4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #85

[North_Idaho_Nony]

I agree a walk through seems like it should be left up to the jury to decide if they needed to do this, especially to understand the tight timeline involved.

But for the prosecution to have severed the house from the criminal case means to me that they have a very strong case without a walk through. In fact, those walk throughs are quick and could actually confuse some jurors with the layout.

So it is actually often better for the prosecution to present crime scenes to jurors this way:

How 3D scanning rebuilds crime scenes for courtrooms

The use of 3D laser scanners is expanding the role of geospatial technology in criminal investigations. The technology is being used to produce accura...

www.gim-international.com

The use of 3D laser scanners is expanding the role of geospatial technology in criminal investigations. The technology is being used to produce accurate, feature-rich visualizations of crime scenes that put evidence into context for judges and juries.

We know 3D scans of some type were done:
https://www.ci.moscow.id.us/DocumentCenter/View/24833/12-03-22-Moscow-Homicide-Update

Whether that would/will be sufficient for jurors or not, I don’t know. But I’d hate to gamble on it, MOO. It makes perfect sense to me, tho, why the Defense is A-OK with the demo.

 

[Cool Cats]

What are the chances that, if BK is convicted, his appeals attorneys will claim that the jury had a right to view the house interior in person, and that because it was demolished, he’s been deprived of his right to a fair trial?

ZERO - Defense severed the house from the criminal case it's not a part of the criminal case.

Defense has to claim they need the house NOW - defense loses right to do this after the trial.

DEFENSE HAS SAID THEY WONT USE THE HOUSE - can't change their mind just because their client is convicted.
Defense has been given every opportunity to say they need the house.

 

[maconrich]

We know 3D scans of some type were done:
https://www.ci.moscow.id.us/DocumentCenter/View/24833/12-03-22-Moscow-Homicide-Update

Whether that would/will be sufficient for jurors or not, I don’t know. But I’d hate to gamble on it, MOO. It makes perfect sense to me, tho, why the Defense is A-OK with the demo.

Thank you for the link to the update document. I don't remember ever reading the full release.

And I totally agree that it's important to realize S. Gray doesn't speak for all of the family members, and I'd much rather hear from them than from him. IMHO

 

[Megnut]

Might also see a lot more than we'd like - not everyone is clothed when arrested. Might have to make an exception to 'all rise for the jury'. Please, stay behind the table, sir...

MOO

Yes, I had considered that. But you're right, it's all good until Nudith Judith steals something and now, not only are there no cameras in the courtroom, all the lenses are fried.

But really, in general, wouldn't that be the fairest? Whatever you came in wearing --

Unfortunately for him, IIRC BK was arrested in his underthings so he'd need an alternative with more coverage, ffs. Maybe his prowler uniform would do. Maybe, with his guidance, someone could round up his Vans for him.

Jmo

 

[wary]

ZERO - Defense severed the house from the criminal case it's not a part of the criminal case.

Defense has to claim they need the house NOW - defense loses right to do this after the trial.

DEFENSE HAS SAID THEY WONT USE THE HOUSE - can't change their mind just because their client is convicted.
Defense has been given every opportunity to say they need the house.

But chances are that the attorneys that handle his appeal will not be the same as the ones that handled his trial. So, new attorneys will have no problem with throwing his old attorneys to the wolves. They can claim that he was deprived of his right to sn informed jury—they can rant and rave about the incompetence of AT and her crew, I think. The fact that if they’d been the trial attorneys themselves, they’d have made exactly the same choices—that won’t hold them back at all,

MOO

 

[Cool Cats]

But chances are that the attorneys that handle his appeal will not be the same as the ones that handled his trial. So, new attorneys will have no problem with throwing his old attorneys to the wolves. They can claim that he was deprived of his right to sn informed jury—they can rant and rave about the incompetence of AT and her crew, I think. The fact that if they’d been the trial attorneys themselves, they’d have made exactly the same choices—that won’t hold them back at all,

MOO

Appellate attorneys can not go back and make the Moscow house part of the criminal case, they have to work within the criminal case.

The only grounds for appeal would be if the defense files a Motion to keep the house standing and the judge denies it.

This is not happening in this case.

2 cents

 

[gremlin444]

Is it too late at this point for them to decide to move the trial out of the county? I feel like I've see multiple mentions in media recently that it still could be moved out of Moscow to Boise. In that case a jury visit to the house wouldn't even be practical--it's at least a 5hr 30 min drive. The OJ and Alex Murdaugh trials were both quite near those crime scenes, so it was relatively easy to achieve both time and money wise in those situations.

 

[Cool Cats]

There are a lot of posts about BK wearing civilian clothing so thought I'd add this:

Right to appear in civilian clothes and without restraints (Fourteenth Amendment)​

• Defendant has a right to appear before the jury in ordinary civilian dress, and cannot be compelled to appear in prison garb, but this right can be waived.
• Defendant also has a right to appear before the jury without restraints, but the court may order restraints if it makes findings that they are necessary and justified.

The defendant has a right to appear in civilian clothing (instead of a prison or jail uniform) to avoid the risk that the jury’s judgment will be tainted and the defendant’s right to a presumption of innocence will be compromised. See Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976)

The State cannot, consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment, compel an accused to stand trial before a jury while dressed in identifiable prison clothes. If the defendant is denied this right, the state will have the burden of showing on appeal that it was harmless error.

Defendant's Rights in the Courtroom | NC PRO

 

[DizzyB]

I always feel she tries hard not to look at him.

I watched again to review the suit and thought the same thing. I’m assuming it’s rehearsed to put their best foot forward, but it feels like she is working with what she has. I would have thought there would be some eye contact acknowledgement, given the amount of time they are spending working on his case. No warm and fuzzy humanizing like Leslie Abramson did with the Menendez brothers.

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

There are a lot of posts about BK wearing civilian clothing so thought I'd add this:

Right to appear in civilian clothes and without restraints (Fourteenth Amendment)​

• Defendant has a right to appear before the jury in ordinary civilian dress, and cannot be compelled to appear in prison garb, but this right can be waived.
• Defendant also has a right to appear before the jury without restraints, but the court may order restraints if it makes findings that they are necessary and justified.

The defendant has a right to appear in civilian clothing (instead of a prison or jail uniform) to avoid the risk that the jury’s judgment will be tainted and the defendant’s right to a presumption of innocence will be compromised. See Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976)

The State cannot, consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment, compel an accused to stand trial before a jury while dressed in identifiable prison clothes. If the defendant is denied this right, the state will have the burden of showing on appeal that it was harmless error.

Defendant's Rights in the Courtroom | NC PRO

Right. For a trial, but we’re not at that phase, which is the point.

IANAL, but IMOE & asking around to attorney friends throughout Idaho, we can’t remember another instance where a defendant in custody has been extended this special privilege pre-trial. That doesn’t mean it’s never happened, but it’s seemingly extraordinarily rare here, MOO.

 

[Cool Cats]

Right. For a trial, but we’re not at that phase, which is the point.

IANAL, but IMOE & asking around to attorney friends throughout Idaho, we can’t remember another instance where a defendant in custody has been extended this special privilege pre-trial. That doesn’t mean it’s never happened, but it’s seemingly extraordinarily rare here, MOO.

I see this all the time in big cases like this with intense MEDIA COVERAGE.

Potential jurors could easily see his photos and videos and articles describing him plastered all over the media.

He has a constitutional right to wear his own clothes in front of INTENSE PUBLIC MEDIA COVERAGE THAT COULD INFLUENCE A JURY.

 

[10ofRods]

Is it too late at this point for them to decide to move the trial out of the county? I feel like I've see multiple mentions in media recently that it still could be moved out of Moscow to Boise. In that case a jury visit to the house wouldn't even be practical--it's at least a 5hr 30 min drive. The OJ and Alex Murdaugh trials were both quite near those crime scenes, so it was relatively easy to achieve both time and money wise in those situations.

No real clue, but I don't think so. I would think the last two things the Defense might ask for would be change of venue - and then, if Judge Judge has consistently denied all their motions, a new Judge. They will likely not get either - but that's what often happens and they are trying to fulfill all the requirements of DP lawyers.

Which is why several of us think that the "stop the clock" motion and an eventual motion to move the trial to...??? are inevitable. Probably have to book for January next. And of course, the later motions will be interrupted by holidays, cold and flu season, etc, etc - so January/February date will likely be too soon. Judge Judge might be constrained, though, by the speedy trial not being waived, but the clock-stopping maneuver is being used.

We need Idaho residents and lawyers to weigh in.

imo

 

[kittythehare]

As a local in a family in which two generations have attended a few <g> wonderful parties in the house, I hate seeing it now. I’m able to mostly avoid seeing it, a privilege those who live in that neighborhood don’t have. And it continues to draw creepy people. And media, creepy & non-creepy. So I’m not unsympathetic to the UI’s desire to demo it. All MOO.

However, I completely agree with you: as much as I hate seeing it now, I personally think preserving the structure until after trial/plea feels important to me. The layout is funky enough I think it’s possible the jury potentially may need to experience the layout, the space, the structure. Again, all MOO.

I can understand the Defense not objecting to the demolition, but I’m puzzled that the State doesn’t seem to be objecting, at least yet, and I’m curious what others think. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! MOO

I think they could more easily look at a model of the house/
it's not like it's a crime scene.. it's just a building and I believe the sooner it is erased, the better.
I don't know how they plan to replace it or whether a sacred space will be built where it stood.
There is no purpose in leaving it standing.
None at all.
IMO

 

[Nova]

What are the chances that, if BK is convicted, his appeals attorneys will claim that the jury had a right to view the house interior in person, and that because it was demolished, he’s been deprived of his right to a fair trial?

Just to be clear--and unless there is some exception unique to Idaho--a jury may request a field trip to the scene of the crime, but it is up to the judge to decide whether they get such a trip. I've never heard of a "jury's right" to visit the crime scene or to see any evidence other than that which the judge allows.

I presume the judge would take the arguments of both sides into consideration before deciding whether to allow such a field trip.

***

As for appeals, if BK (or anyone) is convicted and especially if someone is sentenced to death, there will be all sorts of claims made to appellate courts. Almost all of those claims will be denied.

***

There are other issues, such as the safety and isolation of the jurors themselves.

Maybe it's just me, but 1122 King looks none too stable to me. If the trial is pushed back into 2024 and the murder house endures another Idaho winter (perhaps without power or running water), can we be sure it will still be safe for 12 jurors + attorneys + bailiffs, et al., to tramp up and down stairs there?

 

[maconrich]

I watched again to review the suit and thought the same thing. I’m assuming it’s rehearsed to put their best foot forward, but it feels like she is working with what she has. I would have thought there would be some eye contact acknowledgement, given the amount of time they are spending working on his case. No warm and fuzzy humanizing like Leslie Abramson did with the Menendez brothers.

With the media devouring and spewing nonsense over every movement, glance or expression BK or his attorneys make, IMHO the defense team seems to be attempting to give the media as little as possible to gossip about. They are being and acting professional. (As is the Prosecution.) Comments were made about AT as soon as it was publicized that she was BK's court appointed attorney -- and not comments relating to the fact she's death penalty certified (although many did point that out). All MOO, IMO and no disrespect intended toward you.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

Just to be clear--and unless there is some exception unique to Idaho--a jury may request a field trip to the scene of the crime, but it is up to the judge to decide whether they get such a trip.

I presume the judge would take the arguments of both sides into consideration before deciding whether to allow such a field trip.

There are other issues, such as the safety and isolation of the jurors themselves.

Maybe it's just me, but 1122 King looks none too stable to me. If the trial is pushed back into 2024 and the murder house endures another Idaho winter (perhaps without power or running water), can we be sure it will still be safe for 12 jurors + attorneys + bailiffs, et al., to tramp up and down stairs there?

Good points, @Nova.

In the Alec Murdaugh Murders case -- he was found guilty this year of murdering his wife Maggie and adult son Paul in cold blood at their "hunting property" where he lived and they didn't - they were separated, he and his wife, and he lured her back there that fateful night under false pretense, IMO, and his son was there as well looking after a friend's dog in their kennels who was having some issues...

I truly believe it brought things home clearly to the jury, which was undecided at the time, IMO, to do a tour of the scene of the crime and see where it all happened, which was described to them (the jury) in detail beforehand.

IMO, it made it "real" for the jury to go there (the scene of their murders), and that may have been a lynch-pin in the jury's decision to convict him.

Although I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other whether the house at 1122 King Road should be kept as is or be demolished soon (before trial) and a serenity or reflecting or peace garden erected in its place for people to go to to remember the victims, because IMO, that would be up to the victim's families, what they would like, and then the university and community.

Just the same, I still wouldn't want it (demolishing their house) to detract from the prosecution's case against BK if, for instance, the defense says something at trial like "we really don't know what all went down during the murders and with the victims and BK because their house isn't there anymore".

Though I trust LE/the prosecution has such a mountain of evidence that proves BK's guilt in their murders BARD, that they're willing to let the crime scene go, because it's all been documented.

 

[Nova]

Good points, @Nova.

In the Alec Murdaugh Murders case -- he was found guilty this year of murdering his wife Maggie and adult son Paul in cold blood at their "hunting property" where he lived and they didn't - they were separated, he and his wife, and he lured her back there that fateful night under false pretense, IMO, and his son was there as well looking after a friend's dog in their kennels who was having some issues...

I truly believe it brought things home clearly to the jury, which was undecided at the time, IMO, to do a tour of the scene of the crime and see where it all happened, which was described to them (the jury) in detail beforehand.

IMO, it made it "real" for the jury to go there (the scene of their murders), and that may have been a lynch-pin in the jury's decision to convict him.

Although I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other whether the house at 1122 King Road should be kept as is or be demolished soon (before trial) and a serenity or reflecting or peace garden erected in its place for people to go to to remember the victims, because IMO, that would be up to the victim's families, what they would like, and then the university and community.

Just the same, I still wouldn't want it (demolishing their house) to detract from the prosecution's case against BK if, for instance, the defense says something at trial like "we really don't know what all went down during the murders and with the victims and BK because their house isn't there anymore".

Though I trust LE/the prosecution has such a mountain of evidence that proves BK's guilt in their murders BARD, that they're willing to let the crime scene go, because it's all been documented.

I actually agree the house should be kept at least through the initial trial. I understand its presence makes members of the community feel bad, but that comes second place, in my view, to the possibility that the house may be necessary evidence at some point in the future. (I am of course commenting as an amateur, one who lives 1,500 miles from Idaho.)

I was merely pushing back on the idea that jury members had some sort of new "right". A jury only gets to see what the opposing counsels WANT them to see, as approved by the judge. I think we "over-protect" jurors at times, but that's probably better than the alternative.

 

[I'm Nobody]

I think they could more easily look at a model of the house/
it's not like it's a crime scene.. it's just a building and I believe the sooner it is erased, the better.
I don't know how they plan to replace it or whether a sacred space will be built where it stood.
There is no purpose in leaving it standing.
None at all.
IMO

True kitty. OR They could actually rebuild a model of the house elsewhere like the FBI did for the Unabomber cabin. Then the jury could walk thru to experience the weird floor plan.
I might be floor plan challenged as another poster mentioned bc I get confused going thru some 3D graphics of the house w the odd steps and door locations. If on the jury I'd like to see the door Dylan Mortenson opened to see BK walk past.
Rebuild it elsewhere. WIN-WIN
Probably won't happen due to money.

JMO
edit. Thanks @Twistinginthewind . Changed mistaken survivor's name.

Unabomber’s Cabin Reconstruction at FBI Headquarters | Federal Bureau of Investigation

Theodore “Ted” Kaczynski—also known as the Unabomber—was arrested at his cabin near Lincoln, Montana, on April 3, 1996. This time-lapse video shows the cabin being reconstructed at FBI Headquarters in 2020.

www.fbi.gov

 

[Twistinginthewind]

True kitty. OR They could actually rebuild a model of the house elsewhere like the FBI did for the Unabomber cabin. Then the jury could walk thru to experience the weird floorpan.
I might be floor plan challenged as another poster mentioned bc I get confused going thru some 3D graphics of the house w the odd steps and door locations. If on the jury I'd like to see the door Bethany Funke opened to see BK walk past.
Rebuild it elsewhere. WIN-WIN
Probably won't happen due to money.

JMO

Unabomber’s Cabin Reconstruction at FBI Headquarters | Federal Bureau of Investigation

Theodore “Ted” Kaczynski—also known as the Unabomber—was arrested at his cabin near Lincoln, Montana, on April 3, 1996. This time-lapse video shows the cabin being reconstructed at FBI Headquarters in 2020.

www.fbi.gov

Good points, @I'm Nobody. Did you mean to say "the door Dylan Mortensen opened to see BK walk past"?

I'm such a detail-oriented nerd/nerp, sorry! IMO

 

[jepop]

Just an aside the suit BK wore most recently to court had the basting stitches still on the vents/slits on the back. Meaning its brand new, they are just a big x to keep the suit in shape during shipping. They are to be taken out before wear. So not only was it new, he obviously hasn't had many suits or he would've known to remove those.

Wow, good eye there!