Well, I posted earlier that I thought since the judge has allowed the State a basically unfettered pass to introduce their expert without having to release a certain product of their investigation of the computer thereby limiting BC's right to cross examine him, that the judge should allow it to ensure that BC has a fair shot at the evidence. I don't buy BZ's argument that they don't have time. They have the entire resource of the DA's office and you can't tell me for a second that there are only two FBI agents capable of assisting BZ understand/prepare for this witness and that those two witnesses happen to be unavailable.
To me the ruling on it's own is probably erroneous, but it is just another piece that is piling up for BC's appellate arguments, should it come to that. I will say however that I'm sure HK didn't want JW to admit on the stand that he's not a forensic expert, though I think the distinction of where to draw the line as to what a forensic expert can testify to and what a network security expert can testify to is a very difficult one to draw. I will say, however, that I don't have much faith in the appellate court, and that's just coming from experience and knowing that the overturn rate in this state is not very high. I think one thing that is probably going to help on appeal if it goes there is the judges admitted lack of technological knowledge and his seemingly arbitrary rulings in those areas, rulings that have mostly sided with the State. In appellate review, the transcripts are goldmines. You'll find all kinds of little nuggets in there and some of the judge's comments like "I don't know what Facebook is so I'll let it in" will play a part in the panel's decision.