My first take on this:
When an indictment is released, as in the case of President Trump, it presents a completely one-sided story developed by the prosecutor. Witnesses are not represented by attorneys, there is no opportunity for cross-examination, there is no opportunity for presenting exculpatory information, etc. It is not a trial jury. The indictment appears to me to be a piling on, which explains why the prosecution brought in as many witnesses and documents as possible, cherry-picking information, etc. Even now, nobody is present to deal with these charges in the media -- for example, why is it assumed in some instances that the movement of some boxes was for the purpose of concealment.
Remember, virtually none of this would be an issue but for the original decision by the Biden White House and DOJ to turn this into a criminal case. Most of what is claimed in these charges flow from that decision. And attorney-client privilege was circumvented in at least one instance, I would argue, which will be a basis for challenge, among other things.
If any of the alleged evidence is based on violations of privilege, due process, etc., would result in the prosecution having to figure out what parts of that information was used to poison other witnesses or the presentation of information to the grand jury.
Now, they are trashing the federal judge in the Miami arraignment (perhaps the entire case), who is a Trump appointee (the judges handling all motions respecting the grand jury were Obama appointees, and that did not draw the criticism of these same critics, of course).