I'm a scientist, not a lawyer, so please excuse this if it's obvious.
In watching the Chauvin trial, I've noticed that the defence lawyer tends to ask questions by stating the desired answer and then saying "right?". And, sometimes, it seems that he follows a series of things that are easily agreed to, with the question he really wants to have answered in his favour. I notice that witnesses can sometimes be lulled into answering "yes" by the initial questions and then (am I imagining this) being tricked into answering "yes" to the final question in the sequence.
When the prosecution employs a similar pattern, there is usually an objection about leading the witness, and it's usually sustained. But I don't tend to hear such objections when the defence does it.
Is this a normal pattern? If so, why? I can think of some reasons, e.g. (1) a preference to lean towards defence, so the state does not clobber citizens, (2) a choice of the prosecution not to appear to be bullying, (3) a pattern in this one trial, not reflective of others and (4) my misconception of events.