4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #88

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Balthazar said:
Being a defense attorney does not automatically put someone on the side of wrong.
Click to expand...

I don’t think anyone here has said that.

On the flip side, I’ve definitely seen some sentiment in the last few days (on various cases, not just this one), that this or that member of the justice system is above reproach and cannot be questioned or criticized.
 
NextSprint said:
Right but doing a "good job" as a defence attorney shouldn't really be seen as malicious. It's their job, probably one they avoided commercial law (whose salaries start around $250k fresh out of college and will invariably go on to earn $millions per year) to do. JMO of course.
Click to expand...

Just like it shouldn’t automatically be seen as altruistic.

This is a fun circle.
 
schooling said:
I’m imagining 5 alarm fire level of exculpatory. Call the judge and wake him up at 3am in the morning. Emergency hearing. Chastising of the prosecution and apologizing to BK in open court. Celebratory press conference on the superior court steps....
And here we are almost a year after the murders and fresh off the defendant waiving his right to a speedy trial.
Click to expand...
[snipped by me]
Exactly.
Chloegirl said:
As I recall, it was clarified that it was something that was disclosed but related to another case.
Click to expand...

[snipped by me] This is my recollection too.

The Brady/Giglio material was disclosed to the Court in camera in March - 5 months ago, with the state simultaneously asking the court for a protective order in producing it to the defense (which was granted).

So, I don't think her angle involves a Brady issue. I think it involves the "Rookie" status of some of these officers (2, IIRC). This is why she sought (and fought to receive) their training records - something the state repeatedly said in their papers she was not entitled to under the discovery rules. The judge granted it anyway.

jmo


 
Last edited:
ArianeEmory said:
This is a bit old so maybe it was refuted, but:

www.newsweek.com

Bryan Kohberger's attorney is being paid $8K a week to defend him: Report

Former FBI agent Jennifer Coffindaffer said she was surprised that Anne Taylor could be taking home more than $380,000 a year for the case.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

www.ibtimes.com

Idaho Murders Update: Bryan Kohberger's Lawyer Is Earning $200 Per Hour

A new agreement reveals the public defender representing Idaho murders suspect Bryan Kohberger will be paid $200 per hour.
www.ibtimes.com www.ibtimes.com

In any event, in my experience with American true crime, few defense attorneys take on a high profile murder case like this one unless they expect to gain something (some combo of money or fame).
Click to expand...
That $200/hour for a 40 hour workweek will go directly to Kootenai County, which is AT’s (& JL’s) employer.

As a State of Idaho, Latah County, and City of Moscow taxpayer, I totally get the desire to follow the money, but a sensational & simple X to Y in the articles does not work in this situation, MOO, when looking at public defenders who are also public servants employed by a government entity.

If anyone is interested in better understanding the public defense reforms Idaho is in the middle of, a search engine can be very helpful. Tucker v State of Idaho might be a good starting place & then follow the state legislation that has followed.

IANAL & MOO

ETA: a missing “who” in paragraph 2
 
Last edited:
ArianeEmory said:
This is a bit old so maybe it was refuted, but:

www.newsweek.com

Bryan Kohberger's attorney is being paid $8K a week to defend him: Report

Former FBI agent Jennifer Coffindaffer said she was surprised that Anne Taylor could be taking home more than $380,000 a year for the case.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

www.ibtimes.com

Idaho Murders Update: Bryan Kohberger's Lawyer Is Earning $200 Per Hour

A new agreement reveals the public defender representing Idaho murders suspect Bryan Kohberger will be paid $200 per hour.
www.ibtimes.com www.ibtimes.com

In any event, in my experience with American true crime, few defense attorneys take on a high profile murder case like this one unless they expect to gain something (some combo of money or fame).
Click to expand...
Idaho has very few Capitol case certified public defenders. In fact there are only 31 and of those only 14 are qualified to be Lead Counsel. The other 16 are qualified as co-Counsel. AT was assigned this case because she is the only possible lead counsel in district 1 which includes Kootenai county and Jay Logsdon was assigned co-Counsel because he is also District 1. Capital Counsel Roster

Just to help you understand, these are the district courts in Idaho:

Idaho's District Courts | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov isc.idaho.gov

I don't see how AT had much choice but to take BK's case since that is her job - to defend indigent clients in Capitol cases in District 1 in Idaho. Although she was assigned this case, I have been impressed by her diligence and efforts to defend her client and make certain that his rights are not violated. So many public defenders are overwhelmed with their massive caseloads and barely meet with their clients. Here we see AT making a substantial effort to do everything right by her client.
 
Sundog said:
Is the prosecution saying that the materials that the defense is asking for don't exist
Click to expand...

[snipped by me]

Yes.


June 16, 2023

The FBI uploaded the SNP profile to one or more publicly available genetic genealogy services to identify possible family members of the suspect based on shared genetic data. The FBI could then view through the genetic genealogy service’s portal information regarding potential relatives of the suspect … Based on information the FBI could see in the genetic genealogy service’s portal, the FBI went to work building family trees of the genetic relatives to the suspect DNA left at the crime scene in an attempt to identify the contributor of the unknown DNA.

The FBI built the family tree using the same tools and methods used by members of the public who wish to learn more about their ancestors. For example, the FBI consulted social media, viewed vital records such as birth and death certificates, and viewed other information already contained in the user portal for the genetic genealogy service, including unverified information submitted by other users of the genetic genealogy service.

The genealogy conducted by the FBI resulted in a lead that pointed law enforcement to Defendant, but it did not result in the creation of many documents or records. Much of the information relied on by the FBI was only viewed through the user portal in the publicly available genetic genealogy service(s) and other investigative databases.

The FBI did not download or create copies of those records.

Once Defendant was in custody, the FBI removed the SNP profile … and no longer has access to view much of the information it used to create the family tree and cannot view it again without resubmitting the SNP profile to the genetic genealogy service(s).

To the State’s knowledge, the only records that reflect the FBl’s efforts to create Defendant’s family tree is the family tree itself, notes jotted down by FBI agents as they constructed the family tree, and any records created to document the removal of the SNP profile from the genetic genealogy service(s) pursuant to the DOJ Policy. The State has not seen—nor does the State possess—these records or copies of these records.


 
For the minimal IGG material that is of record the state maintains its position that it's not discoverable but understands that the judge may allow it nonetheless and asks for an in camera meeting to present what they have and to obtain a protective order concerning it should the judge require it be produced:


July 5, 2023:

In addition, the State incorporates the “Motion for Protective Order" filed on June 16,
2023, and any subsequent filings on issues raised regarding IGG. As outlined in that motion, the State seeks an order protecting IGG information from disclosure as it falls outside the purview of Rule 16. In the alternative, if the defense can establish that IGG information is relevant, the State asked the Court to conduct an in camera hearing so the State can present information related to the IGG information and enter a protective order pursuant to I.C.R. 16(1).



jmo
 
ArianeEmory said:
I don’t think anyone here has said that.

On the flip side, I’ve definitely seen some sentiment in the last few days (on various cases, not just this one), that this or that member of the justice system is above reproach and cannot be questioned or criticized.
Click to expand...

No member of the justice system is beyond reproach imo. There are bad apples in every profession and every walk of life. Some push the envelope farther than others. Some get away with it and become more brazen, while others pay a steep price for their transgressions. Look no further than the scandals plaguing our very own Supreme Court. A body we all once thought we could trust implicitly. This is our (imperfect) system of justice however, and we must do the best we can to police it.

jmo
 
ArianeEmory said:
This is a bit old so maybe it was refuted, but:

www.newsweek.com

Bryan Kohberger's attorney is being paid $8K a week to defend him: Report

Former FBI agent Jennifer Coffindaffer said she was surprised that Anne Taylor could be taking home more than $380,000 a year for the case.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

www.ibtimes.com

Idaho Murders Update: Bryan Kohberger's Lawyer Is Earning $200 Per Hour

A new agreement reveals the public defender representing Idaho murders suspect Bryan Kohberger will be paid $200 per hour.
www.ibtimes.com www.ibtimes.com

In any event, in my experience with American true crime, few defense attorneys take on a high profile murder case like this one unless they expect to gain something (some combo of money or fame).
Click to expand...

Public Defenders, like AT, have no choice. That's what they do for a living. She could be attempting to launch a private practice, but doesn't appear to be doing that right now, as she's too busy with her salaried day job.

And she has risen to the very top of her profession in Idaho, IMO, probably making way more than she would in private practice (in criminal defense). Most criminals do not have lots of money. Kohberger's legal fees are being paid by Idaho and by Latah County (Latah County needed help from the state to afford this trial).

Idaho's system is set up so that its top attorneys do indeed get what I think of as hazard pay - as good ones put in tremendous hours per week, as I think AT is doing.

Most people do expect to be paid for what they do (I do). And there's nothing wrong with wanting to be known as good at something (fame).

In real life, nearly all criminals in America are defended by public defenders. Some have private attorneys who are paid the public defender rate (very very common and highly sought after - not for extra money, but because it's often the only money). Where I live there are two law schools nearby (not famous ones, either) and the graduates take about 10 years to get to the salary of a paralegal in their second year - or the typical law office manager in their 3-5 years. Many will give up law practice. (We have too many lawyers where I am). High profile cases are indeed "fought over" by private attorneys who contact the criminal defendant's family and offer to do it for the per diem rate that the County pays - (it's for publicity - but I doubt that a single criminal case in my area has ever been on WS or is "high profile"). I can't even remember the last criminal case from my immediate area (let's say L.A. County) that I followed here (I follow the Bob Lee case in SF; and followed Kristin Smart closely - but that case is a few counties away from me).

IMO.
 
Balthazar said:
USA, all arrests - presumably that would include men, women and whatever other gender a person claims.
www.statista.com

USA - number of arrests for all offenses 2022 | Statista

There were over 7.36 million arrests for all offenses in the United States in 2022.
www.statista.com www.statista.com
Click to expand...

Ah. Arrests != criminal defendants. To be a criminal defendant, you have to be arraigned. Many people who are arrested are never arraigned - I'm actually surprised that 1 in 20 turn out to be "innocent." I assume that includes the never-charged, the charged-but-dismissed and the charged-tried-found not guilty groups (so three kinds of people - not just criminal defendants in that 5% you're quoting).

Still means that 19 out of 20 are...found guilty? That sounds high to me - but it's possible, given nationwide reluctance by prosecutors to file charges unless the pathway to conviction seems clear to them (or at least, fairly clear).

IMO. That's why I ask for a source. What kinds of people are in the 1 out of 20 who are "innocent"? Did they all go to trial and were they all found not guilty (no one is ever "found innocent").
 
Last edited:
Balthazar said:
Look above, already answered.
Click to expand...
Your source is for the total prison population of the United States. Not the '1 in 20' stat. I believe that's what @10ofRods was asking for. Then I'd also want to know if this is 'Legal Innocence' or 'Factual Innocence'. Which are very different but often bundled together.

Which in and of itself seems like a pretty difficult number to arrive at. Because for every truly 'innocent' person there's 3 or 4 Scott Petersons.

The Innocence Project, who has every incentive to juice up those numbers, listed it at 1% in 2011. That's still a pretty large number considering how many people we have incarcerated in this country. But its a far cry from 5% (1 in 20).

Edit (yes, ill even update and post links that don't 100% support my argument)
Innocence Project citing 1%

How Many Innocent People are in Prison? - Innocence Project

innocenceproject.org innocenceproject.org

A more recent innocence project page where they cite numbers ranging all over the place depending on the crime. If you follow through you'll see the smaller the crime, the higher the rate. As well as some nuance around "Factual Innocence" and "Legal Innocence".
innocenceproject.org

Innocence Project: Research Resources

As leaders in research on wrongful conviction, we provide resources to researchers, attorneys, and those interested in learning more.
innocenceproject.org innocenceproject.org
 
Last edited:
NextSprint said:
Interesting to read AT's newest Motion to Dismiss, where she invokes Napue v Illinois as an authority for prosecutorial misconduct

We get very little information about the basis on which she wants the indictment dismissed, because it's sealed, but if you look at the legal authorities she's invoking, it gives us a hint.

Napue relates to false testimony, namely the failure of a prosecutor to correct false testimony given to a jury (in this case, the Grand Jury that Latah County used to indict BK). This to me hints that something went on in that Grand Jury that either involved false testimony by a witness, or that a witness was so lacking credibility that they shouldn't have been giving evidence.

This is interesting why? Because if you're filing a motion/application to a court, you can't just frivolously invoke a specific legal "authority" (i.e. invoking an appeal decision which then becomes precedent/law). We can't know just yet as it's sealed, but I think this motion might have some peril in it for the prosecution... JMO.
Click to expand...

I see your point. You're right that we don't know where she's going yet. But I don't suspect it's to false testimony. I suspect she's citing Napue for the proposition that it doesn't matter if Idaho law finds the error harmless (or not germane on other grounds). She wants a fallback position that even harmless error under Idaho law does not dismiss or negate a (potential) violation of his federal constitutional rights.

AT has been saying for some time that the state has evidence that is exculpatory. The state kept asking again and again in it's early responses to her motions to compel for the defense to tell them what that evidence is bc to their knowledge there is nothing exculpatory.

So, to me, her filing is falling right along these same lines of argument that she's been making all along. Because of this I didn't find it alarming or surprising at all.

She cites Idaho Criminal Rule 6.1(b)(1)

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

In reading the state's replies, they didn't seem (to me) to be concerned about this. For this to be a real problem I think (as it clearly states above), (1) the evidence not disclosed must be substantial, (2) must directly negate the defendant's guilt, and (3) there has to have been personal knowledge and intent. Intent is required under Napue too as I read it.

It is interesting that she is so dead-on focused on this exculpatory evidence though and I am very curious to know exactly what it is.

jmo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 77 more.
Total: 235 (members: 78, guests: 157)

Online statistics

Members online
78
Guests online
157
Total visitors
235
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,330
Messages
18,252,747
Members
234,626
Latest member
XtraGuacPlz
Back
Top