This is absolutely true--just for the purposes of this thread it needed to be pointed out that a Franks hearing does not necessarily mean there were false statements. It's not a fact that there were false statements simply because there's a Franks motion. Everything in the motions by the defense actually point to omissions not falsehoods, but we don't know what the exhibits contain and what they allege (and apparently the judge is having a hard time with this too lol).
I think the defense is probably throwing everything out there, even if it doesn't support Franks, and the order by the judge supports that. They put 100 pages of emails about the car in the exhibits but failed to explain how this supports their motion. The judge actually says this. If there is something there, they're going to have to come back and state it clearly for the judge. AT is too good of lawyer to risk not having the chance to do that by not doing that in the first place. To me, the footnote about the car is more indication that there's nothing there with the car than that there is. I'm sure they will use the discrepancy in court to try to create reasonable doubt with the jurors and that's totally fair and how it's usually done.
JMO
It really is primarily about the IGG. It's a case of first impression in Idaho. It hasn't been litigated there. It's their only shot at getting the warrants and the dna, which is everything to this case, thrown out. They need for the IGG to have led to the PCA so they can get the PCA thrown out. They're trying to do that two ways.
The IGG was omitted from the PCA and this omission was material to law enforcement obtaining the warrants. It's not enough to show it was omitted. They'll have to show warrants wouldn't have been obtained if the IGG had been included.
And the IGG is a violation of the 4th amendment, therefore any information contained in the warrants that came from the IGG should be excised, which they say is everything.
JMO
