AT has stated repeatedly that they need the CAST report for the alibi and inexplicably, more than a year after the murders they still don't have it. I know it is a complex report to compile and write, but some prioritization would be appropriate given the attention this case has received. IMO, both the defense and prosecution need time to study the CAST report and decide how it supports their cases and how that information will be presented.
Beyond the CAST report, my expectation is that AT's team has discovered other alibi evidence they can use which may come in the form of videos, sound recordings, photographs, expert analysis and even witnesses. The PCA, Court documents and videos which have been released so far paint an intriguing picture of the likely prosecution case. Based on the contents of these documents, I'm not convinced of the value of an alibi for disproving the prosecution case. But, I never place a high value on an alibi in any case because if you look at the statistics of exoneration cases in the USA, 2/3's of the innocent defendants who were convicted presented an alibi at their original trial and were convicted anyway. IMO most juries simply don't trust alibi's. So, IMO, while an alibi is a "good to have" in actuality, for this case, I believe it will be of minimal importance to the defense or the jury.
The New Jersey Supreme Court has said that “few defenses have greater potential for creating reasonable doubt as to a defendant's guilt in the minds of the [jur
papers.ssrn.com
All JMO.