The motion states, “Police did not and do not have any video of the shootings. The only reason they told Defendant’s fiancée that they did, was to pry her off the alibi that she provided Defendant for the day of the first three shootings. They weren’t looking for her to incriminate herself; they just didn’t want her to continue to exculpate him – because it did not fit their theory of the case.”
The motion also alleges Merritt's fiancée told investigators numerous times she was with Merritt on several occasions in which the freeway shootings occurred, however changed her story after being bullied and threatened with charges of domestic terrorism.
“Once again, police had no evidence that the witness committed any crime, let alone domestic terrorism,” defense lawyers Jason Lamm and Ulises Ferragut contend in the motion.
“Yet again, their sole mission was to get her to abandon the alibi which she had given the Defendant. Not telling the Grand Jury the means and manner in which the witness recanted what was an otherwise unwavering proclamation of the Defendant’s alibi and innocence, was nothing short of a deliberate effort to mislead the Grand Jury – in addition to a violation of the Defendant’s due process rights,” the motion stated.
Merritt’s lawyers also cite the state knowing about a second phone Merritt used on a day-to-day basis that was never submitted.