Wow, so Christo is wrong about this? Interesting.
These legal experts both agreed.
Both McClean and Hill said O'Mara would be able to challenge the admissibility of the bond revocation at trial by questioning its relevance.
That's agreeing Christo
may be right while further stoking the story's fuel. I think the relevance might be an interesting argument.
When I originally asked the question of whether or not this was admissible at trial, Christo didn't respond, "I'm not sure, but the defense will certainly challenge it, and personally I don't think it should be admissible." Instead he answered, "No." and "It's irrelevant." Christo makes these dogmatic statements as if he's the sole authority of our legal system, rarely if ever explains himself, and insults anyone who disagrees with him. In this case, it sounds like the admissibility of this stuff is an open question. And that makes Christo wrong.