As I said, the wealthy defendant often skews the result.
But the rules aren't there for the occasional defendant with tons of money to burn. The rules are there for the average defendant, who has to stretch to hire a good lawyer and is facing the overwhelming resources of the State, courtesy of his own tax dollars.
Exceptions don't set the rules, and hard cases make bad law. If you allow evidence of soft core porn as proof of guilt of a specific act, you have opened the door to allow prosecutors to push the envelope. And they will, it's their nature, it's what they do.
And don't be so sure about baby in the bath pics . . . they HAVE been introduced in this state by vengeful ex-wives as evidence to "get" ex-husbands. (Did you know that when an estranged wife goes through the house and takes books and pictures, even at the "suggestion" of the prosecutor, there is no 4th amendment search and seizure issue, because SHE is not the police?) The Supreme Court here just ruled such evidence inadmissible, though, unless there is specific testimony to tie the particular pictures to the acts alleged. Which is a good thing.
Imagine what a maniacal prosecutor like snedden does to the person without michael's cash. The Joe Average defendant IS royally screwed by the snedens who are more interested in their personal belt notches than justice.