Some more points from D response to P Motion to Reconsider Stay:
The State’s Motion is concerned only with Mr. Kohberger’s statutory right to a speedy trial, though it never makes that plain. To be clear, there is no way to read a partial waiver of a constitutional right as a full waiver.
The State cites to State v. Lundquist, 134 Idaho 831 (2000), wherein the Court explicitly states that there is nothing wrong with a partial waiver for purposes of constitutional rights.
“It has long been established that a State may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution. . . . ‘Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be . . . indirectly denied,’ or ‘manipulated out of existence'” Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528, 540 (1965)
The State brought this prosecution and did so on its own timetable. Now that timetable must abide by Mr. Kohberger’s constitutional rights.
Forgetting of course the minor detail that the defense delayed from the jump and the state acquiesced. He didn't enter a plea for 6 months and only did so when he was forced to by law. IMOO, he would not have proceeded to a pc hearing but instead, would have asked for another delay. The use of the GJ imo, was the State using the tools it had available in its legal toolbox to attempt to try and stop the constant delays and get the clock to start ticking.
The requests for stays still came. Once he was arraigned the focus shifted to attack the indictment. They are looking for time to search for grounds to challenge the indictment, delay the inevitable. Defense wants the judge to stay the proceedings while they search for a wrong, as opposed to filing a motion citing the wrong that would provide the grounds necessary for the judge to quash the indictment and grant a stay while a new GJ is empaneled. (Delay the case now for us Judge (again), and we'll give you the reasons later). Defense asked for the kitchen sink - when what they are entitled to is the GJ transcript. The Judge granted the defense request without them laying a basis (giving great deference to the defense once again imo) and now the defense is hoping to find problems with the way the GJ was empaneled. It doesn't know what they are yet, but they plan to find at least one.
Court said your motion is premature defense, but I'll give you 37 days more to get the materials even though your clients isn't waiving his right to a speedy trial and you can renew your motion if necessary at that time.
[From Motion to Reconsider] State says respectfully, judge, you can't do that. He can't halfway waive his right to a speedy trial by you extending this out 37 days without him waiving it. He either has to waive it, or it has to be set as scheduled with them renewing their motion prior to trial. [
"The Idaho Supreme Court unambiguously rejected the notion that a defendant can partially, but not fully, waive his right to a speedy trial, explaining that “Section 19-3501 does not allow for such a limited waiver. Once the trial has been postponed, the six-month statutory period no longer applies."]
Besides, the motion to stay has no practical effect since Taylor can renew the motion when its ripe for consideration. And,
"The State makes these requests to give the parties, the victims’ families, and the witnesses predictability as to future trial dates; to protect the record; and to avoid needless speedy trial litigation down the road."
Now from the document you cite above, Response to State's Motion to Reconsider defense says we don't want to waive our right to speedy trial and we can't be compelled to. However, we want you judge to extend his speedy trial right by 37 days.
Can't do this. Judge has to get the waiver and set the trial for a date 37 days out from October 2nd (or any time after that)
or leave the trial date at October 2nd and have the defense make their motion later. This is cart before the horse. It is procedurally deficient.
As always, all jmo.
This is one of those cases where people are seeing things differently from both sides. So, I understand and respect your post. I just read it differently.
061323 Motion to Stay Proceedings.pdf
