4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #87

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes. And the snap mechanism on mikitary knives are some of the hardest snaps to close.
MOO the amount of force needed to close the snap, at least when new, would jam cells under the edge of the snap cap where they escaped cleaning.
Oh my gosh, YES! Thank you for articulating what my brain had trouble sorting. I kinda remembered having a small little pocket knife from Campfire Girls with a leather sheath. And that snap was impossible to close. You had to practically beat it with a hammer, and force wasn’t really the solve. It was the leather being so stiff and you had to position the snap just so in order to get it to close. So somewhere out there, my 8 yr old DNA is running amuck under a snap. Maybe with some Cheeto dust mixed in- ain’t gonna lie.
 
<modsnip: quoted post was removed>
I do not believe that ANY DNA related to this crime was sent to Othram.

And Othram has a high reputation (despite being in Texas - where it's the public DNA labs that are a problem, not high profile, well-regarded companies like Othram)

Not sure how anyone things that ISL would disobey the forensic laws and policies re criminal investigations in Idaho and send actual DNA evidence to any other lab than the one deemed proper for analysis (ISL).

99% of Othram's work is based off of DNA results provided by OTHER labs - although they do offer some lab services, we have absolutely no evidence that Moscow PD chose the extraordinary option of using a consumable piece of evidence to send off something that did NOT need to be sent off, at all. Just the results (the complex, computerized report on the sheath DNA).

The long list of ACGT, that is the code that defines every single human and every other known living organism in our universe.

IMO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A defense two-fer: high stakes stalling with some ground work for appeal.
But also a third: raising serious questions of the constitutional correctness - or otherwise - of a Grand Jury for a felony, possibly instructed incorrectly, being held without the accused having the opportunity to present information that might have changed its outcome (it might have, we just don't know at this point what all of the evidence is).

I stayed up an hour past my bed time last night reading the lengthy and detailed motion regarding the constitutionality of the Grand Jury. As a lawyer (in England), I found it super interesting. The lawyer who wrote it (it wasn't Anne Taylor) explains the origins of the Grand Jury process as far back as its origins in medieval England, walks you through its permutations in the US in various states, and then how it became Idaho law.

There is a very real question here:

1. How the prosecution's instructions to a Grand Jury for a felony crime dictate what must or can happen with that Grand Jury's decision;
2. As the Grand Jury's outcome was effectively a charge, for a felony, then based on the law whether or not it was unconstitutional to not allow representations on BK's behalf (representations that might have swayed the outcome).

It seems fairly clear that as the Grand Jury was instructed to ask themselves "at a trial, based on the evidence before you, would this defendant be found guilty?", that BK does in fact have a constitutional right to make representations (just as in a trial), in my opinion.

I can see where this is going. Either Judge Judge will agree with the defence on this point, or if not (as I suspect he won't, simply because it's such a hot potato), the defence will be able to appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court to clarify this point of law.

As I said, as a lawyer I find it a crazy interesting argument.
 
<modsnip: quoted post was removed>
But also a third: raising serious questions of the constitutional correctness - or otherwise - of a Grand Jury for a felony, possibly instructed incorrectly, being held without the accused having the opportunity to present information that might have changed its outcome (it might have, we just don't know at this point what all of the evidence is).

I stayed up an hour past my bed time last night reading the lengthy and detailed motion regarding the constitutionality of the Grand Jury. As a lawyer (in England), I found it super interesting. The lawyer who wrote it (it wasn't Anne Taylor) explains the origins of the Grand Jury process as far back as its origins in medieval England, walks you through its permutations in the US in various states, and then how it became Idaho law.

There is a very real question here:

1. How the prosecution's instructions to a Grand Jury for a felony crime dictate what must or can happen with that Grand Jury's decision;
2. As the Grand Jury's outcome was effectively a charge, for a felony, then based on the law whether or not it was unconstitutional to not allow representations on BK's behalf (representations that might have swayed the outcome).

It seems fairly clear that as the Grand Jury was instructed to ask themselves "at a trial, based on the evidence before you, would this defendant be found guilty?", that BK does in fact have a constitutional right to make representations (just as in a trial), in my opinion.

I can see where this is going. Either Judge Judge will agree with the defence on this point, or if not (as I suspect he won't, simply because it's such a hot potato), the defence will be able to appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court to clarify this point of law.

As I said, as a lawyer I find it a crazy interesting argument.
Yes its good lawyering.
MOO The criminal court BK is in wont be ruling on it. Its an appeal basis.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Was there a stated reason the motion to dismiss won't be heard this week? Is it just scheduling, or more substantive, do you know?
No reason given. I speculated earlier in regards to why. Essentially a) already heard, dismissed and possibly been sent to higher court by D - in non public hearing (in mean-time case continues to roll forward); b) already heard, dismissed and not sent to higher court c)withdrawn by D; d) withdrawn by D in order to amend it in some way - found something to add to it/changed minds etc and not able to get amemnded form together for Friday; e) court asked it to be moved - avoids two contradicting motions heard at same time - ie motion to dismiss vs motion to stay proceedings - dismiss should come first though to save time - why waste time with motion to stay if there's still a chance motion to dismiss may be granted. Moo
 
Agreed on that, but it won't be an appeal for after the murder trial. If that particular motion is denied on Friday, it can be appealed straight away if the defence wants to.
Oh ok. Well of course she wants to. Who woildnt want to be reponsie for overturning a law that sets thousands of criminals convicted by juries free.
 
I do not believe that ANY DNA related to this crime was sent to Othram.

And Othram has a high reputation (despite being in Texas - where it's the public DNA labs that are a problem, not high profile, well-regarded companies like Othram)

Not sure how anyone things that ISL would disobey the forensic laws and policies re criminal investigations in Idaho and send actual DNA evidence to any other lab than the one deemed proper for analysis (ISL).

99% of Othram's work is based off of DNA results provided by OTHER labs - although they do offer some lab services, we have absolutely no evidence that Moscow PD chose the extraordinary option of using a consumable piece of evidence to send off something that did NOT need to be sent off, at all. Just the results (the complex, computerized report on the sheath DNA).

The long list of ACGT, that is the code that defines every single human and every other known living organism in our universe.

IMO.

We do have evidence of actual DNA being sent in that the very first thing the prosecutor said they wanted a protective order over was Chain of Custody related to IGG:
Specifically, the State seeks to protect the following information:
The raw data related to the SNP profile and the underlying laboratory documentation related to the development of the profile, such as chain of custody forms


Also in the same filing it says the SNP profile was developed off-site at a private lab and then it was the private lab who sent that digital information to the FBI electronically rather than this coming from ISL:
The Idaho State Police utilized private laboratory to develop SNP profile from the DNA on the Ka-Bar knife sheath. The private laboratory started using genetic genealogy to develop family tree, but after law enforcement decided the FBI would take over, the private laboratory ceased its efforts and sent the SNP profile to the FBI.

This would also align with using Othram's FGGS to get an SNP profile, which Othram needs evidence to develop the SNP profile:
Obtain SNP profiles with 100s of thousands of DNA markers, compatible with any genealogy database, with minimum consumption of evidence. Additional tools like KinSNP® & mixture deconvolution help accelerate solves.

This is why I feel like the judge has to deny at least part of the state's motion for protective order as they should provide everything related to the handling of evidence they do intend to introduce in court, like the sheath DNA. If they didn't send Othram evidence to for instance create an SNP using FGGS, then they should have to affirmatively state that or alternatively turn over what they have if they did send Othram DNA. I personally would find it very strange to first say you want block chain of custody forms from being turned over and then saying there are no chain of custody forms, so that too makes me assume they exist.
 
I'm not sure if it's been posted previously, but for those interested in learning more about "the rules" for Grand Jurys in Idaho, you might want to read Idaho Criminal Rules (ICR) Title III -- The Grand Jury, The Indictment and The Information, specifically Rule 6 & its subsections, MOO.

I don't have a unified link handy, but you can read all of Rule 6 & its subsections here:
Idaho Criminal Rules (I.C.R.) | Supreme Court
 
I'm not sure if it's been posted previously, but for those interested in learning more about "the rules" for Grand Jurys in Idaho, you might want to read Idaho Criminal Rules (ICR) Title III -- The Grand Jury, The Indictment and The Information, specifically Rule 6 & its subsections, MOO.

I don't have a unified link handy, but you can read all of Rule 6 & its subsections here:
Idaho Criminal Rules (I.C.R.) | Supreme Court
Could you post the pertinent points of that rule here? I can't access that link from outside the US sadly...
 
Can we dispel the notion that there's something inherently evil about a sample or the sheath being sent offsite to Othram labs (after local processing) for genetic genealogy processing?

They are not exactly new to this and the evidence they produce has held up in dozens of cases... (link contains list of solved cases)

If I had access to LexisNexis I'd likely be able to find even more.

Can anyone cite any successful legal challenges to the above?


MOO
 
Also, the real issue is the perception that prosecutors are hiding things from the defense. IMO prosecutors are not hiding anything nefarious. They just don't want to expose the process (whether good or bad) to scrutiny and the legal challenges, laws ,regulation, limitations that come with it. There's nothing unique about what they are doing in Idaho. This is happening NATIONWIDE. And being done with the cooperation (and often at direction) of the FBI.

What is unique is that this particular defense team has the national stage and they are determined to expose and challenge the genetic genealogy process...period.

It's honestly about time we had that conversation and implement some sort of oversight. It's too bad BK will be awaiting the firing squad (IMO) while we're having that healthy discourse.

Edit: At the end of the day. Regardless of how they arrive at your name. If your DNA matches the DNA of the suspect. And there's additional evidence to further support your guilt (this is actually BK's problem). It's not genetic genealogy that's to blame. It's your own actions.
 
Last edited:
Could you post the pertinent points of that rule here? I can't access that link from outside the US sadly...

Wow -- how weird the Idaho Supreme Court's web site isn't accessible outside the US. Sorry!! Here's Rule 6, HTH.

ETA: Idaho Supreme Court link apparently inaccessible outside the US from which this is copy-pasted:
Idaho Criminal Rules (I.C.R.) | Supreme Court


Idaho Criminal Rule 6. Formation of the Grand Jury

(a) Number of Jurors. A grand jury must consist of 16 qualified jurors of the county in which the grand jury sits, but 12 or more members constitute a quorum. A grand jury can deliberate and take action if a quorum is present.

(b) Summoning Grand Juries. On motion by the prosecuting attorney to summon a grand jury, a district judge assigned by the Administrative District Judge may order that a grand jury be impaneled within any county of the judicial district at such times as the public interest requires. Sixteen grand jurors must be selected as provided in the Uniform Jury Selection and Service Act, Chapter 2 of Title 2, Idaho Code. The selection of the grand jury must take place in a closed session with only a district judge, the prosecuting attorneys, the prospective jurors, the reporter or recorder, a clerk of the court, and any required interpreter present.

(c) Impaneling a Grand Jury. A district judge must impanel a grand jury of 16 jurors. The district judge must preside over the impaneling of the grand jury and in doing so has the power and duty to:

(1) administer, or direct the clerk to administer, an oath or affirmation to all prospective jurors that each of them will truthfully answer all questions as to their qualifications to sit as jurors on the grand jury;

(2) select, or direct the clerk to select, at random the names of 16 prospective jurors;

(3) inquire of the prospective grand jurors to determine whether they are qualified to act as jurors and whether there are any facts which would constitute grounds for challenge against any of them. If the court finds any prospective juror to be unqualified or subject to challenge as provided by the Uniform Jury Selection and Service Act, Chapter 2, of Title 2 and § 19-1003, Idaho Code, the court must dismiss that prospective juror and choose another prospective juror at random from the panel summoned for the grand jury. The 16 selected jurors must be sworn to the following oath:
Do each of you, as jurors of the grand jury, affirm that you will diligently inquire into and true presentment make of all public offenses against the state of Idaho, committed or triable within this county, of which you shall have or can obtain legal evidence? That you will keep your own counsel, and that of the other members of the grand jury, and of the government and will not, except when required in the due course of judicial proceeding, disclose the testimony of any witness examined before you, nor anything which you or any other grand juror may have said nor the manner in which you or any other grand juror may have voted in any matter before you? That you will present no person through malice, hatred, or ill will, nor leave any unpresented through fear, favor or affection, or for any reward or the promise of hope thereof? Do you therefore affirm that you will in all your presentments follow these instructions and present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, according to the best of your skill and understanding, so help you God?

(4) The impaneling of the grand jury must be recorded, either stenographically or electronically.

(d) Grand Jury Presiding Juror; Oath; Duties. After the grand jury is impaneled, the court must select one of the jurors as the presiding juror of the grand jury and administer an oath in the form of the oath in Rule 6(c)(3), only it will refer to the person as the presiding juror of the grand jury. The presiding juror has the following powers and duties:

(1) preside over the grand jury until it is adjourned and discharged;

(2) determine the time and place of commencement of each session of the grand jury and the time of adjournment of each session;

(3) take roll of the jurors of the grand jury at the commencement of each session;

(4) rule on the disqualification of a grand juror;

(5) convey to the court any requests of the grand jury for further advice or instructions during the sessions of the grand jury;

(6) on majority vote of the grand jury, direct the issuance of subpoenas for additional witnesses called to testify before the grand jury;

(7) determine the sequence of the witnesses to be examined by the grand jury, with the advice of the prosecuting attorney, and discharge the witness when no further testimony of the witness is desired by the grand jury;

(8) administer an oath or affirmation to all witnesses appearing before the grand jury by asking the witness, "Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you shall give in the issue pending before this jury will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?";

(9) advise target witnesses prior to testifying, or as soon as their status becomes known, by reading the following advice:
You are advised that you are one of the subjects or suspects in this grand jury investigation. You have the right not to incriminate yourself which includes the right to remain silent and the right to refuse to answer any question that might incriminate you. You have the right to request permission to leave the jury and consult with your attorney or counsel at any time, but you do not have the right to have your counsel with you before the grand jury. Any statements made by you may be used against you in any subsequent prosecution. If you give any false answers to questions you may be prosecuted for the felony crime of perjury. Do you understand these rights?

(10) prepare or cause to be prepared and sign any indictment found by the grand jury and file it with the court; and

(11) perform any other duties as prescribed by these rules or as directed by the court.

(e) Deputy Presiding Juror; Oath; Duties. The court must select one or more deputy presiding jurors and administer the presiding juror's oath to them. In the absence of the presiding juror, the deputy presiding juror acts as the presiding juror in the sequence directed by the district judge, if more than one has been selected, without further order of the court.

(f) Charge to Jury. After the grand jury has been sworn, the court must give a charge to the jury stating in detail their powers, duties and authority and any other information which the court deems proper. The charge must be given orally to the jurors and a written copy must be given to the presiding juror.

(g) Excuse of a Juror. At any time the court or the presiding juror may temporarily or permanently excuse a juror for good cause shown.

(Adopted February 22, 2017, effective July 1, 2017.)

Idaho Criminal Rule 6.1. Prosecuting Attorney’s Role with Grand Jury

(a) Attend Grand Jury Sessions. The prosecuting attorney of the county in which the grand jury is sitting, or one or more deputies, or a special prosecuting attorney may attend all sessions of the grand jury, except during the deliberations of the grand jury after the presentation of evidence.

(b) Powers and Duties. The prosecuting attorney has the power and duty to:

(1) present to the grand jury evidence of any public offense, however, when a prosecutor conducting a grand jury inquiry is personally aware of substantial evidence which directly negates the guilt of the subject of the investigation the prosecutor must present or otherwise disclose that evidence to the grand jury;

(2) at the commencement of a presentation of an investigation to the grand jury, inquire as to whether there are any grounds for disqualification of any grand juror and advise the presiding juror of the possible disqualification of a juror;

(3) list the elements of an offense being investigated by the grand jury, before, during or after the testimony of witnesses;

(4) advise the grand jury as to the standard for probable cause, and tell them that if a person refuses to testify this fact cannot be used against him or her;

(5) issue and have served grand jury subpoenas for witnesses;

(6) present opening statements and/or instruct the grand jury on applicable law; and

(7) prepare an indictment for consideration by or at the request of the grand jury.

(Adopted February 22, 2017, effective July 1, 2017.)

Idaho Criminal Rule 6.3. Secrecy and Confidentiality of Grand Jury Proceedings

(a) Who May be Present at Grand Jury Sessions. The grand jury may, at all reasonable times, request the presence and advice of the district judge; but, unless advice is asked, the district judge must not be present during any session of the grand jury after it has been impaneled. No other person may be permitted to be present during the sessions of the grand jury except:

(1) jurors of the grand jury;

(2) the prosecuting attorney of the county in which the grand jury is sitting, or a designated deputy or specially appointed deputy;

(3) a witness physically present before the grand jury and under questioning;

(4) a supporting person for a child witness requested by the prosecuting attorney as authorized by Idaho Code § 19-3023;

(5) the person designated by the district judge or the presiding juror to report the proceedings; and

(6) an interpreter designated by the district judge or presiding juror and sworn to correctly interpret the proceedings and sworn to secrecy.

(b) Presence of Persons During Jury Deliberations Prohibited. No person other than the acting grand jurors may be present during the deliberations of the grand jury.

(c) Secrecy of Proceedings and Disclosure. Every member of the grand jury must keep secret whatever was said or done in the grand jury proceedings and the vote of each grand juror on a matter before them; but a grand juror may be required by the district judge to disclose matters occurring before the grand jury which may constitute grounds for dismissal of an indictment or grounds for a challenge to a juror or the array of jurors. No other person present in a grand jury proceeding may disclose to any other person what was said or done in the proceeding, except by order of any court for good cause shown.

(d) Disclosure of Indictment. The court may seal the indictment and, while sealed, no person may disclose the finding of the indictment.

(Adopted February 22, 2017, effective July 1, 2017.)


Idaho Criminal Rule 6.4. Grand Jury Proceedings

(a) Grand Jury Subpoenas. A grand jury subpoena or subpoena duces tecum may be issued by either the presiding juror or the prosecutor in the manner provided by law.

(b) Questioning of Witnesses. Witnesses may be questioned by the prosecuting attorney, the presiding juror, and other members of the grand jury under the direction of the presiding juror.

(c) Evidence for Defendant. The grand jury is not bound to hear evidence for the defendant, but it is their duty to weigh all the evidence submitted to them, and when they have reason to believe that other evidence within their reach will explain away the charge, they should order such evidence to be produced, and for that purpose may require the prosecuting attorney to issue process for the witnesses.

(Adopted February 22, 2017, effective July 1, 2017.)


Idaho Criminal Rule 6.5. Indictment

(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.

(b) Multiple Charges of Indictment. There may be two or more separate charges in a grand jury indictment, but each must be voted on separately by the grand jury.

(c) Finding and Return of Indictment. An indictment may be found only by agreement of 12 or more jurors. It must be signed by the presiding juror and must be returned by the grand jury to a district judge. The indictment must be in writing and have endorsed on it the names of all witnesses examined before the grand jury about the subject matter of the indictment.

(d) List of Jurors’ Votes. The presiding juror must prepare separate lists of all jurors voting in favor of and jurors voting against the indictment. The lists must remain sealed but may be disclosed to the prosecuting attorney, the defendant and defendant's counsel by order of the court.

(e) Return of No Bill. If the grand jury concludes that there is no probable cause and that no indictment will be returned, that fact must be placed in writing and maintained under seal by the court as part of the record of that proceeding.

(Adopted February 22, 2017, effective July 1, 2017.)


Idaho Criminal Rule 6.6. Grounds for Motion to Dismiss Indictment

A motion to dismiss the indictment may be granted by the district court on any of the following grounds:

• a valid challenge to the array of grand jurors;

• a valid challenge to an individual juror who served on the grand jury that found the indictment, except that finding of the valid challenge to one or more members of the grand jury is not grounds for dismissal of the indictment if there were 12 or more qualified jurors concurring in the finding of the indictment;

• that the charge in the indictment was previously submitted to a magistrate at preliminary hearing and dismissed for lack of probable cause; or

• that the indictment was not properly found, endorsed and presented as required by these rules or by the statutes of the state of Idaho.

(Adopted February 22, 2017, effective July 1, 2017.)


Idaho Criminal Rule 6.7. Discharge of Grand Jury

A grand jury must serve until discharged by the court but no grand jury may serve more than six months unless specifically ordered by the court that summoned the grand jury.

(Adopted February 22, 2017, effective July 1, 2017.)


Idaho Criminal Rule 6.8. Other Prosecution

The fact that a grand jury is in session in a county does not bar prosecution of other offenses by way of complaint or information in that county.

(Adopted February 22, 2017, effective July 1, 2017.)
 

Wow -- how weird the Idaho Supreme Court's web site isn't accessible outside the US. Sorry!! Here's Rule 6, HTH.

ETA: Idaho Supreme Court link apparently inaccessible outside the US from which this is copy-pasted:
Idaho Criminal Rules (I.C.R.) | Supreme Court


Idaho Criminal Rule 6. Formation of the Grand Jury

(a) Number of Jurors. A grand jury must consist of 16 qualified jurors of the county in which the grand jury sits, but 12 or more members constitute a quorum. A grand jury can deliberate and take action if a quorum is present.

(b) Summoning Grand Juries. On motion by the prosecuting attorney to summon a grand jury, a district judge assigned by the Administrative District Judge may order that a grand jury be impaneled within any county of the judicial district at such times as the public interest requires. Sixteen grand jurors must be selected as provided in the Uniform Jury Selection and Service Act, Chapter 2 of Title 2, Idaho Code. The selection of the grand jury must take place in a closed session with only a district judge, the prosecuting attorneys, the prospective jurors, the reporter or recorder, a clerk of the court, and any required interpreter present.

(c) Impaneling a Grand Jury. A district judge must impanel a grand jury of 16 jurors. The district judge must preside over the impaneling of the grand jury and in doing so has the power and duty to:

(1) administer, or direct the clerk to administer, an oath or affirmation to all prospective jurors that each of them will truthfully answer all questions as to their qualifications to sit as jurors on the grand jury;

(2) select, or direct the clerk to select, at random the names of 16 prospective jurors;

(3) inquire of the prospective grand jurors to determine whether they are qualified to act as jurors and whether there are any facts which would constitute grounds for challenge against any of them. If the court finds any prospective juror to be unqualified or subject to challenge as provided by the Uniform Jury Selection and Service Act, Chapter 2, of Title 2 and § 19-1003, Idaho Code, the court must dismiss that prospective juror and choose another prospective juror at random from the panel summoned for the grand jury. The 16 selected jurors must be sworn to the following oath:
Do each of you, as jurors of the grand jury, affirm that you will diligently inquire into and true presentment make of all public offenses against the state of Idaho, committed or triable within this county, of which you shall have or can obtain legal evidence? That you will keep your own counsel, and that of the other members of the grand jury, and of the government and will not, except when required in the due course of judicial proceeding, disclose the testimony of any witness examined before you, nor anything which you or any other grand juror may have said nor the manner in which you or any other grand juror may have voted in any matter before you? That you will present no person through malice, hatred, or ill will, nor leave any unpresented through fear, favor or affection, or for any reward or the promise of hope thereof? Do you therefore affirm that you will in all your presentments follow these instructions and present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, according to the best of your skill and understanding, so help you God?

(4) The impaneling of the grand jury must be recorded, either stenographically or electronically.

(d) Grand Jury Presiding Juror; Oath; Duties. After the grand jury is impaneled, the court must select one of the jurors as the presiding juror of the grand jury and administer an oath in the form of the oath in Rule 6(c)(3), only it will refer to the person as the presiding juror of the grand jury. The presiding juror has the following powers and duties:

(1) preside over the grand jury until it is adjourned and discharged;

(2) determine the time and place of commencement of each session of the grand jury and the time of adjournment of each session;

(3) take roll of the jurors of the grand jury at the commencement of each session;

(4) rule on the disqualification of a grand juror;

(5) convey to the court any requests of the grand jury for further advice or instructions during the sessions of the grand jury;

(6) on majority vote of the grand jury, direct the issuance of subpoenas for additional witnesses called to testify before the grand jury;

(7) determine the sequence of the witnesses to be examined by the grand jury, with the advice of the prosecuting attorney, and discharge the witness when no further testimony of the witness is desired by the grand jury;

(8) administer an oath or affirmation to all witnesses appearing before the grand jury by asking the witness, "Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you shall give in the issue pending before this jury will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?";

(9) advise target witnesses prior to testifying, or as soon as their status becomes known, by reading the following advice:
You are advised that you are one of the subjects or suspects in this grand jury investigation. You have the right not to incriminate yourself which includes the right to remain silent and the right to refuse to answer any question that might incriminate you. You have the right to request permission to leave the jury and consult with your attorney or counsel at any time, but you do not have the right to have your counsel with you before the grand jury. Any statements made by you may be used against you in any subsequent prosecution. If you give any false answers to questions you may be prosecuted for the felony crime of perjury. Do you understand these rights?

(10) prepare or cause to be prepared and sign any indictment found by the grand jury and file it with the court; and

(11) perform any other duties as prescribed by these rules or as directed by the court.

(e) Deputy Presiding Juror; Oath; Duties. The court must select one or more deputy presiding jurors and administer the presiding juror's oath to them. In the absence of the presiding juror, the deputy presiding juror acts as the presiding juror in the sequence directed by the district judge, if more than one has been selected, without further order of the court.

(f) Charge to Jury. After the grand jury has been sworn, the court must give a charge to the jury stating in detail their powers, duties and authority and any other information which the court deems proper. The charge must be given orally to the jurors and a written copy must be given to the presiding juror.

(g) Excuse of a Juror. At any time the court or the presiding juror may temporarily or permanently excuse a juror for good cause shown.

(Adopted February 22, 2017, effective July 1, 2017.)

Idaho Criminal Rule 6.1. Prosecuting Attorney’s Role with Grand Jury

(a) Attend Grand Jury Sessions. The prosecuting attorney of the county in which the grand jury is sitting, or one or more deputies, or a special prosecuting attorney may attend all sessions of the grand jury, except during the deliberations of the grand jury after the presentation of evidence.

(b) Powers and Duties. The prosecuting attorney has the power and duty to:

(1) present to the grand jury evidence of any public offense, however, when a prosecutor conducting a grand jury inquiry is personally aware of substantial evidence which directly negates the guilt of the subject of the investigation the prosecutor must present or otherwise disclose that evidence to the grand jury;

(2) at the commencement of a presentation of an investigation to the grand jury, inquire as to whether there are any grounds for disqualification of any grand juror and advise the presiding juror of the possible disqualification of a juror;

(3) list the elements of an offense being investigated by the grand jury, before, during or after the testimony of witnesses;

(4) advise the grand jury as to the standard for probable cause, and tell them that if a person refuses to testify this fact cannot be used against him or her;

(5) issue and have served grand jury subpoenas for witnesses;

(6) present opening statements and/or instruct the grand jury on applicable law; and

(7) prepare an indictment for consideration by or at the request of the grand jury.

(Adopted February 22, 2017, effective July 1, 2017.)

Idaho Criminal Rule 6.3. Secrecy and Confidentiality of Grand Jury Proceedings

(a) Who May be Present at Grand Jury Sessions. The grand jury may, at all reasonable times, request the presence and advice of the district judge; but, unless advice is asked, the district judge must not be present during any session of the grand jury after it has been impaneled. No other person may be permitted to be present during the sessions of the grand jury except:

(1) jurors of the grand jury;

(2) the prosecuting attorney of the county in which the grand jury is sitting, or a designated deputy or specially appointed deputy;

(3) a witness physically present before the grand jury and under questioning;

(4) a supporting person for a child witness requested by the prosecuting attorney as authorized by Idaho Code § 19-3023;

(5) the person designated by the district judge or the presiding juror to report the proceedings; and

(6) an interpreter designated by the district judge or presiding juror and sworn to correctly interpret the proceedings and sworn to secrecy.

(b) Presence of Persons During Jury Deliberations Prohibited. No person other than the acting grand jurors may be present during the deliberations of the grand jury.

(c) Secrecy of Proceedings and Disclosure. Every member of the grand jury must keep secret whatever was said or done in the grand jury proceedings and the vote of each grand juror on a matter before them; but a grand juror may be required by the district judge to disclose matters occurring before the grand jury which may constitute grounds for dismissal of an indictment or grounds for a challenge to a juror or the array of jurors. No other person present in a grand jury proceeding may disclose to any other person what was said or done in the proceeding, except by order of any court for good cause shown.

(d) Disclosure of Indictment. The court may seal the indictment and, while sealed, no person may disclose the finding of the indictment.

(Adopted February 22, 2017, effective July 1, 2017.)


Idaho Criminal Rule 6.4. Grand Jury Proceedings

(a) Grand Jury Subpoenas. A grand jury subpoena or subpoena duces tecum may be issued by either the presiding juror or the prosecutor in the manner provided by law.

(b) Questioning of Witnesses. Witnesses may be questioned by the prosecuting attorney, the presiding juror, and other members of the grand jury under the direction of the presiding juror.

(c) Evidence for Defendant. The grand jury is not bound to hear evidence for the defendant, but it is their duty to weigh all the evidence submitted to them, and when they have reason to believe that other evidence within their reach will explain away the charge, they should order such evidence to be produced, and for that purpose may require the prosecuting attorney to issue process for the witnesses.

(Adopted February 22, 2017, effective July 1, 2017.)


Idaho Criminal Rule 6.5. Indictment

(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.

(b) Multiple Charges of Indictment. There may be two or more separate charges in a grand jury indictment, but each must be voted on separately by the grand jury.

(c) Finding and Return of Indictment. An indictment may be found only by agreement of 12 or more jurors. It must be signed by the presiding juror and must be returned by the grand jury to a district judge. The indictment must be in writing and have endorsed on it the names of all witnesses examined before the grand jury about the subject matter of the indictment.

(d) List of Jurors’ Votes. The presiding juror must prepare separate lists of all jurors voting in favor of and jurors voting against the indictment. The lists must remain sealed but may be disclosed to the prosecuting attorney, the defendant and defendant's counsel by order of the court.

(e) Return of No Bill. If the grand jury concludes that there is no probable cause and that no indictment will be returned, that fact must be placed in writing and maintained under seal by the court as part of the record of that proceeding.

(Adopted February 22, 2017, effective July 1, 2017.)


Idaho Criminal Rule 6.6. Grounds for Motion to Dismiss Indictment

A motion to dismiss the indictment may be granted by the district court on any of the following grounds:

• a valid challenge to the array of grand jurors;

• a valid challenge to an individual juror who served on the grand jury that found the indictment, except that finding of the valid challenge to one or more members of the grand jury is not grounds for dismissal of the indictment if there were 12 or more qualified jurors concurring in the finding of the indictment;

• that the charge in the indictment was previously submitted to a magistrate at preliminary hearing and dismissed for lack of probable cause; or

• that the indictment was not properly found, endorsed and presented as required by these rules or by the statutes of the state of Idaho.

(Adopted February 22, 2017, effective July 1, 2017.)


Idaho Criminal Rule 6.7. Discharge of Grand Jury

A grand jury must serve until discharged by the court but no grand jury may serve more than six months unless specifically ordered by the court that summoned the grand jury.

(Adopted February 22, 2017, effective July 1, 2017.)


Idaho Criminal Rule 6.8. Other Prosecution

The fact that a grand jury is in session in a county does not bar prosecution of other offenses by way of complaint or information in that county.

(Adopted February 22, 2017, effective July 1, 2017.)
I appreciate that, thank you.
 
A small interjection but something that just crossed my mind.

In this case it seems that the defence are wanting to go 'meta' instead of sticking to the basic facts of what evidence does the prosecution have against the accused, it's almost like the processes themselves of evidence gathering, scientific testing, and electronic data are on trial. As if LE and LE methodology are on trial and not BK.

I'm going to call it the BK effect because it's a kind of pretentious intellectual sparring just like academics do. I assume that once this case is in court, things will get very real. This is about the horrific murders of four young people and should always stay that way.
 
A small interjection but something that just crossed my mind.

In this case it seems that the defence are wanting to go 'meta' instead of sticking to the basic facts of what evidence does the prosecution have against the accused, it's almost like the processes themselves of evidence gathering, scientific testing, and electronic data are on trial. As if LE and LE methodology are on trial and not BK.

I'm going to call it the BK effect because it's a kind of pretentious intellectual sparring just like academics do. I assume that once this case is in court, things will get very real. This is about the horrific murders of four young people and should always stay that way.
It's important that the rule of law, and the rule of prosecutions in particular, are followed to have an orderly society though.
 
We do have evidence of actual DNA being sent in that the very first thing the prosecutor said they wanted a protective order over was Chain of Custody related to IGG:
Specifically, the State seeks to protect the following information:
The raw data related to the SNP profile and the underlying laboratory documentation related to the development of the profile, such as chain of custody forms


Also in the same filing it says the SNP profile was developed off-site at a private lab and then it was the private lab who sent that digital information to the FBI electronically rather than this coming from ISL:
The Idaho State Police utilized private laboratory to develop SNP profile from the DNA on the Ka-Bar knife sheath. The private laboratory started using genetic genealogy to develop family tree, but after law enforcement decided the FBI would take over, the private laboratory ceased its efforts and sent the SNP profile to the FBI.

This would also align with using Othram's FGGS to get an SNP profile, which Othram needs evidence to develop the SNP profile:
Obtain SNP profiles with 100s of thousands of DNA markers, compatible with any genealogy database, with minimum consumption of evidence. Additional tools like KinSNP® & mixture deconvolution help accelerate solves.

This is why I feel like the judge has to deny at least part of the state's motion for protective order as they should provide everything related to the handling of evidence they do intend to introduce in court, like the sheath DNA. If they didn't send Othram evidence to for instance create an SNP using FGGS, then they should have to affirmatively state that or alternatively turn over what they have if they did send Othram DNA. I personally would find it very strange to first say you want block chain of custody forms from being turned over and then saying there are no chain of custody forms, so that too makes me assume they exist.

Sorry, but I think this is about the actual humans that are in IGG databases, not about DNA. Chain of custody for that information (the information used by LE to find the father) is what's at dispute - not the transport of DNA. That's my view - and you think they transported DNA.

There's absolutely no proof of either. I just know that ISL procedure is strict about sending irretrievable data (cells in the case of actual DNA) anywhere at all. There's no need to. Unless, of course, in rare instances - and if this is a rare instance, that hasn't been said either. If it is, then of course AT is challenging it (as she should).

But I am the type who thinks horses and not zebras. SNP profile is different than a regular DNA profile. THere are different formulae for SNP profile building. ISL ran the entire sample - NOT a subset (which is what an SNP profile is). And it is really too hard to explain here. I've tried.

I use a lab to do facial reconstructions. I am in a different lab when I do genealogical research (graduate work in kinship is a staple of anthropology). The forensics lab (run by colleagues) does different stuff - mostly with blood splatter, but also with footprints and fingerprints. We aren't rich enough (yet) to have students running organic samples, these are all computer-driven labs. It's exceedingly controversial to use organic materials in labs, so we do other things and the word "lab" should not conjure up just a few of vials, needles, microscopes, etc. For a good look at what the ISL process would have been when they studied the sheath, watch Spencer Wells's The Journey of Man (free on youtube). That is NOT what I'm picturing at Othram, I'm picturing it more like 23andme labs.

Now, if it turns out that they DID use Othram's "wet lab" services (which I admit is possible), then yeah, there are chain of custody problems and the Defense may get a win here. But it sounds like they did not use Othram's process lab, they went to the FBI, so I don't see the problem. All Othram did was use other people's data (given to them according to their own terms of service) to locate a Kohberger. Through an ordinary genealogy (a family tree) provided by someone who also submitted their own DNA matrix.

People use labs to do ancestral work and SNP profiles (that's what Othram, 23andme and Ancestry all do - with different algorithms, but NOT with different methods of looking at DNA). Either ISL ran the DNA or they didn't (and the FBI DNA analytics van was outside the crime scene, IIRC). I see no reason for ISL or anyone else to use another wet chemistry lab (which is what you seem to be implying).

ANd I'm trying to say that in MANY genetic laboratories - the only equipment you'd see is...a computer. Not the filtering media and computer used to get the initial full list of all those pairs (including but not limited to the SNP's - the SNP's are the subject of a different kind of lab study; a computerized lab that uses exceptionally sophisticated and complex algorithms, some of them proprietary - like Othram's).

I am absolutely certain that if "they" (PD/DA) did send Othram actual physical samples taken from that sheath that the Judge will make them state chain of custody. And give the Defense its own chance to do the same. If the PD/DA actually did this without at least checking with the then-Judge, wow, that's a huge mistake and yeah, there will be stuff thrown out of court.

That's what I'm saying. But I do not believe that to be the case, because the FBI knows what they're doing and guided this process and all states have the exact same laws about physical evidence in the category that's considerable "consumable."

IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
119
Guests online
1,784
Total visitors
1,903

Forum statistics

Threads
601,763
Messages
18,129,451
Members
231,138
Latest member
mjF7nx
Back
Top