Whether or not any actual paper subpoena was issued for a trooper, that doesn't mean that there wasn't a trooper 'under subpoena' and required to be there for the hearing. From having relatives who are attorneys in other DA's offices, I know that ADA's often know the troopers or officers personally to the point of maybe even having them on speed dial on their phones. If that's the case here, then it is very possible that ADA Holden had spoken to the trooper that she thought was needed for the hearing and told him to be there, and if he was available, there would have been no need to issue an actual subpoena. He would still be required to be in court. The press release from Gore says that Holden realized the error when she was meeting with officers in the case on the day of the hearing, and I would bet that whatever trooper she thought was needed was probably there, even though she hadn't officially subpoenaed him, and he was probably the one who helped her figure out that someone else was needed to testify. How else would she have known that she needed the other witness who was in Fayetteville? So, what difference does it make if the first trooper wasn't under a paper subpoena if he was actually there that day anyway? It seems like a matter of symantics to me and not a newsworthy difference that should be focused on in a case where there are clearly so many other real problems, like why this fire chief still has a job.
More information about formatting options