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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
al66pine said:
An Asteroid Parallel Parking??? = Post of the Day by @schooling


Despite the delay in announcing, we have a winner for Post of the Day. And regardless of what members think about the merits of the case against BK, imo the @schooling post gives us a fitting description of the Shift in Levels of Probability.

A round of applause, pls?
Click to expand...

I get the asteroid but parallel parking in NYC is a bit much....lol
 
jepop said:
I read you post earlier and thought, ah that is an interesting angle. However with more thought, I'm not sure because staying silent may infact have subjected the victim's families to additional pain and suffering as opposed to stating emphatically NG or, ofcourse, pleading guilty right there and then and taking responsibility. The victims may well have taken offense at his silence. So if that is the reason behind such a tactic, IMO it carries substantial risk for defense going forward if they later wish to negotiate a guilty plea bargain later on. MOO
Click to expand...

None of us know how the families felt. IMO, just as realistic an argument can be made that the victims families would have felt insulted and victimized by him saying he's not guilty. In fact, to me, that argument is much stronger than them being offended that he said nothing.
 
NuttMegg said:
Obviously, so far Ms. Taylor has not tipped her hand regarding any planned vegan or twinkie defense, or the current morph of that, imo: mitigating circumstances ie which got that Fla.mass murderer off the dp.

But SCOTUS member Scalia had no qualms about the desirability of such stunts/tactics.

"During oral Supreme Court arguments in United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006), Justice Antonin Scalia referred to the Twinkie defense with regard to the right to counsel of choice as perhaps more important than the right to effective assistance of counsel: "I don't want a competent lawyer. I want a lawyer who's going to get me off. I want a lawyer who will invent the Twinkie defense. ... I would not consider the Twinkie defense an invention of a competent lawyer. But I want a lawyer who's going to win for me."[7]. BBM

en.m.wikipedia.org

Twinkie defense - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Ethan Couch Affluenza

Brock Turner
Outercourse

Dan White
Twinkie Defense

Will we see
Brian Kohberg
B12 deficiency?
 
gliving said:
abcnews.go.com

Idaho college murders: 2 slain students' families reserve right to sue Moscow, documents say

The families of two of the victims in the University of Idaho killings have filed notice reserving their right to sue the city of Moscow, according to documents.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
Click to expand...
Gray said he had also filed tort claims notices with Washington State University, the University of Idaho and Idaho State Police.

Yep. I called that one a very long time ago. I'm sure both universities saw this coming and have done their own intense internal reviews. IMO that might be one reason for that sealed WSU warrant (information found re BK). Another reason for that warrant might tie to the IDs found and allegedly belonging to other women. That would explain the Registrar's Office being served, too. Of course there are other possibilities for that and/or there could be an overlap. JMO.

Editing to add and seconding @PrairieWind 's post following this. Just because this was a very predictable move doesn't mean it is a good one. Just very predictable.
 
Last edited:
U.N. Known said:
I hope that doing anything based on how the families feel or don't is not the basis AT's defense. Appearances do count, even if they shouldn't, but AT's job is to defend BK's interests even if the families are offended.
Click to expand...
I think you may have misunderstood my point? Was responding to this suggestion from the OP

" I think that he went with the "standing silent" plea because I think the defense is hoping to work out a plea bargain with the prosecution to spare his life. I think they will argue that by not pleading "not guilty" Bryan hasn't subjected the victim's families to additional pain and suffering."

and suggesting that if that is the case, it might be a miscalculation if the victims' families feel they have suffered additional pain and suffering because of the defendant's standing silent plea. Talking in hypotheticals ofcourse. MOO

edit for spelling
 
10ofRods said:
I keep reading that in Idaho, Defense is supposed to get a transcript (but transcripts can take a week or 10 days, where I live - maybe longer elsewhere?)
If she hasn't seen it, I wonder at the wisdom of having it be public, myself.
IMO.
Click to expand...
@10ofRods
IIUC the Crim Rule below allows the def't/defense, on MOTION, to get a copy of elec. or steno recording of GJ, but see sub sec. (c)(3) stating ct. "may place conditions on the use, dissemination or publication of the record of proceedings of the grand jury, and any violation of any condition by a party granted access to the record will constitute contempt of the order of the district judge."

IOW, GJ transcript does NOT become public, per my reading.
At least not pre-trial and not automatically.
Welcoming correction or clarification, esp'ly from our legal professionals.

_____________________________________________________
Idaho Criminal Rule 6.2. Transcript of Grand Jury Proceedings
(a) Reporting Grand Jury Proceedings. All proceedings of the grand jury, except deliberations, must be recorded, either stenographically or electronically.

(b) Record of Proceedings. The district judge or the presiding juror must designate someone to report or electronically record all of the proceedings of the grand jury, except its deliberations. That person must be sworn to correctly report all of the proceedings and not to divulge any of the information to any person except on order of the district judge. On taking the oath, the person must be permitted to attend all sessions, except deliberations, of the grand jury. On the conclusion of each matter presented to the grand jury, the court clerk must seal the record of the grand jury proceedings and the record must not be examined by any person or transcribed except on order of the district judge.

(c) Availability of Record of Grand Jury Proceedings. The district judge, by motion, must permit the following persons to listen to the record of the proceedings of the grand jury or to obtain a transcript of the proceedings in the same manner as a transcript of a preliminary hearing:
DVD (1) a prosecuting attorney,
(2) a person charged in an indictment or the attorney for the person charged, or
(3) a person charged with perjury because of the person's testimony before the grand jury.

The district judge may place conditions on the use, dissemination or publication of the record of proceedings of the grand jury, and any violation of any condition by a party granted access to the record will constitute contempt of the order of the district judge.

I.C.R. 6.2. Transcript of Grand Jury Proceedings | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov isc.idaho.gov
 
Helechawagirl said:
I agree. I would make the plea that gave me the most options. If he is innocent, there’s a heckuva frame job and in that case, might wanna do an Alford plea at a later date. He visibly reacted to the charges as the judge read them. I think he was uncomfortable. Looked down for awhile and then looked forward with small movements. Either a vein was bulging in his face or he was clinching his jaw. Keeping his mouth shut may be hard for him. JMO
Click to expand...
Bbm.
Unless he was a guest at a party at the house, it's going to be difficult to explain his dna there.
Trusting that the investigators have done their job, and that they 'have the goods' on BK.
Imo.
 
BeginnerSleuther said:
None of us know how the families felt. IMO, just as realistic an argument can be made that the victims families would have felt insulted and victimized by him saying he's not guilty. In fact, to me, that argument is much stronger than them being offended that he said nothing.
Click to expand...
Well, I was suggesting one hypothetical and now you are presenting another. Mine was based on MOO and I see that yours in based on your opinon. That's how it works on here. I do agree that none of us know how the familie's felt which is why my post was speculative and MOO. MOO
 
BeginnerSleuther said:
None of us know how the families felt. IMO, just as realistic an argument can be made that the victims families would have felt insulted and victimized by him saying he's not guilty. In fact, to me, that argument is much stronger than them being offended that he said nothing.
Click to expand...
I agree. There is just no way to make any of this "better" for the victims' families but an accused can't be denied certain rights based on how the other side may feel about it. I don't know how or when standing silent became an option. Google let me down. ;) But he has the right to plea any way it's outlined under the law, regardless of how anyone else may feel about it.
 
gliving said:
abcnews.go.com

Idaho college murders: 2 slain students' families reserve right to sue Moscow, documents say

The families of two of the victims in the University of Idaho killings have filed notice reserving their right to sue the city of Moscow, according to documents.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
Click to expand...
@gliving, thank you for posting this info. Curious about all of this and to know more if it moves forward. jmo

From the article:

No lawsuit has yet been filed, but the claims protect the families' rights to sue within two years, Shanon Gray, an attorney representing the Goncalves and Mogen families, told ABC News.

"Filing a tort claims notice is really just a safeguard," Gray said. "It's a safeguard to protect the interests of the families, the victims and really the whole community around, because if something goes wrong, or was done improperly, then someone is held accountable for that."

Gray said he had also filed tort claims notices with Washington State University, the University of Idaho and Idaho State Police.

"Those aren't meant to do anything other than protect the interests of the families and the victims moving forward," Gray said.
 
An Alford plea is a guilty plea, but without admitting guilty (no confession, no signed statement of guilt, etc). At least, that's what my research tells me. The Judge has to say that there was enough evidence to convict, but the defendant still maintains their innocence. So it's a "I'm going to plead guilty because I agree that the State has enough to convict me, but I didn't do it and I will maintain my innocence!"

It's considered a form of plea bargain in the Stanford University book The Triumph of Plea Bargaining: A History of Plea Bargaining In America by George Fisher, 2003.

I would really feel badly for the Gonçalves family and the other families. SG has been clear about wanting to know the evidence and what each side is going to say. I realize that some family members might not want to know.

This difference between plea and actual admission of guilt to the crime confuses me, I must say.

IMO.
 
Justice101 said:
I am not in the families shoes, but what on earth could Moscow government do to stop this crime from happening.

<modsnip>
Click to expand...
<modsnip: quoted post was snipped>
The article says though part of the purpose of the filing is "if something goes wrong, or was done improperly, then someone is held accountable for that." So I guess the claim is if Moscow LE made a mistake the city is responsible. And if a mistake comes to light and BK isn't convicted it would be because of the mistake? I guess I'm not seeing how the family has a legal stake in how Moscow LE did its job. Or how they have a legal stake in the outcome of the trial and would therefore deserve money if BK isn't convicted (guilty or not, I guess.)
JMO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
10ofRods said:
An Alford plea is a guilty plea, but without admitting guilty (no confession, no signed statement of guilt, etc). At least, that's what my research tells me. The Judge has to say that there was enough evidence to convict, but the defendant still maintains their innocence. So it's a "I'm going to plead guilty because I agree that the State has enough to convict me, but I didn't do it and I will maintain my innocence!"

It's considered a form of plea bargain in the Stanford University book The Triumph of Plea Bargaining: A History of Plea Bargaining In America by George Fisher, 2003.

I would really feel badly for the Gonçalves family and the other families. SG has been clear about wanting to know the evidence and what each side is going to say. I realize that some family members might not want to know.

This difference between plea and actual admission of guilt to the crime confuses me, I must say.

IMO.
Click to expand...

Can you still get a "deal" from the DA if you don't plead guilty? I doubt it.
 
arielilane said:

State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger​

Latah County CR29-22-2805
Case Summary (Updated 05/22/23)


Click to expand...

Thank you! The motion to Make Available the Record of All Proceedings of the Grand Jury is fascinating. AT is an excellent attorney, IMO. Then Judge Judge granted the motion to enlarge time for the Defense to file any pretrial motions to 30 days after the receipt of all those materials.
 
Justice101 said:
Can you still get a "deal" from the DA if you don't plead guilty? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

An Alford plea is a guilty plea, though. And it is a kind of deal, as the Judge and Prosecution have to agree. It saves the State a lot of money, would be one reason for the State to agree to it. And there's always the chance one juror will hold out on a guilty verdict.

The Defendant enters a guilty plea but refuses to admit guilt by offering any information or signing any statement that says they did it. That's the way I understand it.

Plea bargains can happen many ways. The Alford plea dates to 1963 and went all the way to the Supreme Court (murder case against a man named Alford). The only way to give the DP in most states is to have a trial, which was true in the Alford case. So, in order to avoid a trial, Alford plead guilty (to avoid the DP) but maintained he was innocent of murder. The Judge and Prosecution accepted this plea, then Alford appealed and said he was forced into the agreement by threat of death.

The SCOTUS disagreed with him and let the plea stand. He served his time. SCOTUS ruled that legal representation had been good and that Alford knew what he was doing when he entered the guilty plea. Alford died in prison.

IMO and with the help of wikipedia and a couple of websites on law.
 
maskedwoman said:
I agree. There is just no way to make any of this "better" for the victims' families but an accused can't be denied certain rights based on how the other side may feel about it. I don't know how or when standing silent became an option. Google let me down. ;) But he has the right to plea any way it's outlined under the law, regardless of how anyone else may feel about it.
Click to expand...
I think the intent of my post is being misunderstood here. My post was responding to an OP and was not suggesting that a defendant be denied certain rights or any rights (!) based on how the other side may feel about it. It was to do with a hypothetical defense strategy and speculating re rationale behind the staying silent plea. Just saying...MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 156 more.
Total: 2,282 (members: 157, guests: 2,125)

Online statistics

Members online
157
Guests online
2,125
Total visitors
2,282
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,215
Messages
18,136,954
Members
231,272
Latest member
everyoneblooms
Back
Top