[1rudeboy]

I'm not willing to dig through a treatise on Evidence, but my guess is that most, if not all, of the things you listed have been held to be inadmissible for more than a hundred years.

[teawithmisswilliams]

If the incredible deal the "victim" got from federal prosecutors in this case is not admissible, or the evidence of the additional smuggling attempt the "victim" made after he got his first immunity deal, the verdict in this case is an obvious miscarriage of justice.

If the jury knew the truth about the "victim," they wouldn't have believed his word over the agents. Our government made sure they didn't know the truth. Yet you somehow still defend this prosecution. Why?