"its presentation is so unabashedly one-sided that the doc is problematic even when the facts and figures check out"
What is a problem with being one-sided as long as it's right? This is a documentary to detail the basis of a prosecution of a criminal and yes of course a prosecution would be one-sided. The other side received much more airplay on the media with it's constant barrage of lies for 8 years. So excuse the "one-sidedness" of just another 90 minutes or so coming from the other side.
The documentary strives to prove a point and it succeeds in that. The facts are indisputable. If the author wants balance perhaps he can create a documentary to prove the opposite. The problem is there are no facts to bear out that thesis.
As for "enough of the legalese is either shaky sounding or impossible to prove that it's easy to call into question"
Perhaps it sounds "shaky" to an uninformed person but doing even some basic research confirms the legal grounds for the assertion. Perhaps the author needs to do some homework before coming to this conclusion.
I am amazed the Village Voice allows nonsense like this to be printed. It has gone downhill for sure in the past years.