If the prosecutor hadn't so conveniently asked everyone who talked to GZ about what he said, do you think the defense could have gotten a consistent narrative of what really happened before the jury without having GZ testify? If the prosecutor had focused on the fact that TM was dead, a bullet fired from Kel-Tec #XXX killed him, GZ owned the gun before the shooting and was found in possession of it immediately thereafter, and then saved his fire for cross-examination and rebuttal after GZ presented his self-defense case, I would think he could have been ahead at half-time, and would have made it harder for the defense to prevail.
I have no idea what you are trying to say.