Judge Is PISSED OFF At Lawyer AND WITNESS GOES MISSING

Added: 2026-06-02

[00:00:03][music] >> What does the court call the case?

[00:00:04]People versus Corey Folk.

[00:00:09]>> I'm lawyer Yaghoubi, assistant public defender with and on behalf of Corey Folk, who's approaching. Could you say your name for the record?

[00:00:14]>> Corey Folk.

[00:00:18]>> Starting time set for preliminary examination, are you ready to proceed?

[00:00:23]>> People are ready to proceed, Your Honor.

[00:00:24]>> Um no, Your Honor. Um if I may be heard, um I know we had a bench conference about this case. Um and um just to put on the record, I indicated that um I felt given the voluminous discovery in this case, I felt unprepared to proceed to exam today, especially given the nature of the charge and the people's representations and just how much discovery there is and how complicated this case is. And as I was sorting through the discovery earlier today, I realized that the the witness will intend call today was interviewed by police and it was recorded. Um and that was not disclosed to either side. Um my position is, Your Honor, that it is a discovery violation under 6.201, recorded statement pertaining to a lay witness, um that is mandatory disclosure. And I looked up some case law where there's support for some sort of remedy, which includes either precluding the witness from testifying um or giving the defense an opportunity to review the discovery beforehand. So, I would either ask that the court prohibit the witness from testifying because we don't have the recorded interview with police.

[00:01:45]And I should note also the police actually implicate the witness.

[00:01:49]I I think based on the notes that are there in terms of what actions the witness may or may not have taken, their motive, their credibility as it relates to the actual allegation, which is of the utmost important in this type of case, the credibility and the reason why they're testifying if they're subject to any criminal charges themselves based on their actions or inactions. Um And my position is either >> making your argument that's violation or you saying that the people knew?

[00:02:23]>> Well, your honor, they should have known. And if they >> Well, are you saying they knew?

[00:02:28]>> I don't know whether they knew.

[00:02:30]But it is mandatory disclosure and it's the officer in charge of the investigation, I think.

[00:02:39]>> Go ahead with your argument.

[00:02:40]>> So, um again, there's a recorded statement with a police officer. Neither side has um under People v. Jackson, 292, 583, um as well as related case law, and let me >> And that there's an interview with this individual, correct?

[00:03:04]>> That's correct, your honor.

[00:03:05]There is not an indication or report of that interview where that interview was ever recorded.

[00:03:11]>> Well, if I may, one of the indicators that sort of flagged my attention is why did they go to his house but have him go to their patrol car to do the interview?

[00:03:23]>> Then why didn't any attorney prior to you ask the people for that information?

[00:03:29]Why at this last minute do you come forward trying to indicate that there's some violation and some penalty that should be attributed to the people?

[00:03:38]Where were your attorneys before now?

[00:03:43]>> I I can't answer that at this time, but what I can say is I I did reach out to the people yesterday. I sent two emails about this case. I didn't get any response. So, even if not for any other reason other than at least And again, yesterday was a holiday. Like, none of us were required to work. So, I I'm not faulting Mr. Cook. I'm not faulting the people for that. But, I think that it is at this point a due process issue, and it's an issue that if >> A due process issue created by whom?

[00:04:17]If you're going to claim that your client's due process rights are violated, and that it happened here, you're better bring it, Ms. Yaghi.

[00:04:27]Because the responsibility of also appeal to your client's due process right rests with your office.

[00:04:34]And you guys have had this case for quite a while now.

[00:04:37]So, I'd be careful about where you want to point fingers on that one.

[00:04:42]I'll let you continue if you want to continue right now, but you better be careful.

[00:04:58]>> If I may just have a minute, Your Honor.

[00:04:59]>> You can. Take as much time as you'd like.

[00:05:05]In fact, court's going to stand in recess.

[00:05:13]Court does call the case People versus Torico.

[00:05:16]>> Attorney Nugent is here on behalf of the people.

[00:05:19]>> I'm with the defense attorney, called offender with after hours before I vote.

[00:05:22]He's standing to my right. Do you state your name to the court? Mr. Cook.

[00:05:25]>> All right.

[00:05:26]Record should reflect we had a couple of in-chambers conferences regarding this um that have gone throughout the day in trying to resolve some issues.

[00:05:38]Um I think we've Well, I'll let you say what you're going to say. I mean, go ahead, Mr. Cook.

[00:05:44]>> Honor.

[00:05:44]>> [clears throat] >> I previously indicated the people were able and ready to proceed today. I would note that as of now that is no longer true as one of the people's necessary witness, a witness that we believe is in the subject of much discussion for this case, has left the courthouse and is no longer responding to attempts to communicate with him or to reach out and find him. We are unaware of his whereabouts at this time. As such, the people are not ready to proceed at this time with that witness and I believe previously defense counsel referenced to desire to adjourn so that way she could have more time to review the case as well as for the parties to mutually go over some of the information. Um, just all of the discovery that exists that both parties like to review as it relates to that potential witness's testimony. I did also want to make a brief record related to that additional discovery as there was a claim that the people, I believe, were attorneys with a discovery violation or that somehow the people were withholding this discovery.

[00:06:45]I want to make it clear that I did not know this existed until today when Ms. Yagi due to the flu was looking through the available discovery and inquired about whether this particular item existed. I asked the officer in charge whether that item does exist and he indicated that it did, but he did not believe he ever sent it to our office.

[00:07:02]Nevertheless, I asked him how soon that would be available and he indicated that it should be able to be copied to a disk and provided to both the people and defense by the end of the week. I will make sure that that gets done as soon as time allows.

[00:07:15]I would also just note again, this is not important to the court due to today or the people's request, but just making a record. In the report, there is the original report as well as numerous supplemental reports and of those reports, there's indications of body cam being on some of those reports, but not on the report that would have the interview of this witness. So, there is no mark on there body camera was on or recording and so I did not think that there was any until I discovered that it was today.

[00:07:45]As it stands, I would be joining at this point with defense counsel's request to adjourn the preliminary examination for today. I believe that the date we had discussed was June 15th at 9:00 in the morning. I have confirmed that that date works with three out of the witnesses.

[00:08:01]One witness is unavailable, but I'm confident being able to proceed without that witness, and I was not able to confirm that date with the missing witness for obvious reasons.

[00:08:11]I don't believe that's where we stand, and that's the people's request.

[00:08:15]>> One other thing I'll just indicate that there might be a request for a material witness warrant should the people feel that's necessary given the individual having left and them being under subpoena. Is that accurate?

[00:08:30]>> Um Yes, Your Honor.

[00:08:32]That is correct, and um I will certainly follow up regarding the um outstanding discovery.

[00:08:39]>> All right.

[00:08:41]Um and let me just for the court's purposes say this. Um I was dealing with this all day from different perspectives and different angles and seeing what we could accomplish today and could we go forward today.

[00:08:56]Um >> [clears throat] >> I watch and preside over week after week where I will watch two of what I believe the state's most efficient offices in terms of what they have to do in our criminal justice system. That being the Washington County Prosecutor's Office and the Public Defender's Office.

[00:09:21]And that to watch them work tirelessly to try to make sure that all of the evidence everything is provided um when certainly there could have been a point, not saying that they would, where the people might say, well, we don't have to worry about that piece of evidence. They voluntarily disclose that there's this other thing out there that may not even belong to a police agency.

[00:09:50]It might belong to a third party.

[00:09:52]Let defense counsel know.

[00:09:54]And they endeavor to get all of that.

[00:09:58]Now, I say that because and I you know, I I didn't hear everything on it, but I assure you, Mr. Cook, that when the representation was made that there may have been some intentional non-disclosure.

[00:10:17]Um I think by my reaction, I think you should have understood I don't buy I don't believe that's what happened in this case at all.

[00:10:29]I don't believe that you knew, as you've indicated. I think that the It's It's one of those things that they're and quite frankly, in reading the report, it's going to be equally as plausible to the defense who could have been made the request as it would have been to you.

[00:10:52]And so, that's the way that this court's going to handle it. And as I said, and I'll be frank with you, Ms. Yaggi, if you're going to come at somebody, you better bring it.

[00:11:02]Cuz I don't tolerate anything in between.

[00:11:07]Preliminary examination in this matter is adjourned June 15th, 2026, 9:00 a.m.

[00:11:12]before me.

[00:11:14]Bond will continue. Thank you.

[00:11:25]>> [music]