#24-CM-0092 State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin

Maximilian Fitzgerald
Posts: 290
Joined: 28 Dec 2020, 23:33
ECRP Forum Name: Ash
Discord:

SAJB Awards

#24-CM-0092 State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin

Post by Maximilian Fitzgerald »

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS



  • Docket Number:
    #24-CM-0092
    Date Filed:
    30/DEC/2023
    Violations:
    GF11 - Grand Theft Auto
    WF01 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon
    GM25 - Possession/Unlawful use of Government Equipment
    State of San Andreas

    v.

    Samuel Martin


INDICTMENT


  • THE PROSECUTION CHARGES THAT:
    1. On the 25th of December 2024, at approximately 0128, Detective Martin asserted to a Mr Tommy Bean that he would be taking his Terminus at Pillbox Hospital.
    2. Mr Bean proceeded to lock the door of the vehicle and Detective Martin pointed his government-issued heavy weapon at the individual, placing him under threat of bodily harm and demanded the vehicle be unlocked.
    3. Upon Mr Bean's compliance, Detective Martin entered the vehicle and drove away with an injured Aurora Harrison in the trunk. Detective Martin returned to drop off the injured individual and then departed again with Mr Bean's vehicle.


NOTICE TO RESPOND


  • Notice is given that Samuel Martin is ordered to respond using the Plea Form below between the dates of;
    • 30/DEC/2024
      • and
    • 06/JAN/2025
    Or make contract with the presiding judge;

    For the purpose of an Arraignment.


Failure to comply with this notice may result in additional charges and/or detainment by law enforcement.

  • Samuel Martin you are facing misdemeanor and felony charges for alleged conduct that occurred on or about 25/DEC/2024

    This form will formally read you the charges filed against you. You may plead in one of three ways for each charge:
    • Guilty
      A plea of guilty indicates to the court that you confirm your guilt of the alleged conduct that was in violation of Penal Code. If you plead guilty, the charge and fines will be placed on your record and you will have to turn yourself into law enforcement.
    • Not Guilty
      A plea of not guilty indicates to the court that you dispute the charges being filed against you. If you plead not guilty, preliminary pretrial proceedings will begin and a criminal trial will be scheduled in the near future.
    • No Contest
      A plea of no contest is similar to that of a guilty plea, but indicates to the court that you accept the conviction, with the exception of avoiding a factual admission of guilt. If you plead no contest, the charge and fines will similarly be placed on your record and you will have to turn yourself into law enforcement.
    Before the court can accept a plea of guilty or no contest, you must be advised of your rights in this situation.
    1. You have the right to plead not guilty to any and all of these charges.
    2. You have the right to be represented by counsel at trial and at every other stage of the proceedings.
    3. You have the right to testify and present any evidence of your own in your defense against these charges.
    4. You also have the right to not testify during any of the proceedings in accordance with your right to remain silent.
    5. Please be advised that anything you say or do during the proceedings can and will be used against you by the prosecution.
    Samuel Martin, please be aware that any plea you give must be made voluntarily and of your own volition, and did not result from force, threats, or promises made by any person, with the exception of a Plea Agreement that can be arranged between yourself and the prosecution.

    Count 1 is GF11 - Grand Theft Auto, a felony charge punishable by 60 months of incarceration and a fine of $7,500.

    Count 2 is WF01 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon, a felony charge punishable by 45 months of incarceration and a fine of $3,000.

    Count 3 is GM25 - Possession/Unlawful use of Government Equipment, a misdemeanor charge punishable by 25 months of incarceration and a fine of $1,500.


    The prosecuting is seeking a total of 130 months of incarceration and a total fine of $12,000.

    With all previous information in mind, please make your formal plea using the following form;

Code: Select all

[img]https://i.imgur.com/UM5h3vl.png[/img]
[img]https://i.imgur.com/6h9z9Jh.png[/img]
[divbox=antiquewhite]
[b]Defendant Name:[/b] Firstname Lastname
[b]Defendant Phone:[/b] ###-####
[b]Defendant Address:[/b] Here
[b][color=#0040FF](([/color] Defendant Discord:[/b] Here [color=#0040FF][b]))[/b][/color]
[b]Requested Attorney:[/b] [i]N/A if none[/i]
[/divbox]
[img]https://i.imgur.com/F76nFHB.png[/img]
[divbox=antiquewhite]
[b]On the charge of GF11 - Grand Theft Auto, I am entering a plea as follows:[/b]
[list=none]
[ ] Guilty
[ ] Not Guilty
[ ] No Contest
[/list]

[b]On the charge of WF01 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon, I am entering a plea as follows:[/b]
[list=none]
[ ] Guilty
[ ] Not Guilty
[ ] No Contest
[/list]

[b]On the charge of GM25 - Possession/Unlawful use of Government Equipment, I am entering a plea as follows:[/b]
[list=none]
[ ] Guilty
[ ] Not Guilty
[ ] No Contest
[/list]



[hr][/hr]
I, [b]FIRSTNAME LASTNAME[/b], hereby affirm that this pleading is being made voluntarily and of my own volition, and did not result from force, threats, or promises made by any person, with the exception of a Plea Agreement arranged between myself and the prosecution.
[/divbox]


  • Presiding:

    Image
    Superior Court Judge
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    ☎ 1-000-000
    [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Michael Blaise
Posts: 2407
Joined: 27 Jun 2020, 01:07
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0092 State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin

Post by Michael Blaise »

Image



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. Samuel Martin
#24-CM-0092


A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 30th of December, 2024.


I, Michael Blaise, a Prosecutor with 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.


Image
Lead Prosecutor
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 552-8150 — [email protected]

Image
Image
Maximilian Fitzgerald
Posts: 290
Joined: 28 Dec 2020, 23:33
ECRP Forum Name: Ash
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0092 State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin

Post by Maximilian Fitzgerald »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

SUBPOENA

The applying party is hereby instructed to provide a copy of the Subpoena to the below listed entity. If the opposing party objects to the request, they must still take the appropriate measures to comply with the request up until the point of passing over the evidence. If the objection is successful, the opposing party will not have to provide evidence to the court. However if it is unsuccessful they must produce the evidence within 24 hours to the court.

TO: Pillbox Hospital

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO:
  • Produce the specified physical evidence as detailed below and deliver it to the designated recipient by 18/JAN/2025. The request is in relation to the case of #24-CM-0092.
  • Admission and discharge records from Pillbox MD pertaining to Aurora Harrison on 25/DEC/2024

Image
Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
☎ 1-000-000
[email protected]
DISCLAIMER: Failure to comply with this court order may result in criminal charges, including but not limited to GF25 - Felony Contempt of Court, GM22 - Contempt of Court, GF16 - Tampering with Evidence, GM14 - Obstruction of Justice
Image
Image
Online
User avatar
Samuel Martin
Commander
Posts: 9153
Joined: 25 Oct 2019, 08:15
ECRP Forum Name: HobGoblin
Discord:

LSPD Awards for Service

LSPD Awards for Bravery

SASG Awards

Re: #24-CM-0092 State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin

Post by Samuel Martin »

Image
Image
Defendant Name: Samuel Martin
Defendant Phone: 2576989
Defendant Address: Redacted
(( Defendant Discord: .hobgoblin. ))
Requested Attorney: Work in progress.
Image
On the charge of GF11 - Grand Theft Auto, I am entering a plea as follows:
  • [ ] Guilty
    [x] Not Guilty
    [ ] No Contest
On the charge of WF01 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon, I am entering a plea as follows:
  • [ ] Guilty
    [x] Not Guilty
    [ ] No Contest
On the charge of GM25 - Possession/Unlawful use of Government Equipment, I am entering a plea as follows:
  • [ ] Guilty
    [x] Not Guilty
    [ ] No Contest


I, Samuel Martin, hereby affirm that this pleading is being made voluntarily and of my own volition, and did not result from force, threats, or promises made by any person, with the exception of a Plea Agreement arranged between myself and the prosecution.
Image
Image Police Commander Samuel Martin
Acting Commanding Officer, General Operations Bureau
Los Santos Police Department — "To Protect and to Serve"
ᴊᴜᴍᴘ ᴏᴜᴛ ʙᴏʏs | xxxɪ
User avatar
Michael Blaise
Posts: 2407
Joined: 27 Jun 2020, 01:07
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0092 State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin

Post by Michael Blaise »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Judge Fitzgerald,

    While I am not aware of any specific time limit for a defendant to secure legal representation, I believe it is important to consider the efficient use of state resources, especially given the existing backlog within the San Andreas Judicial Branch. It has been two weeks since the defendant entered a plea of not guilty and stated their attempt in retaining an attorney was a "work in progress". I respectfully request that the court set a firm deadline for the defendant to obtain legal counsel to prevent further delays in these proceedings.

    Thank you for your attention to this matter.

    Image
    Lead Prosecutor
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 552-8150 — [email protected]
Image
Image
Online
User avatar
Samuel Martin
Commander
Posts: 9153
Joined: 25 Oct 2019, 08:15
ECRP Forum Name: HobGoblin
Discord:

LSPD Awards for Service

LSPD Awards for Bravery

SASG Awards

Re: #24-CM-0092 State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin

Post by Samuel Martin »

Honorable Judge Fitzgerald,

I am equally concerned with ensuring a speedy trial as Lead Prosecutor Blaise. I assure you that I have made several attempts with several private attorneys that have for various reasons been unable to work with myself.

This is an on-going pursuit and I'm currently considering a particular candidate, we should have news in a matter of days.

Thank you,
Samuel Martin
Image
Image Police Commander Samuel Martin
Acting Commanding Officer, General Operations Bureau
Los Santos Police Department — "To Protect and to Serve"
ᴊᴜᴍᴘ ᴏᴜᴛ ʙᴏʏs | xxxɪ
User avatar
Michael Blaise
Posts: 2407
Joined: 27 Jun 2020, 01:07
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0092 State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin

Post by Michael Blaise »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Judge Fitzgerald,

    It has now been two weeks since the defendant indicated they would secure legal representation within a matter of days, following the initial two-week notice. I respectfully ask how much longer this matter will be permitted to remain unresolved.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Deputy Attorney General
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 552-8150 — [email protected]
Image
Image
Maximilian Fitzgerald
Posts: 290
Joined: 28 Dec 2020, 23:33
ECRP Forum Name: Ash
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0092 State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin

Post by Maximilian Fitzgerald »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

  • Esteemed Mr. Martin,

    Please provide an update on your status of attempting to acquire a private attorney. If you do not respond within 7 days a public defence attorney will be appointed to you.

    With the Highest Regard,

    Image
    Superior Court Judge
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    ☎ 1-000-000
    [email protected]
Image
Image
User avatar
Jason Steel
Deputy Chief
Posts: 7123
Joined: 21 Dec 2018, 01:21
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

LSPD Awards for Service

LSPD Awards for Bravery

LSSD Awards

SASG Awards

Re: #24-CM-0092 State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin

Post by Jason Steel »

- - - - -
Image

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin
#24-CM-0092

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 7th of February, 2025.
  • I, Jason Steel, a Private Defense Attorney with Assured Law, will be representing the Defendant, Samuel Martin in the underlying case.

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

  • Sincerely,
    Image
    Jason Steel
    Assured Services
    Attorney, Assured Law
    Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue
- - - - -
Image
Image DEPUTY CHIEF Jason Steel
Commanding Officer, Detective Bureau
Los Santos Police Department — "To Protect and to Serve"
Maximilian Fitzgerald
Posts: 290
Joined: 28 Dec 2020, 23:33
ECRP Forum Name: Ash
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0092 State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin

Post by Maximilian Fitzgerald »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

ORDER FOR DISCOVERY


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin
#24-CM-0092

A court order was entered in the above case on the 09th of February, 2025.


The prosecution is hereby ordered to provide all evidence collected and submit it to the Court via Motion for Discovery within seven days. If additional time is needed, the prosecution can file a Motion for Continuance.

Once evidence has been submitted to the official docket the defense can begin filing motions.

So ordered,
Image
Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
☎ 1-000-000
[email protected]
Image
Image
User avatar
Michael Blaise
Posts: 2407
Joined: 27 Jun 2020, 01:07
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0092 State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin

Post by Michael Blaise »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin
#24-CM-0092

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 10th of February, 2025.


The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;


  • Exhibit #2: Meeting with Tommy Bean - Audio, Video, Transcript
    Meeting with Tommy Bean - Audio and Video

    Transcript:

    Michael Blaise (M): The time is December 27th. The time is roughly 4:20 pm. My name is Michael Blaise with SAJB prosecution. Can you state your name for me sir?

    Tommy Bean (T): Tommy Bean.

    M: Okay, thank you. And we are here to discuss an incident that allegedly took place on December 25th at approximately 1:28 am. Go ahead and start, tell me what happened, and give as much detail as you can, please, to start.

    T: To be completely honest, there wasn’t really much that happened. It happened very fast, so there;s not really much to say. I was driving from Paleto Bay to the city, where I then stumbled across a woman, who I believe was Aurora. On my trip to the hospital, it was fine, and then I get to the front doors… I’m trying to remove her from my trunk to go help her see the doctor and Samuel Martin decides to try and step into my vehicle. I lock it. Once I’ve locked it, he aims a firearm at my face, demanding me to unlock it, which I obviously obliged, and then he just takes my vehicle. Yeah, not much to it, that’s kind of everything.

    M: Okay. Did he say anything, like before or during taking your vehicle?

    T: So, during taking the vehicle, he says, I’m gonna paraphrase, He says something along the lines of “Unlock the fucking car, I am taking your vehicle.” Something along those lines.

    M: Alright. Do you know the name of the woman who was in your trunk?

    T: Aurora

    M: You don’t know her last name?

    T: I do, but I’ve just forgot it. The name evades me.

    M: Okay. If that pops back up for you, let me know, please.

    T: I will.


    M: Okay, a couple other questions. So, when he “stole” your vehicle, where was Aurora?

    T: Aurora was in the trunk in the vehicle. I was trying to take her from it and he got in the car. The reason I locked it was because I didn’t know if he knew she was in there but I mean, it’s hard to not know what I’m doing. I pull up to the front of pillbox to try and take someone to see the doctor and my car has been stolen. I’m sure it’s pretty obvious why I was at the front of Pillbox and he still decides to get in and take the vehicle.

    M: Of course, Of course. Did you see him return with Aurora and/or your vehicle?

    T: So, he returned for a split second and said something along the lines of… he either said “get this bitch” or “get this girl out of your car.” She was taken inside by doctors and then he drove away a second time with my vehicle.

    M: Did he return a third time?

    T: He did not return a third time. I had to go and find my vehicle.

    M: Where and when… how much later and where did you find your vehicle?

    T: I found it around 5 minutes later and luckily… I can only assume that he was trying to use it for his own purposes. I saw it parked on the side of the road just down from Pillbox which was just fortunate that, I guess that’s where the scene of the crime ended or ended up. It could have been, you know, the opposite side of the city and I would’ve been without a vehicle for 25 minutes.

    M: Okay. So from the beginning, you arrived at Pillbox with an injured Aurora in your trunk. As you were getting her, Samuel Martin holds you at gunpoint, takes your vehicle, comes back with Aurora, has you take her to the doctor, drives off with your vehicle a second time, leaves it down the road from Pillbox, and that is basically what we know, yeah?



    T: Yes.

    M: Give me a sec, I wanna make sure I don’t have any other questions for you…. And it was never indicated to you that you had a warrant or that he had a lawful reason to take your vehicle, correct?

    T: I had no warrant for my arrest, not at all. I had not interacted with a cop for probably 7 or 8 hours prior to the situation, not even spoken to one in any type of manner. That was my first interaction, and actually my first interaction with Samuel Martin in quite a few weeks, I would say.

    M: One last question. Was he wearing an on-duty uniform or was he off duty?

    T: I am almost certain he was on duty.

    M: What kind of weapon did he point at you?

    T: I believe it was a bullpup rifle, I am not sure though. There is CCTV right outside of Pillbox that I am sure you could probably gather and figure that stuff out.

    M: Was it a heavy weapon or a pistol?

    T: It was a heavy weapon. It was a fully automatic, I believe.

    M: Okay. If it makes it this far, would you be willing to testify in court?

    T: Of course.

    M: Okay. Do you have anything that you wish to add Mr. Bean?

    T: I plead the 5th.
  • Exhibit #3: Meeting with Aurora Harrison - Audio, Video, Transcript
    Meeting with Aurora Harrison - Audio and Video


    Michael Blaise (M): Alright, my name is Michael Blaise with the San Andreas Judicial Branch. The time is roughly 9:05 pm. The date is December 27th. Do you mind stating your name for me please, for the record?

    Aurora Harrison (A): Yeah, okay.

    M: Go ahead and state your name.

    A: Aurora Harrison.

    M: Alright. And we are here to discuss an incident that occurred which I believe you to be a witness to, on December 25th at roughly 1:28 am. Do you remember this incident?

    A: Was it at Pillbox?

    M: It was. If you want to go ahead, go into detail, you can just start from the beginning, and tell me from your side what you witnessed.

    A: Okay. I fell from my… I rammed into a tree in my new car because I was driving a bit fast. Then the guy in the Terminus I guess… He saw me, he picked me up, wanted to bring me to the hospital. We arrived at the hospital. Samuel Martin came out, hands’d this guy to take his car. He took his car, drove me away, then he realized I was in the trunk and he drove me to the hospital.

    M: Okay. Do you recall what you were wearing that day?

    A: I was wearing…. I think a green turtleneck and a pink scarf, but I’m not sure.

    M: Okay. And do you know the identity of the individual who picked you up to take you to the hospital?

    A: Nope. No idea.

    M: Okay. Do you recall what he was wearing?

    A: I think black. I’m not sure.

    M: Okay, a few more questions here. So, you say that he “hands’d” the individual. What does that mean?

    A: He came out of Pillbox with a gun and he said “let me get in your car.” He said “no.” Then he pulled the gun on him and he said “let me get in your car.” And then he said “Alright,” opened the car and Samuel jumped in.

    M: So, to be clear, Samuel pointed a gun at the individual driving…

    A: Yes.

    M: Okay. And then he brought you back to Pillbox. Did you see him drive away again, or did he give the car back, what happened there?

    A: I have no idea, because I was in Pillbox, I just got some painkillers, then I didn’t see him anymore.

    M: Okay. Alright and to your recollection, the person that you identify as Samuel Martin, did he seem to be on duty----

    A: Yes.

    M: ----was he wearing a police uniform?….. You said yes?

    A: Yes, I think so, yeah.

    M: Okay. Fantastic. And the weapon that he pointed at the individual driving the Terminus, was that a heavy weapon, a pistol?

    A: It was a heavy… I think…. A heavy weapon.

    M: A heavy weapon. Okay. Do you have anything else that you would like to add today?

    A: No.

    M: If this was to make it that far, would you be willing to testify in court?

    A: Yes.

    M: And would you be filling to…. Would you be willing, sorry, to fill out an Official Witness Statement form today, if I email it over to you?

    A: Um. Maybe. I’m scared… cause… how do I say this? Im not legal, and I do not know if I can do this.

    M: Well, I’ll tell ya what. I’m going to go ahead and email it to you. I’m going to go ahead and end this----
  • Exhibit #4: Official Witness Statement - Tommy Bean
    Image

    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    Official Witness Statement
    "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
    Case Information
    • Case Number: [Case Number]
      Incident Date: [25/12/2024]
    Witness Information
    • Name: [Tommy Bean]
      Date of Birth: [23/APR/1998]
      Phone Number: [2464095]
      Occupation: [Self Employed]
    Witness Statement
    • [Tommy Bean, this is my official witness statement regarding the situation between Samuel Martin and I at Pilbox hospital. The incident occurred on the 25th December 2024.

      I was driving down to the city to get a new vehicle as I was busy for the evening. Upon my entry into the city I spot a woman laying on the floor and she appeared to be hurt. I decided to help her into my trunk, driving to her to see a doctor as she looked in very bad shape.

      After my arrival, I stepped out of my vehicle attempting to take the Woman inside, Mr Martin tried stepping inside of my vehicle however I locked it which stopped him. He then aimed a very large weapon at my face, which I believe to have been a fully automatic rifle. He demanded I unlocked the vehicle screaming in my face, of course I obliged. He took my vehicle with the very hurt woman in the back of it and took off like nothing happened, eventually driving back to pilbox dropping her off and again driving away with my vehicle in which he had stolen.]
    Witness Affirmation
    • I, [Tommy Bean], 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,

      Image
      [Tommy Bean]
      [Title, if applicable]
      [Organization, if applicable]

      Date: [28/12/2024]

    Image
    Exhibit #5: Official Witness Statement - Aurora Harrison
    Image

    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    Official Witness Statement
    "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
    Case Information
    • Case Number: [Case Number]
      Incident Date: [29/DEC/20024]
    Witness Information
    • Name: [Aurora Harrison]
      Date of Birth: [02/JAN/2000]
      Phone Number: [546-4692]
      Occupation: [/]
    Witness Statement
    • [I injured myself, because i drove with my new car into a tree. This person in the terminus saw that, stopped and picked me up. He drove me to the hospital. As soon as we arrived at pillbox, Samuel Martin, who was at duty i think, came out and told the guy who tried to save me to open his car. First he said no. After that, Samuel Martin pointed a heavy gun on the guy and told him again to open his car. He opend it and got in this car. He drove off with me still in the trunk. I asked him if he is stupid. Samuel martin realised, that i was still in the trunk. so he drove back to pillbox. ]
    Witness Affirmation
    • I, [Aurora Harrison], 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,

      Image
      [Aurora Harrison]
      [Title, if applicable]
      [Organization, if applicable]

      Date: [29/DSEC/2024]

    Image
    Exhibit #6: Aurora Harrison Intake/Discharge Records - Pillbox MD - 12/25/24
    Emilia Thalmer wrote: 07 Jan 2025, 18:12 Image
    Image

    Los Santos Emergency Medical Services

    "One Team, One Mission, Saving Lives"

    Re: Subpoena
    07/JAN/2025

    Greetings,

    We can confirm that Aurora Harrison was provided medical treatment by our emergency room staff on the 25th of December, 2024 around 1:30 AM.

    (( No roleplay was done regarding the injury as it was a civilian self-transport without any involvement from the LSEMS faction. As such, we cannot provide any description of injuries. Logs do not show the specific time the player was revived at the hospital, or which hospital they were revived at. ))
    Kind regards,


    Assistant Chief | Director of Administration
    Los Santos Emergency Medical Services

    Image

Image
Deputy Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 552-8150 — [email protected]
Image
Last edited by Michael Blaise on 11 Feb 2025, 01:44, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Michael Blaise
Posts: 2407
Joined: 27 Jun 2020, 01:07
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0092 State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin

Post by Michael Blaise »

((Audio in Exhibit 1 is to be ignored, due to precedent set in past staff rulings.))
Image
User avatar
Michael Blaise
Posts: 2407
Joined: 27 Jun 2020, 01:07
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0092 State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin

Post by Michael Blaise »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Samuel martin
#24-CM-0092

A Motion to Compel Discovery was filed in the above case on the 10th of February, 2025.


The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Compel Discovery, and requests as follows;


  • Requested Discovery: Defendant's Bodycamera Footage from the Date and Time in Question
    • Detailed Reasoning: The Defendant's Bodycamera Footage would allow us to hear what is said between the victim and defendant, as well as provide a longer point-of-view than the CCTV footage.






Image
Deputy Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 552-8150 — [email protected]

Image
Image
User avatar
Jason Steel
Deputy Chief
Posts: 7123
Joined: 21 Dec 2018, 01:21
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

LSPD Awards for Service

LSPD Awards for Bravery

LSSD Awards

SASG Awards

Re: #24-CM-0092 State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin

Post by Jason Steel »

- - - - -
Image

MOTION TO SUPPRESS


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin
#24-CM-0092

A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 10th of February, 2025.


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


  • Exhibit #6: Aurora Harrison Intake/Discharge Records - Pillbox MD - 12/25/24
    Requested Evidence to Suppress:
    The entirety of the aforementioned exhibit, to wit, entirety of statement by Emilia Thalmer.
    • Detailed Reasoning: The provided record is lacking in probative value and is prejudicial against my client; there are no charges related to any person allegedly sustaining medical injuries, nor is there any allegation that the client caused said injuries; therefore the records are irrelevant to the case at hand, and furthermore, are more prejudicial than probative as they paint an emotional picture (i.e. woman in distress not receiving assistance).

  • Exhibit #1: CCTV Footage - Pillbox MD - 12.25.24
    Requested Evidence to Suppress:
    The entirety of the aforementioned exhibit, to wit, entirety of alleged CCTV recording
    • Detailed Reasoning: The allegation is that an incident occurred on the 25th of December 2024, involving my client; it is wholly unclear how the alleged CCTV recording became available to be introduced into evidence today, on the 10th of February 2025, months later. The chain of custody for the CCTV recording should be submitted alongside it, and include method in which it was obtained, where it was stored, who had access to it and if any altering was done to the footage. In the absence of such records or statements from the prosecution regarding the veracity and provenance of the recording, the evidence could've been altered, replaced or otherwise modified by any third party, therefore making it too compromised for use in court. It is wholly the prosecution's burden to prove that chain of custody is intact, and they have not met this burden for this exhibit.

  • Exhibit #3: Meeting with Aurora Harrison - Audio, Video, Transcript
    Requested Evidence to Suppress:
    Entirety of the out-of-court meeting, including audio, video and transcript.
    • Detailed Reasoning: The Witness, Aurora Harrison, is not making a sworn statement for the court; there are several, and crucial parts of the 'meeting' which show Prosecutor Blaise feed the witness convenient answers, which if made in court, with the opportunity of objections, would've likely been struck as leading. For example, when asking about the other witness, Prosecutor Blaise asks "Do you recall what he was wearing?" [he allegedly being Tommy Bean] however -- when asking about the alleged perpetrator, Prosecutor Blaise asks "was he wearing a police uniform?" this is a clear example of leading a witness into a desired answer, rather than obtaining the facts of the matter. This is repeated several times with planting of "heavy weapon" into the witness' mind and even telling the witness that "Samuel pointed a gun at the individual", rather than asking her to clarify in her own words. I strongly believe that no part of this tainted 'meeting' has any probative value, and is instead highly prejudicial against my client, and is effectively a Prosecutor's Blaise own narrative put into someone else's mouth.



  • Sincerely,
    Image
    Jason Steel
    Assured Services
    Attorney, Assured Law
    Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue
- - - - -
Image
Image DEPUTY CHIEF Jason Steel
Commanding Officer, Detective Bureau
Los Santos Police Department — "To Protect and to Serve"
User avatar
Michael Blaise
Posts: 2407
Joined: 27 Jun 2020, 01:07
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0092 State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin

Post by Michael Blaise »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Docket Notice
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Judge Fitzgerald and pertaining parties,

    The Prosecution presents its rebuttal to the Defense's most recent Motion to Suppress.

    Regarding Exhibit #6: Aurora Harrison Intake/Discharge Records - Pillbox MD - 12/25/24

    The defense argues that the intake/discharge records of Aurora Harrison lack probative value and are prejudicial against the defendant. However, these records are directly relevant to verifying the testimony provided by Ms. Harrison in Exhibit #3. The records simply establish her presence at Pillbox MD on the date and time of the incident, supporting her statement regarding being taken to the hospital by Tommy Bean and later driven back by Samuel Martin after the vehicle theft.

    Additionally, the intake/discharge records are not being introduced to suggest any wrongdoing by the defendant in relation to Ms. Harrison's injuries. Instead, they provide important corroborative evidence that the incident occurred as described by the witness. The probative value of Exhibit #6 far outweighs any potential for prejudice, as it merely serves as a factual record of her presence at the scene in question.


    Regarding Exhibit #1: CCTV Footage - Pillbox MD - 12.25.24

    The defense contends that the chain of custody for the CCTV footage is inadequate, making it inadmissible. However, the Prosecution asserts that this footage was procured directly from Pillbox MD by a supervisory employee of the LSEMS, who then presented it to the Prosecution. If requested by the court, the Prosecution would not be against retrieving confirmation of this from said LSEMS employee.

    The defense’s claim that the footage may have been altered is speculative and unsupported by any evidence. The burden to demonstrate actual tampering lies with the defense once the prosecution provides said evidence. The footage is crucial in providing an unbiased, visual account of the events in question, showing the vehicle theft and supporting the victim's and witness's accounts.



    Regarding Exhibit #3: Meeting with Aurora Harrison - Audio, Video, Transcript

    The defense alleges that the interview with Ms. Harrison was improperly conducted and that the prosecutor (myself) led the witness. These claims are unfounded. The purpose of the interview was to gather preliminary information from a witness to the incident in question. Any questions posed during the meeting were standard investigatory practice, intended to clarify the witness’s account.

    Contrary to the defense's claim, the prosecution did not "plant" answers in the witness's mind. For example, the distinction between asking about Tommy Bean’s clothing and the defendant’s uniform stems from the natural context of the questions. Ms. Harrison identified the individual as Detective Samuel Martin, making knowledge of whether Mr. Martin was on or off-duty extremely relevant, especially as it pertains to the charge of GM25 - Possession/Unlawful use of Government Equipment. An example of a leading question would have been "He was wearing his uniform, was he not?" By definition, the questions asked during this preliminary meeting do not constitute leading in any way, shape or form.

    Additionally, Ms. Harrison confirmed her willingness to testify in court under oath. If the defense takes issue with her recollection or the line of questioning, they are free to cross-examine her during trial. Suppressing the entirety of this exhibit would deny the court access to critical evidence corroborating the timeline of events.



    Respectfully,

    Image
    Deputy Attorney General
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 552-8150 — [email protected]
Image
Image
Image
Maximilian Fitzgerald
Posts: 290
Joined: 28 Dec 2020, 23:33
ECRP Forum Name: Ash
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0092 State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin

Post by Maximilian Fitzgerald »

Image


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 10th day of February, 2025.


Exhibit #1: CCTV Footage - Pillbox MD - 12.25.24
  • The court is inclined to agree with the Prosecution that it is the burden of the defence to substantiate any claim of tampering or a break in the chain of custody, as it is standard practice for courts to deem CCTV footage admissible absent a credible indication to the contrary. However, in light of the Prosecution’s suggestion, the court directs the Prosecution to obtain and file a sworn statement (with affirmation) from the LSEMS employee who retrieved the CCTV footage, detailing (1) how and when it was obtained, (2) who had access to it, and (3) confirming to the best of their knowledge that it was not altered or tampered with. Only after reviewing this sworn statement will the court determine whether Exhibit #1 should be suppressed or admitted; therefore, no final decision is being made on the suppression of Exhibit #1 until that review is complete.


Exhibit #3: Meeting with Aurora Harrison - Audio, Video, Transcript
  • The interview with Ms. Harrison was conducted as part of a preliminary investigation, not as sworn testimony under oath. Investigatory interviews do not have the same evidentiary restrictions as a sworn testimony. Leading questions are discouraged, however, they are not improper within the setting. The way this meeting was conducted and the concerns brought up by the defence do affect the weight of the evidence, however they do not affect the admissibility. As standalone evidence, this holds significantly less weight than a sworn statement or examination under oath, and as the prosecution and Ms Harrison have opened up the witness for cross-examination, the defence does have the ability to cross examine at trial should they wish.

    There were also concerns of prejudice, whilst the court agrees there may be some prejudicial aspects, evidence is only excluded if it's prejudicial impact substantially outweighs it's probative value such as being misleading. The probative value of this evidence is that it can establish a timeline of events, includes direct statements from a witness, and corroborates key aspects of the alleged crime.

    Overall, if the defence believes Ms Harrisons recollection was influenced, they can challenge that at trial rather than this exhibit being suppressed. The defence may put in place a motion to suppress specific aspects of the exhibit should they wish. Therefore, the motion to suppress the entirety of Exhibit #3 is denied.


Exhibit #6: Aurora Harrison Intake/Discharge Records - Pillbox MD - 12/25/24
  • This exhibit has very clear probative value as it corroborates the witness's timeline. The risk of prejudice is minimal and does not outweigh the importance of the document. However, I do wish to clarify and add limitation that the admittance of this exhibit is not evidence of harm caused by the defendant, and is only used to establish the witness's presence at pillbox MD. Therefore, the motion to suppress Exhibit #6 is denied.


Respectfully,

Image
Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
☎ 1-000-000
[email protected]
Image
Image
User avatar
Jason Steel
Deputy Chief
Posts: 7123
Joined: 21 Dec 2018, 01:21
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

LSPD Awards for Service

LSPD Awards for Bravery

LSSD Awards

SASG Awards

Re: #24-CM-0092 State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin

Post by Jason Steel »

- - - - -
Image

Honorable Judge Fitzgerald and pertaining parties,

The Defense presents its rebuttal/thoughts in regards to the below-mentioned exhibit and related motion to suppress.

Exhibit #1: CCTV Footage - Pillbox MD - 12.25.24
  • The Defense agrees that it is up to itself to prove any tampering or break in the chain of custody; however that is wholly impossible when the chain of custody was never provided by the prosecution. As it was submitted initially for entry into the docket, the CCTV footage might as well have fallen from the sky and landed onto the prosecutor's desk. We fully welcome a detailed chain of custody that states clearly and without reservation who obtained the CCTV footage from LSEMS, where it was stored until today (assuming a physical copy), and who had access to the storage location -- this is integral to a complete chain of custody and anything less is unsatisfactory for evidence submitted into a criminal case, in our opinion.
The Defense presents its rebuttal in regards to the below-mentioned Motion to Compel Discovery.

Requested Discovery: Defendant's Bodycamera Footage from the Date and Time in Question
  • The Defense finds the motion to be wholly improper due to the fact that it is in clear violation of my clients 4th and 5th amendment rights.
    Hope Kant wrote: 08 Jan 2025, 20:37Generally, these motions are only submitted by the defense due to the fact that the defendant is afforded the right to remain silent and to not assist in their own prosecution. As such, there are very few things, if any at all, that the prosecution would be entitled to from the defense.
    Furthermore, it has not been established in any reasonable way that my client was even present during the alleged incident; I find it wholly improper to, for all intents and purposes, request evidence of a random person when the only supporting evidence to place them at the scene of an alleged incident is the witness testimony of two individuals, one of which has stated on-record is "not legal" and therefore would have much to gain from implicating the Police Captain.

    If any reasonable evidence exists to implicate my suspect in a crime, a search warrant should be filed by the prosecution with the supporting evidence, and pursued in that manner; absent that evidence, I believe this request is clearly a breach of the 4th amendment rights of my client which protect him against unreasonable searches and seizures.

    Granting this motion to compel discovery would be, in my opinion, a very dangerous precedent and reversal of justice in the state of Los Santos -- to the point where Prosecutors, absent subpoenas or search warrants can simply file an indictment and ask defendants to prosecute themselves.

  • Very Respectfully,
    Image
    Jason Steel
    Assured Services
    Attorney, Assured Law
    Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue
- - - - -
Image
Image DEPUTY CHIEF Jason Steel
Commanding Officer, Detective Bureau
Los Santos Police Department — "To Protect and to Serve"
User avatar
Jason Steel
Deputy Chief
Posts: 7123
Joined: 21 Dec 2018, 01:21
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

LSPD Awards for Service

LSPD Awards for Bravery

LSSD Awards

SASG Awards

Re: #24-CM-0092 State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin

Post by Jason Steel »

Image



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. Samuel Martin
#24-CM-0092

A Motion to Stay Pending Appeal was filed in the above case on the 11th of February, 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 Defense in this case has initiated an appeal within the San Andreas Court of Appeals following the latest Court Decision.



Very Respectfully,
Image
Jason Steel
Assured Services
Attorney, Assured Law
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue
Image
Image
Image DEPUTY CHIEF Jason Steel
Commanding Officer, Detective Bureau
Los Santos Police Department — "To Protect and to Serve"
User avatar
Michael Blaise
Posts: 2407
Joined: 27 Jun 2020, 01:07
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0092 State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin

Post by Michael Blaise »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Docket Notice
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Judge Fitzgerald and pertaining parties,

    The Prosecution recognizes the defense's Motion to Stay Pending Appeal, but would like to rebuttal the defense's most recent rebuttal on the docket, as to ensure the speediness of the trial following the conclusion of said appeal. Please note that the current case in the court of appeals does not apply in any way to the defense's most recent rebuttal.


    Regarding Exhibit #1: CCTV Footage - Pillbox MD - 12.25.24

    The Superior Court has already ruled on this matter, and it is wholly unprecedented for a rebuttal on the docket following the court's decision. As such, the Prosecution will be following the court's initial directive to obtain a sworn statement verifying the admissibility of the evidence, and will not be addressing the defense's argument.


    Regarding Requested Discovery: Defendant's Bodycamera Footage from the Date and Time in Question


    The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to provide testimonial evidence that is self-incriminating, reading "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against themself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." However, body camera footage is not testimonial in nature. It is physical evidence that objectively records events as they occurred. Courts have consistently ruled that physical evidence, such as fingerprints, photographs, or surveillance footage, is not protected under the Fifth Amendment. As such, the request for the defendant’s body camera footage does not violate the defendant's right to remain silent or force them to "assist in their own prosecution." Instead, it should be viewed as physical evidence that the defense team is currently in possession of, and as such, compelling it is wholly lawful and valid.


    The defendant’s Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is not applicable here, as body camera footage generated during the performance of official duties is not private property, but property of the Government Agency that they are employed by. As a law enforcement officer, the defendant has a duty to document and retain such footage per department policy and regulations governing transparency and accountability. This footage, therefore, is not subject to the same expectations of privacy as personal devices or belongings.


    The body camera footage is highly relevant to this case because it would objectively confirm or refute the defendant’s presence at the scene and actions during the alleged incident. The defense’s assertion that "it has not been established in any reasonable way" that the defendant was present at the scene is not only incorrect as shown by every other exhibit submitted by the prosecution, but also only bolsters the need for the footage. As a sworn officer, if the defendant was performing his duties on the night in question, it is reasonable and expected that his body camera would contain footage relevant to the incident.

    Moreover, the defense's claim that this request amounts to an unreasonable search of a "random person" is disingenuous. Samuel Martin has been identified by multiple witnesses and CCTV footage as the individual involved in the alleged Grand Theft Auto while on duty, wearing a police uniform, and carrying a heavy weapon. The body camera footage would serve to either corroborate or disprove these allegations, making it critical to the case.


    Probable cause exists based on the witness testimony of Aurora Harrison, Tommy Bean, and the CCTV footage, which all place the defendant at the scene of the incident and identify him as the alleged perpetrator. While the defense may dispute the credibility of the witness testimony, such disputes are a matter for trial, not a basis for withholding objective evidence.


    The defense’s reliance on the notion that only the defense can file motions to compel discovery is legally flawed. Prosecutors are entitled to seek discovery of relevant evidence, provided it is within the bounds of constitutional protections. The defendant’s body camera footage falls squarely within these parameters.


    Granting this motion does not create a "dangerous precedent." On the contrary, denying the motion would shield law enforcement officers from accountability and undermine the public’s trust in the judicial process. Body camera footage is not private property but a tool designed for transparency and accountability. Allowing this footage to be withheld without justification would be a reversal of justice, not the request itself.

    As such, the Prosecution will continue to request that the Motion to Compel Discovery be upheld.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Deputy Attorney General
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 552-8150 — [email protected]
Image
Image
User avatar
Jason Steel
Deputy Chief
Posts: 7123
Joined: 21 Dec 2018, 01:21
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

LSPD Awards for Service

LSPD Awards for Bravery

LSSD Awards

SASG Awards

Re: #24-CM-0092 State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin

Post by Jason Steel »

- - - - -
Image

  • Honorable Judge Fitzgerald and pertaining parties,

    The Defense presents its thoughts in regards to the latest rebuttal.

    Exhibit #1: CCTV Footage - Pillbox MD - 12.25.24
    The defense is unsure if Prosecutor Blaise has perhaps not read His Honor's court decision in full, but at the end of the decision, in quite highlighted text, the following is seen.
    Maximilian Fitzgerald wrote: 11 Feb 2025, 00:08no final decision is being made on the suppression of Exhibit #1 until that review is complete.
    Therefore, the defense finds our thoughts to be completely acceptable within court norms, and if anything, the defense is in agreement that if a proper chain of custody was provided, we would not further object to the introduction of the footage.

    Regarding Requested Discovery: Defendant's Bodycamera Footage from the Date and Time in Question

    The Prosecution's interpretation of the 5th amendment does not line up with their employers as seen in the prior submission. I find it very concerning that in this case and only in this case, the prosecution is using extraordinary means to try to compel a defendant to provide evidence against themselves. I have been unable to find a single instance of a person with a body camera, while being a defendant in a criminal trial, be forced to hand over his body camera through a motion to compel discovery, highlighting just how unorthodox this request really is.

    Prosecutor Blaise then seemingly speaks against his own petition by stating that the footage is not private property but the property of the government agency that he works for. If that is the case, then the motion to compel discovery is even more questionable as the government agency is not a party to this case, and my client can not give over what is not in his possession or what is not his property.

    I believe that in trying to force an unorthodox and unprecedented motion, the prosecution shows just how flawed the motion has become; if the alleged footage is the private property of my client, then, the prosecution should seek a search warrant to obtain it and not breach the 4th and 5th amendment rights of my client; if the alleged footage is the property of the Los Santos Police Department, then the prosecution should file a subpoena to obtain it from the police department. Either way you slice it, this motion to compel discovery is the incorrect motion to file.

    Furthermore, I vehemently challenge the notion that the prosecution has shown in any believable way that my client is involved in the subject of the indictment, the witness testimony was made by two individuals with a personal interest in seeing the Police Captain in legal woes, and the CCTV footage is currently the subject of a motion to suppress that was not granted nor denied, therefore, should not be used as a factor.

  • Very Respectfully,
    Image
    Jason Steel
    Assured Services
    Attorney, Assured Law
    Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue
- - - - -
Image
Image DEPUTY CHIEF Jason Steel
Commanding Officer, Detective Bureau
Los Santos Police Department — "To Protect and to Serve"
User avatar
Michael Blaise
Posts: 2407
Joined: 27 Jun 2020, 01:07
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0092 State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin

Post by Michael Blaise »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Docket Notice
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Judge Fitzgerald and pertaining parties,

    Exhibit #1: CCTV Footage - Pillbox MD - 12.25.24

    The Prosecution has certainly read the entirety of the court's decision, including the line quoted by the defense, along with the lines above it that the defense ignored which provide a clear directive from the judge. To be clear, the Prosecution simply stated its intent to follow this directive. Again, a court decision was reached. Rebuttals on this matter at this juncture are, put simply, quite pointless as the Prosecution attempts to fulfill this requirement set forth by the presiding judge.



    Regarding Requested Discovery: Defendant's Bodycamera Footage from the Date and Time in Question

    Respectfully, the Prosecution finds the Defense’s argument unclear and inconsistent. In the same rebuttal, they claim that the Prosecution has taken "extraordinary measures" by filing a motion to compel discovery, while simultaneously suggesting that the Prosecution should pursue additional steps, such as requesting a subpoena or search warrant. Notably, the defense has acknowledged the Prosecution's point that the Bodycamera Footage is the property of the state, nullifying their own argument invoking the defendant's 4th and 5th amendment rights. Perhaps the defense would be happy to know that the Prosecution currently has a pending subpoena request alongside the Motion to Compel Discovery, although this is unlikely to motivate them to refrain from continuing to argue against clear evidence on the docket.

    Furthermore, the Defense continues to assert that witness testimony is invalid due to an alleged personal bias against the defendant. However, they have failed to provide any evidence to substantiate this claim. Based on the evidence presented by the Prosecution, and the absence of any evidence to the contrary from the Defense, the Prosecution has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was present at the scene of the incident.

    The Prosecution maintains confidence in its prior rebuttal and sees no need to engage in further discourse on the docket. We await the presiding Judge's decision.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Deputy Attorney General
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 552-8150 — [email protected]
Image
Image
User avatar
Jason Steel
Deputy Chief
Posts: 7123
Joined: 21 Dec 2018, 01:21
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

LSPD Awards for Service

LSPD Awards for Bravery

LSSD Awards

SASG Awards

Re: #24-CM-0092 State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin

Post by Jason Steel »

- - - - -
Image

DEPOSITION REQUEST


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin
#24-CM-0092

A Deposition Request was filed in the above case on the 12th of February, 2025.
  • The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Deposition Request, designating the following list of individuals as requested deponent, who we wish to be formally deposed.

    Name of Deponent:
    Aurora Harrison
    Relevance to the case:
    Aforementioned individual is a witness to the events alleged to have occurred in the indictment, and therefore is in a position to offer probative information important to the defense.


    Name of Deponent:
    Tommy Bean
    Relevance to the case:
    Aforementioned individual is a witness to the events alleged to have occurred in the indictment, and therefore is in a position to offer probative information important to the defense.


    Name of Deponent:
    Emilia Thalmer
    Relevance to the case:
    Aforementioned individual has provided a written account regarding intake of one of the witnesses, and therefore is in a position to offer probative information important to the defense.



  • Sincerely,
    Image
    Jason Steel
    Assured Services
    Attorney, Assured Law
    Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue
- - - - -
Image
Image DEPUTY CHIEF Jason Steel
Commanding Officer, Detective Bureau
Los Santos Police Department — "To Protect and to Serve"
User avatar
Jason Steel
Deputy Chief
Posts: 7123
Joined: 21 Dec 2018, 01:21
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

LSPD Awards for Service

LSPD Awards for Bravery

LSSD Awards

SASG Awards

Re: #24-CM-0092 State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin

Post by Jason Steel »

- - - - -
Image

SUBPOENA REQUEST


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin
#24-CM-0092

A Subpoena Request was filed in the above case on the 12th of February, 2025.


The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, respectfully requests the issuance of a subpoena for the following documents and/or testimony:

  • Documents/Information Requested: Collection of facts, pictures and other evidence of Aurora Harrison's affiliation with a criminal organization. (colloquially known as a 'casefile')
    • Purpose/Reasoning for Subpoena: The witness' membership in a criminal organization is an important fact to settle when she is one of two people naming a Gang Enforcement Officer (i.e. person who professionally suppresses gang activity) as guilty of a serious crime; this question was also opened by the witness herself, in exhibit #3 when she expressed doubt about filling a witness testimony form because 'she is not legal', and further brought into question by Prosecutor Blaise, when he stated that we have yet to prove any bias from the witnesses.
      Prosecution wrote:Furthermore, the Defense continues to assert that witness testimony is invalid due to an alleged personal bias against the defendant. However, they have failed to provide any evidence to substantiate this claim.

  • Documents/Information Requested: Collection of facts, pictures and other evidence of Tommy Bean's affiliation with a criminal organization. (colloquially known as a 'casefile')
    • Purpose/Reasoning for Subpoena: The witness' membership in a criminal organization is an important fact to settle when he is one of two people naming a Gang Enforcement Officer (i.e. person who professionally suppresses gang activity) as guilty of a serious crime; this question was also opened by Prosecutor Blaise, when he stated that we have yet to prove any bias from the witnesses.
      Prosecution wrote:Furthermore, the Defense continues to assert that witness testimony is invalid due to an alleged personal bias against the defendant. However, they have failed to provide any evidence to substantiate this claim.




  • Sincerely,
    Image
    Jason Steel
    Assured Services
    Attorney, Assured Law
    Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue
- - - - -
Image
Image DEPUTY CHIEF Jason Steel
Commanding Officer, Detective Bureau
Los Santos Police Department — "To Protect and to Serve"
User avatar
Jason Steel
Deputy Chief
Posts: 7123
Joined: 21 Dec 2018, 01:21
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

LSPD Awards for Service

LSPD Awards for Bravery

LSSD Awards

SASG Awards

Re: #24-CM-0092 State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin

Post by Jason Steel »

- - - - -
Image

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin
#24-CM-0092

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 12th of February, 2025


Defendant, Samuel Martin, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;


  • Exhibit #1: Witness Statement from Police Lieutenant II Elise Cavallera
    Witness Statement - Lieutenant II Elise Cavallera
    Elise Cavallera wrote: 31 Dec 2024, 01:16 Image

    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    Official Witness Statement
    "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
    Case Information
    • Incident Date: 25/DEC/2024
    Witness Information
    • Name: Elise Cavallera
      Date of Birth: 15/MAY/1993
      Phone Number: 287-3081
      Occupation: Police Lieutenant II, Los Santos Police Department
    Witness Statement
    • 3-K-2 Elise Cavallera was in J-TAC regarding a massive LEO vs Criminal shootout at the Terminal by the Merryweather Docks. As there were multiple suspects who kept interfering with the units transporting injured towards MD, Elise Cavallera was in her patrol vehicle, patrolling in the near by areas. During one of the said patrols, Samuel Martin called out that he is being surrounded and shot at by multiple suspects by Legion Square, he also stated that another Detective was also being shot at but he was no longer responding to his inquiries over the TAC.

      Elise Cavallera and Bill Breacher responded to the location and upon arriving, Samuel Martin was injured on the floor by the entrance to the Underground garage by Legion Square with one unknown suspect on San Andreas shooting at him with heavy weapon. Elise Cavallera dismounted and fired few shots at the said suspect and then his vehicle as he entered it and drove off. Elise Cavallera then got back into her vehicle and drove to Samuel Martin where Bill Breacher started assisting him with BLS, Martin called out to us that there was a female ( Lacey Vincero ) with heavy weapons hiding behind the tree, to which Elise Cavallera spotted her and neutralized her.

      Breacher then transported Martin to the hospital and dropped him off. Elise Cavallera stayed on the location where Samuel Martin was injured when two additional suspects arrived and started shooting Elise Cavallera in her back with Heavy weapons, hitting her multiple times. Elise Cavallera turned around and noticed them as they were running towards her while shooting at her, so she decided to run inside the Underground parking garage to save her life where she was holding the entrance to it while Breacher and Martin rushed to assist her. Breacher and Martin scared the suspects away as they arrived back to the Underground parking, saving Elise Cavallera as her duty vest was compromised after taking multiple heavy weapon shots to it, with some of the bullets piercing through it.

      Breacher then focused on the Lacey Vincero, he first detained her and then started treating her, she was taken to Upper Pillbox without any further incursions by the remaining suspects. Upon searching the area to where Samuel Martin's cruiser was and where Samuel Martin and his partner Detective originally got shot at, we found a deceased Detective.

      My bodycam recording should be in the system
    Witness Affirmation
    • I, Elise Cavallera, 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,

      Elise Cavallera
      Elise Cavallera
      Police Lieutenant II Elise Cavallera
      Los Santos Police Department

      Date: 31/DEC/2024

    Image

  • Exhibit #2: Arrest Report for Lacey Vincero
    Arrest Report - Lacey Vincero
    Bill Breacher wrote: 25 Dec 2024, 02:22 Image
    Image

    Los Santos Police Department

    ARREST REPORT
    "TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"


    MUGSHOT
    • SUSPECT DETAILS
      • Full Name: Lacey Vincero
        Phone Number: 2486037
        Licenses Suspended: No
        Officers Involved:
        • Police Captain II Bill Breacher
        Charges:
        • WM02 - Possession of a Class 1 Firearm
        • WF03 - Possession of a Class 2 Firearm
        • WM05 - Possession of Body Armor as a Felon
        • DM04 - Possession of a Controlled Substance while Armed
        • WM03 - Criminal Use of Weapon Modifications
      INCIDENT NARRATIVE
      • Incident Date: 24/DEC/2024

        Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
        • Captain Martin called for backup at Legion Square on Elgin Ave due to getting shot at by gang members. Upon arrival, Captain Martin was injured and the hostiles had fled, however, one injured hostile was injured on the ground. I disarmed and treated the suspect, which turned out to be Lacey Vincero. Lacey was found to have multiple weapons on them, along with some drugs and body armor. Upon checking the weapons for signs of being fired, I found no evidence they were shot or used, so only charges for possession were placed.
      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: Heavy Rifle
          Exhibit B: Pistol .50
          Exhibit C: Extended Clip
          Exhibit D: Suppressor x 2
          Exhibit E: Weapon Grip
          Exhibit F: Weapon Scope
          Exhibit G: Body Armor
          Exhibit H: Marijuana Blunt x1
          Exhibit I: Crack x1
          Exhibit J: Mask


          Legal Possessions:
          Exhibit A: GPS, Radio, Bag, Gloves

          Photograph of Possessions (MANDATORY)
          Image

  • Sincerely,
    Image
    Jason Steel
    Assured Services
    Attorney, Assured Law
    Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue
- - - - -
Image
Image DEPUTY CHIEF Jason Steel
Commanding Officer, Detective Bureau
Los Santos Police Department — "To Protect and to Serve"
User avatar
Jason Steel
Deputy Chief
Posts: 7123
Joined: 21 Dec 2018, 01:21
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

LSPD Awards for Service

LSPD Awards for Bravery

LSSD Awards

SASG Awards

Re: #24-CM-0092 State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin

Post by Jason Steel »

- - - - -
Image

SUBPOENA REQUEST


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Samuel Martin
#24-CM-0092

A Subpoena Request was filed in the above case on the 12th of February, 2025.


The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, respectfully requests the issuance of a subpoena for the following documents and/or testimony:

  • Documents/Information Requested: A complete list of firearms that Police Captain Samuel Martin is permitted to possess and use as part of his duties with the Los Santos Police Department.
    • Purpose/Reasoning for Subpoena: My client is accused of unlawfully possessing Government Equipment; therefore, a list of equipment, to wit, firearms that he is lawfully allowed to use with the Los Santos Police Department is extremely relevant and has probative value.

  • Documents/Information Requested: The number of vehicles impounded by Los Santos Police Department officers without the owner being subject to arrest.
    • Purpose/Reasoning for Subpoena: My client is accused of unlawfully taking a vehicle without consent, and without the owner being subject to arrest. The aforementioned document(s) aim to show that this is a regular occurrence in the state of Los Santos, and charging only my client would be selective prosecution; in direct violation of the 14th Amendment.




  • Sincerely,
    Image
    Jason Steel
    Assured Services
    Attorney, Assured Law
    Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue
- - - - -
Image
Image DEPUTY CHIEF Jason Steel
Commanding Officer, Detective Bureau
Los Santos Police Department — "To Protect and to Serve"
Locked

Return to “SAJB - Archived Formal Criminal Cases”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 0 guests