Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 43,909
- Reaction score
- 450,890
You are conflating two witnesses. At the 23 minute mark of the video above skye is talking about an 1102 from the new witness 3.
CL or Witness 4 is the witness with immunity from the detention hearing that claims she sold Kouri the fentanyl she asked for. The prosecution never got an official signed 1102 statement from CL like they have for all the other witnesses. Skye said she got the list of 1102s on Monday night and just realized they didn’t get one for CL. The judge seemed to agree this was a major oversight on the prosecutions part and it seemed to be the main reason the prosecution had to delay things.
Witness 3 is a brand new witness that was also in drug court and given similar immunity for their statement saying Kouri asked them for fentanyl. This is the witness that Skye complained about the prosecutors writing up the 1102 statement for them. She didn’t say that about CL from the detention hearing.
I'm not following. My opinion post on the defense strategy is in reference to Count 4 per the Judge, and the parties reference to Witness 4's transcript (defense referred to them by their name during the hearing). This witness (4) was preadmitted from the bond detention hearing (Exhibit 1), and not an 1102 Witness for the prelim hearing .
To my knowledge, we have no reference to Witness 3 and any immunity agreement, and if one exists, please link. Thanks. MOO
From the State's

From the Third Amended Complaint, Count 4:

Last edited: