If I recall correctly, the police admitted they lied in order to get a warrant. Do you therefore discount all their testimony?
The dog guy (can't remember his name, only the "180" nickname), was shown to have lied on the stand, when he had to recant his claim that he'd told the police about the alert. Do you discount that testimony? Does it reflect badly on the prosecution?
The first bug guy, Faulkner, was hired by the prosecution, but dismissed when his findings conflicted with their theories. Does this count as dishonest, and if so, does it impact your view of the prosecution?
Now, I agree that Feldman's bit with the porn was dishonest, and he shouldn't have done it. You can even weight it against the defense - but to ignore their entire case because of it is unreasonable, unless you are willing to apply the same standard to the prosecution (in which case, as far as I can tell, there's no case at all, and we're just imagining the whole thing)
Drew Garrett
You're telling me with a straight face that the cops admitted to a felony in court? You mind telling me why the prosecution has ANY evidence, given that an illegal warrant was involved?
Now, I agree that Feldman's bit with the porn was dishonest, and he shouldn't have done it. You can even weight it against the defense - but to ignore their entire case because of it is unreasonable, unless you are willing to apply the same standard to the prosecution (in which case, as far as I can tell, there's no case at all, and we're just imagining the whole thing)
Well, you're the one saying that every scrap of evidence was illegally gathered.