Judge Gets Mad at Prosecution During Trial: ‘Give Me a 5 Minute Break’

追加: 2026-05-09

[00:00:02]I'm going to go on the record here. I just want to ask it how many how many days are we talking about of information that are here?

[00:00:14]>> You mean how many instances judge?

[00:00:16]>> Yeah, I guess in not days but like exchanges is really I guess the question.

[00:00:30]Five, your honor.

[00:00:41]And these these exchanges were all part of discovery.

[00:00:51]>> Absolutely, your honor. are also within the time or the time of the charging um period in this case.

[00:00:58]>> Okay.

[00:01:07]Is the intention to go through each one of these pages? The intention, your honor, and that's why I provide the summary is that I provide the data from the cell phone extraction so that they have that and they can verify it with their own records. Um, which is helpful, I think, when we're doing summaries, especially with how the statute is written. Um, and then the summary pages that are in the much easier to read tables would be what I would publish to the jury. Um, it's a summary and that it's the date and the time. Um, but it's made easier for everybody to digest. Um, so that we can get through it much more quickly.

[00:01:52]And so, >> so that looks like there's at least 117, 118 through 125.

[00:02:04]Is that right?

[00:02:07]Okay.

[00:02:08]>> Yeah, that I thought you were speaking specifically, your honor, to 117. Um there's also timeline information um from the phones related to the 10th and the 11th um that I intended to get into as well.

[00:02:26]>> We might as well address all Is there a summary on these other packets?

[00:02:30]>> No, judge. If there's not a summary um it's my intention to just ask Sergeant um Amenson about specific um instances in those. I provide the bigger part of the um exhibit just so again attorney Zacher uh and the defense team have the context of things and so the whole records provided. Um >> okay >> that's the issue judge.

[00:02:59]>> All right. So really we're only talking about 117 here is is the issue. 118. I don't know if you have an objection. 118 through 125. Those look like packets of information that that was looks like 126 and 127 128. Is that correct?

[00:03:24]>> Yeah. One. Yes. 125 is a summary document of 124 again so that it's easier to read. The other issue that I think we were struggling with when attorney Zacher was um presenting Facebook images or messages, your honor, is that it's in the universal time code. And so we're saying things like subtract about five or six hours wherever we are with daylight savings. And I think that's confusing to the jury and to the witness. And so um not all of these are exhibits that I intend to publish. Um, but it is information that I intend to go through.

[00:04:11]>> Mr. Zacher.

[00:04:12]>> Well, judge, the problem here is that these are documents that were altered and generated by the state for the purpose of production at trial. A statement of investigator or Sergeant Ammonson here.

[00:04:24]>> What statement?

[00:04:26]>> You're offering these as his statements.

[00:04:28]I'm offering them as exhibits that are coming in through him. Just like the >> exhibits, exhibits that are coming in through him that have been altered by the state and presented as evidence.

[00:04:38]>> They're misdict statements.

[00:04:40]>> It was not presented to us before trial.

[00:04:42]Judge, this is a discovery violation.

[00:04:45]971231 paranam a relevant recorded statement of any witness on the state's list. It also contains evidence of other acts that were never introduced or litigated. Um despite the fact that we have another we have a motion in lemonade agreeing that the state would not be introducing other acts unless they were prelitigated particularly incidents where the state is attempting to paint Miss Dykeman as a um pill distributor or somebody who is receiving pills unrelated to this case um oxycodone or whether or not she got pain medications from her mother um after Mr. Pedran beat her mind you um are not relevant are not relevant at all like Show show me how this is admissible under Sullivan. Um the statements themselves that the state is also going to be introducing it. It's hearsay.

[00:05:34]We've got statements from Becky Eers.

[00:05:35]We've got statements from Mr. Pedran. I haven't been able to cross-examine or confront either of them. Um this is far too little too late. It should be excluded.

[00:05:43]>> What what exactly is the information that attorney Zacher didn't have prior to today, your honor? If he looks at these summaries and you're allowed to produce a summary, as long as the entire record is available to defense council so that they can verify the accuracy of the summary, that's allowable. This is all information he has. It's in a form so the jury can digest it. And oh no, my my objection was the same to exhibit 116, which grossly misrepresented the number of days that Alexavier was out of school um with excuses.

[00:06:20]>> Doesn't matter for truency. The school keeps track of it the same way.

[00:06:26]>> All right, let me ask this question. The the the parts which are not the summaries, are those accurate? Are those things you had? I I'm we have we have these records, judge. Um but I I disagree that either the summary or the uh you know in particular some of the content of this summary is is even admissible. I I think that this is unnoticed other acts. Um it has serves no relevant purpose. It's dramatically outweighed by the prejudice to Miss Dykeman um tending to paint her as a drug addict or somebody who procures pills when this was never litigated once before trial.

[00:07:04]Your honor, it also goes to the other acts that they are um putting at Mr. Pedran, right? We saw all those videos where he's like, "You use pills." She's like, "No, you do." Right?

[00:07:20]The jury is allowed to have information to determine whether or not those other acts were proved to the necessary standard. Um there again is is nothing in these statements um these summaries that they didn't previously have. It's within the time charge period or the the charged period here, your honor. Um so >> that the state should have noticed this as another act and brought it up with Mr. Pendrew while I could confront him on the stand about those statements.

[00:07:50]>> I can't. They're not his statements.

[00:07:52]What? He wasn't involved in these messages between Miss Adler's and Miss Dykeman.

[00:08:00]Your >> honor, she her attorneys are representing right her as somebody who successfully completed drug court um and especially in comparison to the evidence that they've presented um regarding Mr. Pedran like >> successfully complete drug court. Judge, >> hey, just give me a second. Okay, God's sake. Um, so the problem I see is this is I don't know what they're referring to in these things. I don't know 10 pills, three pills, whatever it might be. It's not clear what they're referring to. Um, >> prescription pills.

[00:08:41]>> No, I understand.

[00:08:42]>> Okay, >> I understand it's prescription pills, but the reality is is it sanics? Is it oxycodone? Is it What is it? because I assume it's for pain medications or vice versa. Um, uh, you know, >> Zacher, excuse me, your honor, but attorney Zacher said, I believe in his opening statement that she was getting these pills from her mom because she was being hurt.

[00:09:04]>> Yeah.

[00:09:05]>> So, he's acknowledging, right, that he they know what kind of pills they are.

[00:09:16]I mean, my other s I know we don't we can't drag this out, your honor. I know that. But if he I understand >> I was told yesterday that no, our direct it won't take that long. We're more worried about Mr. Zach's right now. Mr. Zach is not going to be starting until about 3:30 4:00 at at best. And the state has taken all day. So, I'm going to give you a choice. one. You can use one or two of the I can give I I actually think seven 117 looks like that's related to those bills. I get that. Um the other ones I mean I the other ones are you objecting to 118 one 117 Damn it.

[00:10:08]Yeah. And your honor, the first one on 117 already came in the comment about getting Xanax. So, and judge, I I agree that that that's probably relevant context evidence that that text about the uh the Xanax where where my objection lies is all these texts about well oxycodone or anything else.

[00:10:28]>> Attorney Zacher represented she's getting it because she's being hurt by Mr. Pedran. what she's representing to her mom in these is that she has different ailments. Um, and it isn't for that purpose, your honor. So, I think it goes to her credibility as well.

[00:10:41]>> Talked about the hydrocodone texts that were um recent the allegation. I didn't talk about anything else.

[00:10:46]>> They're all in the time period that these charges were um contained in the criminal complaint.

[00:10:53]>> I mean, just just a second. I'm going through these summaries. I don't even see the word oxycodone.

[00:11:01]I don't see the >> I was just going through your summaries, right? That's what was actually said in these >> judge. People who are trading medicines don't put the kind of medicine they're buying in this, right?

[00:11:18]We had the script text related to Mr. Pedran.

[00:11:24]>> So, but then it's pure specul speculation about what the actual drugs are, right? We don't know what the drugs are because you not this is this is except for the Xanax response but the rest of them are do you have nine? Do you have two? Do you have 10?

[00:11:42]Are you going to are you going to the pharmacy? I mean I you're giving me about four minutes here to review this.

[00:11:50]So I don't if I'm misquing it I'm I'm sorry but >> I don't think he has a proper legal objection to this except he doesn't like it.

[00:11:58]I've stated my itemized objections repeatedly.

[00:12:01]>> Yeah. That this is a discovery issue.

[00:12:04]This should have been turned over. So, >> but it wasn't a discovery issue. I I just I would like a ruling on that because your honor, I have other messages. We're going to have a cross-examination next week. I would I would just like >> We're going to have cross-examination next week.

[00:12:19]>> Judge, what do you want to think about?

[00:12:21]Five minute break. Let me think about this. I don't even know to be honest.

[00:12:26]Yeah, give me a five minute break.

[00:12:32]>> We're cross-examining witnesses next week.