When Gerlach made this argument in court, JMO, it sounded like he was trying to get the charge thrown out because of jurisdictional issues - the crime, if it happened, occurred in Scioto Co and RN is charged in Pike Co.
Agree, he's slick and when he argues, it's a jumble and difficult to follow his arguments. He throws in a lot of conflicting an contradictory information.
That goes back to the legal trick of "Alternative pleading", where defense attorneys are allowed to make conflicting and even untrue claims about their client to see which defense sticks.
Alternative pleading - Wikipedia
"Richard "Racehorse" Haynes gave this example: "Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you. Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit. And fourth, I don't have a dog."
He's making a lot of conflicting claims about those documents, about the box, about where she was or wasn't when they were signed, etc. Then throw in Sheriff Reader and the "man in the blue uniform".
The defense is allowed to lie in these situations.
Part of the defense, unfortunately. It's confusing to jurors and keeps the prosecution's arguments tangled up.
Gerlach will use the same trick to try to make it seem like Sheriff Reader was involved in gathering the evidence or showing up at the GJ hearing. Neither allegation is true, but Gerlach may be allowed to throw those in as "alternative pleading".
ETA: Maybe the defense will claim that Sheriff Reader is a "shape-shifter" capable of magically appearing in places, then disappearing.