Can Chris Brown really have a defense based on a leaked photo? My thoughts are this, leaked photo or not, you need to defend the crime you’re convicted of (except cases where evidence tampering would affect the specifics of a crime or where your rights were violated related to warrents or admendments and such).
Why would a photo leak factor into the defense of beating a woman? The leakee may be in trouble and rightfully so, but having a strategy around the leaked photo only focuses on the crime he’s accused of. Which I wouldn’t think puts Brown in a good light. It’s like saying, “I’m not guilty because of the leaked photo that shows I beat my girlfriend”.
I’m guessing the argument will be that the leak of the photo would indicate that the police had a commercial interest in the outcome of the case and therefore may have been biased to make Brown look guilty (including perhaps to the point of altering evidence) so the photo would be more newsworthy and have a higher value.
Even without the photos it will be a challenge to get an untainted jury. But not impossible. It will make the selection process longer but no way a lawyer is hanging his hat on this.
I don’t see this as a winner either. Maybe if they are able to find out who did it they could impeach their testimony as an individual but not as a department as a whole. It may be that it was some clerk who had nothing to do with the case but file the reports.
Based on the link in the OP, Brown’s lawyers apparently agree that it’ll be an issue whether than person who leaked the photo was also involved in the investigation. But if they can establish it was somebody involved in the investigation and they get a favorable ruling they can probably have a wide range of evidence struck from the record. Most investigations are not compartmentalized so one investigator probably was involved with most of it and could theoretically “taint” everything he touched.