I read through it very quickly but I will be writing my thoughts on it when I have time to go through it more closely. I was instantly shocked that they continue to throw things out there that were 100% refuted by the Defense at trial. How can they print statements that have no factual basis?
We have to hope that the judges will be objective and will follow the rule of law and grant Brad a new trial. The State’s rebuttal is extremely weak. It’s absolutely clear that Brad’s constitutional rights were violated. I’ll post more comments about this soon.