The Government represented to us last week that they haven't given him immunity for the October load, but they don't think they have sufficient evidence to think he committed a criminal offense in October, which I think is ridiculous, based on the evidence.
If the government is in fact correct here (and we have no evidence one way or another at this point in the transcript, simply the word of the defense attorney disagreeing with them), this suggests that the circumstances of the "2nd drug bust" was not in fact a drug bust in which it was clear Davilas was both involved and knew what he was doing. Meaning that, if the government is not lying, there must be something about the case that makes it a non-trivial matter. For example, maybe someone stashed drugs in his trunk without him knowing (total speculation, I'm just wondering what circumstances could lead to a non-trivial disagreement over whether a case was prosecutable or not).
In any case, the judge at this time, noting that the objection is to claim that Davilas lied about his previous statement, and the subsequent act did not disprove his previous statement, refused to let the 2nd occurance enter; so we don't find out the specifics of the case. It does appear though (because of the way the defense references it as the "October load"), that Sutton was not lying when he said Davilas was not arrested, and that Davilas was not given immunity for the incident.
Further, it is clear from this section that, contrary to speculation, Sutton wasn't playing word games with the terms "arrested" vs. "indicted", as Davilas does not appear to have been indicted or arrested for this, as the Government has stated they don't think they have enough evidence to do either.
However, it does provide the backdrop as to where the rumors of his being arrested, or indicted, or being given immunity, for an October drug deal came from, because it is clear from the testimony that he was involved in an incident involving a "load". I don't know if you can give a half point to WND for a misleading report simply because it had a kernel of truth, but I'll do so anyway, because frankly they need all the points they can get.
Summary: There was an "october load", it didn't cause the prosecution to postpone the trial, Davilas was neither arrested, nor indicted, nor was immunity granted, rather the government claims (disputedly) that there isn't enough evidence to try Davilas for the "load". The story was ruled inadmissable at this point as not germaine to the specific question of the immunity agreement.
I didn't see anything in this transcript about Davilas having his surgery postponed, much less why it was postponed.
LOL. Nice bold font, Chucky.
The speculation was that Sutton is not being truthful. That has already been proven to be true in numerous other circumstances.