If the charge can be successfully defended by use of the excluded evidence - then it is exculpatory, plainly enough for every ditch-digger to see. That someone is making a legal argument otherwise screams out one of the big problems with our legal system - much like questioning the meaning of “is”.
She brought an indictment that excluded clear evidence refuting the charge (I don't give a rat's, what number does or doesn't “point” to another number - if it was self defense, he rightly goes free; which in plain english means she hid evidence from the judge in her indictment.)
Which is the greater breach (as Dershowitz points out the hypocrisy) Z not telling how much was in the Pay Pal account, though his wife offered to get accurate information and was declined by the judge; or this #$%^*$ not presenting clear evidence that implies a different story than she was telling?
Not just that. Corey is violating the immunity statute. A person who is covered by 776.032 is immune from arrest, detention, and prosecution. She has a duty to consider the self defense evidence, and if she finds she can't defeat that at trial, then she has an ethical and statutory duty to not charge.
My point is a narrow one, that the affidavit and information are -not- deficient for failure to recite and account for the elements of 776.032 self defense immunity.
Bingo.
The breach is the charge in the first place. That she brought it at all is the first problem. Everything else follows her breach.
In other words, if she'd charged and still showed the exculpatory evidence, somehow, the charge would be unethical.