The original argument was that the prosecution can't bring in new witnesses to testify to something new..that wasn't presented in their case or the defenses....without re-opening their case.
The rebuttal witnesses have to testify to something that has already been presented, correct?...or am I still writing this incorrectly from what I mean to say?
I am sorry I only caught that you thought no new witness could be called. I didn't read far enough back to see that no new evidence was also being talked about.
I am pretty sure that you are right. I don't think new evidence can be introduced but a new witness can be.
I have a hard time keeping up with all of this. Was there some indication that one of the lawyers was/wanted to bring up new evidence?