There was also a fascinating debate about the admissibility of digitally-enhanced images as evidence. While the media was quick to decry the defense lawyers as

There was also a fascinating debate about the admissibility of digitally-enhanced images as evidence. While the media was quick to decry the defense lawyers as disingenuous and their objection trivial, the actual courtroom debate had good arguments on both sides. At the end of the day, the drone footage central to the prosecution's defense was enhanced by software that specifically says it is not to be used for evidentiary purposes, only for investigation. I'm not trying to comment on any other aspect of his guilt/innocence, just that it was not as cut-and-dry as I thought it was, and as a non-lawyer I found all kinds of interesting learning opportunities while watching the case (propensity character evidence, lesser included offenses, etc). I could see enormous academic value in actually giving the full case (or at least the unedited courtroom highlights) a closer analysis.