thing the prosecution wants to have a witness say, even if it contradicts physical evidence, and then tell the jury what parts to believe. Even if the prosecution says don’t listen to the witness, there was no drug G. But if the defense wants to ask a witness if they received a benefit, it is too crazy and confusing, and doesn't fit with the evidence. It doesn't fit with Judge Recksiedler’s preconceptions of fact. The jailhouse witness is a plain scam and the judge knows it. It's worse than hearsay. Half the things Kaylee said in her deposition were complete nonsense. Even Prosecutor Stone agreed Kaylee is a liar, when he admitted there was no "fuck you" signature. So the judge knows letting Kaylee testify is a complete scam. But asking the other witnesses if they received a benefit? Oh, that would be weird. Just rubs her wrong. Paying liars to lie in front of the jury doesn't rub her wrong. But asking people a simple question? No, that seems kind of contrived to convey accurate information to the jury and win a case in court. Maybe on some weird planet where they allow a trial by jury, but this is a trial by judge where case law dictates the outcome. Julie Madara can accuse the defendant of drugging the victim, but you can't even tell the jury the true fact of what crimes Julie Madara was convicted of. That would create a jury bias against the witness, and there is some kind of bill of rights for the witness that supersedes the right of a 21-year-old girl to get a trial by jury with full facts ahead of a life sentence with no parole. The jailhouse witness is a neat trick. Police are not allowed to say to a defendant "Confess, or you will spend a year in prison." If they could it would save a lot of gas, because police would never leave the jail again to do actual investigations. So instead they say to another defendant "Claim this person confessed to you, or you will spend a year in prison." It is no more complicated than that. In fact it is even less complicated than it would first appear, given the jail is filled with 100 career liars and known victimizers of the innocent, looking for angles to beat the system. And they are all familiar with things like arrest affidavits, the clerk web site, what happens to people who lie on the stand - nothing - and the elements the prosecution needs to prove specific crimes like burglary. The same people who don’t want felons to vote, want them to take the lives of strangers into their hands, and will release them from prison in exchange for doing so. It is not like there was some evidence of Mandi's guilt which was suppressed, and the prosecutors needed the jailhouse witnesses to make up for it. They had no compelling reason to believe Mandi was guilty. All they had was jailhouse witnesses who were known by all parties involved to be lying. IV-Sl