[oldalum]

And I'm still not sure how the cell phone evidence of Turner's salacious past didn't make it into the court case.

It made it into the sentencing. I am no criminal law expert, but my impression is that evidence of past behavior is often deemed too prejudicial to admit into evidence for deciding guilt or innocence of a specific act, unless a pattern can be established. The prosecution, if it knew about the cell phone stuff before the trial, probably could not have introduced it in its primary case; it probably could only have used that evidence to rebut arguments made by the plaintiff.

[oldalum]

And I'm still not sure how the cell phone evidence of Turner's salacious past didn't make it into the court case.

It made it into the sentencing. I am no criminal law expert, but my impression is that evidence of past behavior is often deemed too prejudicial to admit into evidence for deciding guilt or innocence of a specific act, unless a pattern can be established. The prosecution, if it knew about the cell phone stuff before the trial, probably could not have introduced it in its primary case; it probably could only have used that evidence to rebut arguments made by the plaintiff.