I still don’t understand if this witness is suggesting that he can track CD’s phone better than LE did and therefore say that CD’s phone was not on the property then why not show where his device was? And if it was turned off then how can witness say it wasn’t there? So what if anything was he able to say that helped defense? I agree it has just given state another opportunity to show CD was there and how they reach that conclusion. But I don’t think JP showed ANYTHING with this witness and don’t understand the purpose of his testimony.
I also don’t understand why JP is not objecting that much of this cross is outside the scope of direct or something as it seems to me his witness is helping the state and not his client.
ETA - well what do you know…JP did finally object it was outside the scope lol