and not only discovery.....
Having not represented any clients in federal criminal matters, I'm not going to say anything about how the civil case discovery process compares to what takes place in a criminal case, with the exception of noting the prosecution's obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence.
But there is a lot of discovery (or its close equivalent) already taking place in other matters in a number of courts. There is likely to be easy access to, and sharing of, document sets from ongoing matters. For instance, the pre-filing disclosures in the Delaware shareholder (derivative) lawsuit. If there are protective orders of confidentiality in place, those would limit the sharing of documents produced in other matters, presumably.
In an earlier phase of career, an opposing attorney indicated her plan to call all of my client's main witnesses as "adverse witnesses" in her case-in-chief. It was a mostly garden-variety employment discrimination case; I was on the defense. Having not encountered adverse witnesses called by the plaintiff previously, I obtained a set of recordings from a plaintiffs' lawyers group about using adverse witnesses in the case-in-chief. I recite this bit of career history for one simple reason: the program material had almost nothing about the actual witness examination at trial -- and several really insightful presentations about crafting and presenting "the story" at the trial.
In other words, the defense of Mr. Forkner will have volumes of material to work with, in crafting the story of what happened, to the judge and the jury. And "story" is not a pejorative term here. Obviously, in a courtroom in an adversary system, it's a fight. And given what is already in the public domain, and what Forkner's counsel said in the press, there will be quite a fight, quite a fight indeed, mounted by his defense.