Good points GW.
I think it was a tactic by the prosecution to leave the idea soaking in the heads of the jury over the weekend gambling that they will look at any cross examination with skepticism. It may or may not work.
The defense’s advantage is that they study the witness’ testimony, and other facts that they know and develop a good cross-examination blueprint without tipping their hand. BTW, her reason for allegedly changing the record seems flimsy when a sophisticated person like her knows that tax crime is involved. There should be business records to support everything she said, and I am thinking there is not, otherwise she would not have been granted immunity.
Thank you SP. Your observations are right on the money.
Sometimes I wonder (when it is not reported) if cross examination was delayed because the Judge knows it will take some time, and the hours remaining Friday were short. Most Judges with whom I am familiar would much rather start the weekend earlier than holding the jury past rush hour traffic. Most that I know also like to begin a new week fresh. They don’t like to split the direct examination, or the cross examination, if they can prevent it. Judge Ellis, with some of his comments pertaining to the length of trial, reminds me of Judge Lee West in the Western District of Oklahoma. Before beginning a civil trial, the opposing lawyer and I told Judge West that we thought that it would take 3 weeks because of the 55 witnesses. Judge West promptly told us it would take only 5 days - 2 days for each side, and one day for the jury. Years later I asked him why, and he said that his experience was that all three week trials have reversible error on appeal, and 5 day trials are rarely reversed. Hence, he was controlling his reversal rate by controlling the number of decisions he was required to make. His “schedule” insisted on lawyers crystallizing the most salient points to make. There was rarely window dressing.