Kind of a moot point anyway if you ask me.....the defense coulda had knowledge of it for a year, wouldn’t have made any difference.....what’s on the video is what’s on the video.
No way around it
‘what’s on the video is what’s on the video.’
except what’s on the video is dispositive of nothing other than his presence; knowledge beforehand would have prevented him from lying about his whereabouts...
and then there would have been no case to bring based on anything stronger than shaky circumstance...
I think a convincing case could be built around the fact that if he had known the video existed he might not have claimed as often and as vigorously that he "was not there". It might not change his guilt, but it might allow him to portray himself as a more sympathetic figure, which could influence the penalties.