Let&#x27;s say they try to convict somebody based on data from the phone.<p>&quot;Your honor, it&#x27;s a known fact that my client has had a long-standing adversarial relationship with Jack Smith, an employee at Apple. Jack Smith&#x27;s motive and opportunity to frame my client by falsifying data in this case provides clear reasonable doubt of my client&#x27;s guilt.&quot;<p>Additionally, let&#x27;s say they destroy the phone. How can you establish that the evidence hasn&#x27;t been tampered with after the fact? It&#x27;s not like you can go pull the files again, the phone has been destroyed. So now you&#x27;re not only trusting that a) Apple provided the right data, you&#x27;re trusting that b) the FBI hasn&#x27;t tampered with the data to frame somebody.