Let's say they try to convict somebody based on data from the phone. "Your honor, it's a known fact that my client has had a long-standing adversarial relation

Let's say they try to convict somebody based on data from the phone. "Your honor, it's a known fact that my client has had a long-standing adversarial relationship with Jack Smith, an employee at Apple. Jack Smith's motive and opportunity to frame my client by falsifying data in this case provides clear reasonable doubt of my client's guilt." Additionally, let's say they destroy the phone. How can you establish that the evidence hasn't been tampered with after the fact? It's not like you can go pull the files again, the phone has been destroyed. So now you're not only trusting that a) Apple provided the right data, you're trusting that b) the FBI hasn't tampered with the data to frame somebody.