That and the whole power imbalance. He has no recourse if the gov't lies to him, but if he lies or covers up evidence he will be ground beneath the wheels of justice.
Agreed, I feel like Levison lost a lot of credibility and damaged his case by dragging his feet initially. However when the judge said "why should we trust you?" he didn't explicitly tie it into that history. Perhaps in context it was a given. It seemed the opposing attorney immediately after argued that Levison couldn't be trusted, because he'd delayed on prior orders, and the judge agreed.
- give me your bank password so i can get the $5 you own me.
- why dont i give you a check for $5?
- so i have to trust your check is good but you cant trust me with your bank password?
see? it is just crazy talk to push him around. the judge knows here his/her obedience rests. he is not even listening to the defense.