They may choose to highlight or question different facts, but there still has to be a factual basis for the information given. You can't say "Well, there were fingerprints at the scene and they've been tested and shown to be the accused's fingerprints, and there are ten witnesses saying they saw the accused there, and the accused confessed to doing it, but my opinion is that he didn't do it because he is a nice guy."

You can say "Well, his fingerprints were there, but he was there earlier that day, and there are ten witnesses, but it's cross-racial identification / it was dark and they couldn't see clearly / the police did the ID improperly and made suggestions to the witnesses, and the accused confessed but he has a low IQ and was improperly coerced into it by the police and denied his rights, so there is insufficient evidence to convict." You'd need some proof he was there earlier through a witness or something, an exert on the problems with cross-racial identification, testimony from the witnesses as to sloppy work by the police, etc. for this theory to be given any weight. It isn't just some lawyer's crazy opinion.