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.
Jurisprudence said:
??? JJ specifically made reference to Idaho R. Crim. P. 6.5 which expressly states:

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.

Which Supreme Court case held that the words "warrant a conviction" means a higher burden than pc but a lower burden than beyond a reasonable doubt must be established to indict? Is it still current and good law?

TIA

​





Rule 6.5 - Indictment, Idaho R. Crim. P. 6.5 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 6.5 - Indictment, Idaho R. Crim. P. 6.5, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com
Click to expand...
I was not referring to a Supreme Court case: we were discussing the Idaho Statute language and JLs argument in his motion to dismiss.

Current Idaho Statute:

IC 19-1107

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.
History:
[(19-1107) Cr. Prac. 1864, sec. 208, p. 238; R.S., R.C., & C.L., sec. 7636; C.S., sec. 8795; I.C.A., sec. 19-1007.]

Which has a different threshold for indictment than ICR 6.5.
 
schooling said:
I still can’t imagine any sort of reasonable remedy that would come out of the IGG ‘issue’.
...
This is all a complete waste of time. Everything being challenged is either inconsequential or has no potential remedy that helps BK.
Click to expand...

[sbm] I agree. JJ would be up-ending everything IGG related (probably nationwide) if he decided to take it upon himself to allow that work to be admitted into evidence. I don't see him doing this in a million years. I'm even surprised he's entertaining it this far. (That itself could set a local precedent for future defense attorneys to insist on getting this info which is another problem). However, as much as AT is frustrating the process here and JJ seems to be indulging her at every turn (and frustrating us ), I have to believe that he is frustrating us (and the state, and more importantly the families), by indulging her at every turn so that in the event there is a conviction, it is rock solid. If you think about it, she has gotten just about every single thing she's asked for that is not ordinarily subject to discovery (police training records, etc.)

jmo
 
Last edited:
BeginnerSleuther said:
I'm not fully convinced they can get a conviction even with the DNA evidence, let alone if it's thrown out.

That's not a statement on his guilt or innocence. It's an opinion on the case.

MOO.
Click to expand...

I think they "should" but the fact remains that you never know what a jury will do. And, this case has been gagged. Once all the information comes out things could change though for me right now, it looks like they have a pretty solid case. I worry about any attack on control of the immediate crime scene. I was worrying about that in real time actually.

moo
 
Nila Aella said:
I was not referring to a Supreme Court case: we were discussing the Idaho Statute language and JLs argument in his motion to dismiss.

Current Idaho Statute:

IC 19-1107

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.
History:
[(19-1107) Cr. Prac. 1864, sec. 208, p. 238; R.S., R.C., & C.L., sec. 7636; C.S., sec. 8795; I.C.A., sec. 19-1007.]

Which has a different threshold for indictment than ICR 6.5.
Click to expand...
Oh, okay thanks. I thought it was a case. On this conflict I do believe JJ stated the Idaho Supreme Court ruled on this and 6.5 prevails. It was not in this hearing that he said this, it was in the one before (on this issue) which I am sure is still accessible online. But here's BT''s discussion of it (which JJ seemed to have firmly agreed with).
Pages 8-10
 
I'm watching the full video of today's hearing.

What I'm hearing is that there are 2 SNP profiles starting at about 8:20. One from the FBI and one from the private lab. The private lab is the original SNP. The SNP that FBI has is different from the SNP from the private lab and the reason given for that is because once the original SNP is sent to a GG company their database software altered the SNP to meet the requirements of the criteria of their search engine? And at 9:23, there are differences throughout the length of the two SNPs.

I would like to know what the reliability is of the GG company's database software in altering SNPs and how often they check the reliability.
 
Swansee said:
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but this doesn't sound right.
How did they get to BK if not thanks to the IGG? The PCA itself states that the IGG was key. How can the prosecution now say it wasn't used to secure any warrants? This makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...

IANAL, but I think it's because the actual proximate cause of the warrant had nothing to do with the IGG database. It was used to find "Kohbergers."

They used the DNA to find "A Kohberger" (not Bryan Kohberger).

Then, LE investigators saw the triangulation ( deduction, not a piece of DNA). They then went and got DNA from MK (BK's dad).

THAT is likely part of the process. MK only had 1 son.

And so, the only possible suspect was BK. Logic plus science.

I guess that might be a bit new to the legal system, but it has adjusted before. As a society, I believe we will be better off if we use our new knowledge of genes to our best advantage. If we decide, as humans, not to progress in our use and knowledge gained from science, it's on us.

And that's what AT and her client are apparently trying to exploit. Leave both logic and science out of this case, and there is no case. That's what the arguments (and costs to Idaho) are about.

We shall see what happens. If the Courts throw out this kind of investigation, then my victim-friendly heart is pained to a degree I cannot express.

But I do not think that's what's going to happen. I think we now have many, many people who understand DNA and its relevance.

I hope.
 
Balthazar said:
I'm watching the full video of today's hearing.

What I'm hearing is that there are 2 SNP profiles starting at about 8:20. One from the FBI and one from the private lab. The private lab is the original SNP. The SNP that FBI has is different from the SNP from the private lab and the reason given for that is because once the original SNP is sent to a GG company their database software altered the SNP to meet the requirements of the criteria of their search engine? And at 9:23, there are differences throughout the length of the two SNPs.

I would like to know what the reliability is of the GG company's database software in altering SNPs and how often they check the reliability.
Click to expand...
Is there a question whether the DNA on the sheath matches BK's DNA?
 
gliving said:
More tweets from yesterday

https://twitter.com/x/status/1719393306541720003

https://twitter.com/x/status/1719397437499167173

https://twitter.com/x/status/1719394674748850667
Click to expand...
I wonder if the State was doing a crime scene reenactment/animation of some scale? One of the biggest arguments of BK proponents has been "there is no way he had enough time" to commit the murders. I think it would key if the State shows just how they purpose the killings may have happened in real time.

MOO
 
I appreciate Steve and Kristi Goncalves talking with me tonight. Last time I was in their home was weeks after their daughter Kaylee was murdered.Almost one year later — they shared their ongoing pain — and frustration with the slow court process.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1720278023969333390
 
Thank you @10ofRods and @Jurisprudence .
I will be curious to see how much the judge ends up handing over.
As much as most of the legal aspects are mostly clear to me, the DNA stuff is not an area I am familiar with, but very happy to learn more about.

After watching the latest hearing, I am now also confused about there being two versions of the DNA profile. I'm sure we'll get to hear more about that process at trial.
 
katydid23 said:
Is there a question whether the DNA on the sheath matches BK's DNA?
Click to expand...
That the original SNP had to be "altered" to go through the GG process, tells me that there are potential questions. It sounds to me like the original SNP was an incomplete DNA sample that had to be altered by the database software to undergo the GG process. This immediately makes me think of many, many questions. Looking forward to hearing from the experts on this.
 
gliving said:
Has there been any mention of the defense requesting independent testing of the sheath DNA?
Click to expand...

Not that I know of. I would not be surprised if that becomes another issue closer to trial. OTOH, maybe the Defense knows that it will just end up being the same BK DNA as before. Which doesn't help them much. They seem to want to get the DNA thrown out on a technicality.
 
Tippy Lynn said:
Am I understanding this correctly? One DNA profile was sent off to the GG company and the company changed the profile into two DNA profiles?

I clearly don't understand this DNA jargon. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I had to listen to parts of it more than once, but I thought BT explained it clearly, at least for me, starting around 8:33. Maybe @10ofRods can explain it more clearly?

MOO

https://twitter.com/x/status/1720179509746622837

ETA: fixed punctuation
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 140 more.
Total: 1,493 (members: 141, guests: 1,352)

Online statistics

Members online
141
Guests online
1,352
Total visitors
1,493
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,547
Messages
18,110,344
Members
230,991
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top