At least one defense attorney is pushing the idea that criminal convictions that involved any of the cops who have been decertified for allegedly cheating on the MPOETC test could face legal challenges.

Defense Attorney Mike Malloy Malloy said:

“I think it’s a serious issue. So much of an officer’s testimony is based on reputation,” said Malloy, explaining that a prosecutor brings out the length of time the officer has served and the number of courses he’s taken during his tenure as a policeman.

This is a ridiculous stretch.

First of all, as a matter of law, jurors aren't supposed to put any more credence into a police officer's testimony than they are anybody else's and this is made clear during jury selection.

Second, the more you know about this re-certification test stuff the more you know, "It's the stupidity, stupid." Not the corruption. Not the ethics. The dumbness. The dumbness of cheating on a test that's so easy "even a caveman can do it." (Hat tip: Bender)

Even smart, generally ethical people do amazingly dumb things that can have very sorry consequences. This appears to be one of them.

The leap from getting ensnared in this mess and perjuring one's self in a criminal trial is huge. It would be one thing if a cop was found to be seriously corrupt (taking drug money, threatening dealers and witnesses, etc.) then a defense lawyer might have a argument to make about overturning a conviction based on the officer's word in a drug case.

But this? I don't think so.