Sorry but I stopped believing the story when you said "I had signed confessions" since that's not something two cops would ever just do to avoid getting cross e

Sorry but I stopped believing the story when you said "I had signed confessions" since that's not something two cops would ever just do to avoid getting cross examined when they could just plead the 5th without consequence, especially given that signed confessions would cause serious consequences. refused to take the stand under oath and sat outside the courtroom Witnesses that have been ordered to appear in court don't get to decide not to take the stand. (https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/criminal-defense/what-happens-if-a-victim-or-witness-refuses-to-testify/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/criminal-defense/what-happ...) you don't know what the lawyer might know and surprise you with. ??? This seems like a Hollywood-based vision of how trials work. In real life, there are no such surprises at trial because both sides already know what the other side knows; it all comes out in discovery. See, e.g., the Epic v Google trial right now, where all of the "surprise" testimony by the witnesses is actually stuff that both parties learned in discovery months ago. Any dirty laundry should have been investigated during the discovery phase of litigation...any litigator with even a year or two of experience would know that...since the type of dirty laundry that would lead to "signed confessions" would be the kind of dirty laundry that lets you avoid the expense of having to go to trial. I especially don't believe the part about the letter where the state bar supposedly admitted to only investigating misconduct by prosecutors, since even if that was a policy by any state bar (it's not) it's not something they would ever admit in writing. At this point, you'd need to name names, because everything sounds like a poorly-written L&O knockoff.