@Nila Aella, I think I can explain why this is such a big deal for the state, and why this should be of concern to each and every one of us. MOO, of course.
IMO, the state isn't splitting hairs or nitpicking with that motion to reconsider. They're concerned - about the judge's order in response to the defense's motion, and rightfully so I think.
The speedy trial statute in Idaho could cause this defendant's case to be dismissed if he isn't brought to trial within 6 months of arraignment unless he waives it and postpones it
upon his application. And, he did
not.
Indeed, BK is vehemently refusing to "postpone it upon his application" as we see from the filings. Instead, he says he wants to retain his right to a speedy trial but wants the judge to expand the time - and the judge did.
Problem is, and I agree with the State here 100%, Judge just very possibly violated the Speedy Trial statute and if he doesn't rescind this order this case may be in jeopardy of being thrown out unless somehow he proceeds to trial on 10/2 - and why would he?
Now, it is true that the Judge did say in his order something to the effect of "Well, the defense agreed on the record so, they can't come back later and cry foul"
But, then he proceeds to say in the very next sentence "But.... the court recognizes defendant BK has NOT waived his right."
The State must have been like "Judge,
What?!?"
In their filing the state told the judge that the defense "saying it on the record" does not get you around the speedy trial rule. Them saying it on the record does not satisfy the statute since it is not equal to "a waiver or postponement of trial
upon the defendant's application".
And, even the court acknowledged this in its order (that the court has been told over and over on the record he's not waiving it).
MOO, the state is concerned he has just risked getting this case thrown out. And, AT and her defense team aren't dummies. They know exactly what they asked for, exactly what was granted, and its impact. And, they
still filed that response. So take from that what you will.
As always, this is all jmo.
I don't think anyone wants this case messed up. Not the state, not any of us, and especially, not the families. MOO
legislature.idaho.gov