Eclipse Government

Exhibit #5: MDC record - Alistair Kon

• Detailed Reasoning: The defence believes the MDC report bears no relevance to the case in question due to the timeframes of the historic charges. As you can see on the MDC record, the burglaries are within a small time frame of one another and then no charges are present for 7 months; this evidence gives the assumption that the defendant has not had any room for change and does not allow for any recovery by the defendant.

Exhibit #1: Arrest Report - Alistair Vespucci, 01/APR/2024

Los Santos Police Department ARREST REPORT "TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"

---

MUGSHOT

• SUSPECT DETAILS
  • 
    Full Name: Alistair Vespucci
    Phone Number: 3156876
    Licenses Suspended: No
    Officers Involved:
    • Police Officer III Matteo Ellis
    • Police Cadet Johnson Hilts
    • Police Officer II Ben Masseria
    • Police Officer III Heath Tegans
    • Police Officer III Mark Payne
    • Police Lieutenant I Samuel Martin
    • Deputy Chief Lex Roth
    Charges:
    • Attempted GF15 - Burglary
    • GM19 - Face Concealment (b)
  INCIDENT NARRATIVE
  • Incident Date: 01/APR/2024
    
    Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
    • A call was received from a homeowner on Normandy Dr. that someone is breaking into the house.
      
      Unit 21-A-12 which consisted of Officer Matteo Ellis and Cadet Johnson Hilts were the first on the scene where they saw a masked man standing in front of the doors of the house that the call was made. Officers approached the man and told him to get on his knees. Suspect noted to the officers "it is my house" and few seconds later "wait, this is not my house".
      Cadet Hilts read the Miranda Rights and patted the man down and found lockpicks - suspect identified as Alistair Vespucci.
      Detectives arrived on the scene and found a black kamacho that was parked behind the property - R/O Alistair Vepucci
      Later Mr. Vespucci changed his statement and said he was there to check the house if it is for sale or not.
      **Attached Bodycam**
      ((RP of the body cam))
  EVIDENCE DETAILS
  • Document the possessions confiscated from the arrested suspect.
    Possessions are to be documented individually, examples of documented illegal possessions are "Pistol .50" or "12 grams of Cocaine". Legal possessions that can be categorized may be grouped, eg. "Clothing" to describe all clothing items. Body camera footage/pictures may be attached as an evidence exhibit.
    
    Where possible, the serial number of each firearm seized as evidence should be noted.
    • Illegal Possessions:
      Exhibit A: Mask
      Exhibit B: 4 lockpicks
      
      
      Legal Possessions:
      Exhibit A: Clothing - cap, wrist chain, necklace, gloves, watch
      Exhibit B: gps
      Exhibit C: radio
      Exhibit D: water
      
      
      Photograph of Possessions (MANDATORY)

      

• Detailed Reasoning: The Mask and Lockpicks are not illegal to have on possession of a person and should not be listed under 'illegal possessions' on the arrest report.

Exhibit #2: Witness Statement - Police Lieutenant Jonathan Willowick

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Official Witness Statement
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Case Information

• Incident Date: 11/APR/2024

Witness Information

• Name: Jonathan Willowick
  Date of Birth: 09/AUG/1987
  Phone Number: 413-4102
  Occupation: Police Lieutenant II, Los Santos Police Department

Witness Statement

• My time with the Los Santos Police Department, particularly in the Detective Bureau over several years, has exposed me to numerous incidents of car break-ins and home invasions. Almost always when suspects are apprehended at these scenes, they are found with lockpicks in their possession, as well as broken lockpicks scattered around the crime scene doors. Criminals rely on these tools as essential assets for their illicit activities, regardless of the type of lock they aim to breach.

Witness Affirmation

• I, Jonathan Willowick, affirm that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I affirm that this statement has been made voluntarily, made without promise of reward, and made not under threat, force, or coercion. ((I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means.))
  
  Signed,
  
  
  Jonathan Willowick
  Police Lieutenant II
  Los Santos Police Department
  
  Date: 11/APR/2024

• Detailed Reasoning: The entire witness statement bears no relevance to the case in question and is listed as a witness statement but provides no witness to the events that have occured, instead comes across as an expert statement.

Exhibit #5: MDC record - Alistair Kon

• Detailed Reasoning: The introduction of prior charges unrelated to the current case serves only to prejudice the jury against the defendant. These charges occurred over seven months ago and bear no relevance to the facts of the present case. Hence there is no relevance.

Exhibit #1: Arrest Report - Alistair Vespucci, 01/APR/2024

Los Santos Police Department ARREST REPORT "TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"

---

MUGSHOT

• SUSPECT DETAILS
  • 
    Full Name: Alistair Vespucci
    Phone Number: 3156876
    Licenses Suspended: No
    Officers Involved:
    • Police Officer III Matteo Ellis
    • Police Cadet Johnson Hilts
    • Police Officer II Ben Masseria
    • Police Officer III Heath Tegans
    • Police Officer III Mark Payne
    • Police Lieutenant I Samuel Martin
    • Deputy Chief Lex Roth
    Charges:
    • Attempted GF15 - Burglary
    • GM19 - Face Concealment (b)
  INCIDENT NARRATIVE
  • Incident Date: 01/APR/2024
    
    Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
    • A call was received from a homeowner on Normandy Dr. that someone is breaking into the house.
      
      Unit 21-A-12 which consisted of Officer Matteo Ellis and Cadet Johnson Hilts were the first on the scene where they saw a masked man standing in front of the doors of the house that the call was made. Officers approached the man and told him to get on his knees. Suspect noted to the officers "it is my house" and few seconds later "wait, this is not my house".
      Cadet Hilts read the Miranda Rights and patted the man down and found lockpicks - suspect identified as Alistair Vespucci.
      Detectives arrived on the scene and found a black kamacho that was parked behind the property - R/O Alistair Vepucci
      Later Mr. Vespucci changed his statement and said he was there to check the house if it is for sale or not.
      **Attached Bodycam**
      ((RP of the body cam))
  EVIDENCE DETAILS
  • Document the possessions confiscated from the arrested suspect.
    Possessions are to be documented individually, examples of documented illegal possessions are "Pistol .50" or "12 grams of Cocaine". Legal possessions that can be categorized may be grouped, eg. "Clothing" to describe all clothing items. Body camera footage/pictures may be attached as an evidence exhibit.
    
    Where possible, the serial number of each firearm seized as evidence should be noted.
    • Illegal Possessions:
      Exhibit A: Mask
      Exhibit B: 4 lockpicks
      
      
      Legal Possessions:
      Exhibit A: Clothing - cap, wrist chain, necklace, gloves, watch
      Exhibit B: gps
      Exhibit C: radio
      Exhibit D: water
      
      
      Photograph of Possessions (MANDATORY)

      

• Detailed Reasoning: The defense would like to suppress this arrest report in its entirety. The reasons are as follows.
  • The arrest report references a 911 call alleging a potential break-in. However, the prosecution has not provided a transcript, recording, or verification of the call. Without the transcript or any supporting evidence, the information derived from this 911 call constitutes hearsay and cannot be used as the sole basis for establishing probable cause.
  • The report lists "lockpicks" as illegal possessions. The defendant asserts that these were bobby pins, which are legal and commonly used items. The characterization of these items as "illegal" is both factually incorrect and prejudicial, leading to an improper portrayal of the defendant's actions and intentions.
  • The report references the defendant’s changing explanations about his presence at the property. This speculative narrative lacks corroborating evidence and should not be considered as it unfairly biases the defendant's statements without context.

Exhibit #2: Witness Statement - Police Lieutenant Jonathan Willowick

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Official Witness Statement
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Case Information

• Incident Date: 11/APR/2024

Witness Information

• Name: Jonathan Willowick
  Date of Birth: 09/AUG/1987
  Phone Number: 413-4102
  Occupation: Police Lieutenant II, Los Santos Police Department

Witness Statement

• My time with the Los Santos Police Department, particularly in the Detective Bureau over several years, has exposed me to numerous incidents of car break-ins and home invasions. Almost always when suspects are apprehended at these scenes, they are found with lockpicks in their possession, as well as broken lockpicks scattered around the crime scene doors. Criminals rely on these tools as essential assets for their illicit activities, regardless of the type of lock they aim to breach.

Witness Affirmation

• I, Jonathan Willowick, affirm that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I affirm that this statement has been made voluntarily, made without promise of reward, and made not under threat, force, or coercion. ((I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means.))
  
  Signed,
  
  
  Jonathan Willowick
  Police Lieutenant II
  Los Santos Police Department
  
  Date: 11/APR/2024

• Detailed Reasoning: The defense would like to suppress this exhibit in its entirety. Lieutenant Willowick’s statement does not address the specific facts of the case but instead provides a general overview of lockpicks being used in prior unrelated incidents. This "expert opinion" is irrelevant to the matter at hand, as it does not establish any link between the defendant’s alleged possession of bobby pins and the commission of a crime. The statement is also more prejudicial than probative, as it aims to draw a connection between general criminal behavior and the defendant without any direct evidence.

• Detailed Reasoning: The Prosecution filed its Motion for Discovery on 17/NOV/2024. Opposing counsel is then afforded approximately three (3) days to respond, as per protocol. This response came in the form of a Motion to Suppress filed by Public Defender Bruce Tubby on 22/NOV/2024, five (5) days after the Prosecution's discovery. A day later, on day six (6) following discovery, counsel recuses themselves. Another day later, on day seven (7), counsel filed an amended Motion to Suppress.
  
  The Defense is in breach of procedure by initially filing their Motion to Suppress two (2) days overdue and then filing an amended Motion to Suppress seven (7) days overdue, more than double the time they would normally have been provided to respond. The Defense has had ample time to file their own motions in response to the Prosecution's discovery, and they did so on 22/NOV/2024. The Prosecution requests the presiding judge to dismiss the recent motion on these grounds, similar to how the Prosecution was denied the chance to provide an amended brief in the appeal of #24-AP-0003, State of San Andreas v. Kevin Reyes.
  
  The Prosecution requests that the presiding judge decide on this objection and which motion will be allowed to stand before filing our rebuttal.

The Defense is in possession of photographic evidence depicting how bobby pins appear in the inventory display of the store where the defendant allegedly purchased the items in question. This image is submitted to establish that the items found in the defendant’s possession were bobby pins and not lockpicks, as alleged by the prosecution. The attached photograph demonstrates the visual characteristics of bobby pins as listed and sold in the store inventory, which is material to the defense’s argument that no criminal intent was involved in the defendant’s possession of these items.

The purpose of the discovery is as follows:

The photographic evidence clarifies the appearance of bobby pins in their intended commercial context, supporting the claim that the defendant purchased these items for lawful use.
The Defense contends that the arresting officers misidentified the bobby pins as lockpicks. This evidence is critical in demonstrating the absence of any tools specifically designed for illegal lockpicking activities.
Submitting this evidence ensures transparency and allows the Court to make a fully informed determination regarding the matter.

• Detailed Reasoning: The Defense's discovery, which is incorrectly labeled as it it the Defense's first exhibit and not their sixth, is more prejudicial than probative. The Defense is testifying throughout the entire exhibit, making statements as to the defendant's intentions and motive, which should be reserved for trial and not discovery so as to not sway the judge's perception of the defendant's guilt before trial. The entire statement in the exhibit has no place being part of discovery, as arguments of the nature presented by the Defense should be presented during trial. If the Defense wants to testify and provide a statement to the court, they can get the defendant to provide a witness statement.
  ((Additionally, the "misidentification" of bobby pins as lock picks is nonsensical, as it is the same item.))