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

[Jurisprudence]

This is very interesting. Can anyone explain the crux of the arguments? Dumb it down a bit? I’m getting in the weeds reading it.

I didn't read it but I skimmed it. Defense made a motion to compel discovery of the investigative genetic genealogy information which the state argued is not discoverable under the rules and that portions of what the defense has asked for don't exist and are incapable of production.

After arguing for this several times, the state offered to show the judge in private (in camera) what they have. The judge is inclined to allow the defense to see some of it even though it wasn't used to obtain the arrest warrant but does not say this for certain until he sees it himself. So, the judge is taking the state up on its offer.

The court will look at the info in private and decide what if anything should be turned over to the defense. If he decides that the state needs to turn some of it over he'll likely issue a protective order (to keep it private from the public). I didn't read all the cases and arguments in there, but that's the gist of what's happening imo.
jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

Does anyone know what “jarring theory" is?

sbm

Idaho R. Crim. P. 6.5(a)

Their "he has to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in order to be indicted" theory I'd guess.

jmo

 

[DizzyB]

Anyone have an opinion about the defense team’s argument today? How about the grand jury-were they overreaching in wanting BARD, do they watch too much CSI?

 

[Odeto BJ]

Anyone have an opinion about the defense team’s argument today? How about the grand jury-were they overreaching in wanting BARD, do they watch too much CSI?

Simply put: The decision to issue an indictment has always been based on probable cause or similar legalise (specific language depends on the state...), not BARD. The defense resents this...So they create arguments against it. Consider though: If BARD were the standard for a GJ, what would be the point of the subsequent trial?

If the decision of the Grand Jury was that there was not cause to bring the suspect to trial, the Prosecution still has the option to proceed by Preliminary Hearing, where the Defense can challenge evidence, cross examine witnesses and even present alternative theories; and where the judge makes the decision on indictment. Under those circumstances, the selection and presentation of evidence would disclose considerably more than the prosecution might prefer considering that the GJ has previously declined to indict and the judge knows that.

Some old time defense lawyer made a declaration that "a Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich" which is one portion of their resentment; the second portion is they are not present to observe the prosecutors or the GJ and how each feels in regard to the strength of the evidence and integrity of the witnesses; and the third portion is the elimination of the Judge in the indictment decision because the response by the judge to motions and similar in the scenario where the GJ has issued an indictment but the transcript is still forthcoming, will be different than it would be had there be a PH in front of the judge, that is, he has had full participation in prior proceedings.

Meantime: The secretive GJ process is supportive of the Non Dissemination order....

 

[gliving]

Thank you @SpiderFalcon

I found it interesting that the matching genetic SNP profiles are considered informants.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/102523-Order-Addressing-IGG-DNA.pdf

 

[Chloegirl]

Thank you @SpiderFalcon

I found it interesting that the matching genetic SNP profiles are considered informants.

View attachment 456190

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/102523-Order-Addressing-IGG-DNA.pdf

I guessed this. Family? Close family or distant relative? Could it be a sister or more likely a male cousin? Just sort of interesting to think about. I don't recall where it was mentioned once before but there was a hint in this direction. JMOO

 

[Jurisprudence]

Deputy outside Kohberger hearing says judge is considering banning cell phones and laptops from courtroom. So if I go quiet on Twitter that’s why. Hearing starts at 1pm local time // 4pmET.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1717623497823068391

He probably doesn't want to hear another zipper-gate argument.
jmo

 

[girlhasnoname]

Well, the hearings yesterday didn't go well for BK the GJ indictment is upheld:

<snipped>

The first hearing earlier in the day was held behind closed doors, and it was unclear how the judge ruled on the defense’s arguments surrounding “several alleged legal flaws related to the grand jury indictment,” according to The Lawton Constitution.

Then, in a 40-minute hearing on Thursday afternoon, Kohberger’s attorneys tried a new tactic, asking the court to throw the indictment out or remand the case back to a preliminary hearing. They argued that the grand jury was misled, having been told to find “sufficient probable cause” for an indictment. Instead, they said, the higher burden of proof known as “beyond a reasonable doubt” should have been used as the threshold for the indictment.

Judge John Judge said that precedent suggested otherwise, with the Idaho Supreme Court having repeatedly upheld the lesser standard of proof for grand juries over the past century. “I appreciate the argument. I think it’s really creative and I appreciate the journey back through history,” Judge said, according to The Constitution.

Judge Rejects Bryan Kohberger’s Request to Dismiss Idaho Murders Case

 

[schooling]

Thank you @SpiderFalcon

I found it interesting that the matching genetic SNP profiles are considered informants.

View attachment 456190

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/102523-Order-Addressing-IGG-DNA.pdf

I’d imagine if public records are hard to come by or if you’ve hit a wall that picking up the phone and calling someone is a logical option.

But in this case I bet that their use of informant is a lot more broad. And refers to anyone who knowingly or unknowingly participated (through merely existing in the family tree line) in the GG process.

 

[Megnut]

I wonder how BK absorbed the news that the grand jury indictment stands.

Indifference?

Stifled rage?

Detached fascination?

He just doesn't strike me as likely to be much bothered.

JMO

 

[NyxNY]

"I appreciate your argument, I mean it's interesting," Judge said with a chuckle.

Logsdon is back up, saying he's going to "fight" this precedent.Judge said that's fine, but arguing that in this court won't do any good. Judge said Logsdon is more than welcome to take that up with the Idaho Supreme court.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1717650125185802710

I <3 JJJ!

 

[katydid23]

Ok, so when do we expect the defense team's new onslaught of motions?

And what is their next move now that they know they are going to trial?

I guess they go hard against the DNA submission again?

And have they resolved the issues with the police officers at the crime scene?

Did they ever interview the survivors?

 

[10ofRods]

I’d imagine if public records are hard to come by or if you’ve hit a wall that picking up the phone and calling someone is a logical option.

But in this case I bet that their use of informant is a lot more broad. And refers to anyone who knowingly or unknowingly participated (through merely existing in the family tree line) in the GG process.

Couldn't agree more. They're trying to classify someone's actions (submitting DNA results to Othram or similar) as being an informant, when the person submitted without any knowledge of any specific crime.

It's an attempt to broaden the word "informant" to such a vast breadth that millions of people could suddenly become "informants" even though they had no knowledge of a crime, the criminal, or anything else in the case. Instead treating the core meaning of informant as "possessing knowledge and information about a crime," they want it to be "possessing DNA makes you an informant."

SO glad for this prompt and excellent decision from Judge Judge (who also seems very nice).

IMO.

 

[Balthazar]

Does anyone know what “jarring theory" is?

This is in regards to issue surrounding instructions to Grand Juries in Idaho. It is a "jarring theory" because it means that the Grand Juries in Idaho have been instructed incorrectly for the past 100+ years. Judge Judge is correct in saying this must be addressed by the Idaho State Supreme Court and not as Judge Judge's level. JMO.

 

[Balthazar]

I <3 JJJ!

Not really. Logsdon has found himself an important cause (to correct the instructions to Grand Juries Idaho or change Idaho State Law) that he wants to argue before the Idaho Supreme Court, but to do that Logsdon had to bring it before a lower court first. Logsdon and Judge Judge both know that. Logsdon got exactly what he wanted. Lawyers LIVE to argue before State Supreme Courts (and also before the US Supreme Court.) This is how lawyers make history and change laws. JMO.

 

[Sundog]

Not really. Logsdon has found himself an important cause (to correct the instructions to Grand Juries Idaho or change Idaho State Law) that he wants to argue before the Idaho Supreme Court, but to do that Logsdon had to bring it before a lower court first. Logsdon and Judge Judge both know that. Logsdon got exactly what he wanted. Lawyers LIVE to argue before State Supreme Courts (and also before the US Supreme Court.) This is how lawyers make history and change laws. JMO.

Agree. Do you think Logsdon and team will file an appeal with a higher court now or wait until the trial is over and verdict rendered and file an appeal then along with other issues to try to overturn a guilty verdict if that is the outcome?

 

[girlhasnoname]

I wonder how BK absorbed the news that the grand jury indictment stands.

Indifference?

Stifled rage?

Detached fascination?

He just doesn't strike me as likely to be much bothered.

JMO

I'd love to really know Megs.

 

[I'm Nobody]

Not really. Logsdon has found himself an important cause (to correct the instructions to Grand Juries Idaho or change Idaho State Law) that he wants to argue before the Idaho Supreme Court, but to do that Logsdon had to bring it before a lower court first. Logsdon and Judge Judge both know that. Logsdon got exactly what he wanted. Lawyers LIVE to argue before State Supreme Courts (and also before the US Supreme Court.) This is how lawyers make history and change laws. JMO.

YES^^^^The D-team, flooding the court w/ pre-trial motions about previous rules/laws, appears to be setting the stage for trying to establish new rules, the IGG (scientific evidence), GJ instructions, Cameras in courtroom.
What's left? The death penalty? Bail?
I expect Logsdon to argue this case doesn't have proof evident or presumption great for DP case.
Also expect JJJ to have same response, can't change the law, take It up with higher court, move on.

JMO

 

[Swansee]

Was the total number of grand jurors in this case ever made public?
Google tells me a grand jury can be 16-23 members. Does anyone know the exact number there were for the Kohberger indictment?

 

[Balthazar]

Agree. Do you think Logsdon and team will file an appeal with a higher court now or wait until the trial is over and verdict rendered and file an appeal then along with other issues to try to overturn a guilty verdict if that is the outcome?

Logsdon seems to be very gung-ho about this issue and according to the media Logsdon indicated that he would take it to the State Supreme Court. However, Jay Logsdon also filed the motion to dismiss the murder charges against Kohberger, citing grand jury bias, "inadmissible" and insufficient evidence and prosecutorial misconduct. There have not been hearings on any of these issues yet, insofar as I am aware. If they file motions on these separate issues, then Logsdon is going to be quite busy for a while. JMO.