4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #83

[Nila Aella]

Article about Prosecutor asking for Funds from Commissioners
Shows how much it costs to prosecute a capital case.

Idaho prosecutor asks for funding hike to process Bryan Kohberger trial

Bryan Kohberger charged with four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary charges for the brutal November stabbings

www.independent.co.uk

 

[SpiderFalcon]

This has always made less sense to me than the delay in the roommates calls.

My uncle was a major case unit detective for a major cities robbery and homicide division and would have to drop whatever family thing he was doing while ‘off duty’ on more than one occasion.

I know they are obviously more stretched for resources in Moscow, and that my experience (with my uncle) is not representative of all agencies/depts. policies and procedures… but how many crimes rise to the level of this one…in a college town no less….

I read an article about the Detective in charge, some time ago, and I think he was at either a class, or on vaca out of town, and got called back. I'll see if I can find it......

 

[10ofRods]

Wow.

Statement In the Argument:

Mr. Kohberger knows that exculpatory evidence exists.

Conclusion:

Mr. Kohberger is entitled to review all grand jury proceedings as set forth in his original “Motion to Make Available the Record of All Proceedings of the Grand Jury Pursuant to I.C.R. 6.2” filed May l9, 2023. Although good cause is not required, it exists because grandjury was empaneled after months of intense media coverage in small community, exculpatory evidence exists, and there may be single error or cumulative errors which require the examination of the entire grand jury record. He does not object to the records being sealed as clarified earlier. He agrees with the State that grand juror notes should be included in the records provided. Should the Court release only partial records or transcripts, Mr. Kohberger requests stay of all proceedings pursuant to ldaho Code §2-213 until such time as he is able to review, request additional records, provide sworn statement of reasons, and file I.C.R. 48 motion to dismiss.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/061323%20Defendants%20Reply%20to%20States%20Supp%20Resp%20to%20Defendants%20%20Motions%20Re%20Grand%20Jury%20Record%20and%20Transcript.pdf

I.C.R. 48. Dismissal by the Court. | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

Idaho Criminal Rule 48. Dismissal by the Court

(a) Dismissal on Motion and Notice. The court, on notice to all parties, may dismiss a criminal action on its own motion or on motion of any party on either of the following grounds:

(1) for unnecessary delay in presenting the charge to the grand jury or if an information is not filed within the time period prescribed by Rule 7(f), or for unnecessary delay in bringing the defendant to trial, or

(2) for any other reason if the court concludes that dismissal will serve the ends of justice and the effective administration of the court's business

Does it actually state that *he* knows? The part quoted says "exculpatory evidence exists" but it doesn't say exactly how that is known. It appears to be part of the argument to the court, as opposed to an admitted statement of fact.

Looks to me as if just the motions around the GJ indictment will take up a year. It doesn't appear to me (but I am not the judge in this case) that there has been a delay in presenting the charge to the GJ.

I doubt that Judge Judge is going to take the initiative to dismiss this case on his own without motion. I do think that if Kohberger's argument is that there is "exculpatory evidence" inside his head (his knowledge) that said evidence will have to be presented in support of any motion to dismiss.

That's exactly what should happen, if in fact there's exculpatory evidence that can be brought by Kohberger. If I were Anne Taylor, I'd be getting that evidence in front of a judge, post haste.

imo

 

[Twistinginthewind]

IMO, the D is focusing on multiple angles, not just media coverage.
The D is not vague in the first two items on their list.
Only the third about errors says "may."
JMO

Statement in D Conclusion:

Although good cause is not required, it exists because grandjury was empaneled after months of intense media coverage in small community, exculpatory evidence exists, and there may be single error or cumulative errors which require the examination of the entire grand jury record.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/061323%20Defendants%20Reply%20to%20States%20Supp%20Resp%20to%20Defendants%20%20Motions%20Re%20Grand%20Jury%20Record%20and%20Transcript.pdf

JMO

Agreed.

It sounds an awful lot like, to me, if BK is running the show of his own defense team (not always the case, IMO)...

He thinks he can "trip up" the prosecution on some error in procedure or a technicality or LE ignoring/not being aware of some evidence that he thinks could be exculpatory.

And digging in deep to all the evidence will generate delays in him going to trial.

I'm not at all surprised. I think alot of people figured he would have something like this up his sleeve.

But whatever it may be, I don't think whatever he has is going to amount to a hill of beans, and no way will it be significant enough to bring into question the basis for or the evidence that led to the GJ indictment.

It's simply improbable if not impossible for local LE and the State and the FBI to have overlooked something substantive and/or to not have their ducks in a row on this case.

He and his defense team seem to be building his defense strategy on a wing and a prayer, IMO, and just MOO.

 

[Chloegirl]

Does it actually state that *he* knows? The part quoted says "exculpatory evidence exists" but it doesn't say exactly how that is known. It appears to be part of the argument to the court, as opposed to an admitted statement of fact.

Looks to me as if just the motions around the GJ indictment will take up a year. It doesn't appear to me (but I am not the judge in this case) that there has been a delay in presenting the charge to the GJ.

I doubt that Judge Judge is going to take the initiative to dismiss this case on his own without motion. I do think that if Kohberger's argument is that there is "exculpatory evidence" inside his head (his knowledge) that said evidence will have to be presented in support of any motion to dismiss.

That's exactly what should happen, if in fact there's exculpatory evidence that can be brought by Kohberger. If I were Anne Taylor, I'd be getting that evidence in front of a judge, post haste.

imo

Cynical I know but if he's going to say it he needs to prove it! You would think he would be asking for bail if he was truly innocent, no?

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1669123578430914560

 

[Cool Cats]

Does it actually state that *he* knows? The part quoted says "exculpatory evidence exists" but it doesn't say exactly how that is known. It appears to be part of the argument to the court, as opposed to an admitted statement of fact.

Looks to me as if just the motions around the GJ indictment will take up a year. It doesn't appear to me (but I am not the judge in this case) that there has been a delay in presenting the charge to the GJ.

I doubt that Judge Judge is going to take the initiative to dismiss this case on his own without motion. I do think that if Kohberger's argument is that there is "exculpatory evidence" inside his head (his knowledge) that said evidence will have to be presented in support of any motion to dismiss.

That's exactly what should happen, if in fact there's exculpatory evidence that can be brought by Kohberger. If I were Anne Taylor, I'd be getting that evidence in front of a judge, post haste.

imo

Defense doesn't even know if exculpatory evidence was presented to the GJ. And even then, just because the defense thinks a piece of evidence is exculpatory, that doesn't mean it actually is.

A judge or jury could see this same evidence as not being exculpatory for the defendant.

From above linked document:

"Whether inadmissible or exculpatory evidence was presented to the Grand Jury is a significant question the defense must evaluate."

Exculpatory Evidence refers to evidence that will cast doubt on a person’s guilt. This is evidence that the defense lawyer may argue casts reasonable doubt that his client committed the crime.

Exonerate refers to evidence that clears a person of all guilt or responsibility. To exonerate means to show the innocence of someone, or to show that he is not at fault for something.

Exculpate vs exonerate

Exculpate and exonerate are two words that are close in meaning, but with a difference. We will examine the difference between the definitions of exculpate and exonerate, where these two words came from and some

grammarist.com

 

[10ofRods]

Agreed.

It sounds an awful lot like, to me, if BK is running the show of his own defense team (not always the case, IMO)...

He thinks he can "trip up" the prosecution on some error in procedure or a technicality or LE ignoring/not being aware of some evidence that he thinks could be exculpatory.

And digging in deep to all the evidence will generate delays in him going to trial.

I'm not at all surprised. I think alot of people figured he would hav something up his sleeve.

But whatever it may be, I don't think whatever he has is going to amount to a hill of beans, and no way will it be significant enough to bring into question the basis for or the evidence that led to the GJ indictment.

It's simply improbable if not impossible for local LE and the State and the FBI to have overlooked something substantive and/or to not have their ducks in a row on this case.

He and his defense team seem to be building his defense strategy on a wing and a prayer, IMO, and just MOO.

Agreed. Same old story. For whatever reason, this defendant not only prefers, but is engaged in procedures that will delay trial.

The usual.

It's possible that good defense attorneys could agree that waiting as long as possible for trial is a good thing, given the emotional nature of the tragedy.

They can more easily claim there were exculpatory witnesses who are lost to contact or have disappeared, perhaps even died. I wouldn't be surprised if Kohberger has received missives from people offering to help him with an alibi (this happens in high profile cases). Defense might be able to spend a year or more just tracking down such individuals to see if they are credible.

If it's Kohberger's goal to remain in jail and in limbo for as long as possible (perhaps to avoid hurt or shame to his family), then that may be what his attorney is doing. I'd love to know if he's getting more time out of his cell and whether he gets to be in the yard/library area when others are there. I am guessing he's still in solo mode, but he may get to be a regular inmate soon enough, if he shows himself capable of it. I am also guessing that he doesn't mind being in a relatively isolated part of the jail (compared to his alternatives).

JMO.

IMO.

 

[jepop]

Does it actually state that *he* knows? The part quoted says "exculpatory evidence exists" but it doesn't say exactly how that is known. It appears to be part of the argument to the court, as opposed to an admitted statement of fact.
[snipped and bolded by me for focus]

INAL, but I've placed the sentence in the context of the section of argument and the paragraph within which it ocurrs. The document is as below:

DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO STATE’S
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS REGARDING
GRAND JURY


The Section heading of the ARGUMENT is as below and the context of the paragraph (emphasis mine):

l. Mr. Kohberger has a legal right to challenge the grand jury indictment and the court should release all records requested in his motion

"A grand jury was empaneled at a time when the small community of Moscow, Idaho had been exposed to 6 months of intense local, national, and international media coverage. Because the State has provided extensive discovery, Mr. Kohberger knows that exculpatory evidence exists. Whether a fair and impartial panel of grand jurors was assembled amidst intense media coverage is a significant question the Defense must evaluate. See I.C.R.6.7 and l.C § 19-1003and State v. Roberts, 188 P. 895, 897 (1920.) Whether inadmissible or exculpatory evidence was presented to the grand jury is a significant question the defense must evaluate. See l.C.R. 6.2(a),6.6 and l.C. §19-1107. And, while there are many other legal arguments Mr. Kohberger may pursue related to the grand jury proceedings, how the grand jury was selected and what evidence was presented, illustrate good cause for the Defense’s need for all materials set forth in its motion"

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/061323%20Defendants%20Reply%20to%20States%20Supp%20Resp%20to%20Defendants%20%20Motions%20Re%20Grand%20Jury%20Record%20and%20Transcript.pdf

ETA:
So as I said INAL but the sentence that he "knows" is contradictory, confusing or muddying, Imo, because of the context in which it occurs: that is 1) under the heading "legal Right to Challenge the Grand Jury" (ie hasn't happened yet and proceedings were secret; materials not yet released) and; 2) the sentence "Whether inadmissible or exculpatory evidence was presented to the grand jury is a significant question the defense must evaluate."

Moo

 

[Twistinginthewind]

Agreed. Same old story. For whatever reason, this defendant not only prefers, but is engaged in procedures that will delay trial.

The usual.

It's possible that good defense attorneys could agree that waiting as long as possible for trial is a good thing, given the emotional nature of the tragedy.

They can more easily claim there were exculpatory witnesses who are lost to contact or have disappeared, perhaps even died. I wouldn't be surprised if Kohberger has received missives from people offering to help him with an alibi (this happens in high profile cases). Defense might be able to spend a year or more just tracking down such individuals to see if they are credible.

If it's Kohberger's goal to remain in jail and in limbo for as long as possible (perhaps to avoid hurt or shame to his family), then that may be what his attorney is doing. I'd love to know if he's getting more time out of his cell and whether he gets to be in the yard/library area when others are there. I am guessing he's still in solo mode, but he may get to be a regular inmate soon enough, if he shows himself capable of it. I am also guessing that he doesn't mind being in a relatively isolated part of the jail (compared to his alternatives).

JMO.

IMO.

Yeah, the notion is still kind of distasteful to me, to think of this case losing steam if there are endless delays.

Though I do appreciate there could be some positives involved as you've mentioned.

I just don't want the families to lose hope, or the prosecution to lose any footing, if it takes years to get to trial, get through the trial, and get a conviction, if BK is guilty that is.

JMO.

 

[Cool Cats]

Agreed.

It sounds an awful lot like, to me, if BK is running the show of his own defense team (not always the case, IMO)...

He thinks he can "trip up" the prosecution on some error in procedure or a technicality or LE ignoring/not being aware of some evidence that he thinks could be exculpatory.

And digging in deep to all the evidence will generate delays in him going to trial.

I'm not at all surprised. I think alot of people figured he would have something like this up his sleeve.

But whatever it may be, I don't think whatever he has is going to amount to a hill of beans, and no way will it be significant enough to bring into question the basis for or the evidence that led to the GJ indictment.

It's simply improbable if not impossible for local LE and the State and the FBI to have overlooked something substantive and/or to not have their ducks in a row on this case.

He and his defense team seem to be building his defense strategy on a wing and a prayer, IMO, and just MOO.

Agreed. Same old story. For whatever reason, this defendant not only prefers, but is engaged in procedures that will delay trial.

The usual.

It's possible that good defense attorneys could agree that waiting as long as possible for trial is a good thing, given the emotional nature of the tragedy.

They can more easily claim there were exculpatory witnesses who are lost to contact or have disappeared, perhaps even died. I wouldn't be surprised if Kohberger has received missives from people offering to help him with an alibi (this happens in high profile cases). Defense might be able to spend a year or more just tracking down such individuals to see if they are credible.

If it's Kohberger's goal to remain in jail and in limbo for as long as possible (perhaps to avoid hurt or shame to his family), then that may be what his attorney is doing. I'd love to know if he's getting more time out of his cell and whether he gets to be in the yard/library area when others are there. I am guessing he's still in solo mode, but he may get to be a regular inmate soon enough, if he shows himself capable of it. I am also guessing that he doesn't mind being in a relatively isolated part of the jail (compared to his alternatives).

JMO.

IMO.

A desperate defense up against overwhelming evidence files too many time dragging (not granted) Motions.

Spaghetti defense, throw at wall see what sticks.

This starts with finding "errors" so that the GJ indictment can be dismissed . Find media bias to get incriminating evidence dismissed. Find a procedural deficit during the investigation to get witness testimony dismissed. Question the DNA processing using experts and get the judge to dismiss the DNA evidence. Is a witness reliable? Was evidence obtain through proper chain of command? BK waived his rights to an attorney initially, agreed to talk to LE, was questioning stopped soon enough?

Get the trial thrown out on a technicality, demand new trial.

Look for exculpatory evidence. According to Taylor's Motion Kohberger's case is "voluminous and ongoing" and must hold the key to exculpatory evidence "Because the State has provided extensive discovery."

Comb through the
51 terabytes of information that includes thousands of pages of discovery, thousands of photographs, hundreds of hours of recordings, many gigabytes of electronic phone records and social media data.

Idaho murders suspect Bryan Kohberger wants more time to decide on alibi defense

Bryan Kohberger, the man accused of murdering four University of Idaho students in their home last fall, is asking for more time to give notice of an alibi for his defense.

www.yahoo.com

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/061323 Defendants Reply to States Supp Resp to Defendants Motions Re Grand Jury Record and Transcript.pdf

 

[jepop]

Does it actually state that *he* knows? The part quoted says "exculpatory evidence exists" but it doesn't say exactly how that is known. It appears to be part of the argument to the court, as opposed to an admitted statement of fact.

Looks to me as if just the motions around the GJ indictment will take up a year. It doesn't appear to me (but I am not the judge in this case) that there has been a delay in presenting the charge to the GJ.

I doubt that Judge Judge is going to take the initiative to dismiss this case on his own without motion. I do think that if Kohberger's argument is that there is "exculpatory evidence" inside his head (his knowledge) that said evidence will have to be presented in support of any motion to dismiss.

That's exactly what should happen, if in fact there's exculpatory evidence that can be brought by Kohberger. If I were Anne Taylor, I'd be getting that evidence in front of a judge, post haste.

imo

Imo, it relates to those references to exculpatory based on "information and belief" as set out in Ds Motion to Compel. The State has responded asking the D for clarification of what they are after and the hearing for that is set for June 27th, Imo. Seems the D are saying they want to see if this exculpatory evidence "based on information and belief" was set before the GJ. The problem as I see it, the possible tactic (INAL), is that up to this point, at least in terms of the documents released by the Court, the D has not yet specified what they actually mean, what this evidence might consist of. Moo

 

[U.N. Known]

• 06/13/2023 Defendants Reply
• 06/13/2023 Motion to Stay Proceedings
• 06/13/2023 Notice of Hearing
• 06/13/2023 States Response to Defedant's Motion

Any attorneys here with ideas as to what the prosecution is attempting to hide from the defense? I used hide intentionally. They did not want to release several of the requested items from the Defendants Motion for Discovery (some of their reasoning make sense); they decided to use a GJ rather than the scheduled Preliminary Hearing; and now, they do not want to release the GJ details as requested by the defense.

I have a feeling that there is something specific that they do not want BK or his attorneys to know that the prosecution team has (or does not have) prior to the trial. What could they have/not have or know that they are concerned with BK and AT knowing and why?

 

[U.N. Known]

Defense doesn't even know if exculpatory evidence was presented to the GJ. And even then, just because the defense thinks a piece of evidence is exculpatory, that doesn't mean it actually is.

A judge or jury could see this same evidence as not being exculpatory for the defendant.

From above linked document:

"Whether inadmissible or exculpatory evidence was presented to the Grand Jury is a significant question the defense must evaluate."

I read that quite differently based on the remainder of the document. AT writes that "Mr. Kohberger knows" that there is exculpatory evidence available. What the defense team and BK want to know is whether the GJ was presented with the information that BK "knows" is exculpatory. For them, if the GJ was not presented with the exculpatory information, they were more likely to indict. Or, if you will, they would not or likely would not have chosen to indict if they knew of the aforementioned exculpatory evidence.

 

[Helechawagirl]

Any attorneys here with ideas as to what the prosecution is attempting to hide from the defense? I used hide intentionally. They did not want to release several of the requested items from the Defendants Motion for Discovery (some of their reasoning make sense); they decided to use a GJ rather than the scheduled Preliminary Hearing; and now, they do not want to release the GJ details as requested by the defense.

I have a feeling that there is something specific that they do not want BK or his attorneys to know that the prosecution team has (or does not have) prior to the trial. What could they have/not have or know that they are concerned with BK and AT knowing and why?

 

[Sundog]

Any attorneys here with ideas as to what the prosecution is attempting to hide from the defense? I used hide intentionally. They did not want to release several of the requested items from the Defendants Motion for Discovery (some of their reasoning make sense); they decided to use a GJ rather than the scheduled Preliminary Hearing; and now, they do not want to release the GJ details as requested by the defense.

I have a feeling that there is something specific that they do not want BK or his attorneys to know that the prosecution team has (or does not have) prior to the trial. What could they have/not have or know that they are concerned with BK and AT knowing and why?

Is it possible that the prosecution believes that the defense is fishing, and wants a copy of the entire grand jury transcript to see if she is able to find something that would help BK's case. Sounds to me like the prosecution is wanting the defense to be more specific and let them know what she is looking for and then they would be more likely to voluntarily comply with her request. From what I have read online about requests to see grand jury transcripts by attorneys, it sounded to me like judges want these requests to be focused and targeted, not just a request to get a copy of the transcript for the entire grand jury proceedings.

Maybe I'm wrong, so please correct me if that is not the case.

 

[10ofRods]

I believe that Judge Judge set a date in the future for the GJ transcriptions to be provided. If that date passes, then we can say the prosecution failed to provide the transcripts.

Saying they failed to provide the transcripts when they aren't due yet (and probably have to be produced by actual human labor) is disingenuous, to me. There's still time and there's no reason the prosecution would disobey the judge (it was known from the beginning that the judge would order this; defense has a right to have it).

JMO.

 

[Cool Cats]

I read that quite differently based on the remainder of the document. AT writes that "Mr. Kohberger knows" that there is exculpatory evidence available. What the defense team and BK want to know is whether the GJ was presented with the information that BK "knows" is exculpatory. For them, if the GJ was not presented with the exculpatory information, they were more likely to indict. Or, if you will, they would not or likely would not have chosen to indict if they knew of the aforementioned exculpatory evidence.

Well I'm reading it the way

jepop puts it in their post, good post:​

So as I said INAL but the sentence that he "knows" is contradictory, confusing or muddying, Imo, because of the context in which it occurs: that is 1) under the heading "legal Right to Challenge the Grand Jury" (ie hasn't happened yet and proceedings were secret; materials not yet released) and; 2) the sentence "Whether inadmissible or exculpatory evidence was presented to the grand jury is a significant question the defense must evaluate."

Moo

 

[Balthazar]

I keep thinking about this: If BK KNOWS there is exculpatory information, then what is it? I want to list the alleged known evidence against him:

1. his DNA on the knife sheath snap
2. a white Elantra circling the scene of the crime with no proof it was his license plate or that he was driving it apparently. 3. His white Elantra which may or may not contain evidence.
4. his cellphone allegedly traveling towards Moscow in the right timeframe and then being shut off or put in airplane mode before it was over there.
5. an ID belonging to someone who lived at 1122 King Rd at his parents house.
6. DM saw a man about 5'10 wearing black and a mask over his lower face with bushy eyebrows
7. Wearing gloves in Pennsylvania and putting his trash in baggies and then in the neighbor's trash bin in the middle of the night.
8. Trying to contact women at 1122 King Rd via social media more than once

I didn't put the latent shoe print because LE has not said it was BK's or even that it is the size shoe he wears. We know BK wears a size 13 shoe because that is what he had on when arrested in PA.

Have I left anything else out in terms of the alleged KNOWN evidence against him?

 

[I'm Nobody]

INAL, but I've placed the sentence in the context of the section of argument and the paragraph within which it ocurrs. The document is as below:

DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO STATE’S
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS REGARDING
GRAND JURY


The Section heading of the ARGUMENT is as below and the context of the paragraph (emphasis mine):

l. Mr. Kohberger has a legal right to challenge the grand jury indictment and the court should release all records requested in his motion

"A grand jury was empaneled at a time when the small community of Moscow, Idaho had been exposed to 6 months of intense local, national, and international media coverage. Because the State has provided extensive discovery, Mr. Kohberger knows that exculpatory evidence exists. Whether a fair and impartial panel of grand jurors was assembled amidst intense media coverage is a significant question the Defense must evaluate. See I.C.R.6.7 and l.C § 19-1003and State v. Roberts, 188 P. 895, 897 (1920.) Whether inadmissible or exculpatory evidence was presented to the grand jury is a significant question the defense must evaluate. See l.C.R. 6.2(a),6.6 and l.C. §19-1107. And, while there are many other legal arguments Mr. Kohberger may pursue related to the grand jury proceedings, how the grand jury was selected and what evidence was presented, illustrate good cause for the Defense’s need for all materials set forth in its motion"

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/061323%20Defendants%20Reply%20to%20States%20Supp%20Resp%20to%20Defendants%20%20Motions%20Re%20Grand%20Jury%20Record%20and%20Transcript.pdf

ETA:
So as I said INAL but the sentence that he "knows" is contradictory, confusing or muddying, Imo, because of the context in which it occurs: that is 1) under the heading "legal Right to Challenge the Grand Jury" (ie hasn't happened yet and proceedings were secret; materials not yet released) and; 2) the sentence "Whether inadmissible or exculpatory evidence was presented to the grand jury is a significant question the defense must evaluate."

Moo

Ellington case may give us a glimpse of Anne Taylor's style. I'm wondering if Anne Taylor is using the same strategies she used as a member of the defense in the JONATHAN ELLINGTON road rage murder trial. Ellington was on trial, not GJ. How and what the jury saw and heard played a part in AT's defense.

Highlights from Ellington defense motions (again AT was on D team): a BIASED JURY.
Ellington FAILED To Demonstrate That His Due Process Rights Were Violated By The Voir Dire Process Of Excusing Jurors. D claimed: Biased Jury bc 3 jurors questioned in VOIR DIRE believed defendant to be guilty.
Ellington's argues that "his right to an unbiased jury was violated when 3 prospective jurors tainted the entire panel of prospective jurors by expressing their pre-conceived views" that Ellington was guilty of the charged offenses. Lots of press similar to BK. If Defense is going for a biased grand jury, they could use the Truescope/Gag Hearing report again, a twofer.

FAILED in Ellington: Use of accusatory word and phrases. D also contends prosecutorial misconduct claiming that the prosecutor sought to inflame the passions and prejudices of the jury by use of words (homicide), phrases (ran over wife). Defense: "[A]ppeals to emotion, passion or prejudice of the jury through use of inflammatory tactics are impermissible.”

USE of PATHOLOGIST. The Prosecutor Did Not Engage In Misconduct By Offering The Testimony Of The Pathologist--D tried to get pathologist report thrown out / stated it was "just testimony about-- injuries" and, therefore, would be cumulative and irrelevant. D FAILED

Again Ellington but similar to "BK knows": the State recently disclosed a report from a cell phone company indicating information that may be exculpatory in nature and the Defense needs time to follow up.

IMO D is going to use a lot of motions to dismiss GJ indictment based on what evidence was used, how it was presented to GJ. Most won't be granted as in the Ellington case, but they only need one to work, as in Elllington. JMO

Added: If BK KNOWS there is exculpatory information, he probably planted it. MOO

"The Idaho Supreme Court overturned an initial conviction and allowed a new jury trial, citing perjury by a prosecution witness and prosecutorial misconduct. The previous trial was in 2006." Ellington 2nd trial resulted in guilty verdict.

Ellington sentenced in road-rage case

COEUR d’ALENE — Jonathan W. Ellington might be spending only two more years in prison.

cdapress.com

STATE OF IDAHO v. JONATHAN ELLINGTON (2011) | FindLaw

Case opinion for ID Supreme Court STATE OF IDAHO v. JONATHAN ELLINGTON. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.

caselaw.findlaw.com

https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1335&context=idaho_supreme_court_record_briefs