ADVERTISEMENT
The defense strategy, predictably, is to attack the messenger. Cannon’s legal team is screaming about “illegal surveillance” and “selective editing,” clinging to Florida’s two-party consent laws. They want to claim she is the victim of an “unprecedented invasion of privacy.” It is a pathetic pivot. They are arguing that the crime isn’t what she said, but that she was caught saying it. However, legal experts suggest that if these recordings were made under a valid federal cooperation agreement, state consent laws are irrelevant. Federal authority typically trumps state rules in these matters, meaning the “fruit of the poisonous tree” defense likely won’t save her from the truth of her own words.
