That’s up to the prosecutor. Every prosecutor is different. It just depends how thoroughly they want to prepare for the case. As for me, I prepare the case assuming that the prosecution is going to do everything, so I have to be prepared to address everything that could come up. If they don’t prepare thoroughly and don’t bring certain things up, then I am well-positioned to take advantage of their lack of preparation. In this same case, there was another witness who had cooperated with the prosecution, and I made a point of going to the courthouse and attending her guilty plea. I saw for myself what kind of witness she would be in my trial, and heard the details of her plea agreement. I read through her prior statements to the police and used the inconsistencies in her statements, and the negotiation that she had made with the prosecution, and brought that all out to the jury to show that she had enormous motivation to save her own skin at the expense of my client. With that kind of motivation, her testimony could not be trusted. Then you combine that kind of motivation with certain inconsistencies: there were facts that she couldn’t recall back when the events occurred, but which she now remembers with greater clarity and detail.
That just doesn’t make sense, but when you understand that she’s been offered a pretty good deal to cooperate, it starts to explain why she may remember things better now. You have to communicate these things to a jury, to suggest that maybe the fact that she remembers things now better than she did back then isn’t because she actually remembers better, but simply that she’s motivated to testify in a certain way.