I'm not sure if this will go to another "trial" if there will be clear evidence of prosecutorial misconduct they might hold another one, but they did deny an appeal in 2008.
That said apparently the DA did act appropriately as there was a clear case of conflict of interest they've delegated the case to the adjacent district which handled the prosecution and most of the investigation.
From what I've read about the case this isn't just a clear cut case the documentary did present quite a bit of evidence but it was very cherry picked I'm not entirely sold what actually happened.
My biggest grief with this documentary isn't that it drives and agenda is that it does it on an "active case" this is a sad story indeed but this should've been done on a different case perhaps I would assume that there are plenty of miscarriage of justice cases that are over which could've been used.
I hope there will be an investigation in this manner but even the most biased news coverage of any criminal case doesn't formulate and opinion of the matter as much as this docu did, and this can poison any potential future investigation or trial for better or for worse.
But the prosecutors also manipulated the public opinion with that public conferences about that what Brendan and Steven supposedly made to the victim, only based in a doubtful and manipulated confession of Brendan.
Again not claiming that this was handled even remotely appropriately but 2 wrongs do not make it right.
I wouldn't want the media being used to institute an opinion within the general public regardless if they are doing it for the prosecution or the defense.
If anything should be taken from this and from many other public cases is that we really need much more stricter ethical guidelines about how criminal and civil cases are handled by the media. When the media can be used as a tool to affect public opinion it can be used to affect potential outcome of trials and that's very bad place to be.
Heck even pre-trial coverage can change the outcome of many cases then the media reports that they caught a guy and builds a case that they are guilty people would put less effort into doing due diligence the police might not chase up on additional leads, people who might have had details are not less likely to come forward because they caught the guy so why should they bother and some of the witnesses that already came forward will start rehashing what they've seen on the news even if only unconsciously.
Heck at this point you might be able to actually get out of guilty verdict by getting some PR company to spam as much misinformation about the incident as possible poisoning all the witnesses it only takes a handful of inaccuracies between the initial statement and the trail deposition for the defense to rip the witnesses apart.
