Just some points of clarification:
- It's never up to the defense or any defendant to show or prove innocence, it's up to the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, 100% of the time, every time, in every criminal trial. The defendant doesn't have to present anything if they don't want to; the burden rests squarely on the state to prove the charges.
- GH's attire is not an issue for this court. If it were, the judge would have ruled and he'd be wearing something different. If GH even wanted to wear his prison orange clothes he could.
- One reason ADAs will cover things that seem irrelevant is because sometimes it's a strategic move to show the jury that all bases were covered during an investigation and all items of potential evidential value were looked at, even things that end up not being important to the case or part of the buffet of evidence. It precludes the defense from claiming an investigation wasn't thorough. Another reason is that little pieces of the puzzle are being explored through testimony and might be all tied together at the end.