The conditional recertification follows a turbulent history for Diebold's electronic voting systems.
In November 2004, the company settled a civil lawsuit brought by two activists and later joined by the state attorney general after he dropped his criminal investigation of the company.
Diebold paid $2.6 million to settle the suit, which alleged that the company had sold its touch-screen voting systems to Alameda County through misrepresentations about their security and certification.
One of the activists, Jim March, said he was the person who actually turned over the allegedly stolen documents to the Oakland Tribune and the state attorney general's and secretary of state's offices.
Sandi Gibbons, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County district attorney's office, refused to call Heller a "whistle-blower."
"We call him a defendant," she said. "He's accused of breaking the law.... If we feel that the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt in our minds that a crime has been committed, it's our job as a criminal prosecutor to file a case."
Although state law protects whistle-blowers from retaliation by their employers, they can still be criminally prosecuted, said Tom Devine, legal director at the Washington, D.C.-based Government Accountability Project.
"It's very rare that it's successful," he said. "It's a tactic where the primary goal may be to scare other would-be whistle-blowers rather than a realistic attempt to obtain a conviction."
Heller's preliminary hearing date will be set at a trial conference April 24.
If convicted on all three counts, he could face up to three years and eight months in state prison, Gibbons said.
*
\o7Times staff writer Jean O. Pasco contributed to this report.
\f7
