Eclipse Government

• Detailed Explanation: With the number of charges being contested and the potential lengthy amount of evidence that will be presented, the defense believes that this trial should be done the regular way, via a normal trial. We ask that if this motion is granted that the case remains activate and moves forward as it was planned to avoid any unnecessary delays.

• Case information
  #25-BT-0039, State of San Andreas v. David Vespucci
  case number and name
  
  David Deltoid
  defendant
  
  David Deltoid (self-representation)
  defense attorney

• Case information
  #25-BT-0040, State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran
  case number and name
  
  Nathaniel Luceran
  defendant
  
  Luna McMillan, Vanguard Law
  defense attorney

• Case information
  State of San Andreas v. Carl Valentine
  case number and name
  
  Carl Valentine
  defendant
  
  Jay Wellberg, Assured Law
  defense attorney

• Case information
  #25-BT-0048, State of San Andreas v. Cortez Rivera
  case number and name
  
  Cortez Rivera
  defendant
  
  Public Defender
  defense attorney

• Detailed Explanation: The Prosecution's counsel has only just returned from an extended LOA due to an unexpected accident, and has not been able to work on the case since before its activation. Additionally, this case is one (1) of four (4) cases being tried for the same incident, with two (2) of the cases still pending a decision on a Motion for Change of Venue for a formal trial. These are nearly identical cases, with nearly identical evidence. Providing discovery on the active cases before a decision has been reached on the venue motions risks compromising the Prosecution's case with potential bias and unfair review of the case until they are all ready to receive discovery. As such, the Prosecution requests that discovery be put on hold until a decision has been reached in the other cases and they are all prepared to receive discovery.

• Detailed Explanation: With how late the discovery was provided to us, we are requesting a 72 hour continuance, to allow us to analyze the discovery and post two (2) motions of our own.

• Detailed Reasoning: The defendant (myself) moves to compel the prosecution to produce casefile #187266, which is currently cited as the foundation for Exhibits #1, #2, #3, and #4. These arrest reports contain no independent evidence, and rely entirely upon the absent casefile as a foundation for arrests that happened several months following the alleged incident. Without access to the referenced casefile, the prosecution lacks foundation for these exhibits, rendering them inadmissible.

Entire Exhibit.

• Detailed Reasoning:
  
  Lack of Foundation
  This arrest report consists only of a list of charges and a brief statement of arrest, which took place a significant 145 days following the alleged incident. The “Evidence Locker” section is blank, and no bodycam footage, dashcam footage, photographs, or physical exhibits accompany it. Without supporting evidence, this document is not probative of guilt in any way, shape, or form.
  
  Reliance on Absent Casefile #187266
  The narrative portion of the report states only: “In conclusion to casefile #187266.” The prosecution has not produced this referenced casefile. Without the mentioned casefile, the arrest report relies on hearsay and cannot be cross-examined. It is improper to admit a report that simply points to an absent, undisclosed file.
  
  Prejudicial vs. Probative Value
  The report’s probative value, quite simply, does not exist. It only proves (barely) that an arrest occurred 145 days following the alleged incident, not that any crime was actually committed. By listing this series of severe (wrongful) charges without any attempt at substantiation, the exhibit unfairly prejudices the defendant (myself) by inviting the judge in this case to confuse accusation with proof. Simple rules of evidence: It is required that an exhibit offers more Probative than Prejudicial value, and this exhibit simply does not meet that burden.

Entirety of Each of the Three Exhibits

• Detailed Reasoning:
  
  Irrelevance to the Defendant
  Each report pertains to a different individual. None of the narratives or charges reference the defendant (myself), nor do they establish that he participated in or was an accomplice to the incident at the heart of this case. The fact that other individuals were arrested does not prove the defendant's guilt. To admit these exhibits against him would improperly attempt to establish guilt by association.
  
  Reliance on Absent Casefile #187266
  The narrative portion of the report states only: “In conclusion to casefile #187266.” The prosecution has not produced this referenced casefile. Without the mentioned casefile, the arrest report relies on hearsay and cannot be cross-examined. It is improper to admit a report that simply points to an absent, undisclosed file.
  
  Lack of Foundation
  As with Exhibit #1, these reports are administrative records, not evidence. The “Evidence Locker” fields are marked “N/A” (other than the firearm recovered from Cortez Rivera.) In Exhibit #3, the listed firearm and suppressor were recovered from Mr. Rivera’s vehicle, not the defendant, and are therefore irrelevant to the defendant. These reports establish only that arrests occurred months following the alleged incident, not that crimes were committed by the defendant.
  
  Prejudice vs. Probative Value
  Admission of these reports risks severely prejudicing the fact-finder in this case by presenting multiple charge lists against other individuals as if they substantiate a broad conspiracy. The probative value as to the defendant, myself, is nonexistent. The prejudicial effect, encouraging the judge to convict by association rather than by direct evidence, is substantial and considerable

Will be provided in private due to evidence being under seal.

• Detailed Reasoning: Will be provided in private due to evidence being under seal.

Entire Exhibit

• Detailed Reasoning:
  
  Hearsay and Lack of Foundation
  This exhibit is a media article, not sworn testimony or admissible evidence. It contains unsworn statements by a third party who is neither under oath nor subject to cross-examination. As such, it is classic hearsay.
  
  Irrelevance to the Defendant
  A news agency’s reporting of an event does not prove that the defendant committed any act. Public reporting cannot substitute for evidence of guilt. Admission of this exhibit improperly shifts the trial’s focus to public perception rather than factual proof.
  
  Prejudice vs. Probative Value
  The probative value of a LifeInvader post by an indepedent news agency is nonexistent. It demonstrates only that the media outlet reported on alleged events. The prejudicial effect, however, is significant. It invites the judge to treat press coverage as evidence, encouraging conviction by narrative rather than by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Entire Exhibit

• Detailed Reasoning:
  
  See the above grounds for suppression on Exhibit #7.

Will be provided in private due to evidence being under seal.

• Detailed Reasoning: Will be provided in private due to evidence being under seal.

Entire Exhibit.

• Detailed Reasoning:
  
  Lack of Foundation
  The exhibit is a bare photograph of a door. The prosecution has not established who took the image, when it was taken, or what it is even meant to convey. Without testimony, metadata confirming its origin and accuracy, or an actual reason for providing a picture of a door as evidence, the exhibit lacks foundation and cannot be admitted.
  
  Irrelevance to the Defendant
  The photograph depicts nothing more than the door of an apartment. It does not show the defendant or any criminal activity. At most, it demonstrates that an apartment has a door. I, the defendant, am aware that apartments have doors, and have not attempted to refute this.
  
  Speculative and Prejudicial Use
  The only purpose of this image is to invite the judge to speculate that the location was connected to the alleged crimes. However, the photograph itself provides no evidence of such connection, nor does it establish that the defendant (myself) ever visited, used, or was associated with the apartment. Its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs any probative value... given that we are not attempting to prove/disprove that apartments have exterior doors, which is exceptionally and exceedingly common.

Will be provided in private due to evidence being under seal.

• Detailed Reasoning: Will be provided in private due to evidence being under seal.

Entire Exhibit.

• Detailed Reasoning:
  
  Constitutional Violation
  
  Put simply, this warrant is a violation of the defendant's (my) constitutional 4th amendment right.
  
  The 4th Amendment states:
  “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
  
  The search warrant that led to the prosecution's obtainment of these phone records fails this standard. It authorized seizure of “any evidence of crimes in violation of San Andreas Penal Law Article GM to SF,” encompassing a massive range of offenses without limitation, from a general misdemeanor to a serious felony. Such language constitutes a general warrant, expressly prohibited by the constitutional amendment listed above. The warrant did not “particularly describe” the communications to be seized, but instead granted open-ended authority to search through private records in hopes of uncovering something incriminating. I believe that, in legally-minded circles, this could be called a fishing expedition.
  
  Additionally, the warrant was issued on December 14, 2024. This is nearly four months after the alleged incident on August 18, 2024. This time gap renders the probable cause stale, as the State has not shown why evidence would still reasonably exist in the defendant’s phone records months after the fact. For these reasons, the warrant fails the 4th Amendment’s requirements of both probable cause and specificity, and the evidence obtained from it must be suppressed as fruit from the poisonous tree.
  
  Lack of Authentication
  The prosecution has not authenticated these records. A phone record does not, on its own, prove authorship. Devices may be shared, numbers spoofed, or generally be accessed by others. Without verification linking the texts directly to Mr. Vespucci, Exhibit #16 lacks the foundation required for admissibility.
  
  Ambiguity of the Communications
  Even if authenticated, the conversation is vague and does not reference DOC, a prison break, or terrorism. Phrases such as “Got a few down” and “I think I have 8” have no explicit, clear criminal meaning. To present them as incriminating evidence requires pure speculation.
  
  Prejudice vs. Probative Value
  The probative value of these texts is minimal given their ambiguity as mentioned above. The prejudicial effect is significant, as the judge may be misled into treating language without context as evidence of conspiracy to commit a crime, even without any indicators for this being the case. This prejudice substantially outweighs any probative value.

Entire Exhibit.

• Detailed Reasoning:
  
  This exhibit should be suppressed on the same grounds as Exhibit #16, as the warrant uses the exact same wording. Additionally, the following grounds apply:
  
  Vagueness of Communications
  The defendant’s (my) alleged communications consist of numbers labeled as “binds” or “freqs.” These numbers have no inherent meaning, contain no reference to the SADOC, and make no mention of a prison break, kidnapping, or terrorism. Without context, these communications are meaningless and do not establish any element of the charged offenses.
  
  Disconnect From Charges
  The State has charged the defendant (me) with specific crimes. This exhibit does not show planning of a prison break, the taking of a guard hostage, the use of government equipment, or any of the specific conduct alleged. At most, the exhibit reflects vague discussions about radio frequencies, which are not inherently criminal on their own. If the State would like to prove that any of these radio frequencies were used in commission of the alleged crime, it would then be admissible. As it stands, this has not happened.
  
  To treat these messages as incriminating evidence requires the prosecution (and the judge) to speculate as to their meaning, assuming without evidence that “binds” and “freqs” must be connected to the alleged crimes. Courts have long held that speculative interpretation does not make evidence relevant. Unless the state can directly link these numbers to the breakout, they remain, demonstrably, irrelevant.

Will be provided in private due to evidence being under seal.

• Detailed Reasoning: Will be provided in private due to evidence being under seal.