[UPDATE; The original story isn't there anymore, so find it here. ]
"Former prosecutor Wesley White said he was ethically obligated to reveal that Fourth Judicial Circuit Information Technology Director Ben Kruidbos retrieved the data that weren't turned over"
"'I'm an officer of the court and I'm obliged to inform the court of any misconduct or any potential misconduct coming before the court. Whether it's by the defense or prosecution,' White said."
UPDATE: As I noted here, I don't believe that the proseuctor could ethically charge murder two, and the manslaughter seems to be a real stretch.
2nd UPDATE: I cannot tell if the evidence that the judge excluded today (the texts, etc.) was the same evidence that was allegedly spoliated. I was suprised at the judge's ruling that the texts were not properly authenticated, as it seemed to me that there was plenty of evidence to get them before the jury (e.g., two levels of passwords, etc.). Are there any evidence experts out there who can comment on whether the exclusion is typical of how judges rule on the authenticity of text messages? (It seems especially tough to make that ruling against someone facing a murder two charge.) Assuming the texts were the allegedly spoliated evidence, does her ruling serve to insulate the state and the proseuctor's office? That is, what role would the inadmissibility of the evidence play in the judge's upcoming decision about spoliation? (I realize that the trail is a moving target, so if I have the facts wrong, I would be grateful for a polite correction from a reader.)