4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, 2022 #80

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
"MEDIA GUIDE TO IDAHO COURTS"
Cindizzi said:
....
...
Click to expand...
snipped for focus. @Cindizzi
Your post is a jewel. Thank you very much for this post and the many others in which you cite applicable law. :)
ETA: Makes for less guesswork and for more informed, well-reasoned discussions.

I'm asking a Mod. to add a ref. & link to it on first page of every thread for this case.

"MEDIA GUIDE TO IDAHO COURTS"
 
Sister Golden Hair said:
Important to remember, too, that the prosecution not only agreed to this, but suggested an even later date that would be convenient.
Click to expand...
True


(snipped)

Court noted the presence of counsel and stated the defendant is present in custody.

Ms. Taylor stated that the defendant is prepared to waive his right to a speedy preliminary hearing, and stated that the defendant is requested a preliminary hearing at the end of June. Ms. Taylor requested at least 4 or 5 days for the preliminary hearing.

Mr. Thompson stated that for the State's calendar July would work better, but could make it work with June. Court stated that the Court's calendar would be better for the end of June.
 
gliving said:
True


(snipped)

Court noted the presence of counsel and stated the defendant is present in custody.

Ms. Taylor stated that the defendant is prepared to waive his right to a speedy preliminary hearing, and stated that the defendant is requested a preliminary hearing at the end of June. Ms. Taylor requested at least 4 or 5 days for the preliminary hearing.

Mr. Thompson stated that for the State's calendar July would work better, but could make it work with June. Court stated that the Court's calendar would be better for the end of June.
Click to expand...

Looking back with the benefit of hindsight, it would seem that this move has been turned on its head by the GJ. Defense was trying to control the pace of the case (understandably) and slow it down; the State decided to use an available method to reset the clock for a speedy trial. If the PH had gone forward and BK was bound over on June 30, he would have been scheduled for trial at about the end of January, 2024. Now, he's going to be scheduled for the end of November-ish.

The State has made a move that means it does not have to divulge its main strategies and that the Defense has to rely on its own research and sifting through the vast amount of evidence. I suspect that while the Defense may try to postpone the trial through filing motions, that it's possible the Judge will quickly deny change of venue, change of judge and other procedural motions and set a course for a trial in November. This may force BK's team to ask the court to reschedule.

Can the Court deny that request? I guess I"m asking if BK waives his right to a speedy trial, does that influence a Judge to change an already existing trial date? On what grounds can the Defense ask for an already existing trial to be rescheduled? "We are buried under too much evidence!" (Is that valid grounds in Idaho?) If BK were to reject all of his attorneys, that would be grounds, right ? Will we see one of those attempts by BK to represent himself, and then pulling a Letecia Stauch and going back to original representation? That bought her quite a bit of time, IMO.

questions and jmo.
 
Cindizzi said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1659571322605961216



[…]

Morrison has also been busy following the murders of four University of Idaho students. Bryan Kohberger is accused of killing Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin on Nov. 13.

‘The Killings on King Road’ is scheduled to air Friday on ‘Dateline NBC’ and will reveal new information on the tragic case that has gripped the nation, according to Morrison.

“We have learned some things about this case – the background and what was going on in Bryan Kohberger’s life, what was going on in his family’s life and what may have been happening as the police were finally closing in,” Morrison explains. “All of these things are fascinating to know about but at the same time, we’re being very careful to present these bits of information with the proviso that here’s a man sitting in jail awaiting his trial before a jury of his peers and he is not guilty until proven otherwise.”

[…]
Click to expand...
Sounds like they will have some new information rather than a simple repeat of their first Dateline broadcast.
 
gliving said:
True


(snipped)

Court noted the presence of counsel and stated the defendant is present in custody.

Ms. Taylor stated that the defendant is prepared to waive his right to a speedy preliminary hearing, and stated that the defendant is requested a preliminary hearing at the end of June. Ms. Taylor requested at least 4 or 5 days for the preliminary hearing.

Mr. Thompson stated that for the State's calendar July would work better, but could make it work with June. Court stated that the Court's calendar would be better for the end of June.
Click to expand...
Thank you @gliving Yes. delay delay delay
IMO BK will request a continuance at the arraignment Monday stating he needs/desires additional time before entering a plea to the charges bc (take your pick)
  • Indictment was a surprise
  • Notice was filed: 05/16/2023 at 6:29 PM by email to AT -- too late to discuss that day
  • He's had less than a week to review GJ transcript
  • There are additional witnesses
  • His tummy hurts or something similar
In reality BK knows his plea will be "not guilty" no matter what but wants to show he's still in control, thumb his nose at Thompson, another delay tactic or more media time.
It will be interesting whether or not Judge Judge grants it.
I will be surprised if BK enters a plea to the charges on Monday.

IDK. Speculation only.
edit to thank @Twistinginthewind for the Rule.
Yep, will be surprised if any plea is entered.
 
Last edited:
IMO, it's pretty likely BK will plead not guilty, because the only thing I think we the public know he has said about his innocence or guilt is what his PD said he said after his arrest in PA, that "he believes he's going to be exonerated" (BBM). Public defender says Idaho murder suspect is ‘calm,’ believes he’ll be exonerated: ‘This is not him’
"Jason LaBar, the chief public defender of Monroe County, Pennsylvania, is representing Kohberger in the extradition but not the murder case. He called the charges "a little out of character."
"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."

Just noting it doesn't explicitly say in the Idaho Criminal Rule (I.C.R.) 10 (see excerpt and link below) that he HAS to enter a plea at the Arraignment, nor does he HAVE to listen to the arraignment read out, but gets a copy of it before he has to plea.

Food for thought, in MOO, though it could be a fairly minor point, but I keep seeing references to the defendant "MAY enter a plea" at the arraignment.

Just pointing out that it seems like it may not all happen on Monday (reading of the arraignment right after which he enters a plea) because there is a right for the Defendant to ask for more time to enter a plea, to not have the arraignment read out, and to receive a copy of it instead after which (edited to quote): "...the defendant must be allowed a reasonable time, not less than one day, in which to answer the indictment" as stated in the rule here (BBM):

I.C.R. 10. Arraignment on Indictment or Information | Supreme Court
Idaho Criminal Rule 10. Arraignment on Indictment or Information
...
"(c) Arraignment. Arraignment must be conducted in open court and consist of reading the indictment or information to the defendant or stating to the defendant the substance of the charge and requiring the defendant to plead to it. The defendant may waive the reading of the indictment or information. The defendant must be given a copy of the indictment or information before the defendant is required to plead. The defendant must be informed that if the name that appears on the indictment or information is not defendant's true name, the defendant must then state defendant's true name or be proceeded against by the name in the indictment or information. If, on the arraignment, the defendant requires time to enter a plea, the defendant must be allowed a reasonable time, not less than one day, in which to answer the indictment or information."


MOO
 
Last edited:
mickey2942 said:
I can't link it, but BK has an option to go with an "Alford Plea", State of Idaho allows an Alford Plea.
Click to expand...
OMG, I didn't realize that was a possibility on this case !

That's what Gabbie Doolin's murderer did, the Alford plea, and he went to prison for life without ever having to admit to anything or go to trial. :eek:

It was bittersweet for her family, in that it spared them the trauma of hearing the evidence in court, but also robbed them of that aspect of getting justice for her (paraphrasing, and IIRC). jmo
 
wary said:
And for the record, an Alford plea is where the defendant accepts the consequences of a guilty plea, while still claiming innocence.
Click to expand...
That's right, thanks for the reminder, @wary, and that Idaho allows an Alford plea @mickey2942

That an Alford plea is an option in Idaho, could change things in terms of whether and how BK may plead.

I recall reading through the I.C.R. that there are more than just the 2 options to plea, not guilt or guilty, but I didn't consider this !

Ugghhhh, jmo
 
Twistinginthewind said:
That's right, thanks for the reminder, @wary, and that Idaho allows an Alford plea @mickey2942

That an Alford plea is an option in Idaho, could change things in terms of whether and how BK may plead.

I recall reading through the I.C.R. that there are more than just the 2 options to plea, not guilt or guilty, but I didn't consider this !

Ugghhhh, jmo
Click to expand...

It seems to me that the plea wouldn’t make sense unless it’s combined with a plea bargain. In that case, he could get out from under a possible death penalty, while allowing his parents, and/or himself, to try to save some face.

Obviously, there’d be no possibility of the type of plea bargain where he tells the story of what happened, but I wouldn’t believe a word of what he said, anyway.
 
Sister Golden Hair said:
I, too, find it disconcerting that the defense attorneys, professionals doing their jobs within the parameters of the law, are on the receiving end of slurs and insinuations. That makes no sense to me. IMO those who actually believe in the legal system and our constitutional rights would want both sides to do an equally skilled and professional job with integrity and to the utmost to ensure an outcome that is unimpeachable - and without reason for appeal. <modsnip>

edited to correct a typo / oversight
Click to expand...
I understand why people may be upset with a public defender who defends a (potential) murderer. However, when considering the number of people who were convicted in the media or let down by lazy prosecutors, LE and/or PDs the logical (IMO) person would at least attempt to be open-minded until something proves he shouldn't.

I do not want someone convicted or found not guilty because the state or the defense attorney was better at playing games with the jury.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 83 more.
Total: 1,702 (members: 84, guests: 1,618)

Online statistics

Members online
84
Guests online
1,618
Total visitors
1,702
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
606,794
Messages
18,211,253
Members
233,964
Latest member
tammyb1025
Back
Top