@Seattle1 can the Defense introduce their own expert witness(s) to match the experts the Prosecution had struck by the judge?
Example: Defense introduces a telematics expert to speak on the data LE recovered?
Just as
Rule 16 - Discovery and Procedure Before Trial outlines the obligations of the prosecution, Part II provides for defense Disclosure to the Prosecution.
Since the prosecution has the burden of proof, it would not make sense for the defense to call their own Telematics expert except as a rebuttal witness and/or to impeach the testimony of the prosecution's expert. Otherwise, the defense would be opening the door to allow the sanction-barred expert for the prosecution (a sanction requested by the defense and the motion granted).
IMO, what's most important to recognize about the case witnesses for both parties is that although Rule 16 provides for the court's discretion to set
deadlines for such disclosure, the Rule specifically provides for a
statutory deadline as follows:
Part I. Disclosure to the Defense
(a) Prosecutor's Obligations.
[..]
(III) Any reports or statements of experts made in connection with the particular case, including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons;
[..]
(3) The prosecuting attorney shall perform all other obligations under subsection (a)(1) as soon as practicable but not later than 35 days before trial.
Part II. Disclosure to Prosecution
(a) The Person of the Accused.
[..]
(c) Nature of Defense.
Subject to constitutional limitations, the defense shall disclose to the prosecution the nature of any defense, other than alibi, which the defense intends to use at trial. In no case shall such disclosure be less than 35 days before trial for a felony trial, or 7 days before trial for a non-felony trial, except for good cause shown. Upon receipt of the information required by this subsection (c), the prosecuting attorney shall notify the defense of any additional witnesses which the prosecution intends to call to rebut such defense within a reasonable time after their identity becomes known.
[..]
Part V. Time Schedules and Discovery Procedures
(a) Mandatory Discovery.
The furnishing of the items discoverable, referred to in Part I (a), (b) and (c) and Part II (b)(1), (c) and (d) herein, is mandatory and no motions for discovery with respect to such items may be filed.
(b) Time Schedule.
(1) In the event the defendant enters a plea of not guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity, or asserts the defense of impaired mental condition, the court shall set a deadline for such disclosure to the prosecuting attorney of those items referred to in Parts II (b) (1) and (c) herein, subject to objections which may be raised by the defense within that period pursuant to Part III (d) of this rule. In no case shall such disclosure be less than 35 days before trial for a felony trial, or 7 days before trial for a non-felony trial, except for good cause shown.
Generally, the furnishing of discoverable items between the parties takes place with little supervision by the Court.
In this case, what we've seen here is not typical: IMO, BM's defense (i.e., E & N) made it known at their very first appearance in this court (days after BM fired his public defenders), that they intended to frustrate the prosecution by alleging Discovery violations whether they were valid or not!
To be clear, there's not been one court appearance where E & N has not alleged the prosecution guilty of discovery violations, complete with a defense motion for sanctions.
MOO
ETA: Prosecutor Lindsey took a lot of heat when he resigned and moved on to Pueblo. Personally, I respect that Lindsey had no desire to participate in a case where both his staff and himself would be buried in motions at every turn-- requiring too many discretionary decisions by the court, and technical wins by the defense. The price of sacrificing justice for SM was just too high.
Of course, IE would shout, “Objection!” Unfortunately, it would be too late, the jury will have heard it. 
