In the legal world, the validity of a search warrant is sacrosanct. When there are allegations that such a warrant was acquired based on false information, it invariably stirs the pot. A recent episode of the podcast "Hidden Killers" delved into this very topic, unraveling the 136-page filing surrounding a case that may pivot on the veracity of law enforcement’s representations.
 
 Host Tony Brueski commenced the discussion, setting the stage with an exploration into the "Odinistic stories" cited in the filing. The fantastical elements mentioned had Defense Attorney Bob Motta weigh in on its credibility. "There's no question that this was the defense taking the opportunity to get their theory of the case out to the public," Motta remarked. The core of the discussion revolved around the request for a "Frank's hearing" - a hearing that tests the validity of a warrant, challenging the possibility that law enforcement might have intentionally or recklessly misled the courts to get it.
 
 For those unfamiliar with a Frank’s hearing, Motta provided a succinct recap: "You're attacking a warrant and saying that law enforcement intentionally and or recklessly lied and or omitted information in order to secure a search warrant." The defense, in this case, isn't just throwing baseless accusations. They seem to have substantial evidence, or as Motta puts it, "receipts." They plan to leverage an affidavit from an individual named Tony Liggett and confront him with police reports and potential witness testimonies to pin down discrepancies in the narrative.
 
 The conversation then took a deeper dive into the implications. If Judge Gull, overseeing the case, determines that misrepresentations were made, it could lead to the warrant being quashed. What does this mean for the prosecution? Well, any evidence secured under that warrant might be deemed inadmissible. This doesn't just end at the warrant for the search of a certain Richard Allen's house. If this motion is granted, it might also imperil the arrest warrant, especially since items retrieved from Allen's house were used to build a case for the arrest. "If you take all that out, is there enough for the arrest warrant to stand?" Motta ponders.
 
 Motta further elucidated that the actual legal argument starts on page 105 of the memo, which brings into question the preceding 104 pages. These pages are filled with details connecting the crimes to Odinism – an ancient religion. Motta opined that it seemed the defense aimed to paint a picture of a ritualistic scene, suggesting white supremacists might have appropriated Odinism beliefs in committing the crime. He believes this is a tactic by the defense to get their side of the story out in the public domain, a narrative that counters the one typically forwarded by the prosecution.
 
 The defense's strategy seems to be working, at least in the court of public opinion. Motta notes that online reactions to the filing are polarized, with some dismissing it as ludicrous, while others find it compelling.
 
 But there's a wrinkle in this narrative. The document was not filed under seal, making it publicly accessible. Within hours of the filing, Judge Gull ordered it sealed, but as Motta points out, "the proverbial cat was out of the bag." The document was already in public hands, being discussed and dissected. Could this unsealed filing sway Judge Gull’s decision? Motta seems to think so. He postulates that the judge might not take kindly to this oversight and, if on the fence about the validity of the evidence, could lean towards letting the trial proceed.
 
 Conclusion
 
 In the convoluted world of legal proceedings, the release of such a detailed filing to the public, coupled with the accusations of misleading information for warrants, has stirred a hornet's nest. As listeners of "Hidden Killers" tuned into this riveting conversation, a fundamental question emerges: How much can or should the court of public opinion influence the legal process? T