Maybe Broden figures this is "new material," and belongs in a supplemental to his appeal, rather than in any rebuttal to the state's response to the appeal.
The law is an adversarial process, all the players know this and most find that fact to be a feature, a net plus, etc. So, the fact that the state says things like "examining trials are not needed unless defendants are in jail and seeking another way out" is not remarkable at all. The state is Clendennen's adversary. The state has accused Clendennen of a felony. The state is not about to admit or accept without rebuttal that its accusation is wholly lacking in individual probable cause.
It is entirely typical for the state to issue a gag order on the premise that publicity compromises a fair trial, and for the state to then go out and justify arrest, which implies that there is probable cause the accused committed a crime. Sometimes the state offers the thin disclaimer of "not yet proven in court," but by golly, the state acts like it has the proof and is itching to show it, and claim another conviction. A fair trial, after all, includes that the trial be fair to the state, too!
Thanks. I had hoped that you would find and post what you linked to.