investigator clearly said he didn't expect to be called to testify and he obviously hadn't reviewed any records or anything so why would his recolleciton of a minors NAME be of any relevance to anything. This was about BAIL not the minor witness or how prepared the investigator was. O'Mara was on a fishing expedition and I wouldn't put it past him to try and elicit the minors name from the prosecution witness so he could disclsim liability for it if the investigator did SAY it..pretty sleazy to me to even be questionig what someone's NAME is at a bail hearing...completely irrelevant-should have spent his time finding out about his clients windfall of money, now, that would be relevant at a bail hearing but that he doesn't bother finding out about.
You may be exactly right. In fact, I'm sure MO'M was fishing. That much seems clear.
But as for eliciting the minor's name, when examining a witness about a third-party, I think eliciting that party's name (to insure that you and the witness are taking about the same person) is SOP, don't you think?
Since I don't know O'Mara, I don't see why it's so hard to believe he simply asked for the witness' name out of habit. Especially since he seems to have caught his own error immediately.