The trial isn't about evolution. It's about whether the founders of the ID movement and the writers and publishers of Pandas and People were motivated by religion, and whether they changed the word creationism to ID to get around existing court rulings.
Since the first drafts of Pandas used the word creationism, and since later drafts changed this to ID, the legal case is a slam dunk.
Given all you've said, how does the article contradict what was said under oath?