Should the "it" be removed?

The answer is "no" to both questions.

Many thanks!

Thanks, hightor!

Maybe it’s a difference between English and American English, but I have to disagree with you about the second in. Over here it’s unnecessary and therefore optional.

The first part of the sentence has already said he has testified in trials so that does not need repeating. I wouldn’t go as far as saying it should be removed, but using the rule of more is less, I’d leave it out.

I agree with you about the comma.

I don’t know what git thumbed you down, but I’ve thumbed you back up.

I don't disagree. The second "in" could be left out but tanguatlay asked whether it should be removed. I find that American English usage tends to be less rigorous, less parsimonious. Personally, were I writing the sentence I might be more inclined to leave it out but, left in, it sounds quite natural (to me) when read aloud.

Unless the repetition is for dramatic effect, style manuals recommend that tautology (like the second 'in') should be avoided.

Thanks, Miss Toad!

What about the comma after "1968"? Is it needed?

It's not unusual,



why?

should be removed