We have a clear indicator (from BOTH sides) that this late evidence they are wrangling about does matter.
The remedy being sought by the defense is to exclude the late evidence from being used by the state - and if it didn't have any importance either way, the prosecution would just say "okay" and wouldn't care. Instead, the prosecutors are fighting to keep the evidence in play, trying to tell the judge that (a) they already gave the evidence before, (b) the evidence isn't really important, and (c) his deadline wasn't really when he said it was.
The fact they are fighting tells us it definitely must meet the standard of materiality.
As for the responses offered, the idea that most of this was just "repeat" disclosure should be easy to resolve as to its truth or not. IF THAT'S THE TRUTH, it's all a moot issue. Just prove it. That's how they win the motion. HOWEVER, if the prosecution is blowing smoke on their claim this is just repeat stuff, imo they will (and should) get slammed hard (not only re the case, but personally).
If they have to go beyond the "already disclosed" idea, I'm thinking they could have problems.
The idea that the state could redefine the judge's deadline based on oral conversations in court, using any possible slip in terminology when speaking off the cuff, rather than sticking with the judge's written order to both sides, is going to be much harder imo. I don't think the judge will have much patience for the argument as a whole, but we will see what happens.
The claim that it's evidence that isn't important is an awful claim. The Solomonic response is "Okay, if you say it isn't important, I'll just toss it and no one should care." Oops.
They also argued that even if the judge does rule they missed the deadline, it's no biggie and it should be more or less ignored. I don't think that lack of respect for deadlines and orders by the judge is going to help them at all, especially with the dissed judge making the ruling.
All of this JMO. We will see in a few days how the judge sees it - that's the only opinion that matters.
Oh, and by the way -- Losing on this motion shouldn't be a game changer. That's assuming the prosecution has the layers and layers of evidence it claims it does, and that this stuff in question is just some extra. Overall, this looks like a fairly obvious result given the many blatant illegal actions of the defendants. IMO the biggest danger - the one thing to avoid - is screwing with the defendant rights, which I think the judge is working hard to avoid, as it can get cases tossed and convictions overturned.
