Well hopefully Serna is just going on and on and on because he knows Slama's testimony contradicts Chavez's alibi for that day.
I know Serna thinks there is something "wrong" with the evidence the attorney for the civil trial received - maybe only in Serna'a mind, I don't know for sure - so Serna is making a huge deal out of a 'maybe'....??
If Serna thinks he would have asked Slama different questions, recall her!
I still don't get the connection between the civil trial attorney's findings about the stolen truck and why Serna thinks McKay should have told him about some kind of evidence. Seems like a wasted day of listening to ancient case law that probably has no bearing on this trial. Just my two cents...really probably 47 cents! :twocents: