4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #93

New Posts

Sundog said:
As @jepop posted above, the Alibi Rule is included in Idaho's criminal code along with many other states. The Alibi Rule is controversial in the legal community because it compels speech from a defendant. It was adopted to help trials move along more efficiently, so that the prosecution wouldn't be surprised with a new defense witness in the middle of a trial and then they would have to stop the trial while the prosecution dealt with the new information. Responding to a request from the state for an alibi in accordance with the Alibi Rule is optional for the defense, but if later during the trial the defense wants to call a witness or present some evidence that establishes an alibi for the defendant, they are prohibited from doing so if they did not submit their alibi defense to the court by the date established by the judge.
Click to expand...

Best explanation yet. I appreciate it @Sundog !!!!
 
Cool Cats said:
www.today.com

Public defender says Idaho murder suspect is ‘calm,’ believes he’ll be exonerated: ‘This is not him’

Public defender Jason LaBar said he expects for Bryan Kohberger to sign extradition paperwork during Tuesday’s hearing, paving the way for his return to Idaho.
www.today.com www.today.com

Jason LaBar, the chief public defender of Monroe County, Pennsylvania, is representing Kohberger in the extradition but not the murder case.

"He said this is not him," LaBar told TODAY on Tuesday, Jan. 3. "He believes he's going to be exonerated. That's what he believes, those were his words."
Click to expand...
There you go,"those were his words". Thanks for being bothered to look it up! And Jason LaBar not LeMar, kind of close but not close enough. You're a treasure.
 
@danablue1
A bunch of docs dropped, motions from both sides. See docket. (ETA: thanks for posting some of them @twall )
One bone of contention seems to be the IGG stuff. Defense wants the IGG made public, prosecution disagrees.
They're going to discuss that, as well as the recent phone stuff, during the May 14th hearing.
The prosecution wants the May 14th hearing to be closed to the public, but defense objects to that, they want it public.
So tomorrow's hearing is to decide on that.
 
Swansee said:
@danablue1
A bunch of docs dropped, motions from both sides. See docket. (ETA: thanks for posting some of them @twall )
One bone of contention seems to be the IGG stuff. Defense wants the IGG made public, prosecution disagrees.
They're going to discuss that, as well as the recent phone stuff, during the May 14th hearing.
The prosecution wants the May 14th hearing to be closed to the public, but defense objects to that, they want it public.
So tomorrow's hearing is to decide on that.
Click to expand...
Thanks to you & @twall for the info.

I'm also wondering if the state was unhappy their attempt to stop the defense survey by reading out the two questions they especially objected to at the last hearing seemed to backfire. The questions having been read into the record at an open hearing became part of the public record and as such, were no longer off-limits re: the gag order

"“Because the information is now in the public record, the Court does not see any benefit in preventing the defense from continuing its surveys or requiring that the two questions at issue be eliminated,” Judge said.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/22/us/bryan-kohberger-trial-update-survey/index.html

The saying "hoisted by their own petard" comes to mind.
MOO
 
Prosecutors are urging the judge in the Moscow college student murder case to reject defendant Bryan Kohberger’s alibi submitted earlier this month and limit how his defense can present the evidence at trial.

Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson argued in a written responsethat the defense has failed to meet the state’s legal threshold to argue that Kohberger was elsewhere than the crime scene at the time of the November 2022 quadruple homicide. The document was filed Friday, but not posted to an Idaho courts website until late Monday.

“The defendant’s supplemental alibi response continues to lack the specificity required by Idaho code,” Thompson wrote. “The defendant is offering nothing new to his initial ‘alibi’ that he was simply driving around during the morning hours of Nov. 13, 2022.”

[…]

In response to prosecutors’ demands, Kohberger’s public defenders last summer filed an alibi that he was out for an overnight drive by himself, as had long been his habit, near the Idaho-Washington state line.

“We knew that already, and if that’s his alibi, so be it,” Thompson countered at a pretrial hearing in August.

[…]

Judge also scheduled a hearing for Thursday morning to help decide whether another pretrial hearing set for May 14 should be closed to the public. Prosecutors last week asked that the hearing be closed for arguments over the defense’s demand for state evidence through the legal process known as discovery, and Anne Taylor, Kohberger’s lead public defender, objected that it should be held in an open setting.

[…]

 

Prosecutors want alibi limited in Idaho student murder case; defense seeks DNA records unsealed​

Tue, April 30, 2024 at 12:37 PM EDT
news.yahoo.com

Prosecutors want alibi limited in Idaho student murder case; defense seeks DNA records unsealed

“The process of sealing is being abused by the state and its law enforcement agents,” wrote Anne Taylor, attorney for defendant Bryan Kohberger.
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com

What I have been saying.....

“The location of defendant’s cellphone at times other than the time of the homicides is not proof of or relevant to the defendant’s specific location at the time of the homicides,” Thompson wrote.

“The defendant’s supplemental alibi response continues to lack the specificity required by Idaho code. The defendant is offering nothing new to his initial ‘alibi’ that he was simply driving around during the morning hours of Nov. 13, 2022.”
 
Last edited:
NCWatcher said:
Thanks to you & @twall for the info.

I'm also wondering if the state was unhappy their attempt to stop the defense survey by reading out the two questions they especially objected to at the last hearing seemed to backfire. The questions having been read into the record at an open hearing became part of the public record and as such, were no longer off-limits re: the gag order

"“Because the information is now in the public record, the Court does not see any benefit in preventing the defense from continuing its surveys or requiring that the two questions at issue be eliminated,” Judge said.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/22/us/bryan-kohberger-trial-update-survey/index.html

The saying "hoisted by their own petard" comes to mind.
MOO
Click to expand...

No. The questions are bad for the defense not for the prosecution, IMO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cool Cats said:
No. The questions are bad for the defense not for the prosecution, IMO.
Click to expand...
Well, that may be why the prosecution read them out in open court hoping to hurt the defense. But that's hardly the reason the prosecution tried to get the survey stopped (which necessitated the hearing.) And the judge did clearly justify not blocking those two questions because the state put them on the public record.
MOO, of course.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NCWatcher said:
Well, that may be why the prosecution read them out in open court hoping to hurt the defense. But that's hardly the reason the prosecution tried to get the survey stopped (which necessitated the hearing.) And the judge did clearly justify not blocking those two questions because the state put them on the public record.
MOO, of course.
Click to expand...

The defense hurt themselves. Hello appeal
 
Cool Cats said:
The defense hurt themselves. Hello appeal
Click to expand...
The state filed the motion requiring the open hearing about the survey. I guess it's possible it was all a complicated plot by the state to hurt the defense but I don't see it that way. I think it was what it looked like--an effort to stop the survey. I think the wording in the judge's decision made the state look a bit foolish frankly. And now the state wants discussion of discovery kept off a publicly-accessible record. Of course, there's no connection :)
MOO
 
Last edited:

State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger​

Latah County CR29-22-2805

Case Summary (Updated 04/29/24)




NOTICE IS GIVEN That the above-entitled case is set for:
Hearing Type Date Time Motion Hearing 05/02/2024; 10:00 AM State’s Motion to Close Hearings;
and Defendant’s Objection
 
NCWatcher said:
Thanks to you & @twall for the info.

I'm also wondering if the state was unhappy their attempt to stop the defense survey by reading out the two questions they especially objected to at the last hearing seemed to backfire. The questions having been read into the record at an open hearing became part of the public record and as such, were no longer off-limits re: the gag order

"“Because the information is now in the public record, the Court does not see any benefit in preventing the defense from continuing its surveys or requiring that the two questions at issue be eliminated,” Judge said.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/22/us/bryan-kohberger-trial-update-survey/index.html

The saying "hoisted by their own petard" comes to mind.
MOO
Click to expand...
State wanted to stop the survey until the court had the chance to assess. Their concerns were legitimate at the time and it would have been irresponsible to do nothing. Imo. State's motion is unsealed and there for the reading. moo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 154 more.
Total: 4,096 (members: 155, guests: 3,941)

Online statistics

Members online
155
Guests online
3,941
Total visitors
4,096
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,919
Messages
17,995,601
Members
229,276
Latest member
PurplePoloBear
Back
Top