True, the D prioritized getting ready for this issue. My point was, the D was on board with the sharing with the P prior to Gull providing the mental health records to the P. Folks were wondering where the D was on this, and why the D didn't object. IMO, they were already on board.
Yes - the defence had already handed a lot of it over by the time of the hearing on the 18th. Gull's order was to require DOC to provide the records directly to the Prosecution.
Volume I, Page 77
23 THE COURT All right. I will take the matter under advisement
24 with all of the respective exhibits that have been admitted. And before you all
25 leave, you have respectively filed - the State filed a motion for leave of Court to
Volume I, Page 78
1 subpoena third party records to the Department of Correction. I've received no
2 objection or motions to quash from the Defense. The Defense filed a notice of
3 discovery, indicating that Mr Allen's medical records, part one and two, had
4 been provided to the State, so does that take care of your request for the medical
5 records?
6 MR. MCLELAND: Judge, no, because I think -- Defense and I had a
7 conversation, we're concerned that the records that were provided to the Defense
8 may not be a complete set of records from the DOC. I found it necessary that we
9 want the complete set of medical and mental health records to address those
10 issues at trial and so that is the reason we subpoenaed the DOC, to make sure
11 we get the complete record from DOC
Rozzi goes on to talk about the state of play on pp 79/80
So basically this discovery was already happening.