The jury decides what is within the law. The judge will determine what is relevant. So 'within the law' isn't over till it's over. Be it GSR or appearance issues - all this goes into a decision process of what is acting within the law means. The jury decides according to various theoretical models on the best and most coherent stories. How that story is framed is complex. A good attorney will introduce the fact - here's a fun factor from jury research. The DA brings up factor X, the defense objects. Members of the juries may think - why this must be a bad thing or why was the defense objecting. Also, it's been found they don't remember the objection only the first presentation. Telling a juror to disregard something - doesn't work. Even if explicitly they don't mention it, implicitly it may color their views. Lots of experimental tests of this. Last, you may want a more coherent defense of some factor than just the defense's statement - that brings me back to an expert that will cost you a fortune in most cases. The expert may fail - some noted experts have been disregarded on issues of whether magazines of higher cap should be banned. The emotion overrides the logic.