In Session Lisa Lopez makes a final argument: “In regard to the surprise, the surprise was what Lt. Coughlin told us on the stand. The FBI was lying; that was the surprise... it is a Brady violation, it is material, it is prejudicial... they did have a duty to disclose... how is Ofc. Treese (?) possibly going to corroborate what Coughlin was saying, because we know that Coughlin was lying... we ask that the testimony of Ofc. Coughlin be stricken.” Judge: “The argument Mr. Koch made has to be corrected; he said I said the statement was 180 degree from the officer’s testimony; I didn’t... if he had actually seen Mr. Peterson in a courtroom, in front of a judge, there would be a record of that, and it would be proven. If it was an inadvertent meeting in front of an elevator, there would be no proof . . . so it is a Brady violation . . . now, I asked Ms. Lopez if this team took the opportunity to interview Ofc. Coughlin, and they did not; they had the reports, knew they were at odds, and did not interview him. The Court, in the face of a discovery violation, has several options with regards to sanctions . . . in this case, striking the officer’s testimony is not the appropriate sanction . . . I think the appropriate sanction is if they have any trouble calling the FBI agent a brief continuance to secure that presence would be the sanction imposed. The request to strike the testimony and issue another instruction to the jury is denied.”