Based on an idea from both Larry Olstad and Andy Simrin, following the issuance of the Chase opinion from earlier this week, I have drafted a "Demand that the Prosecutor Comply with Discovery Obligations; Motion to Exclude Witnesses for Non-Compliance."
There may be a number of ways to approach this. Why "demand" something the prosecutor is required to do by statute? Is it better to spring it on the state at the start of trial? Personally, I think judges would look disfavorably on this issue being raised for the first time at the beginning of a trial. But different attorneys will approach this differently and time will tell what happens.
It is something that would be most valuable in a messy, complicated, "tons of discovery" type of case, but it is worth noting that the discovery in Chase wasn't voluminous.
The demand could also be beefed up, if you so chose, with references to the absurdity of wasting time on preparing for possible witnesses that the state has no intention of calling, but that may be better raised at the oral argument on the motion to exclude. Again, different attorneys will take different approaches, and this demand should be seen as just one of many ways to raise the issue.