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

[Jurisprudence]

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

BBM - I think you're spot on MOO

 

[al66pine]

Alibi. At Trial, Newly Discovered Witness?

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.

@Jurisprudence Thx for your response.
Nope, you are not being Debbie Downer.
As I said, no predictions or interp's from me re def's motions, briefs, or actions.

 

[Jurisprudence]

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

Section 19-5306 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

Of course the law doesn't require it. I don't believe I said anything like that though.

 

[MassGuy]

He’s going to get smoked. Bet my life on it.

 

[Jurisprudence]

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.

Fair enough, though I think the poster phrased it that way not literally, but rather bc the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Either way, I think we're on the same page.

jmo

 

[Fika]

Alibi? Now? A bit late for that isn’t it?
If you are arrested, locked in awaiting trial, your face and name spread across the world as a murderer you bet having an actual alibi would be the first thing you show the police. You would be screaming from rooftops about being somewhere else when first arrested.

 

[Idaho transplant]

Fams' Opinions on LWOP or DP. ISSUE 2. Who Votes? How to Calculate Votes?

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

Seriously? I don't even know where to begin with these comments. I think I need another shot of bourbon.

 

[Cool Cats]

Bryan Kohberger seeks indictment dismissal in Idaho college killings case​

Thu, July 27, 2023 at 7:04 PM EDT

Bryan Kohberger seeks indictment dismissal in Idaho college killings case

Attorneys for Bryan Kohberger, the man accused of killing four Idaho college students last year, are trying to get his indictment dismissed. In a new court filing from July 25, but released on Thursday, Kohberger's attorneys are asking the judge to dismiss the indictment on the "grounds that...

www.yahoo.com

In a new court filing from July 25, but released on Thursday, Kohberger's attorneys are asking the judge to dismiss the indictment on the "grounds that the Grand Jury was misled as to the standard of proof required for an indictment."

Kohberger's lawyers argue the grand jury should have been instructed that the standard of proof based on what was presented to them is "beyond a reasonable doubt." But, they were not given that instruction, his lawyers argue.

Instead, the filing claims they were given the standard of proof required for a "Presentment," which the filing claims is having a "reasonable ground for believing that a particular individual … has committed" a certain offense. And because the grand jury was allegedly told they could indict on a lower standard of proof, Kohberger's lawyers want the indictment dismissed.

If the judge won't dismiss the indictment, Kohberger's attorneys are asking for a new preliminary hearing to argue this in front of a magistrate to decide if the case should proceed.

 

[Boxer]

Alibi? Now? A bit late for that isn’t it?
If you are arrested, locked in awaiting trial, your face and name spread across the world as a murderer you bet having an actual alibi would be the first thing you show the police. You would be screaming from rooftops about being somewhere else when first arrested.

He has no alibi.

 

[Chocoholic]

When someone responded to one of my posts they said something that I want to address.

They couldn't understand how someone who looks like BK could commit his crimes. They would have trouble finding him guilty. They pointed out his clean cut good looks, suit, hair gel, education level, middle class, that he just didn't look like or seem like the type to commit murder. That "maybe" the evidence could sway them but it would be hard.

This is exactly why jurors go through a Voir dire process and very rigorous for a death penalty case because they need a death qualified jury.

Voir dire (/ˈvwɑːr dɪər/; often /vɔɪr daɪər/; from an Anglo-Norman term meaning "to speak the truth") is a legal term for procedures during a trial that help a judge decide certain issues:

• Prospective jurors are questioned to decide whether they can be fair and impartial.

Impartiality (also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness) is a principle of justice holding that decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons.

All jurors will be filling out massive questionnaires and sit in the courtroom with BK right there staring intently at them. They will answer questions from defense and prosecution attorneys. They will be asked by the judge if they can be impartial.

If any juror feels in any way that it would be harder for them to convict a clean cut middle class college educated white person as opposed to a minority defendant or a defendant with no college who has longer hair and wears a shirt with no jacket or tie, or any other type of person they personally cannot relate to.....

then this shows true bias and shows they cannot be impartial and they should be dismissed from jury duty.

2 Cents

I’m really late to the party here. Missed many threads. I have to say I’m very surprised that anyone would make a statement about finding someone guilty or not based on looks or how they present themselves. I could only go on evidence and if for some reason I didn’t think I could be impartial I would asked to be excused for that reason. I actually did that the one time I was called for jury duty. SMH on this.

BTW, I don’t even think he’s good looking. At all. But it wouldn’t sway this girl anyway!

 

[I'm Nobody]

Bryan Kohberger seeks indictment dismissal in Idaho college killings case​

Thu, July 27, 2023 at 7:04 PM EDT

Bryan Kohberger seeks indictment dismissal in Idaho college killings case

Attorneys for Bryan Kohberger, the man accused of killing four Idaho college students last year, are trying to get his indictment dismissed. In a new court filing from July 25, but released on Thursday, Kohberger's attorneys are asking the judge to dismiss the indictment on the "grounds that...

www.yahoo.com

In a new court filing from July 25, but released on Thursday, Kohberger's attorneys are asking the judge to dismiss the indictment on the "grounds that the Grand Jury was misled as to the standard of proof required for an indictment."

Kohberger's lawyers argue the grand jury should have been instructed that the standard of proof based on what was presented to them is "beyond a reasonable doubt." But, they were not given that instruction, his lawyers argue.

Instead, the filing claims they were given the standard of proof required for a "Presentment," which the filing claims is having a "reasonable ground for believing that a particular individual … has committed" a certain offense. And because the grand jury was allegedly told they could indict on a lower standard of proof, Kohberger's lawyers want the indictment dismissed.

If the judge won't dismiss the indictment, Kohberger's attorneys are asking for a new preliminary hearing to argue this in front of a magistrate to decide if the case should proceed.

Thanks Cool Cats. So. GJ Instructions in question: beyond a reasonable doubt v reasonable doubt

BK's team wants this judge to undo years of "error" in the "both tragic and unconstitutional" way Idaho has determined indictments through grand juries and not preliminary hearings based on something called a "presentment." LOGSDON states "presentments" are not well understood by authorities. [page 18]
And JudgeJJ should right this wrong for the protection of the people of Idaho.

IMO JJJ understands both presentments and GJs.
Nice try. No way.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

Bryan Kohberger seeks indictment dismissal in Idaho college killings case​

Thu, July 27, 2023 at 7:04 PM EDT

Bryan Kohberger seeks indictment dismissal in Idaho college killings case

Attorneys for Bryan Kohberger, the man accused of killing four Idaho college students last year, are trying to get his indictment dismissed. In a new court filing from July 25, but released on Thursday, Kohberger's attorneys are asking the judge to dismiss the indictment on the "grounds that...

www.yahoo.com

In a new court filing from July 25, but released on Thursday, Kohberger's attorneys are asking the judge to dismiss the indictment on the "grounds that the Grand Jury was misled as to the standard of proof required for an indictment."

Kohberger's lawyers argue the grand jury should have been instructed that the standard of proof based on what was presented to them is "beyond a reasonable doubt." But, they were not given that instruction, his lawyers argue.

Instead, the filing claims they were given the standard of proof required for a "Presentment," which the filing claims is having a "reasonable ground for believing that a particular individual … has committed" a certain offense. And because the grand jury was allegedly told they could indict on a lower standard of proof, Kohberger's lawyers want the indictment dismissed.

If the judge won't dismiss the indictment, Kohberger's attorneys are asking for a new preliminary hearing to argue this in front of a magistrate to decide if the case should proceed.

I think the defense is confused about the criteria for a Grand Jury indictment. I haven't found Idaho's, but In California, the Grand Jury standard is as follows:


What is the standard of proof needed for an issuance of an indictment from a grand jury?

It is based on a standard of proof consisting of 'strong suspicion or probable cause' as opposed to "proof beyond reasonable doubt” which is required for a conviction in a court trial.

Criminal Grand Jury | Superior Court of California | County of Stanislaus​

Getting an indictment to 'go to trial' does not require 'proof beyond reasonable doubt.' That is the level of proof needed for the trial , and for the jury's verdict.

 

[wary]

Thanks Cool Cats. So. GJ Instructions in question: beyond a reasonable doubt v reasonable doubt

BK's team wants this judge to undo years of "error" in the "both tragic and unconstitutional" way Idaho has determined indictments through grand juries and not preliminary hearings based on something called a "presentment." LOGSDON states "presentments" are not well understood by authorities. [page 18]
And JudgeJJ should right this wrong for the protection of the people of Idaho.

IMO JJJ understands both presentments and GJs.
Nice try. No way.

JMO

I was under the impression that our Constitution promises a grand jury indictment, but makes no mention of preliminary hearings.

And it makes no sense at all to hold an indictment to the same high standard as a conviction.

MOO

 

[jepop]

The case summary lists public and sealedl versions of both Second Motion to Stay Proceedings and Motion to Dismiss. I'm guessing that the only difference would be the versions under seal include affidavits and supporting attachments like the juror pool list (for second motion to stay)? Moo

Is it possible Motion to Dismiss has already been heard in a sealed hearing which is yet to appear on the COI page or summary (filed 25th July)? The motion is purely legally based as far as I can see with no particularities to this case. By that I mean, if the P failed to give correct instructions to the GJ re standard of guilt required because the D is arguing that BaRD is the standard, then every other DA/PA who has ever not given the BaRD instruction to a GJ also comes into question (which appears to be all of them?). Moo. So it would be setting a precedent if the judge was to rule in favour. Moo. I wonder if such a motion would have to go to some other court to be heard and if the Judge could dismiss and/or send it on? And in the meantime this case can continue to progress? Just questions, INAL and would be interested to hear other's opinions! Moo

 

[girlhasnoname]

Nice try by Defense Dream Team. No matter how weak J trips has appeared so far, he isn't going to rewrite 150 years of Idaho law.

The GJ was impaneled to decide if there was sufficient evidence to bind BK over to trial. I have absolutely no doubt there was as they continued to gather more well after the PCA was signed and he was arrested in Dec. I'm not worried.

MOO

 

[Cool Cats]

Bryan Kohberger seeks indictment dismissal in Idaho college killings case​

Thu, July 27, 2023 at 7:04 PM EDT

Bryan Kohberger seeks indictment dismissal in Idaho college killings case

Attorneys for Bryan Kohberger, the man accused of killing four Idaho college students last year, are trying to get his indictment dismissed. In a new court filing from July 25, but released on Thursday, Kohberger's attorneys are asking the judge to dismiss the indictment on the "grounds that...

www.yahoo.com

In a new court filing from July 25, but released on Thursday, Kohberger's attorneys are asking the judge to dismiss the indictment on the "grounds that the Grand Jury was misled as to the standard of proof required for an indictment."

Kohberger's lawyers argue the grand jury should have been instructed that the standard of proof based on what was presented to them is "beyond a reasonable doubt." But, they were not given that instruction, his lawyers argue.

Instead, the filing claims they were given the standard of proof required for a "Presentment," which the filing claims is having a "reasonable ground for believing that a particular individual … has committed" a certain offense. And because the grand jury was allegedly told they could indict on a lower standard of proof, Kohberger's lawyers want the indictment dismissed.

If the judge won't dismiss the indictment, Kohberger's attorneys are asking for a new preliminary hearing to argue this in front of a magistrate to decide if the case should proceed.

Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

• 07/25/2023 Motion to Dismiss

 

[Nila Aella]

I think the defense is confused about the criteria for a Grand Jury indictment. I haven't found Idaho's, but In California, the Grand Jury standard is as follows:


What is the standard of proof needed for an issuance of an indictment from a grand jury?

It is based on a standard of proof consisting of 'strong suspicion or probable cause' as opposed to "proof beyond reasonable doubt” which is required for a conviction in a court trial.

Criminal Grand Jury | Superior Court of California | County of Stanislaus​

Getting an indictment to 'go to trial' does not require 'proof beyond reasonable doubt.' That is the level of proof needed for the trial , and for the jury's verdict.

TITLE 19
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 11
POWERS AND DUTIES OF GRAND JURY
19-1107. SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE TO WARRANT INDICTMENT. The grand jury ought to find an indictment when all the evidence before them, taken together, if unexplained or uncontradicted, would, in their judgment, warrant a conviction by a trial jury.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwigitSVlLGAAxUCSDABHS5uBDsQFnoECBIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Flegislature.idaho.gov%2Fstatutesrules%2Fidstat%2Ftitle19%2Ft19ch11%2Fsect19-1107%2F&usg=AOvVaw16jKUWZsAf9-45pQu_3Uxt&opi=89978449

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/072523-PUBLIC-Motion-to-Dismiss-Indictment-on-Grounds-of-Error-GJ-Inst-Alt-Remand.pdf

 

[Nila Aella]

ICR 6.5

(a) Sufficiency of Evidence to Warrant Indictment. If the grand jury finds, after evidence has been presented to it, that an offense has been committed and that there is probable cause to believe that the accused committed it, the jury ought to find an indictment. Probable cause exists when the grand jury has before it evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe an offense has been committed and that the accused party has probably committed the offense.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjyn9aRnLGAAxV5EGIAHVO0AiAQFnoECBIQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fisc.idaho.gov%2Ficr6-5%23%3A~%3Atext%3DAn%2520indictment%2520may%2520be%2520found%2Cjury%2520to%2520a%2520district%2520judge.&usg=AOvVaw1tWYiJfsdjDn7tYgdCf9TG&opi=89978449

 

[ilovewings]

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.

What do we know about this judge? I know nothing- is he experienced? I too am concerned he has so far given the defense everything they asked for- that is not good at all. My thinking is in part anyway, in a death penalty case a judge leans towards giving the defense what they want because the judge is worried about an appeal-

 

[ilovewings]

Alibi? Now? A bit late for that isn’t it?
If you are arrested, locked in awaiting trial, your face and name spread across the world as a murderer you bet having an actual alibi would be the first thing you show the police. You would be screaming from rooftops about being somewhere else when first arrested.

Of course!!!!!