A hearing panel considered how and when a minor witness will testify and voted to move into executive session after parties agreed to try to accommodate the child’s needs.

The presiding officer opened by asking Attorney Satti about the availability of a subpoenaed witness for two proposed dates. Attorney Satti said he had contacted the witness, left a voicemail and would inform the panel as soon as the witness replied. The panel also noted a scheduling constraint: the officer who is a potential witness works only until about 4:00–4:30 p.m., which could limit same-day testimony.

Attorney Fezzino, representing the child, told the panel the minor’s mother had concerns about the emotional impact of testimony. Fezzino said the mother would allow the daughter to testify only if she could sit beside her on camera, and that the child could not continue to miss school. “She has also indicated that, her daughter can't continue to miss school,” Fezzino said.

Opposing counsel, Attorney Sasse, said he had no objection to the mother’s presence so long as she did not coach the child or have documents or a script in front of her while the minor testified. “I don't mind the mother being beside her as long as she's not coaching her, and as long as she's not giving her notes or having anything ... in front of the witness,” Sasse said.

The presiding officer said he would ask the child, once sworn, whether she was reading from anything and would remind her to testify from memory. Chairman Wolf voiced concern that the mother’s presence on camera could make it difficult to determine whether the minor was being coached. "I'm a little concerned because the minor may look to the mother or not sure if she's supposed to answer," Wolf said, adding that the arrangement "may get a little dicey" for assessing independent testimony.

Counsel and the parent discussed timing. The presiding officer proposed that, if the panel did not finish other testimony, the child could be scheduled to begin at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday so she would not miss more school; Attorney Fezzino said she planned to call Dr. Prakash as another witness but did not expect a lengthy examination. The child’s parent said she preferred to begin today to avoid another missed school day: “I'd rather begin today with her, if that's okay with everybody,” the parent said.

To accommodate the child, counsel agreed to permit witnesses to go out of order. Attorney Fezzino confirmed she had no objection to taking the minor out of sequence if needed, and the panel indicated willingness to accommodate the request.

Shortly after the scheduling agreement, a panel member moved to go into executive session. Calderon seconded the motion, multiple members agreed and the presiding officer announced the vote was unanimous; the recording was stopped and the panel moved into executive session.

The hearing paused for executive session; the panel did not make any additional public rulings on witness testimony before the recording stopped. When the proceedings resume, the panel is expected to reconvene to continue testimony and to finalize scheduling for the child and any subpoenaed witnesses.