Pretty good movie, despite some flaws [SPOILERS!]

Warning, spoilers can and will appear in this discussion, so read at your own risk!

First off, let's face it, anyone who doesn't know that her daughter is innocent before watching the movie is naive. Even though I figured out who 'whodunit' very early on, I still enjoyed the movie overall. No, it wasn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it was still enjoyable considering it was a made-for-TV movie.

That said, I question how much experience the writer(s) have when it comes to the law.
- Freedom - When the detectives first showed up to start questioning Julie, the first thing her mom should have done was to tell her to not answer any questions without consulting her first. They're not required to talk to the detectives unless placed under arrest (there are a few forms of being 'under arrest' with the simplest form being that the person has lost their right to leave, ie, they are being detained). So, Ellen should have told her daughter to not answer any questions, then asked the detectives if they were free to leave (ie, not being detained).
- Miranda - Since they already had the intention of taking Julie into custody before they even got there, their questioning her without reading her her rights first is screaming to have the case thrown out of court. They were wanting her to incriminate herself, and when they are asking questions under those circumstances, Miranda is required.
- Attitude - With that attitude, it's obvious that Det. Urkel is corrupt on some level. He may not be framing people or taking bribes, etc, but he's only concerned with slapping the cuffs on someone and that person being convicted, even if it's the wrong person. Also, once he's decided someone is guilty, he ignores anything to the contrary unless it's smacking him in the face from how obvious it is.
- Witness tampering - In a manner of speaking, the police tampered with the witness because of the biased photo array they showed to him. In some situations, a biased array like that is enough to get the entire case thrown out. There are rules that have to be followed when doing an ID in that manner, and the obvious bias used is illegal.
- Common sense - The job of law enforcement isn't to find a way to prove someone guilty, it's to narrow down who it could be to the point that it excludes others. Had they done their research properly, they would have realized that Julie was not the only suspect. Could have been her friend or the two foreign guys they said were there. When you have tons of rather convenient evidence that points to one person, that's when it's time to take a step back and say, "Wait a minute, something seems too perfect here." No, don't just say that it couldn't be one person because it's too perfect, but don't pat yourself on the back and say that it's an open and shut case. Someone else was there that could have done it, investigate them as well.

If there is another movie after this one, I hope it includes the department getting ripped a new one for some of their tactics. Perhaps with Ellen reviewing a couple of older cases and determining that someone is innocent, then proving it, with Det. Urkel's reputation getting called into question. Would love to see a superior of his approach him when he's showing his arrogant attitude to Ellen, then get chewed out to the point that he's at risk of being let go if he doesn't straighten up. Heck, after the first situation, you'd think that instead of being an asshat again, he'd have talked level with Ellen about her daughter, then tried to be respectful instead of acting like the whole family is a bunch of criminals.