an evidentiary, exclusionary rule. If the tainted (by an unconstitutional search and seizure) evidence led to other evidence, that evidence is also excluded (readers digest condensed version).

This concept doesn't carry over to, say, an investigation from a biased District Attorney with improper financial motivations.

If there's an indictment based on sufficient evidence to withstand dismissal at, say, a preliminary hearing, it goes forward. Was there reasonable cause to believe a crime was committed, and was committed by this defendant?

Doesn't matter if the prosecutor has an improper vendetta, the test is the same.

And at trial the issue isn't, was the prosecutor improperly motivated? Rather it is, (at trial) did the prosecution prove each and every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt? And (on appeal) was there sufficient evidence in the record that a properly instructed jury could have made that finding?

Fani's motivation --let's say, for the purpose of argument, racking up billable hours for her boyfriend--doesn't really matter, if the charges are supported by evidence. (It matters quite a bit with regard to her a) retention of her office and b) retention of her license to practice law.)

But the case continues on its merits, whatever they are.