If the prosecution asked that question of a prosecution witness, maybe you might have a case. “. . .calls for a conclusion by the witness.” OTOH if I’m not mistaken, the question was asked by the defense, of a nominally hostile witness for the prosecution. I’m at a loss to know why it is “reversible error” if the prosecution doesn’t make a timely objection?And, BTW, the defense established (or at least I thought it had) that the investigation was headed nowhere until Crump announced that he had "found a witness” in the lovely and gracious - and articulate - "Dee Dee.” Is the jury not entitled to the information that the prosecution’s whole case hinges on the credibility of “Dee Dee"?
I wish I could answer those questions. I will say that if I was on this jury I would be noting how it seems that the deck is being purposely stacked in order to achieve a guilty verdict, and I would not give that to them.
Nor manslaughter. Nothing, he walks.