They believed it was correct at the time and have now corrected their error after a few months.
You can believe whatever you want about Smith and his abilities as a prosecutor. I personally find it difficult to believe that the Special Prosecutor brought in to represent the US against a former president in an unprecedented case that will likely have repercussions for both Trump, Biden, and all future Presidents merely pulled an "oopsie" and forgot to disclose evidence he had for months. I find it more likely that he realized that it would be obvious he had some other evidence he didn't disclose when he outlined his strategy for this trial and he decided he'd have to bite the bullet and disclose the evidence before trial in hopes of not getting a mistrial or worse.
To believe this was just an "oopsie" (which is possible, he's human, his team can make mistakes) doesn't bode well for the trial either. You definitely want the best you can find to prosecute this thing....not a guy making such obvious mistakes pre-trial. You want a strong case, not one where the process gets so botched it falls apart immediately upon appeal.
It does not fit a Brady violation.
It would be a Brady violation if they failed to correct the error by the time the trial occurs..
I gave you an example of a pretrial Brady violation. I don't know what more you want to show that pretrial Brady violations occur and can result in a dismissal or worse for the prosecution. In the case I gave you...the evidence was discovered a full 3 weeks prior to the case being dismissed and while that may not seem like a lot of time because the charges were 5 years old....the main reason for the delay was a backlog created by the coronavirus. The evidence? The alleged victim had made false allegations in the past. It's not something that proves the defendent is innocent, it's just something potentially helpful to the defense.
Is it the sort of evidence that the defense couldn't process or prepare for in 3 weeks? No. It's pretty simple to look at the past case of false allegations and prepare a line of questions that suggests these current allegations are false as well....especially since they came during that whole "MeToo believe women because false allegations are too rare to worry about" years.
Now, whether or not this evidence is the sort of evidence that would be in favor of the defense's innocence doesn't seem to be determined by either article (yours or the OP's) but the fact remains that the prosecution withheld evidence because they previously stated they had turned over all available evidence. Had they not done that....they still would have been in the discovery phase. They had stated in court that all evidence had been turned over though, ending the discovery phase. They'll be rather lucky if it's something minor and the defense simply gets an extension because the special prosecutor is demonstrating how he puts the "special" in "special prosecutor".
Trump was not obligated to give his own lawyers the survellance footage? Yeah, he can deceive his own lawyers but that is unwise.
No...legally speaking he isn't obligated. The prosecution has to turn over evidence....all of it.
And the prosecution did sent it over to the defense once they saw it had not been processed and provided to them.
Right....how did they discover that? Someone noticed a lone DVD marked "evidence for Trump case" in the "discovery evidence" box in Smith's office that should have been mailed out?
Or is this going to be the very familiar "oops my secretary got it mixed up when she was sorting through all the evidence we were supposed to send to the defense" excuse that Biden likes to use to explain his piles of documents strewn about his residence and university offices?
