IANAL but it seems to me the interests of justice would require informing both the prosecution and defense attorneys if a state agency finds evidence of any sort that would be relevant to a given case.
Jumping the chain of command is never a good idea. At least send your boss an email (and BCC your gmail) to prove that you tried to go through official channels.
FTA: As for why he did not approach Corey about his concerns in the Martin case, Kruidbos said Corey has a close relationship with de la Rionda and “any attempt by me to go to them and say I think something wrong has happened would not have been taken seriously, and then ultimately held against me.”
“I consulted an attorney, which is my right,” he said. “I had concerns about what I had seen at work, and this was just how it ended up playing out.”
Yes, it ended up playing out that an employee saw an potential instance of misconduct and did not try to correct it within the organization. By informing his boss (or their boss, etc. on up the line) he could have demonstrated in addition that the boss is corrupt and should be removed from duty.
Now because of due process (there's no actual evidence that his boss wouldn't have actually done the right thing, the employee just assumed) the boss will still have her job and be in position to act contrary to the interests of justice in the future.
And at this point his management has a reason to remove him from the job. Maybe he can fight it as a wrongful termination, but for now he's out of a job. I hope he gets his job back, but saying that your boss is corrupt is reason enough to give your boss enough rope to hang themselves IMHO.
It's very hard to judge this situation, given that the case it relates to is so divisive. For people who believe George Zimmerman, this guy's actions seem heroic. For people who think Trayvon Martin was murdered, this will seem like an effort to taint the prosecution case.
I think that the crowd here on this site perhaps has a better ability than most to analyze facts. I have an opinion on the GZ case, but I think I can process this incident independently.
A specious argument. If someone raised concerns that were then ignored, or had had past experience of that kind, it would be entirely appropriate to consult an attorney. On the other hand, the notion that it would have been held against him as an employee of the state is (I think, IANAL) BS. Raising the issue with his supervisors would have made it their problem; it's attorneys who bear the responsibility for discovery compliance, not the lab staff who do the actual forensic work.
I think it's better to privately consult an attorney on anything you think is substantially suspicious to your superiors than to go through the chain of the command.
Exposing your dangerous intentions to report potentially illegal behavior too early could mean inadequate time to prepare for repercussions.
Certainly you could additionally consult an attorney, but that's still no excuse for leaving the system broken as-is. Did he plan on just leaking evidence all the time in the future and hoping that he doesn't accidentally violate a judge's legal order in the process?
Jumping the chain of command is never a good idea. At least send your boss an email (and BCC your gmail) to prove that you tried to go through official channels.