The accused girl’s lawyer has correctly, I think, noted that this will never go to trial. I doubt if she can even be indicted.
In the first place, as I have already noted, they have to prove that she was in possession of her phone, and that she and she alone typed the “incriminating” texts. That’s their first bar.
Then they have to additionally prove her mens rea: her “guilty mind”. That is, that she was sober, not under the influence of drugs or alcohol – or someone standing over her with a baseball bat? – and meant her words to cause his death. (A good lawyer could also make a case here for “reverse psychology”, I think.)
So, first, “she typed the texts”, second, “she typed them knowing their likely intent, and she did intend that result”, but there’s more: Have any of you typed on a cell phone lately? Doesn’t everyone laugh at “stupid autocorrect” from time to time? How can the prosecutor prove – beyond “reasonable doubt” – that she typed and intended exactly what appeared on the victim’s device?
This is more than “prosecutorial over-reach”, this is a prosecutor who’s either very, very dense or very well schooled in the art of PR, and simply looking to make headlines. It’s a toss-up to me which is worse.