Just be sure that the question applies only to the defendant and not to the prosecution.
Then just for fun, ask if the whole truth allows the omission of any part of the truth. Then make the assertion that LAW equals JUSTICE.
The prosecution did not tamper with any of the evidence. The defendants did.
Then just for fun, ask if the whole truth allows the omission of any part of the truth.
This is intended to imply that the prosecution withheld the truth by not allowing the defense to discuss Aldrete-Davila's crimes with the jury.
This has nothing to do with the "whole truth" regarding the incident, because at the time of the incident Ramos and Compean did not know Aldrete-Davila from Adam. They did not know that he was a drugrunner or even that he was not a US citizen. Unless the defendants were arguing that they were clairvoyant and could see the future, these facts were irrelevant to the incident the jury was considering.
That's the way the American legal system works.