Do you think that if the audit looked bad for the defense, then the defense would use that evidence against itself in court?
The prosecution is required to share exculpatory evidence with the defense. The defense is not required to share evidence against itself with the prosecution.
If the prosecution had the hard drive examined by an expert, and it was determined the accused may not have committed a crime, the prosecution would be obligated to divulge this to the defense. The defense is not under a similar obligation.
If either party discovers evidence which they intend to use in court, they are obligated to share it during discovery.
The obligation of the defense attorney is to defend their client, regardless of guilt or innocence. The obligation of the prosecuting attorney is to pursue justice, not simply to get a conviction without regard to guilt or innocence. If they come upon evidence that the accused did not commit the crime he’s accused of, they’re obligated to share the evidence with the defense, and possibly to drop charges if the evidence compels it. Not so for the defense. They aren’t obligated to provide evidence against themselves, or to plead guilty, even if they’re guilty as sin.
If the defense had the hard drive examined, and it was revealed that the accused had in fact committed the crime, the defense would be under no obligation to volunteer the proof of guilt to the prosecutor. If they revealed the results of the audit to the prosecutor, it’s either because they chose to reveal the results to prove his innocence, or because they were required to reveal the results because they intended to use them in court to prove his innocence.
Thanks for the explanation. I had thought that during “discovery” that each side was compelled to show whatever evidence they had. Thanks for the education.