not to bombard you, but, I oh what the heck!
I have not been following closely as real life has been interfering. But, can you calrify something for me?
Is the *advertiser censored* evidence a seperate issue from the misconduct? I thought, obviously incorrectly, that the DT was arguing the state engaged in misconduct by hiding, destroying, failing to disclose or whatever the fact there was *advertiser censored* (of some type-still not clear) on the computer. Using that as the premise, I assumed the *advertiser censored* evidence would only come in if the misconduct was found to have occurred. But it seems the computer evidnce, which directly contradicts the evidence presented unchallenged in the first trial, is being admitted without regard to the issue of whether the misconduct occurred.
I'm not understanding the basis of this. My concern, besides the obvious stupidity of using the dead victims legal computer use as a "mitigator", is how this might play into an appeal. If different basic evidence than was introduced and used by the jury in deliberating its verdict in the first trial is now admitted and used in the sentencing phase, wouldn't this present a viable appeal issue? Maybe I'm reading too much into it. But this seems highly irregular to me.
My though was that any computer evidence which failed to be discovered by the defense and was not the result of misconduct, would be inadmissable as it would have already been finally litigated in the appropriate phase, especially as it was unchallenged. It would simply be an issue for appeal. Except it would probably not be viable as there was ample opportunity for the defense to perform any tests it wanted on the computer in the many years prior to trial. And I don't see how you can appeal on the basis you didn't do a thorough enough job of vetting and discoverng the evidence. Perhaps an inadequate representation issue but not a substantive basis for appeal.
Obviously I must be wrong. What am I missing?
