I'll try. The State tried to get the detective to testify about reports he'd accessed that would have shown that there in fact hadn't been a rash of break-ins & burglaries in the SS neighborhood, which would have helped undermine the MMs rationalization for going after AA.
The defense objected on hearsay grounds & the judge sustained. On cross, though, the defense tried to get the detective to testify about the content , essentially, of those exact records. State objected, sustained. On redirect, the State got in that SA hadn't been named a suspect in any of the unmentionable calls or alleged unmentionable break-ins, etc. The defense objected to her doing that, on multiple grounds, including factually.
What was anger inducing was the defense accusing her of exonerating AA through a back door while through the front door he slimed AA by saying he *was* a suspect in multiple break ins, implying it was LE who considered AA a suspect. That is absolutely FALSE. IIRC, a single utterly unreliable person made allegations against AA *after* he was killed. (PS. It seems pretty clear the judge wasn't having any of what the defense was trying to pull).