Being a layperson as well, that's always what I think when I read the defense filings -I think they are being very thorough and presenting real challenges for the prosecution -but then the prosecution files their responses and they just seem much more solidly crafted, and appear to be, at least from my layperson standpoint, to be much better reasoned and have more legal weight to them. For instance, BC's defense wants to strike the aggravating factor of torture and severe physical abuse to the victim because it allows mutilation of a body after death to be considered as severe physical abuse, then the prosecution responds that it is moot because they intend to present evidence that there was torture and severe physical abuse of YY committed before she died, and oh, by the way, appeals courts and the supreme court have upheld that mutilation of a body can be considered severe physical abuse.
There are a lot of quoted precedents from high profile cases like you said. In the response to the change of venue motion, they quote frequently from Tsarnaev and Skilling (Enron).
Yes- that part about them being confident they can prove she was tortured before her death makes me so sad.