The thing is he's spent more time defending against the defense's case then presenting his own.
Let him put on his own case that showcases all the evidence he has against Karen Read. If he puts forth a convincing case, the jury will convict and won't care what the defense says. That's the strategy that gets convictions everyday all across the country. Lally can always put forth a rebuttal witness or two after the defense rests, if he needed to.
However, this ridiculous parade of witnesses only gives credence to the defense case. For example, why did he call Colin Albert when the prosecution theory is that he was nowhere near the Albert home? All that testimony did was raise reasonable doubt when the defense exposed Colin as a liar on cross.
Lally's real problem is that the case is weak at best. And the case for murder in the second degree is almost non-existent. "They argued a month prior in Aruba and it's possible they argued in the car although there's no evidence of that." Really!?