"Regarding the data, it is possible that the prosecutor decided the data is not relevant for the case and that there is no need to embarrass the victim who cann

"Regarding the data, it is possible that the prosecutor decided the data is not relevant for the case and that there is no need to embarrass the victim who cannot defend himself." That's a dangerous justification. First, the prosecutor is not the arbiter of relevance. The evidence should be turned over, and then the judge can make a determination as to its relevance. Allowing prosecutors to decide the relevance of evidence in their care would open the door to myriad abuses. For example, in a DNA case, what would stop a prosecutor from saying a third or fourth sample found that matched other individuals wasn't "relevant" to the case? Second, the notion that the "victim... cannot defend himself" is not only factually incorrect but immaterial. The deceased, who has not yet been proven to be a victim of anything, has the power of the state, armed with billions of dollars, a prison system, and a small army of investigators to defend him. The defendant has only his counsel and his wits. More importantly, damage to that person's reputation is not relevant to the prosecution of another individual. Our justice system is supposed to place a premium on the rights of the defendant, since the harm of incarcerating an innocent person is considered so grave. If the deceased's memory is tarnished by messages regarding previous violent actions, or purchases of deadly weapons, that is a price that must be borne to ensure the accused's right to a fair trial. Finally, the bar to relevance is extremely low. The rules of evidence state that relevant evidence it is any item which makes a fact in dispute more or less likely to be true. Note that it does not set any minimum bar on how much the evidence would influence the case, only that it affect an issue in dispute, even in the most minute fashion. In this case, it is the defense's contention that the deceased acted violently and in fact provoked the confrontation, and that the accused acted only in self defense. It is also their contention that the deceased reached for a firearm. It is certainly relevant that the deceased's conversion indicate that he had knowledge of firearms, that he purchased deadly weapons in the past, and that had an admitted history of violence.