United States vs. Hermann Emerson

[John Ricci]

---

DEFENSE WITNESS LIST

Your Honor,

The Defense respectfully submits a witness list as follows:

• Special Agent Mike Kelly

FBI agent conducting the sting operation, from the setup to the actual alleged deal, as well as the search/arrest and seizures of Mr. Emerson.

Respectfully submitted,

Attorney-at-Law

[Mike Kelly]

---

Your Honor,

The Prosecution currently has no witness list to provide to the court. Special Agent Mike Kelly is the only eyewitness with direct knowledge of the events at issue from beginning to end.

Respectfully submitted,

Mike Kelly
Special Agent
Federal Bureau of Investigation


May 8th, 2026

[John Ricci]

---

PROSECUTION WITNESS CROSS-EXAMINATION

Your Honor,

Below is the submission of the questions for Mr. Mike Kelly, witness of the prosecution.
Special Agent Kelly, please answer with a yes or no:

1. Agent Kelly, the alleged controlled purchase involved two AK47 cases, correct?
2. That alleged controlled purchase did not involve narcotics, RPG cases, sniper cases, spike strips, or police scanners, correct?
3. Those other items were allegedly recovered later during the search, correct?
4. You personally logged the items listed in Exhibit C, correct?
5. Did any other FBI agent verify the exact quantities listed in Exhibit C before this case was filed?
6. In the original filing, the Bureau presented the charges with multipliers of 7, 8, 3, and 5, correct?
7. Those multipliers added up to twenty-three, correct?
8. In that same original filing, the Bureau requested fifteen years of imprisonment and a ten million dollar fine, correct?
9. The Bureau later clarified that this case proceeds as four main charges, correct?
10. Since that clarification, has the Bureau submitted any reduced punishment recommendation to reflect the four-charge structure?

Respectfully submitted,

Attorney-at-Law

[Mike Kelly]

---

Your Honor,

I respectfully state that I will not be answering the submitted questions, as permission for such questioning has not been granted by the Court. Furthermore, this matter has already been sufficiently addressed before the Court, and I respectfully submit that these proceedings should now be brought to a conclusion in the interest of judicial efficiency and final resolution of the case.

Respectfully submitted,

Mike Kelly
Special Agent
Federal Bureau of Investigation


May 10th, 2026

[Steve Lloyd]

State of San Andreas
First Judicial District Court
United States Courthouse
3321 Downtown Avenue, Los Santos, San Andreas

---

United States of America
v.
Hermann Emerson

CASE # CV-173
HONORABLE TRIAL JUDGE PRESIDING:
Steve Lloyd

The Court has reviewed the Defense's cross-examination questions and Agent Kelly's refusal to respond. Special Agent Kelly is reminded that he has been listed as a witness by the Defense. Also the court reminds Mr. Kelly that he is under the oath.

Violation of oath & pejury

U.S. CODE TITLE VI
CRIMES INVOLVING PERSONS

(C) Violation of oath and perjury
(1) Any person which fraudulently and knowingly violates an oath, whether it is an oath to speak the truth or an oath of office, shall be imprisoned for no less than 5 years and no more than 10 years;

Failure to comply will be treated as contempt of court and may result in a final verdict from me. The prosecution has 48 hours to respond back.

Signed,
Honorable Trial District Judge Steve Lloyd

[Mike Kelly]

---

Your Honor,

1. Defense: Agent Kelly, the alleged controlled purchase involved two AK47 cases, correct?
Kelly: Correct.

2. Defense: That alleged controlled purchase did not involve narcotics, RPG cases, sniper cases, spike strips, or police scanners, correct?
Kelly: Correct. Those items were recovered separately during the processing.

3. Defense: Those other items were allegedly recovered later during the search, correct?
Kelly: Correct.

4. Defense: You personally logged the items listed in Exhibit C, correct?
Kelly: Correct.

5. Defense: Did any other FBI agent verify the exact quantities listed in Exhibit C before this case was filed?
Kelly: The evidence was processed pursuant to Bureau procedure. The recovered items themselves remained unchanged.

6. Defense: In the original filing, the Bureau presented the charges with multipliers of 7, 8, 3, and 5, correct?
Kelly: Correct.

7. Defense: Those multipliers added up to twenty-three, correct?
Kelly: Numerically, correct. However, those figures reflected charge applications across overlapping jurisdictions, not twenty-three separate underlying criminal acts.

8. Defense: In that same original filing, the Bureau requested fifteen years of imprisonment and a ten million dollar fine, correct?
Kelly: Correct.

9. Defense: The Bureau later clarified that this case proceeds as four main charges, correct?
Kelly: Correct. The case proceeded on four underlying charges from the outset. The numerical figures previously referenced represented evidentiary quantities and charge applications, which had already been explained before.

10. Defense: Since that clarification, has the Bureau submitted any reduced punishment recommendation to reflect the four-charge structure?
Kelly: No. The requested penalties were already based upon the same four underlying charges later clarified before the Court.

Respectfully submitted,

Mike Kelly
Special Agent
Federal Bureau of Investigation


May 11th, 2026

[John Ricci]

---

DEFENSE CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

The Defense asks the Court to look at this case as it stands today, not as it was first presented by the Bureau.

At first, the Bureau presented this case with multipliers that made it look like twenty-three counts. It also asked for fifteen years in prison and a ten million dollar fine. Since then, the Court has clarified that this case is about four charges only. The Court also suppressed the confession and confirmed that only the original Exhibit C inventory may be used.

That changes considerably this case.

The Defense is not asking the Court to ignore the evidence. The Defense is asking the Court to be careful with it. There is no confession anymore. There is no corrected inventory anymore. There is no twenty-three-count case anymore. What remains is a much narrower case than the one the Bureau first tried to present.
Despite that, the Bureau still asks for the same extreme punishment: fifteen years in prison and a ten million dollar fine. That is not fair or proportionate.

Under common-law principles, similar cases should be treated in a similar way. We have cases such as State v. Ashri ElZahar, State v. Kyle Kray, and State v. Miguel Escobar which all involved much more severe crime counts and larger contraband seizures, yet resulted in sentences around ten to twelve years and much lower fines than this case. Here, the Bureau asks for even more, even though this case is much narrower than the ones mentioned.

For these reasons, the Defense asks this Court to return a verdict of NOT GUILTY and find in favor of Mister Emerson.

In the alternative, if the Court finds any violation proven, the Defense asks that any punishment be compatible with the case as it is now: four charges, the original Exhibit C inventory only, no confession, and no twenty-three-count presentation. Any sentence should therefore be far below the Bureau’s request, and any fine should not exceed $1,000,000.

Respectfully submitted,

John Ricci
Attorney-at-Law

[Mike Kelly]

---

PROSECUTION CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

The Defense asks this Court to focus on what changed procedurally throughout this case. The Prosecution asks the Court to focus on what never changed: the physical evidence recovered from the defendant.

From the very beginning of this investigation, the Bureau recovered a substantial quantity of illegal and highly dangerous contraband from Mister Emerson. As reflected in Exhibit C, bureau recovered not merely isolated unlawful items, but a significant collection of weapon related equipment and criminal materials demonstrating clear and deliberate unlawful possession and distribution activity. The Defense attempts to minimize this matter by narrowing its language to “four charges,” yet the seriousness of those charges is defined by the volume and nature of the evidence supporting them.

The Court’s prior rulings did not erase the physical evidence. The suppression of the confession does not make the recovered contraband disappear. The clarification regarding charge structure does not alter what agents physically recovered during the search. The Court itself already ruled that the Prosecution adequately clarified the charge structure and denied dismissal on that basis.

The Defense repeatedly characterizes this matter as a “much narrower case.” Respectfully, there is nothing narrow about the quantity of contraband reflected in Exhibit C. There is nothing narrow about the recovery of military grade weapon cases, narcotics, scanners, spike strips, and additional unlawful materials recovered from the defendant’s possession. The evidence before this Court remains overwhelming.

Furthermore, the Bureau’s sentencing recommendation was never based upon “twenty-three separate crimes,” as the Defense attempts to imply. The recommended penalties were always tied to the same four underlying criminal charges now clarified before the Court. Those recommendations were proportionate then, and they remain proportionate now. In fact, considering the quantity and seriousness of the recovered evidence, the requested sentence can hardly be described as excessive.

Most importantly, this case can no longer reasonably result in a finding of not guilty. The physical evidence exists independently of any confession. It was recovered, documented, presented before the Court, and remains unrebutted in substance. The Defense has attacked formatting, structure, and procedure, yet it has failed to provide any credible explanation for the unlawful materials recovered from the defendant’s possession.

At this stage, the facts are clear. The evidence is clear. The violations are clear. This matter has already been thoroughly litigated and clarified before the Court, and the Prosecution respectfully submits that it is now time for this case to reach its proper conclusion.

For those reasons, the Prosecution respectfully requests that the Court return a verdict of GUILTY on all applicable charges and impose the previously requested sentence and financial penalties.

Respectfully submitted,

Mike Kelly
Special Agent
Federal Bureau of Investigation

May 14th, 2026

[Steve Lloyd]

State of San Andreas
First Judicial District Court
United States Courthouse
3321 Downtown Avenue, Los Santos, San Andreas

---

United States
v.
Hermann Emerson

CASE # CV-173
HONORABLE TRIAL JUDGE PRESIDING:
Steve Lloyd

The First Judicial District Court recognises this Federal case as submitted by Special Agent Mike Kelly on behalf of Federal Bureau of Investigations. Let it be recognised that the court has assigned this case ID # CV-167. The evidence provided in the initial documentation provided by the federal prosecution against Mr. Hermann Emerson, henceforth the Defendant, is deemed as sufficient and removes any possibility for summary dismissal.

I. FINDINGS

The evidence provided in the initial documentation provided by the state prosecution against Hermann Emerson, henceforth the Defendant, has been reviewed and has found it sufficient enough to proceed with the charges against the Defendant. The court finds Mr. Emerson GUILTY.

The Court finds Mr. Hermann Emerson to be in violation of the following state and federal law(s), as outlined by the Plaintiff:

• USC Title VII (E) Controlled Items

  (7) Any person convicted under this subsection shall be imprisoned for no less than 1 year and no more than 20 years, fined as determined by the District Court, and have all controlled items seized.
• SA-PSC § VI.1. Possession of Illegal Narcotics and Drug-Related Items
• SA-PSC § VI.2. Weapons, Explosives, and Military Equipment
• SA-PSC § VI.3. Miscellaneous Illegal Items and Surveillance Equipment

II. RULING

The court places the settlement as:

• The defendant be sentenced to a minimum of 15 years of imprisonment ((15 minutes));
• The defendant be fined $10,000,000.

*Bangs his gavel*

Signed,
Honorable Trial District Judge Steve Lloyd