So in Billy's Journal entry it says:
The Court took under advisement the remainder of the "non-substantive" motions or motions not based upon the specific facts of this action and will issue written decisions concerning the same.
According to this Journal entry substantive motions are motions based in fact. So I think I'm correct that fact based and substantive motions are the same.
Examples of non-substantive motions would be all those common standard identical motions the Wagners have that are typical in DP and other cases:
MOTION TO PROHIBIT THE STATE'S USE OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO EXCLUDE PERSONS WITH CONCERNS ABOUT THE DEATH PENALTY
MOTION TO PROHIBIT REFERENCES TO THE JURY THAT A DEATH PENALTY VERDICT IS ONLY A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TRIAL JUDGE
MOTION FOR A COURTROOM DECORUM ORDER
MOTION FOR ACCUSED TO APPEAR IN CIVILIAN CLOTHING AND WITHOUT RESTRAINTS
MOTION TO EXCLUDE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE DECEASED FILED
Junk and Canepa did argue some of the non-substantive motions. Like they won't back down on showing photographs of the victims.
Remember when Rita's attorney Gerlach argued a motion to throw out Rita's Grand Jury testimony and one reason was because "the mysterious ghost man" wasn't suppose to be there?
I'm pretty sure (but just opinion) that was considered a substantive motion but was successfully argued against by the prosecution.
Anyway, fact/substantive motion hearings will be way more interesting in my opinion. And thanks for bringing it up...