- both sides had an extremely hard to parse, near unintelligible raw source file (data dump from the phone)

- the prosecutor's office had purchased a software package that could turn this raw source file into a much more easily readable report

- the prosecutor's office didn't think that the defense would pay the several thousands of dollars for the same software, in order to generate the same report

- the prosecutor's office provided only the raw source file and declined to provide any of the auto-generated reports which were meant to extract data from, organize and allow for easier analysis of that source file

- the IT guy knew this and was afraid that in the future, someone could claim he acted in negligence

- unbeknownst to the IT guy, the defense had indeed purchased other 3rd party software and successfully analyzed the entire source file

- the prosecutor hinted that the IT guy's testimony is him getting even for being the (unconfirmed) target of a leak investigation earlier in 2012

So does the prosecutor need to turn over the software-generated report to the defense? Or only the raw source files which powered the software? That's the question and I am unqualified to answer. But if it's the former and not the latter then the prosecutor messed up and was caught red handed.

I find it a little disturbing that the choice of software, and particularly the cost of it, can mean the difference between going to prison or not.

In this case, the undiscovered files included someone with a "black hand" holding a gun, text messages related to acquiring a gun, and some kind of marijuana product. None of those are relevant to the case, but do trigger prejudice or emotional responses, so it's probably good that they were left out.

In another case, those might be pictures of a murder victim or some other critical evidence (of either guilt or innocence). It seems pretty unfair that accused with a public defender doesn't generally have access to this.

If prosecutors want to paint a personal portrait of someone for the sympathy of the jurors, stuff like this should absolutely be included by the defense. In fact, I'd say it's their legal obligation to do everything in their power to have it presented.

I don't know what media you saw when this case started, but Travyon was described as a young adult, not a young child. Further he was merely buying candy and going home when he was stalked by Zimmerman, doing nothing that should trigger suspicion or aggression.

> If prosecutors want to paint a personal portrait of someone for the sympathy of the jurors, stuff like this should absolutely be included by the defense.

The extra photos from the cell phone are entirely irrelevant to the facts of the case and they should not be presented to the court as though they were. The defense wanted to include those photos to paint a portrait of a scary black man to a group of white women in the jurors box.

"Stalked" is pretty aggressive language, and according to GZ, his initial suspicion was just related to him not knowing who this person was (he knew most of the residents) walking around at night, in the dark, in the rain, near the houses. I think that's a pretty reasonable case for someone to feel suspicious.

And to re-iterate, when prosecutors are trying to paint a portrait of childish innocence, I think it's perfectly acceptable to introduce evidence to the contrary. They're irrelevant if we don't try to elicit sympathy from the jury, but that's not how the prosecution handled things.

Prosecutor Richard Mantei argued that instructions for third-degree murder should be included on the premise that Zimmerman committed child abuse when he fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin because Martin was underage.

[1] http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2013/07/11/judge-rules-jury-can-co...

Jumping the chain of command is never a good idea. At least send your boss an email (and BCC your gmail) to prove that you tried to go through official channels.

“I consulted an attorney, which is my right,” he said. “I had concerns about what I had seen at work, and this was just how it ended up playing out.”

Now because of due process (there's no actual evidence that his boss wouldn't have actually done the right thing, the employee just assumed) the boss will still have her job and be in position to act contrary to the interests of justice in the future.

And at this point his management has a reason to remove him from the job. Maybe he can fight it as a wrongful termination, but for now he's out of a job. I hope he gets his job back, but saying that your boss is corrupt is reason enough to give your boss enough rope to hang themselves IMHO.

A specious argument. If someone raised concerns that were then ignored, or had had past experience of that kind, it would be entirely appropriate to consult an attorney. On the other hand, the notion that it would have been held against him as an employee of the state is (I think, IANAL) BS. Raising the issue with his supervisors would have made it their problem; it's attorneys who bear the responsibility for discovery compliance, not the lab staff who do the actual forensic work.

Exposing your dangerous intentions to report potentially illegal behavior too early could mean inadequate time to prepare for repercussions.

He said he asked [his lawyer] for legal advice because he was concerned he could face “legal exposure” if the cellphone report wasn’t turned over to the defense before the trial started.

He said he did not feel comfortable posing that question to anyone within the office because the State Attorney’s Office had just conducted an in-house probe of whether someone was leaking personnel information."

Making someone look bad when it is deserved and when it is not deserved are two very different circumstances.

I would hope that any attorney that acts without ethics should be investigated and removed. If the system is not good enough to self-police itself, then we have a problem.

Could he have instead gone to the state bar to raise his concerns? Is there an equivalent of a Dept of Internal Affairs that investigates prosecutorial misconduct?

So it is very possible, even likely that the defense obtained the same data themselves.