[Krodg]

I saw that, but I don't know who they're talking about. The other day they did expect to deal with that (the prosecution had rested) and then nothing happened. At first I thought it was a witness that had testified, but after reading again I decided it was a witness for the defense. Maybe a 'hostile' witness. Maybe Barb?? The defense said one or two more witnesses and tried to make it sound like the expert witness was the problem. However, they did say that they were unable to contact this person and didn't know where they were. Maybe the Pros didn't call Barb because of a felony conviction, but the defense decided to go for it and Barb skipped out. There was supposed to be some dicussion about summons today, but I missed it. Maybe that part will tell us something.

[Karson]

I read the part about the summons and it had to do with jury summons; not witnesses.

Today's hearing transcripts

[cyncooper]

There was supposed to be some dicussion about summons today, but I missed it. Maybe that part will tell us something.

Sorry if someone else already answered this as I haven't read further than your post.

The summons discussion was about summoning the jury not witnesses. The defense called the guy who handles sending out juror summons and he testified before the judge about how many summons sent, how many responses, how many non-responses, etc.