Comment by nugget | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nugget | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I watched the entire testimony on YouTube and from what I can tell, it boils down to this:

- 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.

Did they say which software was used? Was it EnCase? (Edit: Turns out it was cellbrite. They likely had EnCase for general forensics, at $3k, and cellbrite is another $8k, for phone-specific forensics).

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.

I think it's relevant given how much time the prosecution devoted to painting Trayvon as a child who was merely buying candy and returning from his childish errand back home, when everything occurred.

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 think it's relevant given how much time the prosecution devoted to painting Trayvon as a child who was merely buying candy and returning from his childish errand back home, when everything occurred.

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.

Trayvon had mild fatty metamorphosis of the liver. he was buying the ingredients for watermelon drank (aka lean)

I didn't see any media, I'm talking about the prosecution's presentation of the case during the trial. He was presented as a 17-year-old child (never once heard "young adult" in ~two weeks of watching).

"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.

The prosecutors specifically argued that child abuse happened in this case[1]:

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...

Perfect example of money equaling justice. A multi million wouldn't worry about the cost of any software that might provide any useful evidence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com