At a certain point on cross, the questioner is essentially testifying with the witness agreeing with the questioner. A questioner should be asserting a narrative on cross.
Prosecutor's closing argument is more effective than his cross of the accused.
He could have turned all the arguments on close into cross-examination questions.
He is attempting to deploy the he was a good kid pseudo-defense.
That is certainly an argument in sentencing if found guilty, but irrelevant to the initial aggressor element or the self-defense allegation.
Combat-Inspired Cosmetic Effects on semi-automatic long rifles do not change the purpose for the form, purpose and function of the firearms.
Cringe - sure. But not illegal.
Gun toting, hip gangsta wannabees have flooded the market.
The judge is giving the jury its instructions (elements of the law). He is fumbling around with this rather simple responsibility. Status normal, all fucked up.
Let me circle back and close the loop.
This concludes this today's lesson from . . . The Power of Cross-Examination or How to Create a Perry Mason Moment in the Courtroom. (available soon in finer bookstores).
The question was choose A or B. Open-ended (a no-no for most cross), but he was left with choosing two bad choices for his projected persona and demeanor. Rather than choosing A or B, he instead chose to flail, which is the worst choice when trapped.
The prosecutor in the Rittenhouse case needs to work on his cross-examination skills. Rittenhouse was even less prepared for cross than @Bravo and the DA could not execute.
I have a suspect matching your description:
Closer than Verne? Or is Verne closer to matching your description?
1 (Verne) or 2 (large man with small hands)?
The conversation would certainly be different.
But it is an unproveable counter-factual. Any hippy on LSD would tell you the future is unknowable. Marketing fail.