[supercat]

Which is why no higher court would review the ruling, right? Are all of them in on it too?

Rules regarding trial court findings of fact:

1. In all findings of fact, the trial court is always right.
2. When the trial court is wrong, refer to rule #1.

Occasionally, an appeals court will reverse and remand a trial court for failing to consider the exact right set of evidence, but it's entirely up to the trial court judge to decide if he finds the different evidence relevant. If a trial court judge makes a decision which flies in the face of 99.44% of the evidence before him, but says he 'considered' all the evidence he should have, no appeals court will question his decision.

[TheAngryClam]

Findings of fact are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard, and judicial decisions either on a de novo (really low) or abuse of discretion standard.

If a third of the wild-eyed accusations of the Terri Troopers were true, any of these standards of review would be satisfied.