Do you pick apart or highlight every single error in the police investigations to make them seem incompetent, even if the mistakes were minor or didn't alter the evidence. Or is it on a case by case basis, and if you really got nothing you might as well throw ish at the wall.

The defense was harping on minor errors like crazy but never tie it into how it messed up the evidence or caused them to finger Hernandez incorrectly. It seems like they just want to make the cops/detective seem incompetent. But to me, they aren't glaring errors and just seems like the defense is nitpicking at this stuff bc they have no real defense.

I know it just takes 1 juror to get caught up in that for it to be successful....wondering your thoughts.