The first car mounts the gutter, side-swipes a pole, and swerves into the middle of the road. This results in the death of the front seat passenger (Yasmin, 18) in the first car and the death of a struck pedestrian. The driver (Xavier, 20) is charged with dangerous driving causing death (in NSW). Tests reveal there was no alcohol nor drugs in Xavier's system. Yasmin had been quite intoxicated. There was also a passenger in the back seat of the first car (Ash, 21). Ash was not tested at the scene or later, but was believed to be sober. The second car had a driver and a passenger in it (Brett, 30 and Carla, 28 respectively). The second car collided with the first car after the first car's accident, but Brett and Carla were only slightly injured. There were only two other known witnesses. Dane, 19 who was passing by on foot and who was under the influence of drugs and Egbert, 80 who wears glasses. The prosecutor calls all living persons mentioned above as witnesses, apart from Ash, as the prosecutor is not convinced of Ash's sobriety at the time nor, "being a close mate of the driver, of his reliability as a witness. Is the prosecutor allowed to decide this selection of witnesses? Could this selection disadvantage the defence? Can the judge query the prosecutor's decision? What are the duties arising upon the prosecutor, if any? Citing any relevant Bar Rules and cases which could apply, discuss any potential legal and ethical issues which arise. (For brevity, you may refer to the prosecutor simply as 'Crown')