Originally Posted by flstf

I guess I don't understand this discovery requirement. If Horner was on the witness list shouldn't the prosecution have known that he would dispute their claim that her actions were willful and unlawful? Does his testimony have to be revealed beforehand?

It seems to me that the prosecution should have had a reasonable expectation that the computer expert would attempt to demonstrate what he claimed happened. Even if the judge thought the prosecution needed time to prepare a response, what's wrong with giving them a day or two, after all 40 years of a person's life is at stake.

I can't see how justice is served by not allowing the jury to see what happened and how these popups occur from the websites visited.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Subdivision (a) provides for automatic disclosure, which first was added in 1993. Disclosure requires parties to share their own supporting evidence without being requested to by the other party. Failure to do so can preclude that evidence from being used at trial. This applies only to evidence that supports their own case, not anything that would harm their case. For example, a plaintiff brings a case alleging a negligent accident where the defendant damaged the plaintiff's boat. The plaintiff would then be required to automatically disclose repair bills for his damaged property (Since this would only support his case) (26(a)(1)(c)).

Subdivision (b) is the heart of the discovery rule, and defines what is discoverable and what is limited. Anything that is relevant is available for the other party to request, as long as it is not privileged or otherwise protected. Under ¶ 1, relevance is defined as anything more or less likely to prove a fact that affects the outcome of the claim. It does not have to be admissible in court as long as it could reasonably lead to admissible evidence.