-#0034
A Notification of Change in Counsel was filed in the above case on the 5th day of January, 2026.
Please be advised that effective immediately, Hope Kant will assume the role of Primary Counsel in the above-referenced matter. All future correspondence, filings, and communications should be directed to their attention.
Should you have any questions or require clarification, please do not hesitate to reach out.
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 - [email protected]
