In several of his letters to the court throughout 2023, Luke Wenke mentioned the prospect of me, his cyberstalking victim, and Brett — the father of his romantic obsession, Ryan — testifying against him at an upcoming probation violation hearing. This confused me, because the authorities hadn’t mentioned this being a possibility since more than a year earlier, when I was told that my testimony wouldn’t be needed due to Wenke’s decision to plead guilty to cyberstalking.

While reading through Wenke’s publicly-accessible case file, however, I discovered a document filed by the defense, asking the judge to compel Wenke’s cyberstalking victim (Victim 1), Brett, and myself to testify. When considered in this context, it seems as though Luke Wenke implied in his letters that the prosecution summoned our testimony, when in reality, Wenke’s public defender made the request on Wenke’s behalf.

More specifically, the Demand For Discovery states that Luke Wenke requests our presence at the proceeding, citing his right to cross-examine witnesses. In a response to the demand, the U.S. government (aka the prosecution) argued against requiring Wenke’s victims to testify, stating, “The defendant’s interest is entitled to little weight if the defendant caused the declarant’s absence by way of intimidation.” The prosecution also argued that hearsay statements are allowed during this type of hearing and are sufficiently reliable for use in this particular case.

The judge ultimately sided with the prosecution and denied the defense’s request, thereby sparing myself and the two other witnesses from having to testify. The first PDF viewer below contains a copy of the Demand For Discovery (Doc. #81), while the second PDF viewer consists of the prosecution’s response to the demand (Doc. #89).