#25-CM-0040 State of San Andreas v. David Vespucci

Post by **David Vespucci** » 01 Sep 2025, 00:28

Black Kids with Cancer & Aids
Unaffiliated Court Case
Court Notice
01/SEP/2025

I, the Defendant, bring this Motion to Compel Discovery and assert the following requests,
- Requested Discovery: CCTV Footage, Department of Corrections
  - Detailed Reasoning: In the time I've spent at DOC, I've noticed plenty of cameras surrounding the prison, outside the prison and well inside the prison itself. I believe if the prosecution provided this CCTV footage it would help in proving my innocence hence why they haven't provided it. If this evidence truly supported the Prosecution’s narrative, it would have been disclosed. Its absence suggests it may, in fact, contradict the allegations against myself.
- With deep appreciation,
  
  Reformed Convict
  ☏ 593-1338
  Small Black Kids.. Big Hearts.. We fight for both!

Post by **Terence Williams** » 02 Sep 2025, 20:51

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

Honorable Judge Allgood and pertaining parties,

This notice is to indicate the Prosecution's intent to respond to opposing motions and requests filed on the docket in the format Your Honor deems appropriate for a formal trial, and when such an order has been announced.

Regards,

Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 06 Sep 2025, 00:39

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. David Vespucci
#25-CM-0040

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]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 07 Sep 2025, 23:58

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. David Vespucci
#25-CM-0040

A decision was reached in the above case on the 7th day of September, 2025.

It has been brought to the attention of the Court that the Defendant, David Vespucci (Deltoid), has posted information concerning the identity of a Confidential Informant (CI) on Life Invader, and that individual has been murdered as a result. The leaked information came through sealed exhibits which have been filled with this Court in this matter, and was done without consent of the Court. Exhibits filed under seal are sealed for a reason - and the concerns with certain information coming to light have been further proven by the Defendant's choice to make sealed information public.

Given the egregious nature of violating the sanctity of these Court proceedings, directly resulting in the death of a witness, the Court sees no other choice but to find the Defendant in contempt. The Court is hereby directing any law enforcement officer to apprehend the Defendant to answer for this charge.

Respectfully,

Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 — [email protected]

Post by **David Vespucci** » 08 Sep 2025, 22:26

Believe I need attorney an now.. I hit my head and forgot to how english speak.

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 09 Sep 2025, 19:29

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Personal Email
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

Mr. Vespucci (Deltoid),

Your request for an attorney is acknowledged.

The Court will contact the public defense division of this request. If you are seeking private counsel, the Court will give you 3 days to have counsel respond stating their appearances. But, this Court will not keep going back and forth on counsel or self-representations and the delays it brings with each change of counsel.

Respectfully,

Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

Post by **Terence Williams** » 21 Sep 2025, 00:15

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

((Exhibit #18 Proof of RP for hidden bodycam))

Regards,

Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 21 Oct 2025, 18:44

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Personal Email
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

To all involved parties,

The Court has not heard from any representatives from the Defense despite previous Court instructions.

In order to move forward, the Court orders a response from either the Defendant themselves on what steps they have taken to secure Defense or from a Defense Attorney representing the Defendant within the next 96 hours. Otherwise, the Court will have no choice but to entertain a motion to involuntarily dismiss in favor of the State.

Respectfully,

Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

Post by **David Vespucci** » 22 Oct 2025, 02:46

Just waiting for an attorney, no? I can't afford private counsel I have about $5.

Post by **Luna McMillan** » 22 Oct 2025, 08:40

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

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. David Vespucci

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 22nd of October, 2025.

I, Luna McMillan, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant(s), David Vespucci in the underlying case.

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

Luna McMillan
Jr Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
463-9315 — [email protected][/list]

Post by **Luna McMillan** » 22 Oct 2025, 14:09

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

Honorable Judge Allgood and pertaining parties,

The Defense feel the courts should hear this case out and we the Defense believe that we have a defense that can prove our client is not guilty the way the prosecution is saying. The defense them believes that honorable Judge Allgood should deny this motion and allow us to present our case to the court.

Furthermore, I will make sure my client does not do anything else that can cause further disruption and that any other information that is not open to the public is not posted on his social media accounts.

Respectfully,

Luna McMillan
Jr Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
463-9315 — [email protected]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 23 Oct 2025, 19:56

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Personal Email
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

Counsel,

Which motion are you referring to?

There is only one outstanding motion yet to be ruled on was the Motion to Compel Discovery filed by your client.

As you have added yourself to this case, I will be opening up the sealed docket for you.

But currently the Prosecution has submitted their exhibits, and your client has requested additional discovery. There are no other motions.

As you're new to the case, I will give you the standard 3-days to file any motions you have, unless a continuance is granted. As this is a related case, I would strongly encourage you to review court rulings on motions filed in the other two cases before proceeding. In other words, if you file a motion with similar/same arguments already ruled on, you can expect the ruling to be the same as the other two cases.

Respectfully,

Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

Post by **Luna McMillan** » 23 Oct 2025, 20:48

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

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Defendant
#25-CM-0040

A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 23rd October, 2025.

The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Continuance, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

Reasoning: Lack of defense staff
- Detailed Explanation: As we are all aware there is a lot of cases that defense is working on and I would request more time to get a Co-council and due to the amount of cases I would like ample time to get the things I need for this case together. As you know I have only recently come back to my position and would like to have ample time to be completely able to file my motions before continuing.

Jr Defense Attorney
Luna McMillan
San Andreas Judicial Branch
463-9315 — [email protected][/list]

Post by **Albert Bathsheba** » 25 Oct 2025, 15:11

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

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. David Vespucci

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 25th of October, 2025.

I, Albert Bathsheba, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, David Vespucci in the underlying case.

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

Albert Bathsheba
Director of PR / Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 212-5502 — [email protected]

Post by **Luna McMillan** » 25 Oct 2025, 15:24

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. David Vespucci
#25-CM-0040

A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 25th of October, 2025.

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

Exhibit # 5: Witness statement
Requested Evidence to Suppress:
Entire Exhibit
- Detailed Reasoning: Done underseal
  - Exhibit #2: Arrest report - Alistair Vespucci, 10/JAN/2025
    Requested Evidence to Suppress:
    Entire Exhibit
    - Detailed Reasoning: The Arrest report for Alistair Vespucci is not relevant in this case as it does not mean anything within in this case. If it had things that could show my client is guilty it would be understandable but it does not. I request this to be suppressed as it lacks relevance in this case.
  - Exhibit #3: Arrest report - Nathaniel Luceran, 11/JAN/2025
    Requested Evidence to Suppress:
    Entire Exhibit
    - Detailed Reasoning: Same reasoning as Exhibit 2.
  - Exhibit #4: Arrest report - Cortez Rivera, 11/JAN/2025
    Requested Evidence to Suppress:
    Entire Exhibit
    - Detailed Reasoning: Same reasoning as Exhibit's 2 & 3
  - Exhibit #6: Witness statement
    Requested Evidence to Suppress:
    Entire Exhibit
    - Detailed Reasoning: Done underseal
  - Exhibit #7: LifeInvader post - Cobb Blogg news report
    Requested Evidence to Suppress:
    Entire Exhibit
    - Detailed Reasoning: Lack of Evidence, nothing in this news report actually tells us who was involved and the only thing there was "4 people" were involved. This does not prove my client was there or did this crime. Secondly, News reporters like to over dramatize a scene. These news article should be thrown out as evidence as it was not written by a sworn in officer nor did they take an oath to not lie. This news article could all be speculation of the events.
  - Exhibit #8: Footage - Cobb Blog news report
    Requested Evidence to Suppress:
    Entire Exhibit
    - Detailed Reasoning: Relevance, nothing in this news footage shows my client is in the vehicle nor does the video prove that it is not in fact their own guards.
  - Exhibit #11: 911 call log
    Requested Evidence to Suppress:
    Entire Exhibit
    - Detailed Reasoning: Done underseal
  - Exhibit #12: Arrest report
    Requested Evidence to Suppress:
    Entire Exhibit
    - Detailed Reasoning: Done underseal
  - Exhibit #13: MDC record
    Requested Evidence to Suppress:
    Entire Exhibit
    - Detailed Reasoning: Done underseal
  - Exhibit #14: Image - 10 Mirror Park Blvd.
    Requested Evidence to Suppress:
    Entire Exhibit
    - Detailed Reasoning: Lack of Relevance, this shows nothing and has no explanation to what its for, nor does it show any relevance in this case.
  - Exhibit #15: Document - 10 Mirror Park Blvd. ownership record
    Requested Evidence to Suppress:
    Entire Exhibit
    - Detailed Reasoning: Done Underseal
  - Exhibit #16 A/B: Records - Nathaniel Luceran phone records / Search warrant
    Requested Evidence to Suppress:
    Entire Exhibit
    - Detailed Reasoning: Lack of Relevance, this shows nothing or any crimes associated with this case nor does it show any relevance in this case.
  - Exhibit #17 A/B: Alistair Vespucci phone records / Search warrant
    Requested Evidence to Suppress:
    Entire Exhibit
    - Detailed Reasoning: Lack of Relevance, this shows nothing or any crimes associated with this case nor does it show any relevance in this case.
  - Exhibit #18 A/B: Bodycam footage
    Requested Evidence to Suppress:
    Entire Exhibit
    - Detailed Reasoning: Done Underseal
  Jr Defense Attorney
  Luna McMillan
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  463-9315 — [email protected]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 02 Nov 2025, 21:05

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Personal Email
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

All,

The motion for continuance is denied. Defense has 2 attorneys who have entered their appearance.

A response to the motion is forthcoming. But as the Court stated in a previous ruling, it appears the defense motion is substantially similar to the motions filed in other related cases. Therefore, expect consistent rulings to the other related case.

Respectfully,

Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

Post by **Luna McMillan** » 18 Nov 2025, 15:41

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

Honorable Judge Allgood,

Can you please give us the rulings here in this Docket if you do not mind. So that it is on file, so that we can not have to keep changing dockets.

Respectfully,

Luna McMillan
Jr Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
463-9315 — [email protected]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 20 Nov 2025, 21:23

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. David Vespucci
#25-CM-0040

A decision was reached in the above case on the 20th day of November, 2025.

The defense filed a motion requesting suppression of several exhibits. After a thorough review of the arguments made, the Court notes Defense counsel is making substantially the same arguments the Court has already heard in related cases #25-CM-0039 State of San Andreas V. Nathaniel Luceran, and 25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci. The Court notes this is rather disheartening, and a waste of judicial resources, considering the notice this Court filed effectively warning counsel the rulings to these arguments would be the same if the arguments were the same.

At any rate, the Court rules as follows;

Exhibit #2: Arrest report - Alistair Vespucci, 10/JAN/2025

The Court will rule as it did in #25-CM-0039 State of San Andreas V. Nathaniel Luceran, "it is alleged these other individuals were co-conspirators...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 #3: Arrest report - Nathaniel Luceran, 11/JAN/2025
Exhibit #4: Arrest report - Cortez Rivera, 11/JAN/2025

Same ruling as exhibit 2 and ruling as this Court did in both #25-CM-0039 State of San Andreas V. Nathaniel Luceran and 25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci. Motion denied.

Exhibit # 5: Witness statement

The Court did not see any arguments under seal for this exhibit. Therefore, the Court will deny suppression of this exhibit.

Exhibit #6: Witness statement - Solomon Cobb

Filed under seal

Exhibit #7: LifeInvader post - Cobb Blogg news report

The Court will rule as it did in #25-CM-0039 State of San Andreas V. Nathaniel Luceran, "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: Footage - Cobb Blog news report

The Court will deny the motion, same reasoning as exhibit 7.

Exhibit #11: 911 call log - Shaggy Sin 18/AUG/2025

Filed under seal/b]"

Exhibit #12: Arrest report - Shaggy Sin, 18/AUG/2024

Filed under seal

Exhibit #13: MDC record - Shaggy Sin

Filed under seal

Exhibit #14: Image - 10 Mirror Park Blvd.

The Court will rule as it did in both #25-CM-0039 State of San Andreas V. Nathaniel Luceran and 25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci, "this is a question of sufficiency of evidence, not admissibility, and this motion will be denied."

Exhibit #15: Document - 10 Mirror Park Blvd. ownership record

Filed under seal

Exhibit #16 A/B: Records - Nathaniel Luceran phone records / Search warrant
Exhibit #17 A/B: Alistair Vespucci phone records / Search warrant

The Court will rule as it did in #25-CM-0039 State of San Andreas V. Nathaniel Luceran, "Therefore, the Defense questions and arguments are more about sufficiency of evidence, not admissibility. It will be up to the Prosecutor how they intend to use this information to meet their burden. This motion is denied."

Exhibit #18 A/B: Bodycam footage - CI recording, 04/JUL/2025 / Footage transcript

Filed under seal.

Respectfully,

Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 — [email protected]

Post by **Luna McMillan** » 25 Nov 2025, 19:37

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. David Vespucci
#25-CM-0040

A Motion to Stay Pending Appeal was filed in the above case on the 25th of November, 2025.

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.

Jr Defense Attorney
Luna McMillan
San Andreas Judicial Branch
463-9315 — [email protected]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 09 Dec 2025, 19:51

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. David Vespuccci (Deltoid)
#25-CM-0040

A decision was reached in the above case on the 9th day of December, 2025

The Court recognizes the Court of Appeals' summary dismissal of the Defense's appeal, and therefore believes the Defense's motion to stay these proceedings has been resolved, and considers this case to be back in session.

In the interest of transparency, the Court wishes to acknowledge a few concerns raised by the Defense in their appeal - namely, the substantial denial of multiple attempts at suppression of evidence, as well as the denial of exhibit #5 stating no arguments had been found.

As the Court of Appeals touched upon, and as this Court ruled, arguments regarding the sufficiency or strength of any particular evidence shall be reserved for the trial when the fact-finder must determine whether the State has met their burden or proof of not. A motion to suppress, as affirmed in the Judicial Branch handbook affirms the purpose of a motion to suppress is to "challenge the admissibility of evidence." A motion to suppress invokes the exclusionary rule by asking the Court to suppress evidence obtained illegally (violation of Defendant's Constitutional rights, unlawful search of seizure, etc.) or improperly (coerced confessions, or statements obtained without properly advising an individual of their Miranda advisories). But suppression is not a time for Counsel to prematurely go to trial and assess the weight, or lack thereof, of the State's case. The Court welcomes the Defense arguments as to the sufficiency of the evidence at trial.

For the lack of consideration of Exhibit #5, this was clearly an error on the Court. As the Court of Appeals noted, the Defendant themselves had requested suppression of this exhibit. When ruling on Defense motion, that specific motion simply got lost in the volume of motions, changes in defense counsel, etc. It also highlights a very considerable risks of changing the status of representation during the course of a trial. While a Defendant is free to represent themselves or have counsel present, it is always best to pick one or the other and not continuously switch up the status of representation as has been seen in this matter.

For proper record keeping, the Court will go ahead and acknowledge the Defense motion and rule on it. As is par with the previous decision, the Defendant's motion was substantially the same as two other co-defendants, therefore, the court will adopt the same decision and deny the motion. More detailed legal analysis will be filed under seal for review by Counsel.

A notice of scheduling will soon follow.

Respectfully,

Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 — [email protected]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 09 Dec 2025, 20:06

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. David Vespucci (Deltoid)
#25-CM-0040

An 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 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. Will still aim to do them separately))

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]

Post by **Terence Williams** » 13 Dec 2025, 21:40

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

Honorable Judge Allgood and pertaining parties,

The Prosecution has filed for its availability.

Regards,

Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]

Post by **Luna McMillan** » 20 Dec 2025, 20:04

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

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Defendant
#25-CM-0040

A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 20th of December, 2025.

The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Continuance, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

Reasoning: Staff Absence
- Detailed Explanation: Your honor, I have been on LOA and would like a little more time to be able to correctly get my information correct and build my defense.

Public Defense Attorney
Luna McMillan
San Andreas Judicial Branch
463-9315 — [email protected][/list]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 20 Dec 2025, 22:32

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Court Notice
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

Ms. McMillan,

Your LOA ended today.

In order for the Court to consider your continuance, how much time are you needing? The scheduling attempt goes clear out to the 10 of January, which is still 3 weeks away. The Court cannot in good faith just give Defense a blanket approval of a continuance with no designated end date for consideration.

For full disclosure, a plan to resolve the other two related cases is in the works, hopefully on/before 10/Jan. The Court does not wish to continue pushing these matters out.

Respectfully,

Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

Post by **Luna McMillan** » 23 Dec 2025, 15:23

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. David Vespucci
#25-CM-0040

A Witness List was filed in the above case on the 23rd of December, 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:
Solomon Cobb
Type of Witness: (eye, fact, expert, or other type of witness)
Eye
Relevance to the case:
We have questions about the information Solomon was given for his article.

Name of Witness:
Alistair Vespucci
Type of Witness: (eye, fact, expert, or other type of witness)
Defendant of same case
Relevance to the case:
Want to ask him some questions on the case and what truly happened that day.

Name of Witness:
Nathaniel Luceran
Type of Witness: (eye, fact, expert, or other type of witness)
Defendant of same case
Relevance to the case:
Want to ask him some questions on the case and what truly happened that day.

Name of Witness:
Cortez Rivera
Type of Witness: (eye, fact, expert, or other type of witness)
Defendant of same case
Relevance to the case:
Want to ask him some questions on the case and what truly happened that day.

Name of Witness:
David Vespucci
Type of Witness: (eye, fact, expert, or other type of witness)
Defendant
Relevance to the case:
Want to ask him some questions on the case and what truly happened that day.

Name of Witness:
Medical Staff
Type of Witness: (eye, fact, expert, or other type of witness)
Expert
Relevance to the case:
This person is a clinical psychologist and can give an expert answer to defense questions

Public Defense Attorney
Luna McMillan
San Andreas Judicial Branch
463-9315 — [email protected][/list]

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

LSPD Awards for Service