JackAlsworth wrote:I'd like to point out that we're trying to convince the jury that Peter is innocent, and the more underhanded methods the defense uses to get their evidence, the guiltier they look, no matter if they're innocent or not.
In response to Wacky's point #2: it's true that Peter was the other half of that conversation, but the jury has no way of knowing if he was telling the truth without the audio. Besides, putting him on the stand would open him up to cross-examination, and I have a really bad feeling about that if (when) it happens.
However, if we can get just strong enough evidence in our favor that the jury begins to doubt the prosecution, we can challenge them to bring out the audio and prove it. He can either accept and lose his ground, decline and make the jury suspicious, or lie and claim not to have it, which we then prove wrong later and use against him since he was lying in court and concealing evidence.
Normal people are the easiest to manipulate. Too smart and they have an annoying tendency to catch wind of your plans, too dumb and, in the words of a certain pirate, "You can never tell when they are about to do something incredibly...stupid."