4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #86

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is there any chance AT can get the grand jury indictment dismissed? I’m not exactly a legal eagle over here. I didn’t understand her argument for dismissal.

I don't have the answer to your question, but that's apparently the motion that the Defense made. It's probably standard. It seems more like a (redundant) legal formality that ensures she's exercised Kohberger's rights.

The way I understand it, the Judge (who would have ruled on the evidence at a Prelim) will now see if the evidence shown to the GJ meets the same standard to be bound over for trial. IME, if there are any issues of fact (State says X happened or exist and Defense says, Nope, it's taken out of context and didn't happen that way), then it goes to a jury.

I don't think the Judge will agree that the phone, DNA and car data can just be thrown out - but that both sides get to set up their cases and a jury will decide based on that, plus much more.

Has that motion already been heard? I need to go check.

IMO.

(Checked - so that was heard two days ago? Do we know the outcome?)
 
I don't have the answer to your question, but that's apparently the motion that the Defense made. It's probably standard. It seems more like a (redundant) legal formality that ensures she's exercised Kohberger's rights.

The way I understand it, the Judge (who would have ruled on the evidence at a Prelim) will now see if the evidence shown to the GJ meets the same standard to be bound over for trial. IME, if there are any issues of fact (State says X happened or exist and Defense says, Nope, it's taken out of context and didn't happen that way), then it goes to a jury.

I don't think the Judge will agree that the phone, DNA and car data can just be thrown out - but that both sides get to set up their cases and a jury will decide based on that, plus much more.

Has that motion already been heard? I need to go check.

IMO.

(Checked - so that was heard two days ago? Do we know the outcome?)

The defense is doing what criminal defense attorneys having been doing since time began. I anticipate the indictment will not be dismissed. I think this is criminal defense 101
 
Dan Abrams reporting BK filed Motion to Dismiss Indictment "Grand Jury Mislead". I don't see it posted yet.

jmo

I, for one, don't like the way the media is reporting this. As if he's calling all the shots. I'm also starting to interpret that he's being difficult with his defense team. Even if their legal wranglings seem over the top, he is lucky to have them. Gggrrr...
 
Nila Aella posted it - it's here:


I think I have the right link. It's the Motion to Dismiss in Aella's list.
I had a surgical procedure on Monday and think I just learned why they tell you not to sign important papers. LOL I tried reading that twice and my brain just refused to take it in. I skipped to the end and a dim, lonesome little light finally came on.

Someone please lead me out of the weeds if I'm lost but is this not a true Hail Mary? Judge, please overturn and rewrite 150 years of legal precedent? I have to give her credit. She is not afraid of taking on enormous legal issues.
 
I think the Defense is side-stepping the alibi motion. Because he doesn't have one. There are no witnesses who could testify to it.

Instead, if I understand this right, they're saying they'll just establish it on cross, so it won't be an alibi per se, they'll just imply with each expert and witness already listed that there's room to suggest he could've been somewhere else. No alibi filed, no BK on the stand just what I've hypothesized previously -- challenge the digital evidence, challenge the CCTV, challenge the DNA, challenge the investigation, challenge the investigators.

iMO they'll go long on their opening statement and then work to get every witness to admit they can't be certain, every expert to say, while the science is compelling, it's not exact. Yada yada....

They'll have their expert say BK's phone never came within a radius of 1122, that millions of males are tall, athletic with unmanageable eyebrows, etc, etc.

Ship won't sail.

JMO
 
Can you please cite sources where Maddie’s dad & Xana’s dad have expressed their opinions on the capital punishment?

I’ve worked diligently to keep track & if I’ve missed something(s), I’d appreciate being directed. Thanks!
copy/pasting from my post on another thread re Maddie's father and source plus contradiction with news articles:

Thank you - and especially thank you for letting us know that the podcast included an interview with Ethan's parents (beginning at 28:22). It was a repeat of an interview they gave at the Tulip Valley Farm in April (date and location from the podcast), but it was well worth listening to again (despite causing instant tears).

I also listened to Ben Mogen say that (if found guilty) life in prison might be enough... (at abt 19:50), which doesn't match the media claim that Maddie's family wants the death penalty, so I found that interesting. Thank you again.

Link 1:
Idaho murder victims' parents divided over death penalty for killer

and Newsweek links their source for that info from this article:
Death penalty sought for accused Idaho student killer

The link to this ABC podcast is:
The King Road Killings: An Idaho Murder Mystery: Unresolved on Apple Podcasts
 
Alibi in ID?
... That 7/27 motion to compel implies that the Defense failed to comply with the requirement that they state which witnesses or evidence is going to supply the alibi. Is that right so far?
And, the alibi document merely said something like "Kohberger has an alibi" and "Kohberger reserves the right to testify at trial." (Of course he does, that's just standard throughout the US, right?)
SO, was that their oblique way of saying that he is the witness? Why didn't they just say that? It sounds to me as if it's required if the alibi is going to be used at trial.
Am I missing something or misconstruing?
snipped for focus @10ofRods

Once again, ID's alibi statute, in its full glory below. See sub sec. (4):
".... the court may exclude the testimony of any undisclosed witness"
but
"This section shall not limit the right of the defendant to testify in his own behalf."

My Magic 8 Ball is in the shop for repairs [ :) wink], so I'm personally not predicting or interpreting any def. atty motions, briefs or actions.

imo
====================================
DC Section 19-519 – Idaho State Legislature
legislature.idaho.gov legislature.idaho.gov
Idaho Code § 19-519. TITLE 19. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. CHAPTER 5
COMPLAINT AND WARRANT OF ARREST
"19-519. NOTICE OF DEFENSE OF ALIBI. (1) At any time after arraignment before a magistrate upon a complaint and upon written demand of the prosecuting attorney, the defendant shall serve, within ten (10) days or at such different time as the court may direct, upon the prosecuting attorney, a written notice of his intention to offer a defense of alibi. Such notice by the defendant shall state the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi.
"(2) Within ten (10) days after receipt of the defendant’s notice of alibi but in no event less than ten (10) days before trial, unless the court otherwise directs, the prosecuting attorney shall serve upon the defendant or his attorney a written notice stating the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom the prosecution intends to rely to establish the defendant’s presence at the scene of the alleged offense and any other witnesses to be relied on to rebut testimony of any of the defendant’s alibi witnesses.
"(3) If prior to or during trial a party learns of an additional witness whose identity, if known, should have been included in the information furnished under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section, the party shall promptly notify the other party or his attorney of the existence and identity of such additional witness.
"(4) Upon the failure of either party to comply with the requirements of this section, the court may exclude the testimony of any undisclosed witness offered by such party as to the defendant’s absence from or presence at, the scene of the alleged offense. This section shall not limit the right of the defendant to testify in his own behalf.
"(5) For good cause shown the court may grant an exception to any of the requirements of subsections (1) through (4) of this section."
ETA: added quote marks.
 
Well, ... yes and no.

If the DP is sought it is true that the jury has to make this decision (unanimously) during the penalty phase of the trial.

I agree with @Idaho transplant The decision first rests with the state. The prosecution in this case did in fact consult with the family members (they have told us this more than once on NewsNation).

So to your response, it's MOO that the jury does not decide "period". Rather,

The jury decides if the DP will be handed down only *if* the state has (timely) filed a notice of intent to seek it (w/in 60 days of arraignment).

The jury does *not* decide if the state has not elected to (or withdraws its notice to) seek it (which may still happen in this case btw, moo)

jmo

Idaho Pattern Jury Instructions Death Penalty
§ 18-404A
§ 19-215(3)(a) and (5)(a)
The post I was responding to said they hoped the prosecution would honor the family's wishes for the DP after conviction.

After conviction will be up to the jury and it has to be all 12 agreeing to it, not just a majority.
 
Victims Fams' Maj. Opn. "Should Prevail” in this Case. ISSUE 1. Why Different Here?
I was only referencing this case, not murder cases in general. All of the families have been interviewed…. If he is convicted, the families' majority opinion, the death penalty, should prevail….
Snipped for focus @Idaho transplant Thanks for your response.
Addressing multiple issues in multiple posts.

ISSUE 1. If only referencing THIS case, why /how is it different from murder cases in general? Or other mass murder or serial murder cases. Why should these ID-4 families' opn's “prevail” (if in fact they are a majority) when other fams' opn's do not?
That is, IIUC, in other murder cases in GENERAL, victims' families' views need not prevail? Or maybe I misunderstand the post?

imo
 
Is there any chance AT can get the grand jury indictment dismissed? I’m not exactly a legal eagle over here. She reached all the way back to Madison and Hamilton on this one.

Nobody can say the defense did not give it their all!
Agree. Idaho should be applauded for their defense team being so thorough and exacting. When BK hears his verdict, he can't say he wasn't properly represented.
 
Fams' Opinions on LWOP or DP. ISSUE 2. Who Votes? How to Calculate Votes?
…. All of the families have been interviewed. The Chapin family's views are unknown. Xana's mother chose LWOP, her father opted for the death penalty, as did the Goncalves and Maddie's family. If he is convicted, the families' majority opinion, the death penalty, should prevail…
Snipped for focus again, but diff snips. @Idaho transplant Thanks for your response.
Even limiting idea to this case (or similar hypo case), I’m struggling w applying the concept. Is it a “good idea” for a law that is more complicated than it seems at first blush?

ISSUE 2. How does this voting idea work?
Does prosecutor determine eligibility to vote, issue ballots, count results?
One Person, One Vote? One Victim Family, One Vote?
Is each pair of parents entitled to only one vote? Or one vote per parent? What about a parent who predeceased the child, can surviving parent cast a ballot for him/her? Does a stepparent get a vote, even if the corresponding bio-parent is still living & involved w child?

To avoid possible WS ToS violation by diving into the victim's actual fams not already described in MSM, I'll pose a Q w hypothetical factors & hypo parental opinions.
Parents of Victim A: Mr. A's opn = death penalty; Ms A's opn = LWOP.
Parents of Victim B: Mr. B's opn = no opn, abstains; Ms B's opn = ___.
Parents of Victim C: Mr. C's opn =____; step-mother Ms C's opn = ___.
............................................... bio mother the ex-Ms C = ___.
Parents of Victim D: Mr. D = ____; Ms D = deceased.

Do Victim A's parents get two votes, since they differ? Or only one? Or if they can’t agree, no vote at all.

Is Ms B's opn (whatever it is) counted for two votes, since Mr B abstains/has no opn?
IOW, by his absence, can Ms B "collect" his ballot & cast his vote, along w hers?
What about fam of victim C? Dad, Mom, & Step-Mom? The three of them have 'only' one victim; are they entitled to cast 3 votes?
And then we come to the only surviving parent of Victim D, Mr D. Ms D was a perfect Mother who died (in tragic motor vehicle crash or following long, painful illness, whatever) a month before the murder. Is Mr D entitled to cast a ballot for Ms D, or does her untimely death deprive her of a vote, which Mr D could cast?

What if there’s a tie between LWOP & Death Penalty? How is it resolved?
Is a parent allowed a “write in” – “neither of the above?”

Are victim fam. member’s identities & their votes subject to the ID’s Public Records Act ( https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title74/t74ch1/sect74-102/y ) aka Open Records Act in some states? If this voting idea was enacted, would votes be open to public? IDK

Personally not seeing idea of victims’ families’ “majority vote” (however eligibility could determined and however tally could be calculated) to choose penalty as desirable, not in this instance and not as a new law. The current statute affords victims’ fams “an opportunity to communicate w the prosecution” and allows prosecutor to decide about offenses to charges and whether to seek DP. Seems better than majority-vote-prevails.
Jmo imo, omo moo moo moo
 
Last edited:
Victims Fams' Opn. ISSUE 3. Prosecutor, “Honoring” Victims’ Fams’ “Choice” re Penalty
….If he is convicted, the families' majority opinion, the death penalty, should prevail…. I would hope that the prosecution honors their choice. So far, they have.
Snipped again for diff focus @Idaho transplant Thanks for your response; now I’m trying to sort another angle.

ISSUE 3. Prosecutor. “Honoring” Victims’ Fams’ "Choice" re Penalty?
IIUC, most (or all?) of the victims’ parents were given the opportunity to communicate w the prosecution, per ID statute.*

IDK how “strong” the state’s Murder in the First Degree case is for the four deceased students. Nor do I have a clue as to how “strong” Bill Thompson, Ashley Jennings, et al personally, privately BELIEVE the case is.

I hope, in filing charges and continuing prosecution that Bill Thompson & team personally believe that they have a very strong case, a case that is likely to result in a guilty verdict and the DP, based on their best PROFESSIONAL LEGAL EXPERIENCE and JUDGMENT.
I hope they filed on that basis, NOT on the basis that by pursuing the DP, the state is honoring the victims’ fam’s opn’s.
Not knowing all the state’s or defense evidence, earlier when talking MSM or the prosecution, these fams may have had overly OPTIMISTIC EXPECTATIONS. And at this point, even the state does not/may not have ALL the evidence, either for ID. or def.

As noted above the fams got the chance to communicate w prosecution,* (IIUC) as the statute provides.
Death-Penalty or LWOP or other potential sentence is NOT a "CHOICE“ the victims fams’ are entitled to make under ID. law imo.

If ID statute confers on the victims’ fams, the right to determine whether a prosecutor files for DP or requires prosecutor to “honor” victims’ wishes, I missed it entirely. Anyone?
imo
_________________
ID Statute. Victims Rights.
Section 19-5306 – Idaho State Legislature
“19-5306. Rights of victim during investigation, prosecution...
(1) Each victim of a criminal or juvenile offense shall be:….
(f) Afforded the opportunity to communicate with the prosecution in criminal or juvenile offenses,… “
 
I had a surgical procedure on Monday and think I just learned why they tell you not to sign important papers. LOL I tried reading that twice and my brain just refused to take it in. I skipped to the end and a dim, lonesome little light finally came on.

Someone please lead me out of the weeds if I'm lost but is this not a true Hail Mary? Judge, please overturn and rewrite 150 years of legal precedent? I have to give her credit. She is not afraid of taking on enormous legal issues.

IMHO, sure sounds like a Hail Mary pass to me. Please dismiss the charges entirely or remand for a preliminary hearing on the grounds that the Grand Jury was misled as to the standard of proof required for an indictment, even though doing so goes against all modern law interpretation.

Because suddenly now Grand Juries should be held to the same standard as conviction by a trial jury. Because no one but the defense has ever noticed in all these years the discrepancy she is claiming. And she's never noticed it in any of the many many cases she's worked until now. Just suddenly now.

And why does she want a preliminary hearing so badly, people may ask?

At this point, with all the disclosure she's received and gone through, I'm going to say it's because she can't find any other way to defend BK. So you go to a preliminary hearing, find out more of the State's more fleshed out narrative, attack the evidence if you even can at this point, and see if you can convince the judge to not even take it to trial.

Or maybe (or in addition to that) her public opinion researchers have come to her and said "all our studies and surveys show that he is going to be completely unlikeable to a jury...so get it thrown out before you get there or you've lost all hope."
 
....The crimes were committed in the State of Idaho. That is (the only reason) why it is being investigated and tried in the State of Idaho. Speaking to the families is the 100% right thing to do imo.... I think it would be wrong for the prosecution to not consult with them. MOO
snipped for focus @Jurisprudence
Agreeing w you, at least gen'ly: prosecution communicating w victims'
families is a sound (best?) practice.
But (splitting legal hairs) ID. statute does not place the responsibility on prosecution to reach out to victims' families.
Prosecution's responsibility is to afford victims (as defined by statute) "an opportunity to communicate with the prosecution in criminal... offenses."

[ETA: Others interested in victims rights may want to read ---
https://www.ag.idaho.gov/content/uploads/2018/04/VictimsRights.pdf.
Plain language explanations, esp'ly in Q & A section.]

A slight difference but potentially significant in some circumstances.
Putting my hair splitting scissors away in a drawer for now. ;-) imo

===========================
19-5306. RIGHTS OF VICTIM DURING INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, AND DISPOSITION OF THE CRIME.
(1) Each victim of a criminal or juvenile offense shall be:....
(f) Afforded the opportunity to communicate with the prosecution in criminal or juvenile offenses, and be advised of any proposed plea agreement by the prosecuting attorney prior to entering into a plea agreement in criminal or juvenile offenses involving crimes of violence, sex crimes or crimes against children;..."
among other specified rights, listed in
 
Last edited:
I, for one, don't like the way the media is reporting this. As if he's calling all the shots. I'm also starting to interpret that he's being difficult with his defense team. Even if their legal wranglings seem over the top, he is lucky to have them. Gggrrr...

Well, if you're wondering if there will be a chance this will be dismissed and they will get their PC hearing, I say in MOO there's a chance. Not because it's legally sound but because Judge Judge has given the defense every single they have asked for. There's a pattern here. So, imo, there's a chance. Not sure why he's so afraid to assert his own authority. It would be nice to see this judge run his own courtroom instead of allowing defense counsel to run it, but to date, it hasn't happened yet. Makes him look weak in my eyes. But as always, that's jmo
 
Alibi in ID?

snipped for focus @10ofRods

Once again, ID's alibi statute, in its full glory below. See sub sec. (4):
".... the court may exclude the testimony of any undisclosed witness"
but
"This section shall not limit the right of the defendant to testify in his own behalf."

My Magic 8 Ball is in the shop for repairs [ :) wink], so I'm personally not predicting or interpreting any def. atty motions, briefs or actions.

imo
====================================
DC Section 19-519 – Idaho State Legislature
legislature.idaho.gov legislature.idaho.gov
Idaho Code § 19-519. TITLE 19. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. CHAPTER 5
COMPLAINT AND WARRANT OF ARREST
"19-519. NOTICE OF DEFENSE OF ALIBI. (1) At any time after arraignment before a magistrate upon a complaint and upon written demand of the prosecuting attorney, the defendant shall serve, within ten (10) days or at such different time as the court may direct, upon the prosecuting attorney, a written notice of his intention to offer a defense of alibi. Such notice by the defendant shall state the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi.
"(2) Within ten (10) days after receipt of the defendant’s notice of alibi but in no event less than ten (10) days before trial, unless the court otherwise directs, the prosecuting attorney shall serve upon the defendant or his attorney a written notice stating the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom the prosecution intends to rely to establish the defendant’s presence at the scene of the alleged offense and any other witnesses to be relied on to rebut testimony of any of the defendant’s alibi witnesses.
"(3) If prior to or during trial a party learns of an additional witness whose identity, if known, should have been included in the information furnished under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section, the party shall promptly notify the other party or his attorney of the existence and identity of such additional witness.
"(4) Upon the failure of either party to comply with the requirements of this section, the court may exclude the testimony of any undisclosed witness offered by such party as to the defendant’s absence from or presence at, the scene of the alleged offense. This section shall not limit the right of the defendant to testify in his own behalf.
"(5) For good cause shown the court may grant an exception to any of the requirements of subsections (1) through (4) of this section."
ETA: added quote marks.
MOO - I hate to be the Debbie Downer but I'll lay a bet right now that despite being in violation of this section, and we know from the refusal to produce she clearly is, if she can produce evidence in any way during the course of the trial, he'll make an exception and let it in. From her perspective, she's seeing what we are all seeing: She's been getting everything she's asked for - whether it be in derogation of the rules or not. She knows this, so why not take the shot. The Judge started giving bat signals from the first hearing imo when he ripped into the AP counsel. She laughed, grabbed her co-counsel's arm, whispered and smiled.

As always, it's jmo.
 
Is there any chance AT can get the grand jury indictment dismissed? I’m not exactly a legal eagle over here. She reached all the way back to Madison and Hamilton on this one.

Nobody can say the defense did not give it their all!
No you are not a legal eagle..but rather a hummingbird. J/K.

I agree with that last statement 100%.
 
I had a surgical procedure on Monday and think I just learned why they tell you not to sign important papers. LOL I tried reading that twice and my brain just refused to take it in. I skipped to the end and a dim, lonesome little light finally came on.

Someone please lead me out of the weeds if I'm lost but is this not a true Hail Mary? Judge, please overturn and rewrite 150 years of legal precedent? I have to give her credit. She is not afraid of taking on enormous legal issues.

Spaghetti at the wall imo (P.S. Hope you're doing well)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
129
Guests online
3,236
Total visitors
3,365

Forum statistics

Threads
602,750
Messages
18,146,472
Members
231,524
Latest member
itzAMANDAyo
Back
Top