A double-homicide trial in Lassen County Superior Court has hit major turbulence just days before opening statements, after a surprise prosecution witness surfaced claiming the defendant confessed to the murders over the phone.
The trial of Isacc Anthony Pedroza—who faces double-homicide charges stemming from a Dec. 6, 2025, fatal shooting on Highway 395 near the agricultural station—was originally slated to begin Tuesday, Nov. 2. However, a pre-trial dispute between defense counsel and prosecutors before Lassen County Superior Court Judge Mark Nareau has thrown that timeline into question.
Last-Minute Witness Sparks Heated Exchange
Lassen County District Attorney Susan Rios recently added an out-of-state individual to the prosecution’s witness list. According to Rios, the individual came forward on Sunday, Oct. 22, alleging Pedroza confessed to committing the murders during a telephone call.
Defense attorney Jeff Cunan strongly pushed back against the last-minute addition, questioning both the timing and credibility of the alleged confession. Cunan told the court he must review more than 100 recorded phone calls to properly investigate the claim—a task he said was impossible to complete before next week.
“Every good lie is 90 percent true,” Cunan said in court, arguing that a witness surfacing months after the incident and days before trial should have raised immediate red flags for the prosecution.
Cunan criticized the District Attorney’s office for failing to press the witness on why he chose to come forward now, noting the individual was “putting on a snitch jacket right before the trial” and effectively “blowing up the case.” When asked by Cunan if her office had administered a polygraph test, Rios confirmed they had not.
Prosecution Defends Ethical Obligations
Rios bristled at any implication that her office would knowingly present false testimony, emphasizing that investigators are actively working to corroborate the witness’s statements.
“If I know a witness is going to lie, I won’t put them on the stand,” Rios told the court. “I hope every witness will tell the truth… I can’t test the intentions or the purposes of a witness. I have an ethical, moral, and legal responsibility to find the truth.”
Rios further emphasized that evaluating witness credibility is ultimately the responsibility of the jury.
Judge Nareau affirmed that Rios fulfilled her legal obligations under Brady v. Maryland by promptly disclosing the new evidence to the defense as soon as it came to light. Nareau noted he was confident the District Attorney would adhere to her professional duties, adding that neither the court nor the prosecutor possesses a mechanism to pre-screen a witness’s truthfulness.
“The court is not going to assume anything” regarding the witness’s credibility at this stage, Nareau stated, agreeing that the issue belongs before a jury.
What’s Next
While Judge Nareau initially considered pushing the trial back to February, he held off on a formal continuance. Instead, he ordered both parties to convene for a Zoom settlement conference at 11:30 a.m. on Monday, Nov. 2, to determine how to proceed.
The trial is expected to span 10 to 12 days, with court officials anticipating significant challenges in impaneling a jury.
Source: Lassen News
