Does a prosecutor have an obligation to prepare for trial better for the purpose of admitting or denying testimony from witnesses who were "cut loose"?

^7. Although under the circumstances we do not criticize the trial court's self-described "equitable ruling," we are compelled to note that it is incumbent upon the prosecutor to better prepare for trial. It is unacceptable for a prosecutor to successfully seek to admit testimony (on a puzzling basis, as we have described) regarding certain events to be elicited from witnesses who were "cut loose," and instead elicit testimony from a different witness of events that were ruled inadmissible. "This case involves ' "a particularly unpardonable fault of the prosecutor-unpreparedness." ' [Citation.]" (Dietrick v. Superior Court (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1472, 1474.)