I don't know why the Court of Appeal decided not to publish Part I of this opinion. It's an important issue, and one that I imagine arises with some frequency; indeed, introducing testimony like this may well arise from an outline that a wide variety of prosecutors use when examining witnesses who have made a deal.
If Part I is right, I'd publish it. That portion of the opinion is far more significant, in my opinion, than the portion (Part II) that the panel decided to publish.
