I would really like to know what the alleged deliberately omitted information was. Can anyone tell me how or when I might be able to find that information out? I mean seriously would said information have prevented a judge from issuing the warrant to take DNA? Aside from the DNA conformation there were at least 3 witnesses to the actual stabbing and putting her in the car and driving away. Were there other cars in the area that matched the description? Did anyone else run from the police? Were there any other men in the vicinity of where they found Ms. Bruce? Ok fine toss the DNA on technicality but that isn't really going to make a difference in the verdict.

summertime ... The story says that the accused has now pointed the finger at the police accusing them of a lie of omission. This is not the same as an outright lie. If the alleged missing information doesn't make a difference (or they didn't think it made a difference) then it is not a lie of omission, but rather poor judgement on the part of the police and state prosecutor. Legally this may still qualify as an intentional omission of information, but I am not well versed enough in the law to make that call. I would like to know what this alleged 'lie of omission' was so that I can form my own opinion about it's relevance.
You are right that the police shouldn't lie outright or by omission, that is why the lawyer has asked for this hearing. It's part of the system of checks and balances. But police are people and people make mistakes. They do and say things in the heat of the moment that they later regret. Yes, police are and should be held to a higher standard when it comes to making mistakes especially in the process of an investigation.
You asked 'if it doesn't make a difference, why did they lie in the first place?' we don't know that they did, just that they are being accused of lying by omission.