There is a difference between on the stand testimony and OPENING ARGUMENTS....
My experience is lawyers coach their witnesses all the time, and I've never seen a trial where what was said on the stand did not get out if it was a public trial. If Mrs. XYZ wasn't in the courtroom when someone else was on the stand, surely Mrs. XYZ's friend, uncle cousin or nephew will or can be... and word gets back to Mrs. XYZ.
The idea of preventing taint of a witness is a noble idea, but it just isn't reality.
ANd as for Coached, you are joking right? Attorney's and witnesses can spend hours if not days or weeks coaching their witnesses on how best to deliver a point, what verbage to use, what clothing to wear, how to look more sympathetic... etc etc... Yes certainly they can not say on the stand what they said in those session, but coaching of witnesses is part of reality.
Way I see it, both sides got the same information, there is no reason here for a mistrial or a dismissal... disciplinary action against the prosecuting atty perhaps, but come on.
In any event, whether the trial is covered on tv, whether the testimony is given in a "public" courtroom, there was an order prohibiting that information from being given to the witnesses. Those were the rules and everybody knew them. Further, I doubt the complete government opening statement was played on any news show so the witnesses likely didn't see it.
Wait until you are in court for whatever reason, prosecution, defense, plaintiff, defendant - and somebody tells you it doesn't matter when they break the rules.
We have this rule of law for a reason, and the government decided to try this guy in this forum. If the rules get broken regarding a death penalty case, you are going to catch some hell. I didn't say what the judge should do, I still think in this case the jury should decide. But the rules are there for a reason.