I'm working with second-hand accounts, but some viewers here have claimed O'Mara stopped the witness from answering, even before the objection was raised.
But if O'Mara did NOT know the minor witness' name (which I doubt), isn't that all the more reason why he might have asked as a matter of course without thinking what he was doing?
I am baffled by what appears to be a widespread need to elevate a brief and quickly rectified moment into a major conspiracy. Is this just more hating on defense attorneys? Am I the only one who finds that boring after awhile?
Aw come on. It was obvious and "the man" ain't so slick that it wasn't obvious.