I wonder about the extension request by the defense regarding the filing or not filing of an alibi notice. It may be that they just needed more time to make a decsion, but I hope it is not because BK wants to file an alibi notice that is weak and that the defense attorneys aren't comfortable with it going forward, for whatever reason, and don't see it as effective for his case. If BK wants to file an alibi notice, then the defense will have to do so. If they talk him out of it and don't file an alibi notice with the details required, then BK may try to use this to his advantage later on with regard to an appeal.
If BK and his attorneys are in agreement that no alibi notice should be filed with the court, then the clock will just run out, and this will just be a procedural default, no need for the defense to appear before a judge or to notify the prosecution that they don't intend to file an alibi notice. The defense will have chosen not to assert that right, i.e. the right to file an alibi notice. The forfeiture operates automatically if the deadline comes and nothing is filed by the defense.
There is an interesting article in the Chicago Law Review (1984) on the history of the federal and different aspects of states' alibi rules and its establishment in 1975. Some states even exclude a defendant from testifying on his/her own behalf if they have forfeited the alibi rule due to not giving notice at the appropriate time. Idaho doesn't prevent a defendant from such testimony as a sanction for not giving timely notice of the alibi rule, just doesn't allow witness testimony since the prosecution would not have had time to prepare.
