Even if the jurors are instructed to disregard all of that testimony, will JM be able to refute many of her statements, which were so similar in so many ways, with the same arguments he used before? It seems obvious to me that he would, but I (gratefully knocking on my own wooden head) know very little about how trials and courtrooms work.
So that lack of restriction and JA's possible omission would equal something else for appeal? Jeez, can she appeal because the courtroom lighting is unflattering? Where can we learn more about what are appeal-able issues?
Would this testimony replace her allocution? Or will this jury possibly be exposed to Scary Elvis in addition to the tale of woe?
The defense gets lots of leeway in this phase of the trial. It makes me wonder why the DT practically skipped it last time.