Well. If he had any evidence like that, he needed to produce it earlier at the omnibus.
He couldn't really introduce it at that hearing because you need a
Franks hearing to introduce evidence like that. But yes, if he'd wanted to produce such evidence, he needed at least to argue that the mandatory reporter shouldn't be trusted because X, Y, Z and at the
Franks hearing, we can prove it.
Instead, he didn't even mention any of that, focusing entirely on "muh watermark" and similar ridiculous horseshit.
Why? Because he has no such evidence. He's ABSOLUTELY BULLSHIT LYING!
This is just stuff he says in public as fodder for the absolute dumb shits who still believe anything he says. Even with holes in his brains, holes full of worms, he knows he'd get in trouble for even trying this clownshoes shit in an actual court.
Nick already tried in the previous motion to sell the judge on bringing in personal beefs with Aaron and the judge wasn't interested.
It's not relevant to anything. Nick may be obsessed with his ex-lover and somehow think anyone else will understand why the fuck we're supposed to care about Aaron, but unless it's related to his defense somehow, it just doesn't matter. If he's alleging Aaron somehow snuck into his house and left cocaine lying around everywhere and put it in his safe, and he somehow didn't notice it for weeks, then maybe it would be relevant to Aaron's motivation.
As it is, Aaron's reputation for honesty or character or whatever is only relevant if either side actually brings it up in some relevant way, either as part of the prosecution's case or some argument for innocence.
Anyway, while they don't strictly need Aaron, he is a witness to a lot of the conduct that led up to the cops finding a bunch of cocaine and guns and could testify that, yes, Nick did indeed have a habit of leaving cocaine lying around everywhere, just as it was found by the police.
