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

[MassGuy]

@MassGuy: Been meaning to ask you how much input do you think BK has in these Motions and with his Defense in general?

Do you think he is highly engaged and suggesting/demanding certain things, being his know it all self, or do you think he is letting them run the show?

He thinks he knows more than anyone, so I wouldn’t be surprised if he had a good deal of input. I go knows though.

 

[jepop]

That's what I thought... otherwise we have 2 trials... Trial 1 - the Grand Jury, Trial 2 - the public jury trial. Both with the standard of guilty within reasonable doubt.. But it can't be because the GJ is one sided.. just the prosecutor and evidence. No defense, right?

That's not the way it was drawn up.

Right. Good point. The intention cannot have been to have two trials, one trial with no representation by the defense and a second with a jury and the defendant represented. Imoo proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is impossible, it's a misnomer if the defendant is not there and his side is not represented. That's why BaRD cannot be the standard that must be met for a GJ to be convinced of a defendant's guilt and indict. Moo The 'guilt' a GJ must be convinced of is context dependent - guilt framed within conditions - an 'as it stands guilt'. Whatever evidence was placed before this GJ, it was much more and much more detailed than the PCA, Imo. They indicted and I believe they were instructed correctly according to the ICRs and the notion of 'guilt' in that context. Moo

 

[Justice101]

I believe he doesn't have a PROVABLE alibi that he was not at the scene.

I think THEIR ONLY HOPE is to cross examine DM and the other witness. "Can you, Miss DM, say without a doubt that the person you saw is my client?" DM: No, it was too dark so I can't say.

"Next witness please"...

So what? There is plenty of other evidence to present.

This is a all a nothing burger

 

[wary]

At what point would the defense grandstanding become contempt of court, considering that there’s a gag order for both sides?

How is the editorializing that we read in these court filings different from the editorializing that attorneys used to do on the courtroom steps?

 

[jepop]

At what point would the defense grandstanding become contempt of court, considering that there’s a gag order for both sides?

How is the editorializing that we read in these court filings different from the editorializing that attorneys used to do on the courtroom steps?

That's what I'm thinking too. When you compare the motions between the defense and state it's glaringly obvious. I'm concerned that the Judge will not put the defense in line. It seems absurd after he ruled so strongly on the non-dissemination order and even made a point of admonishing the sensationalist reporting of some national outlets. At the hearing in early June he heard the defense out with the state's concurrence on all matters. And he ruled firmly and fairly. Less than two weeks after that hearing and at the same time the amended non-dissemination order was issued the D' filed their Objection to Protective Order which contained their first blatant 'editorialising' Imo. Moo

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/062323+Objection+to+States+Motion+for+Protective+Order.pdf

 

[maskedwoman]

At what point would the defense grandstanding become contempt of court, considering that there’s a gag order for both sides?

How is the editorializing that we read in these court filings different from the editorializing that attorneys used to do on the courtroom steps?

Also, I suspect the longer they get away with it, the worse they will get. Bleh.

 

[Sundog]

dbm

This defense fancy dance around the alibi MOO means there is no alibi, but AT trying to keep the door open should they happen to "find" one.

Also, like standing silent, an AT tactic as we have seen, avoids saying out loud the words
"We have no alibi."

The "alibi rule" is controversial in the legal community with many issues about the constitutionality of the rule. I think that AT wants to make it clear that BK has a constitutional right to silence, and that they have the right to establish his alibi through cross-examination of the prosecution's witnesses and perhaps their own expert witnesses and possibly with BK testifying on his own behalf. Of course, I don't think that BK will take the stand in this regard, but I think that AT is stating that he has that right because some states in the U.S. do not allow a defendant to take the stand on his own behalf if the defendant/attorneys have missed the deadline to file an alibi. I think she wants to emphasize this by indirectly citing the Idaho Code on the "alibi rule."

The "alibi rule" was established in 1975 as a procedural rule for efficiency in trials, so that the prosecution would have time to interview witnesses before a trial and not in the middle of the trial which would put everything on pause. But there are concerns that this rule that was established for efficiency and is a procedural rule for that reason, could end up as a "punishment" for the defendant if the alibi defense deadline is missed. In Idaho, the law says that the defendant can still testify regarding an alibi, but the defendant's witnesses cannot. Of course, the judge in the case has discretion to override this latter aspect of the alibi rule under certain circumstances.

But I think that AT is one of the members of the legal community who has issues with the constitionality of the rule, and that is part of what is driving her response to the deadline. I think she has made her point, and is prepared to take it up with the Idaho Supreme Court (and further) if her client is in any way "punished" for this decision, his ultimate right to silence.

JMO. IANAL, but that is how I view AT's filing related to the alibi defense issue.

 

[Boxer]

dbm


The "alibi rule" is controversial in the legal community with many issues about the constitutionality of the rule. I think that AT wants to make it clear that BK has a constitutional right to silence, and that they have the right to establish his alibi through cross-examination of the prosecution's witnesses and perhaps their own expert witnesses and possibly with BK testifying on his own behalf. Of course, I don't think that BK will take the stand in this regard, but I think that AT is stating that he has that right because some states in the U.S. do not allow a defendant to take the stand on his own behalf if the defendant/attorneys have missed the deadline to file an alibi. I think she wants to emphasize this by indirectly citing the Idaho Code on the "alibi rule."

The "alibi rule" was established in 1975 as a procedural rule for efficiency in trials, so that the prosecution would have time to interview witnesses before a trial and not in the middle of the trial which would put everything on pause. But there are concerns that this rule that was established for efficiency and is a procedural rule for that reason, could end up as a "punishment" for the defendant if the alibi defense deadline is missed. In Idaho, the law says that the defendant can still testify regarding an alibi, but the defendant's witnesses cannot. Of course, the judge in the case has discretion to override this latter aspect of the alibi rule under certain circumstances.

But I think that AT is one of the members of the legal community who has issues with the constitionality of the rule, and that is part of what is driving her response to the deadline. I think she has made her point, and is prepared to take it up with the Idaho Supreme Court (and further) if her client is in any way "punished" for this decision, his ultimate right to silence.

JMO. IANAL, but that is how I view AT's filing related to the alibi defense issue.

Norm Pattis defense for Fotis Dulos (murdered wife Jennifer Dulos) was on the same path as AT in attempting to make the case about a constitutional issue.

In that case NP asserted that Fotis Dulos was denied his rights because he NOT indicted by a Grand Jury but rather was indicted by a PC process in court.

Defense attorneys going to defense attorney.

 

[x_files]

@MassGuy: Been meaning to ask you how much input do you think BK has in these Motions and with his Defense in general?

Do you think he is highly engaged and suggesting/demanding certain things, being his know it all self, or do you think he is letting them run the show?

He strikes me as TYPE A and super controlling, there's no way he's not condescending to his own attorneys and team members. If he's not being condescending then he is biting his tongue for now. But he will snap eventually.

 

[kittythehare]

That's what I thought... otherwise we have 2 trials... Trial 1 - the Grand Jury, Trial 2 - the public jury trial. Both with the standard of guilty within reasonable doubt.. But it can't be because the GJ is one sided.. just the prosecutor and evidence. No defense, right?

That's not the way it was drawn up.

It strikes me as crazy the way some killers get a ridiculous amount of breaks and bending and others don't even get a decent defense...

 

[Idaho transplant]

I don't think it's going to be bad for the prosecution. They have built a solid case, much of which I don't think we even know about yet. What exactly can they even get thrown out? Nothing I know of. Heaven forbid Judge Tripps rules against the GJ indictment, the Prosecution can just turn around and impanel another one, Or a PH. BK isn't going anywhere.

BK has no alibi because he was right on King Street committing these murders. They can spin the cell data, the car identification and GGI all they want, but the evidence is going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is the killer. The GGI doesn't have squat to do with the STR DNA evidence found that proved BK was the likely contributor 5+ octillion times any other individual.

Why in the h e l l was BK disposing of garbage (evidence) in zip loc baggies in a neighbors garbage can at 3 am in stealth mode? I believe he was dismantling and disposing of the hard drives and or phones he brought back from WA.

No, the Defense is arguing and they have the most theatrical, bloviating Attorney in Logsdon to do so, it's their jobs. But in the end, a jury of 12 peers are going to find BK guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I have faith in Bill Thompson & Company.

ALL MOO

"Bloviating!" I love it! My new favorite word! Keep your comments coming, we need the re-assurance that justice will prevail for Ethan, Xana, Maddie & Kaylie.

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

I remember seeing Goncalves on NewsNation. They definitely did, and with some specificity. Our daughter doesn't get to be on a tablet all day or reading books, get 3 square meals a day, roof over her head, watch TV, we can't call her, write her, visit her etc. About 3 or so weeks ago Banfield reported that Mogen family was in favor as was Jeff, Xana's dad.

Starts at 6:55

NewsNation Goncalves

Do you have another link? Because the one you provided is one I saw at the time & expresses the opinion of only Kaylee’s family. Indeeed, they admit they hadn’t even discussed the issue with Maddie’s mom & stepdad or Maddie’s dad.

TIA

 

[ilovewings]

It strikes me as crazy the way some killers get a ridiculous amount of breaks and bending and others don't even get a decent defense...

High profile crimes draw pretty good attorneys to the case, much IMO for the notoriety as well as a sincere desire to help this person. The problem with high profile cases is the amount of pressure on the judge, especially in a death penalty case, where it appears that judges bend over backwards to avoid appeal issues (which will occur anyway). I have seen too many high profile cases where the defense runs wild with novel theories (i.e. Casey Anthony)- that have not a scintilla of evidence to back up such a theory but the judge allows it, most likely because there are so many eyes on the case.

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

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

Huge gratitude to you for finding a link I lost track of!

I have the utmost sympathy for all the families & other loved ones. For me, that includes listening to what they say publicly and also respecting when they choose to stay quiet & accurately characterizing both.

Thanks again & MOO.

 

[maconrich]

Huge gratitude to you for finding a link I lost track of!

I have the utmost sympathy for all the families & other loved ones. For me, that includes listening to what they say publicly and also respecting when they choose to stay quiet & accurately characterizing both.

Thanks again & MOO.

You're welcome. It's easy to lose track of posts esp since threads tend to move fast and switch subjects just as quickly.

I totally agree with you about the families and loved ones.

 

[Nila Aella]

• 07/28/2023 Notice of Hearing

ETA

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjhxpPfobKAAxXlFlkFHSb7CLYQFnoECA0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcoi.isc.idaho.gov%2F&usg=AOvVaw3QpkN0NQPCGFbgfzIE_S1f&opi=89978449

 

[kittythehare]

This is a few weeks old but I like this guy

 

[Nila Aella]

Hearings upcoming and requested:
I am not sure what the Defendants scheduled motion hearing on the 18th is for (3rd Motion to compel?)



The hearing the Court set on August 2, 2023, at 1:00 p.m., Pacific, is VACATED, and the matter will be addressed at the in-person hearing currently set for August l8, 2023, at 10:30 am. Pacific. (evidentiary items)

On August 18, 2023, at 10:30 A.M. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, the undersigned will call on for hearing:
State's Motion for Protective Order filed on June 16, 2023
State's Motion to Reconsider Order Staying Time for Speedy Trial filed on July 17, 2023
State's Motion for Scheduling Order filed on July 17, 2023
State's Motion to Compel ''Notice of Defense of Alibi" or, Alternatively, to Bar Certain Evidence filed on July 27, 2023.

Anne C. Taylor, Public Defender, will call on for hearing the below Motions in the above entitled matter on 8/18/23 at 10:30AM or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard in front of the Honorable Judge John Judge.
Defendant’s 3rd Motion to Compel filed June 22, 2023
Defendant’s 2nd Motion to Stay Proceedings filed July 25, 2023
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment on Grounds of Error in Grand Jury Instructions or in the Alternative Remand for Preliminary Hearing filed July 25, 2023

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/071023+Notice+of+Hearing+for+August+18+2023.pdf

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/072523-Order-Vacating-Hearing.pdf

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/072823-Notice-of-Hearing.pdf

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/072723-Notice-of-Hearing.pdf

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

BBM part, this is the issue imo. The state doesn't have recourse while the defense has sometimes seemingly endless appeals. So, what he does really matters imo.I don't think he is biased against the state though. I think he was showing off for the cameras in the one hearing (I bet they rarely if ever have had a camera in that court), flexing his muscles to send them and us the viewing public a silly message. And since that time, I think he's been afraid quite frankly. She's not from his county. He knows she's an experienced certified DP atty who is the head of the dept in her county. I think he's afraid of making a wrong step and having the case appealed, and that's a problem. Fact is, MOO, if BK gets convicted, this is getting appealed no matter what. He's certainly smart enough to know this so make your rulings - the right rulings, and let the chips fall where they may.

On your last point, I believe Judge Judge is the only game in town but I could be wrong. I looked that up a long time ago so, moo. If this is the case, there is no one to step in on any recusal.

MOO

RBBM

Y’all - we absolutely have other judges if Triple J was successfully challenged or had reason to recuse himself.

I’ll also point out that Judge Judge replaced our previous district court judge who was appointed to the State Supreme Court — while being a small county population-wise, we’ve historically had a top notch judiciary in Moscow & Latah County.

It is soo interesting to me to read the comments about Judge Judge from people who have never sat in his courtroom. No offense, but I’m quite comfortable with him and I have sat in his courtroom many times.

As a reminder, this is a DP case, so I fully expect any competent judge to be extremely mindful of potential appeals.

Likewise, because they are fighting to save their client’s actual life, I fully expect the DT to explore every possible way to gum up the works, for lack of a better term.

All of this is par for the course, MOO & IANAL.

 

[Balthazar]

If the defense is going to bring an alibi defense in accordance with ICRs they are not allowed to ambush the state so that it has no time to counter.Moo

ETA: though I think the D's response re notice of Alibi after having used up it's extension of time probably indicates the defendant has no alibi. The response and ICRS are posted up thread.

Moo

I was talking about talking to police about an alibi immediately after someone has been arrested. This is now a matter for the court. It will be interesting to see how the defense works this situation out as I believe BK does actually have an alibi.