In a recent court session, a significant dispute arose regarding the admissibility of expert witness testimony during the punishment phase of a trial. The defense sought to call Officer Bianca Zapata as an expert witness, but the state objected, citing a lack of prior notice as required by law.

The state had previously filed a request in August 2023 for the defense to provide a list of expert witnesses, which the defense acknowledged receiving. However, the defense failed to notify the state of their intention to call Officer Zapata until approximately 45 minutes before the state began its case. The court noted that this late notice was not compliant with the legal requirements for expert witness notification.

During the proceedings, the defense argued that they only decided to call Officer Zapata after the verdict was read, which found their client guilty on a lesser charge. The defense claimed they were unsure if they could secure a subpoena for Officer Zapata in time, which contributed to the delay in notification. The state countered that they had been forthcoming with their own witness lists and that the defense's late notice was unfair.

The judge acknowledged the state's concerns but emphasized the importance of ensuring a fair trial for the defendant. To address the situation, the judge offered the state the option to either continue the trial to allow them to consult with the expert witness or to speak with her immediately before she testifies. The session concluded with the court granting the state time to prepare for the unexpected testimony.

This incident highlights the critical nature of procedural compliance in legal proceedings and the potential implications of failing to adhere to established protocols regarding expert witness notifications.