[webjprgm]

The article has one sentence about the videos being on a beach house computer that someone else could have used. So just from this article it is unclear exactly how damming that evidence is, but it is possible it was not his fault that the illegal videos were on his computers. So first suspicion and second being charged for something he didn't do but could not get out of because he didn't have access to all the legal information necessary.

At least that is a possibility. If he really is guilty then I don't feel bad for him.

[drzaiusapelord]

> but it is possible it was not his fault that the illegal videos were on his computers.

So? His home may have been searched for other reasons to discover this. Just like anyone else found with these materials on his computer, he'll have to get arrested and go to court over them.

[webjprgm]

Which he did, but then his defense was hampered by the secrecy around how the evidence was obtained. At least the article makes it sound like this.

[tptacek]

That's true, but contested evidence has nothing to do with FISA. The defendant could just as easily have been searched because a houseguest saw the CP on a computer and tipped the police, and the same debate would have occurred.