House prosecution private counsel Lorna Kapunan said the court the defense panel failed to agree on a schedule for comparing documents.
The dispute over the timeline for evidence review could delay court proceedings and impact the efficiency of the prosecution's case.
Kapunan raised concerns before the court regarding the defense panel's alleged refusal to establish a timeline for comparing 4,492 documents [1]. The presiding officer had previously directed both parties to meet on Thursday or Friday of last week to resolve the matter.
According to Kapunan, the defense panel did not respond to text messages sent on Wednesday and throughout Thursday. Kapunan said, "We were shocked," regarding the lack of communication.
The defense panel eventually replied at 5:38 p.m. [2] on Thursday. This late response prompted Kapunan to alert the court to the communication breakdown, a move intended to ensure the case adheres to the presiding officer's directives.
The comparison of the 4,492 documents [1] is a critical step in the legal process to ensure both parties are working from the same set of evidence. The prosecution argues that the delay in scheduling this comparison hinders the progression of the trial.
“"We were shocked"”
This procedural friction suggests a strained relationship between the prosecution and defense teams. When parties cannot agree on the basic logistics of evidence comparison, it often leads to motions for sanctions or requests for court-mandated deadlines, potentially extending the overall duration of the legal proceedings.
