Rebuttal
At the conclusion of the defendant's case, the plaintiff or government can present rebuttal witnesses or evidence to refute evidence presented by the defendant. This may include only evidence not presented in the case initially, or a new witness who contradicts the defendant's witnesses.
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/p...ucation_network/how_courts_work/rebuttal.html
JM is expected to call Dr. Janeen Demarte to counter an expert testimony on the DV claim.
Dave Hall, a friend of TA, is also expected to be called to testify that TA did not own a gun.
IMO, JM should focus his rebuttal on premeditation and her versions of the killing. With this in mind:
- A different forensic pathologist/medical specialist to testify as to the bullet's trajectory and effect on TA, given JA's version of events. It should not be the ME; the jury has already heard from him, so JM needs another voice to give the same basic information in a different form to refute JA's testimony. Might also ask about body slam and having the 'wind knocked out".
- Testimony regarding the closet shelves; on cross, JA said she only used one hand to grab the gun, but did not touch any shelf. If possible, would want to hear testimony that the crime scene showed no prints or smears from her on the shelves. Also, testimony that it would not be possible to step on the lip of one of these shelves without damaging it or disturbing its contents; most closet shelving systems today will not.
Some things will be best left to closing arguments, especially in the absence of compelling testimony.