I think the prosecution is getting all the pieces that don't matter much to their case out of the way. I went back and listened to Guy's opening statement and I believe most of these witness statements are superfluous to their case
It was a very long line up of mostly superfluous witnesses; one would think that they'd throw some more essential ones in into the mix for good measure. I have to disagree with you about Guy's opening statement; I think the majority of the witnesses who can speak the most to Guy's main arguments have already been called.
Argument 1, Motive: GZ was enraged because he was a wannabe cop who was frustrated at the "punks" who were always getting away.
Guy relied almost entirely on GZ's statements to the NEN operator. Well, they played the NEN recording and IMO none of GZ's statements seemed to indicate a depraved mind, not even close. When he took the stand, the NEN operator seemed to confirm this and said he wasn't really concerned at all by GZ's words or tone.
Argument 2, GZ profiled, stalked and confronted TM.
RJ was by far the best witness they had as far as backing up this assertion. Regardless of how anyone feels about how much her testimony helped the state, she was their star witness as far as the theory of GZ as the pursuer/instigator goes. All of the other witnesses either failed to actually look out the window or go outside in time to catch the fight or they managed to see a brief portion of the fight and were either favorable to GZ like JL or JG or what they saw was more or less neutral or unhelpful.
Argument 3, GZ lied to police
This is the only argument that the state hasn't called their strongest witnesses for yet and while they can definitely undermine GZ's credibility, that really isn't enough to carry the burden for the state as other witnesses, notably JG, corroborate a good deal of GZ's account (at least more-so than any of the witnesses corroborate the state's account of what transpired that night).