Can a co-counsel cross-examine the arresting officer?

The trial court in this case interfered with the defense by completely excluding co-counsel from the trial. However, the court did not support this ruling with any threshold findings that her participation would have delayed or disrupted the proceedings, created any conflict of interest, or resulted in prejudice to the prosecution or the defense (cf., People v. Hall, 46 N.Y.2d 873, 875, 414 N.Y.S.2d 678, 387 N.E.2d 610). Tellingly, in the trial court's own estimation, Glover was a "very seasoned" and "competent" attorney and the record establishes that she was fully prepared to proceed with the cross-examination of the police officer without delay. The two defense attorneys also agreed to object only during the questioning of witnesses that they had personally cross examined--a practice that would eliminate any confusion or delay that would be caused by joint applications made to the court. The record also reveals that defendant expected Glover to cross-examine the arresting officer and desired this strategic arrangement.