4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #90

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the defense's strategy is to force a preliminary hearing.

Getting the Grand Jury indictment thrown own would not spring BK from prison, there would either be a repeat grand jury meeting, or a preliminary hearing.

I'm not sure what the defense gains from all of this. It is my conjecture that the defense is overwhelmed with all the discovery given them and is trying to pin down which information the prosecution will use at trial.
 
Balthazar said:
The defense so far, only has 1 issue to bring before the Idaho Supreme Court and I linked their calendar above in my reply to katydid23 - the calendar reveals there are open times this issue could be heard, even this week. Not saying it will happen this week, but, State Supreme Courts usually move faster than the Supreme Court of the United States. I would not expect this issue to take years to be heard at all.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the Supreme Court because it seemed like that was what was being talked about. Maybe he could take it to the state Supreme Court, but I thought the state courts have already ruled that it was Probable Cause and not BARD?

Do we really think the state Supreme Court is going to suddenly rule that they are going to start requiring BARD to indict someone for trial, thus throwing out all indictments and even all convictions from previous trials? What a mess that will be.
 
katydid23 said:
I was referring to the Supreme Court because it seemed like that was what was being talked about. Maybe he could take it to the state Supreme Court, but I thought the state courts have already ruled that it was Probable Cause and not BARD?

Do we really think the state Supreme Court is going to suddenly rule that they are going to start requiring BARD to indict someone for trial, thus throwing out all indictments and even all convictions from previous trials? What a mess that will be.
Click to expand...
The Idaho Supreme Court seems to have not really fully decided this. If they had, the laws would be changed to put a final end to this issue that has apparently been ongoing over 100 years.

Also, the Idaho Supreme Court doesn't have to make it retroactive EXCEPT for the case that brought this issue to its conclusion. All they need to do set a date that the law changes. All cases before were handled the old way, all cases after are handled the new way - the same thing that happens whenever a new law is put in place in our country.
 
Balthazar said:
The Idaho Supreme Court seems to have not really fully decided this. If they had, the laws would be changed to put a final end to this issue that has apparently been ongoing over 100 years.

Also, the Idaho Supreme Court doesn't have to make it retroactive EXCEPT for the case that brought this issue to its conclusion. All they need to do set a date that the law changes. All cases before were handled the old way, all cases after are handled the new way - the same thing that happens whenever a new law is put in place in our country.
Click to expand...
That's assuming that other defense attorneys wouldn't appeal on the basis of the new decision. I think many would do so. Why should BK benefit but not someone else from the same time frame? If the Supreme Court says the law was incorrect and BK deserves to over throw his indictment, can't many others come and appeal the same issue successfully?
 
Balthazar said:
The Idaho Supreme Court seems to have not really fully decided this. If they had, the laws would be changed to put a final end to this issue that has apparently been ongoing over 100 years.

Also, the Idaho Supreme Court doesn't have to make it retroactive EXCEPT for the case that brought this issue to its conclusion. All they need to do set a date that the law changes. All cases before were handled the old way, all cases after are handled the new way - the same thing that happens whenever a new law is put in place in our country.
Click to expand...

I am trying to follow along, but have not read every post. Are you saying that probable cause has been the law for over 100 years (instead of BARD)? This is a really common standard nationwide,

How did it become an issue? And more important to me, actually, is *when* did it become an issue? It's been standard in British and American common law (and other common law notions have been discarded).

For it to be an issue, there have to be various parties arrayed both in favor of probable cause as the standard (and I think that goes back more than 100) as well as people on the other side (and possibly in other positions). Can you point me to other cases where this has been an issue? And is it just Idaho that you believe has to change its laws? Why would the new law not also be challenged? I doubt that there has ever been a "final end" to any legal issue...since Roman times and good records have been kept. Anyway, what would the new law look like and who in the Idaho legislature is in favor of this law? It's rare that laws change because of action in a lawsuit, but sometimes they do (I can think of one example, but it's very narrow and specific).

Are there actual bills on this issue in the Idaho legislature? (Not asking just you - but maybe some of our locals might know). My curiosity is about what you think the shape of this new law would be. I see what you're saying about "fixing" the issue by a new law - that would indeed work better than using mere legal precedent and appeals.

IMO.
 
See
Balthazar said:
I do think this could go to the Idaho Supreme Court prior to trial. State supreme courts are not usually that backed up. Idaho's Supreme Court calendar is NOT full.
Idaho Supreme Court Calendar | Supreme Court
IMO, the more issues they cleared up prior to trial the better.
Click to expand...
How do you envision that happening?
Will future arrested persons need to wait for constitutional
Issues to be resolved while sitting in jail, or should or BK be released into the public with a tracker?
 
Wallendo said:
I think the defense's strategy is to force a preliminary hearing.

Getting the Grand Jury indictment thrown own would not spring BK from prison, there would either be a repeat grand jury meeting, or a preliminary hearing.

I'm not sure what the defense gains from all of this. It is my conjecture that the defense is overwhelmed with all the discovery given them and is trying to pin down which information the prosecution will use at trial.
Click to expand...
MOO.
Juat repeat the grand jury, soon as possible. BKs DNA warrants a trial.
 
schooling said:
Hopefully those two hints = no on the genetic nonsense, stop all of these other attempts at delays too and let’s get this thing on the calendar.
Click to expand...
I think the judge is going to look at the genetic testing data, save some of it for the defense to have a look-see, lock down the rest....and it will end up being a nothing burger for the DT. JMO
 
10ofRods said:
I am trying to follow along, but have not read every post. Are you saying that probable cause has been the law for over 100 years (instead of BARD)? This is a really common standard nationwide,

How did it become an issue? And more important to me, actually, is *when* did it become an issue? It's been standard in British and American common law (and other common law notions have been discarded).

For it to be an issue, there have to be various parties arrayed both in favor of probable cause as the standard (and I think that goes back more than 100) as well as people on the other side (and possibly in other positions). Can you point me to other cases where this has been an issue? And is it just Idaho that you believe has to change its laws? Why would the new law not also be challenged? I doubt that there has ever been a "final end" to any legal issue...since Roman times and good records have been kept. Anyway, what would the new law look like and who in the Idaho legislature is in favor of this law? It's rare that laws change because of action in a lawsuit, but sometimes they do (I can think of one example, but it's very narrow and specific).

Are there actual bills on this issue in the Idaho legislature? (Not asking just you - but maybe some of our locals might know). My curiosity is about what you think the shape of this new law would be. I see what you're saying about "fixing" the issue by a new law - that would indeed work better than using mere legal precedent and appeals.

IMO.
Click to expand...

Please see Nila Aella's excellent discussion of this issue above.
 
Fleur-de-lis said:
Do we know yet if the DNA on the snap of the sheath is touch DNA, aka trace DNA, or regular-amount DNA? TIA.
Click to expand...
Touch/trace DNA just defines the method of transfer. It can still produce a full and complete profile.

Where a lot of the confusion stems from is that once DNA science/technology started to progress in the 90s. They figured out how to pull partial/incomplete profiles in ways that were once unimaginable. So a tiny microscopic sample of DNA could now produce a small lead. But again, these were incomplete profiles. Which have been criticized (rightfully so) for being unreliable.

That was the state of "touch/transfer" back then.

Now that technology has advanced and tiny samples are producing full profiles more regularly. these kind of profiles are much more reliable. But unfortunately since it's descriptive of the type of dna, the tech has increased but nomenclature has stayed same - touch/transfer DNA.

Unfortunately for touch/transfer DNA it doesn't have a PR team.

So this is why theirs noise around the sample pulled by the local lab somehow being compromised and therefore unreliable. because today, we still mostly hear about touch/transfer DNA mostly through cases from the 90s and 2000s that are on appeal. and in a lot of those cases defendants are asking for samples to be retested with newer technology.

But the noise is just noise. the local lab pulled a full profile. that's both un compromised and reliable. how do I know? the defense has yet to challenge it. It's been entered into CODIS. and now has a direct match.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 129 more.
Total: 1,782 (members: 130, guests: 1,652)

Online statistics

Members online
130
Guests online
1,652
Total visitors
1,782
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,527
Messages
18,110,019
Members
230,991
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top