Prosecutors generally cannot reopen cross-examination after the defense rests unless exceptional circumstances justify the unusual procedure. Once the defense rests, the prosecution’s opportunity for cross-examination typically ends absent newly discovered evidence or manifest necessity to prevent injustice. Military judges have discretion to permit reopening but must balance the government’s request against orderly trial progression and potential prejudice to the defense.
Factors supporting reopening include discovery of perjury, critical omissions in initial cross-examination due to witness evasion, or newly revealed inconsistencies requiring exploration. The prosecution must demonstrate why the additional cross-examination couldn’t have been conducted initially through reasonable diligence. Mere oversight, poor preparation, or desire to shore up weaknesses rarely justify reopening. The defense can object based on surprise, inability to prepare, or cumulative prejudice from piecemeal presentation.
If permitted, scope limitations typically apply – prosecutors cannot conduct general fishing expeditions but must focus on specific matters justifying reopening. The defense may request additional redirect examination or recall of other witnesses to address new issues. Military judges should consider alternatives like recalling witnesses during rebuttal rather than disrupting case flow. Improper reopening may constitute reversible error if materially prejudicing the defense’s ability to present its case or creating unfair advantage through procedural manipulation.