Even assuming
arguendo that the bumbling statements in that transcript didn't result in the footage being admitted into evidence, I fail to see the relevance when the superseding statute pertinent to investigative data in particular doesn't hinge on what was admitted, and what matters is what was
presented:
Wyświetl załącznik 7428846
[L]
Why wouldn't a MNDES upload of the exhibit, memorandum footnotes citing it in support of your motion's argument, and a transcript's initial discussion of it as one of your exhibits collectively count as
presenting it, even if he subsequently wanted to "get rid of it" or it subsequently was not admitted? Without any statutory definitions section or any appellate direction on the definition of "presented" in this unique context, Hardin should be free to go straight to the Webster's definition and contend that the MNDES upload and the memorandum filing were the point of no return.