[salawat]

Yes. You are. Because ethics lapses by State actors who are empowered to such an asymmetric degree, demand it.

If exculpatory evidence is destroyed, adverse inference demands the court infer that that evidence be viewed in the worst light for the destroyer of the evidence, which in this case is the State. It really doesn't matter what was on that disk at this point. Now that the chain of evidence has been destroyed, we have to assume it truly was exculpatory.

Just as we'd assume a defendant destroying evidence would indicate it was so damning the jury should assume it was just the thing the State needed to prove their case.

Good of the goose, good of the gander. No self-referential inconsistency.