Goofs

Angela Brandt's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, although she didn't commit the murder. She couldn't have tampered with the evidence because (1) she didn't have time, as Julian Decker's body was found very shortly after he was killed; and (2) she couldn't have been protecting the real killer because, the first time the police talked to her, Angela was just learning about the murder and didn't know who killed Decker.

The DNA sample obtained from the underwear were supposedly an 80 percent match to Angela. Since it turned out that it was actually her daughter's DNA it would be scientifically impossible to be more than a 50 percent match to Angela since a person gets 50 percent of their DNA from each parent.

Part of the reason the trial judge ruled the DNA sample from the panties inadmissible was the incomplete match, but her ruling was also based on the fact that another trial judge in the same court had just ruled a DNA sample inadmissible, with the defense arguing that set a new precedent. However that is something a first year law student should know is wrong, judges do not base their rulings off the rulings of other judges in lower and equal courts, not unless those rulings were made by more than one judge, on more than one case with a conviction that had been upheld on appeal. The only individual rulings judges consider as precedent when making a decision, are ones made by a higher court, which in this case would be either the New York Court of Appeals, the United States Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of the United States.