I understand the need for the court to maintain rulings of admissibility. I understand the judge’s frustration, perhaps anger. But, how does a lawyer control a stupid or rogue witness’s testimony?

It does seem a gray area. Can anyone truly be sanctioned for the speech of another? Of course the matter of how the witness was prepped by counsel comes in here. But absent a recording, Isn’t this just a he said/she said situation? In a certain sense, the three witnesses are acting as the jury of the lawyer in this case. There are three of them, and they hold the lawyers fate in their hands.