Missouri’s Supreme Court will hear arguments next week in the case of a woman who was convicted of a drug charge in Warren County after prosecutors revealed new evidence just days before her trial.Danielle A. Zuroweste, 31, of Imperial, was convicted in 2016 for a felony drug charge out of Foristell. She has appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court, on the grounds that prosecutors used a recorded phone call from the county jail that Zuroweste’s attorney wasn’t made aware of until just before trial.Zuroweste was arrested by Foristell police during a traffic stop in September 2015. A baggie found in the vehicle she was driving tested positive for methamphetamine residue, according to a legal brief from the Missouri Attorney General’s Office. The office is representing the state’s side in upholding Zuroweste’s conviction.On Nov. 14, 2016, a jury found Zuroweste guilty of the charge of possession of a controlled substance. The attorney general’s office said Zuroweste was sentenced to seven years in prison, subject to completion of a 120-day drug treatment program.An appeal to the Supreme Court asserts that prosecutors in the case did not give proper notice to the defense that a phone call recorded at the Warren County Jail would be used as evidence during the trial. Notice of the evidence was provided on a Thursday afternoon just before the Veterans Day holiday weekend, with the trial held the following Monday, Zuroweste’s attorney said in a written brief for the Supreme Court.“Due to the late disclosure (Zuroweste’s attorney) was unable to adequately prepare Ms. Zuroweste’s defense or to ensure that the single disclosed telephone call was presented in the full context,” attorney Carol D. Jansen said in the Supreme Court brief.Several days after being arrested in September 2015, Zuroweste used a jail phone to call a friend who was watching her children, according to the court briefs. The briefs quote her as saying things like “I learned my lesson,” and “I knew it was wrong,” but not making explicit mention of drugs. Prosecutors characterized these statements as admissions of guilt during the trial, Jansen said.Five months before the trial in 2016, Zuroweste’s defense attorney made a blanket request for “discovery” of any written or recorded statements from Zuroweste in possession of prosecutors. Zuroweste’s argument is that the recorded jail phone call, and any other recorded calls, should have been provided at that time.The attorney general’s office argues that the county prosecutor on the case only became aware of the phone call four days before trial, and immediately made that evidence known to Zuroweste’s defense attorney. In the Supreme Court appeal Jansen counters that point, saying prosecutors could easily have discovered and acquired that recording and any others from the jail months before trial.Jansen said not doing so until four days before trial was a failure of prosecutors to diligently respond to the defense attorney’s request for evidence, creating a fundamentally unfair situation for the defendant.In reply to the appeal, the attorney general’s office argues that prosecutors followed the requirements of Missouri law, and that the recorded phone call was only one of multiple pieces of evidence that led to Zuroweste’s conviction.The Missouri Supreme Court will now have to decide how to rule on the appeal. Zuroweste is asking the court to grant a new trial, while a state attorney will argue that her conviction be upheld. After arguments are made during a Nov. 28 hearing, it is not known when a final decision will be reached.Court gavel