A county-court judge halted a jury trial and recalled the matter for the next day after defense attorneys raised questions about a body-worn camera recording and the identity of the officer who made the recording.

Defense counsel told the court that a body-camera video tendered in discovery cuts off mid-statement and that supplemental statements or officer witnesses necessary to impeach the complaining witness were unclear or had changed. Counsel said the defense could not properly test inconsistencies without knowing who made the original recording.

The court asked for clarification about how many statements the complainant had made and which mediums were used; counsel identified an initial 911 call, then a station statement and a body-camera video whose audio ended prematurely. Parties and the judge discussed whether the recording belonged to Officer Kennedy, and two officers present — Officer Caballero and Detective Jimenez — were asked to confirm details to the defense and the state.

During the back-room conference it emerged that Officer Kennedy had recently been charged in a separate prosecution in the same courthouse and pled out earlier in the week. Defense counsel said they had not been made aware of that development and raised concerns about disclosure and constructive knowledge by the district attorney’s office. The prosecution said it had no actual knowledge that would have required earlier disclosure; the court directed both sides to confirm the officer’s identity and contact counsel for Officer Kennedy if necessary.

Because the issue remained unresolved when jurors were to be seated, the judge excused the jury and ordered the parties to return the next day at 10 a.m. with any additional information needed to proceed and, if necessary, to have Officer Kennedy available for testimony. The court emphasized this limited purpose: resolving who recorded the body camera video and whether additional statements or officers exist that the defense must receive before trial continues.

The court instructed counsel to coordinate with court staff and the officer’s attorney, and to be prepared to proceed at the scheduled reconvening time. No formal ruling on disclosure or witness admissibility was made on the record at the hearing’s close.