I'm thinking of the Latin terms to separate the thing...

...from the person. The "in personam" defects of the prosecutor are, of course, coincident with the "in rem" aspect of the facts of the case. Do the prosecutor's personal defects mean that the evidence itself is flawed or should not be relied upon?

To the extent that the facts really area facts, I'd think that her foibles don't change that. However, if her personally inappropriate actions are enough for the public to lose trust in her judgment, that might mean we no longer trust that she has presented all the relevant evidence, including stuff that would exculpate the defendants.

Someone higher up the totem...I mean, chain of authority, should consider removing Willis entirely from the case and appointing a completely new special prosecutor.