What is the effect of limiting the cross-examination of the applicant in closing argument?

Due to his expectation that he would be allowed to carry out the proposed read-ins, respondent's counsel suggests that his client has been prejudiced because he limited his cross-examination of the applicant. Regardless of what I find to be the unreasonableness of this expectation, based upon the analysis set out in the preceding paragraphs, there remains the specter that the court may not have before it all of the relevant evidence to make a just determination in this case. That potential risk must be weighed against the equally harmful risk that the proposed read-ins, if permitted, would not give opportunity to the applicant to address or provide any explanation for the evidence sought to be adduced, prior to being confronted with it in closing argument. This offends the rule laid down in Browne v. Dunn.