Could it possibly be that it's information they couldn't use in previous trials? I wonder how much of that there is that will come in from hundreds of hours of wiretaps between all of them.
It is expected that we will see new developments in the coming weeks leading up to the 7/29/2022 sentencing of Magbanua and Case Management of Charles Adelson. These will be good developments because they are signs of progress toward
“Justice for Dan Markel”.
The State may list 100 Category A witnesses but will call only 10 during trial, depending on time allocation and necessity. In the same vein, the raw data of Charles Adelson’s i-Cloud are furnished to the counsel of the defense during the discovery process but only a small portion of it, if any, is meant to be discussed in open court. All pieces of evidence will be made available to all involved during the process, including the Judge’s clerks and the Jury, for examination on demand.
Charles Adelson's i Cloud raw data was listed, and sealed from public view, in the Magbanua discovery.
The picture of the Amended Discovery dated 6/29/2022, which I posted in #754, shows that these 6/29/2022 items are “replacements (plural)” for what were previously disclosed from “Magbanua” case. Hence, they must contain “new pieces” of evidence.
Of course, “new pieces” of evidence do not necessarily mean “fresh evidences” (as what you are alluding to, I presume). From 2011, Apple iCloud resides on Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure; and also extended to Google Cloud Platform since 2016. Apple iCloud is a generic name for multiple services such as iCloud Photo, iCloud email, iCloud Drive etc. May be these are “newly disclosed” data from another platform or from another iCloud service not previously explored.
The iCloud evidence could be dated 2016 (not very fresh) but it availed to the State Attorneys only in June 2022 (relatively new for the investigation). This is possible because the privacy disclosures of Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and Google are arcane.
The criminal procedure gives the Judge the ability to define the scope of searches and seizures. Hence, a Judge might withhold the searches and seizures of some parts of the iCloud to protect the defendant from potential government fishing expedition until the investigators provide compelling benefits for justice to be served.
Also, Web based iCloud emails are easier to seize than iCloud Server emails. Web emails transited through multiple Web services across TCP/IP. The FBI could just seize the data from the weaker man-in-the-middle (since they are already disclosed to a third party) rather than fighting the privacy terms of the big 3.
I am just speculating as I am also curious. What could be the evidence worthiness of the Charles Adelson’s iCloud “new contents” for them to deserve a one page addendum to Answer to Demand For Discovery?