Harrison considered Arden's objection, narrowed the permissible questions, and granted the request. He reminded the gallery that the hearing was not a criminal trial of Pierce and that no one should draw a conclusion from her willingness to testify. The clerk administered the oath. Dana Pierce, who had spent years asking other people questions from a place of authority, sat in the witness chair.
Bennett began quietly. "Ms. Pierce, did Richard Vance inform you before trial that the fourth-floor terminal showed indications of unauthorized remote access?"
Pierce said she recalled a preliminary concern but did not believe it altered the overall financial evidence. Bennett showed her the October twelfth email. Pierce acknowledged the address and identified her reply. She said she had been waiting for a final report and had believed the preliminary material too uncertain to merit a change in the state's position.
"Were you aware that the defense had requested all reports concerning possible compromise of the terminal?"
"I knew there had been requests," Pierce answered.
"Were you aware of the diagnostic attachment?"
"I don't recall reading every page of that document."
Bennett handed her a copy of the reply. One paragraph thanked Vance for the explanation of the stolen credentials and asked whether the issue could be handled without adding confusion to the jury presentation. Pierce read the message while the room waited. When Bennett asked whether the words were hers, she answered yes.
"Did you tell the defense that the city's own technician disputed the attribution on which Exhibit 42 depended?"
"We disclosed substantial technical material."
"That isn't the question."
Pierce looked toward her attorney. "Not in those terms, no."
Bennett waited for the judge to record the answer. Then she asked whether Pierce had supplied Keene with the diagnostic report before he testified that the logs were reliable. Pierce admitted she had not. She said she believed Keene's financial conclusions were independently supported, and Bennett asked whether he had been told that the source logs might reflect account impersonation.
"I don't believe that was necessary for his assignment," Pierce answered.
"He testified to the reliability of the authorization history," Bennett said. "Was it necessary for that?"
The judge sustained Arden's objection to the argumentative form but permitted a narrower question. Bennett asked whether Pierce had informed Keene of the remote-access findings at any time before trial. Pierce said no. The answer seemed to drain the energy from the prosecution's old position more effectively than any speech Elijah could have delivered.
Harrison questioned Pierce directly. He asked her to distinguish between a report that failed to prove a defendant's innocence and a report that might still help the defense challenge the state's account. She answered that prosecutors exercised judgment about relevance and reliability. Harrison agreed they did, but said the disclosure duty did not allow them to withhold favorable material simply because they expected a jury to find it unconvincing.
"A defendant is not required to win your approval of evidence before being allowed to examine it," he said. "That is precisely why these obligations exist."