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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Justice101 said:
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.
Click to expand...

IMOO, that's what she wants with the PC hearing. And, that's why she wants it so badly. She wants to try to turn it into a mini trial before the trial; hear the state's entire case (get discovery they aren't required to hand over per the rules); cross examine their witnesses; drop theories into public discourse well before trial and then nurture them. This is a CO case but the sentiment is well subscribed to nationwide, imo (citations omitted)

"A preliminary hearing is limited to matters necessary to a determination of probable cause. The rights of the defendant are therefore curtailed: evidentiary and procedural rules are relaxed, and the rights to cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence are limited to the question of probable cause.

A defendant has no constitutional right to unrestricted confrontation of witnesses and to introduce evidence at a preliminary hearing. By rule, defendants have the right to a preliminary hearing under certain circumstances, and pursuant to the rule a defendant may cross-examine witnesses against him and may introduce evidence in his own behalf. However, the preliminary hearing is not intended to be a mini-trial or to afford the defendant an opportunity to effect discovery."

People v. Fry

jmo
 
Nila Aella said:
I agree! Always ask for a lawyer.
Your post reminded me of this case:

“I was in Florida, and I have 13 alibi witnesses to prove it,” Rosario told me. “When I heard police were looking for me, I turned myself in, gave them the names and contact information for all 13 people -- and no one ever contacted them.”

Click to expand...
It's the law in Idaho.

It's. the. law. It's not optional except to the extent that if you don't follow it, you may lose your right to present it. § 19-519
 
Maat99 said:
Seriously. No one else interviewed by police seems to have refused to disclose their verifiable alibi and instead opted to sit in jail until it could be presented in a death penalty trial. I wonder why? What could possibly be the difference driving these very different approaches?
Click to expand...

No SANE person would stay silent and refuse to give an alibi. No sane person would sit in jail if they had a solid alibi.
If his albi was "I was at home sleeping." and he couldn't prove it I'd ask my attorney if it was me to help me prove it ASAP!!!
 
wary said:
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?
Click to expand...
Fantastic post. I00% agree. It is the same. Maybe even more damaging since people can read it over and over again. He should have shut this down at its inception. Now he's got a monster.

jmo
 
Defendants Second motion for a Stay:

Idaho Code §2—213 provides for stay of proceedings upon verified allegation of failure of title 2 of the Idaho code.

Title provides statutory authority and requirement for convening trial juries or grand juries. Mr. Kohberger alleges failure of full compliance with Idaho Code §2-208. This statute states that individuals must be randomly drawn from county jury list and that the jury commissioner shall draw requisite number of qualified jurors for one or more panels or for grand jury. This statute further requires “Upon receipt of the direction and in manner prescribed by the court, the jury commission shall publicly draw at random, by use of manual, mechanical, or automated system, from the county jury list the number of prospective jurors specified.” Idaho Code §2-208. The number of potential jurors appearing for potential selection impacted the seating of Grand Jury that heard the case; based upon review of the Grand Jury convening process apparent failure occurred

Idaho Code §2-208(3) requires that “The qualification questionnaire form must be completed and returned to the clerk or the jury commissioner within ten (10) days from the date of mailing. (More at the link about the questionaire)

Further, other irregularity exists within the grand jury process and further investigation is necessary to determine the impact, if any, in the convening of this grand jury.

Idaho Code: Title 2 208

 
jepop said:
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

Click to expand...

If you go to either Vallow/Daybell docket here's what you'll see for GJ transcript request - a 1 paragraph request.

Lori Daybell
Chad Daybell

Now, if you compare Anne Taylor's?
4 pages.
9 Demands
One of which demands contains 22 demands.

BK/AT

It's been this way from the start. She's trying to beat them down imo just so they give in to make her stop (bc the judge isn't stopping her - not even after the state's response to her first motion to compel when they pretty much spelled it out for him).

Gotta hand it to her - she's got that "When the law is not on your side, argue the facts. When the facts are not on your side argue the law. When neither the facts nor the law is on your side, pound the table" down to a science.

I'm sure BT and his team are fed up. But so far, they haven't let her win just to make her stop and for that, I truly tip my hat to them.

As always, jmo
 
Jurisprudence said:
It's the law in Idaho.

It's. the. law. It's not optional except to the extent that if you don't follow it, you may lose your right to present it. § 19-519
Click to expand...
I was commenting about giving an alibi at the time of arrest (See @Balthazar s posts below).
His lawyer is handling it now. I am confident the Judge will rule according to Idaho Law.
MOO
Balthazar said:
Absolutely NOT! Alibi's should never, ever be given to anyone except your lawyer. They only come into play if needed and then in such a way as to inflict the greatest damage on the prosecution. The reason for this, is the chances of a prosecutor walking back an indictment are incredibly low. 90% of criminal cases end in some form of plea bargain, 8% end with dismissal, and 2% go to a jury verdict. To get a prosecutor to dismiss a charge, they have to absolutely believe that the facts and circumstances warrant it and that means the prosecutor must believe there is no chance of conviction. One thing a prosecutor might do to avoid dismissal, is reduce a charge in order to get a guilty plea. In this case, I'm not sure what will happen.
Click to expand...
Balthazar said:
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.
Click to expand...
edit: spelling
 
Last edited:
Sundog said:
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.
Click to expand...

She probably does take this case as her 15 minutes of fame that she could get all the way to US Supreme Court and get granted certiorari (unless this law has been challenged already and it might have been).

MOO, anyone watching the docket knows that her appointment papers were later backdated to cover her motion dates. She had a conflict of interest, ditched the client, and was at the scene of the crime with a team all before she was even formally appointed counsel. So, she's all about the stardom, and the bucks. She's getting paid a lot by Latah County. So are all of her private practice dream team co-counsel.

Private lawyers for a supposedly indigent defendant paid by the Idaho taxpayers. I wonder how many indigent defendants currently in jail in Latah have a team of private lawyers headlined by their "public defender so that the County of Latah picks up the tab? I wonder how angry they'd be to know they aren't getting that special treatment. They should be, and rightfully so. Same for the people of Idaho IMO. The guy, who went to school in the state of Washington, purchased groceries in the state of Idaho a few times over an 8 week period. That's his sole contribution to Idaho's tax base. That and his $10 seatbelt ticket. MOO

jmo
 
Last edited:
Boxer said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's really interesting Boxer. Thank you. I'm going to read that case.
 
Jurisprudence said:
If you go to either Vallow/Daybell docket here's what you'll see for GJ transcript request - a 1 paragraph request.

Lori Daybell
Chad Daybell

Now, if you compare Anne Taylor's?
4 pages.
9 Demands
One of which demands contains 22 demands.

BK/AT

It's been this way from the start. She's trying to beat them down imo just so they give in to make her stop (bc the judge isn't stopping her - not even after the state's response to her first motion to compel when they pretty much spelled it out for him).

Gotta hand it to her - she's got that "When the law is not on your side, argue the facts. When the facts are not on your side argue the law. When neither the facts nor the law is on your side, pound the table" down to a science.

I'm sure BT and his team are fed up. But so far, they haven't let her win just to make her stop and for that, I truly tip my hat to them.

As always, jmo
Click to expand...
Wow, that comparison says a lot. In my post I was wondering more about the effect some of the defense's more sensational and 'off topic' declarations (within motions/responses) may be having on the jury pool and the potential for fair trial. I find it ironic, given the Ds concerns about sensationalist MSM in relation to the non-dissemination order. But I see your point about the motions coming in from all possible angles. That's her doing her job and yes, I can see how it would have a wearing down effect. Moo

Waiting to see how judge will handle the motion to dismiss and second motion to stay proceedings. Like you, I don't automatically believe everything in the D's motions- the language is obtuse for a reason. But this is the system and the right of the defendant and AT is clearly good at her game. I don't really see how theJudge can stop the D from filing numerous motions. All he can do is deny them or allow them as he sees fit. But he's obliged to hear them out. Moo. So far I believe only one order has come out of the Ds various motion's to compel. The time has been tight. The motions seem to come in blocks and then are heard en masse in one sitting. Hopefully, some of them will be dealt with, done and dusted on 18th August. Moo
 
Order Sealing Jury Panel Selection

In response to letter request dated July 24, 2023, from Anne C. Taylor, Public Defender, the Court is providing, pursuant to Rule 61.3 I.C.A.R., copy of the Latah County jury panel selection list from January 1, 2023, to June 30, 2023. The letter request and the jury panel selection list are attached to this order.

Rule 61.3
Statewide and county master jury lists shall be open to the public for inspection upon written request to the county jury commission and Administrative District Judge, or the Administrative Director of the Courts as applicable

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 61.3 | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov isc.idaho.gov
 
North_Idaho_Nony said:
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.
Click to expand...
I said he was well respected and liked by his peers. Doesn't mean I have to like what I see. I've been around the block for about 30 years. MOO I would have been in contempt if he spoke to me the way he spoke to the AP lawyers because I would have responded. It was out of line imo. Period.

MOO
 
North_Idaho_Nony said:
“a source close to the investigation told NewsNation’s Ashleigh Banfield”

An unconfirmed anonymous leak in violation of the gag order purportedly speaking for the victims’ parents doesn’t work for me, MOO. I know I’m running the risk of sounding like a broken record, but the victims’ families owe the public nothing & dignity demands that we respect what they chose to say publicly and what they choose not to say.
Click to expand...
I think you have to subscribe to your thought that NONE of them want it. Lololol I seriously don't know what to tell you at this point. I don't think people care to be honest. You asked me, when it wasn't my post, and I was trying to help. Personally I don't care what the families decide bc it's not my business. IMO it's their choice to make and discuss with the state.

jmo
 
Last edited:
Cool Cats said:
The Vallow DP was taken off the table because the prosecution failed to disclose evidence in a timely manner. A judge determined - due to late discovery disclosure - the death penalty will be taken off the table to ensure a fair defense.

The defense is simply doing their job and filing all the Motions they have a legal right to file.

In the end there will be a DP trial for BK and he will be convicted. ... 2 Cents. ... Evidence is overwhelming.
Click to expand...

You mean like writing a 32 demand request for GJ proceedings that is so out of the norm that it causes a hearing to be scheduled, arguments to be heard, and an order so you can then say "Well, judge we don't have it yet and we have all this stuff we'll never get through it" Like that? That's Vallow but worse. The phone calls from Vallow may have actually taken time. In this case AT is "building in" these delays via these motions.

MOO
 
jepop said:
Wow, that comparison says a lot. In my post I was wondering more about the effect some of the defense's more sensational and 'off topic' declarations (within motions/responses) may be having on the jury pool and the potential for fair trial. I find it ironic, given the Ds concerns about sensationalist MSM in relation to the non-dissemination order. But I see your point about the motions coming in from all possible angles. That's her doing her job and yes, I can see how it would have a wearing down effect. Moo

Waiting to see how judge will handle the motion to dismiss and second motion to stay proceedings. Like you, I don't automatically believe everything in the D's motions- the language is obtuse for a reason. But this is the system and the right of the defendant and AT is clearly good at her game. I don't really see how theJudge can stop the D from filing numerous motions. All he can do is deny them or allow them as he sees fit. But he's obliged to hear them out. Moo. So far I believe only one order has come out of the Ds various motion's to compel. The time has been tight. The motions seem to come in blocks and then are heard en masse in one sitting. Hopefully, some of them will be dealt with, done and dusted on 18th August. Moo
Click to expand...
This was what occurred last hearing I think. Most matters had been settled or items provided so by the time of court there were only a couple of matters remaining
The thing that strikes me is defence appear desperate, they are fighting over everything even the advisement to Grand jury at a constitutional level . Why? Because there are a plethora of facts stacked against their client that they know are enough to convict him
Not a lawyer , but I’m wondering if some of the items being raised by defence are the kinds of items that “coukd” get raised on appeal if he were convicted eg ( the training records of LE) and by doing this now it’s a favour in a way
IE leaves no avenue open for an appeal later

Also all this arguing about idaho rule strikes me as the kind of stuff Bryan would think of , sat there in jail developing his own little hypothesis thinking he can outsmart the legal system

IMO : he did it and he did it for this game of legal back n forth
 
katydid23 said:
IIRC, the Ashley Banfield show has set forth other 'evidence' which has not turned out to be correct. Like, IIRC, the alleged female ID's connected to the crime scene----which did not turn out to be true?
Click to expand...
Like the exploitive interview of one of the victims' parents regarding a non-existent conflict of interest. Moo
 
katydid23 said:
IIRC, the Ashley Banfield show has set forth other 'evidence' which has not turned out to be correct. Like, IIRC, the alleged female ID's connected to the crime scene----which did not turn out to be true?
Click to expand...
I have no idea about this - it's pure speculation because none of us knows. But, for some reason I was thinking they were getting that info from PA LE. PA LE is not subject to the gag order. None of their warrant returns are sealed. They are all openly posted to the docket. WA too.

Speculation only
 
Jurisprudence said:
Fantastic post. I00% agree. It is the same. Maybe even more damaging since people can read it over and over again. He should have shut this down at its inception. Now he's got a monster.

jmo
Click to expand...
Agree. Not only can the public reread her innuendos - the MSM has eagerly broadcast them for her. With more impact, as it has originated from a court filing, than if it were from an anonymous source.

What an effective way she has found use to the very same platform (the media) that she has so vehemently tried to silence. What a piece of work.

ETA: oops - forgot moo
 
Last edited:
jepop said:
Like the exploitive interview of one of the victims' parents regarding a non-existent conflict of interest. Moo
Click to expand...
I believe that was indeed true. She did not withdraw until well after she started representing Kohberger. Just because she told you "someone else was handling it" doesn't make it so when she was the atty of record. She can tell you anything she wants, including that she's the attorney of record for every defendant in Kootenai County doesn't make it true. It's also not so far fetched she's banking on you never believing a <modsnip - mom> over her.

jmo
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 119 more.
Total: 2,333 (members: 120, guests: 2,213)

Online statistics

Members online
120
Guests online
2,213
Total visitors
2,333
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,256
Messages
18,137,664
Members
231,282
Latest member
omnia
Back
Top