1. Ignore any exculpatory evidence. You already know he did it, so vote "guilty."
2. He's a middle-aged, heavyset, balding "creepy" guy who once owned porn. That's all that matters. Vote "guilty."
3. Remember: sweating, cooperating with the police, owning and/or using bleach, leaving a hose out in the yard, closing curtains, going camping alone, and most especially, being a middle-aged, heavyset, balding "creepy" guy who once owned porn is all the evidence you need. Vote "guilty."
4. His mother called him a "horndog." What more evidence do you need? Vote "guilty."
5. Everyone on Court TV says he's guilty. So should you. (We know you're watching, but we won't tell--wink, nudge.)
I think the reason Feldman kept away from one obvious line of attack -- the pyschology of porn -- was twofold. One that Dusek would counter this expert testimony far more effectively -- meaning with confusion rather than facts and science, thus greviously diluting the very strong bugmen expert testimony. Two that at may make the appeal stronger on the basis that the jury and general public were irrecoverably poisoned by the prejudicial use of the pornography.
Notice that Dusek didn't bring any prosecution experts to testify as to the psychology of porn (if there were I'm sorry for missing such). How could he? It is no real motive demonstrated in science. Feldman would have blown the experts out of the water, without perhaps bringing on many or any of his own. In that way, the bugmen's expert testimony's weight would not be lessened.