I don't disagree re: the facts established (or reinforced) - I was focusing on the demeanor issue.
If she came across as sketchy AND the state solicited all these facts, it would be a huge loss for the defense right from the get-go. If the jury believed that SJ thought AH was guilty or that SJ was covering for AH (likely because he was guilty), that may be irrecoverable. (Sort of like the Michael Dunn case - it's the only media case sort of on point that I can think of offhand.)
If she comes across as neutral (and is allowed to establish that baseline in front of the jury, prior to the lunch break), the state has to now move uphill if they're going to suggest that she's lying later on.
It's very possible that the state burns her credibility down completely on the gun/box/garbage bag issue, regardless of how sympathetic she could possibly be early on in her testimony. So all these initial impressions may be for naught. However, there is a risk she gets more comfortable (and she'll be coached by her attorney during the lunch break, to be sure), and there's a risk she'll have a juror latch onto her. Thus, I'd have seriously considered exposing her early on in her testimony. Long way to go though, so we'll see.