I don't know that they would object necessarily, but I personally think this is not a great idea. That is such an inconvenience for the jury. I am truly sorry for the victims' families, and all associated parties, but juries are literally your normal everyday people. I could not imagine being bussed here to there for however long every day and have to give up any kind of whatever is going on in my life for the duration of the trial. If they are truly concerned with juror bias or burning of the courthouse, they should grant the change of venue.
4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #95
- Thread starter ChatteringBirds
- Start date
- Status
Nila Aella
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2022
- Messages
- 1,186
- Reaction score
- 9,790
This refers to the Federal Fugative Act, which pecifically states the individual has fled from justice.Fugitive From Justice Warrant is issued when the arrested person needs to be extradited to another state. Standard Protocol in Pennsylvania
Extradition and Pennsylvania | PA Legal Blog
When a person in Pennsylvania is arrested and detained on behalf of another state, the process is called extradition.www.manchesterandassociates.com
When a person in Pennsylvania is arrested and detained on behalf of another state, the process is called extradition. It is important for individuals and families to understand this often daunting and potentially confusing process.
This process could find an individual arrested in Pennsylvania as a “fugitive from justice. " Two Federal laws control extradition from one state to another: The Federal Fugitive Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3182; and the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9121 et. seq.
When an individual is arrested as a fugitive from justice, there are specific rules that must be followed by Pennsylvania and the demanding state. The outcome is that the fugitive is either extradited to the demanding state, or released from Pennsylvania custody.
After an individual is retained on a fugitive warrant, the law requires that they be brought in front of a judge as soon as possible. There is then a hearing to tell the individual what they are charged with, to determine if the person arrested is actually the person charged, and to set bail if appropriate.
They issued an arrest warrant in ID on Dec 29th. He was already in PA (under surveillance).
JMO
It's always going to be possible to point to high-profile trials that weren't moved (and occasionally, certainly not always, point to jury issues that arose during those local trials causing problems.) Sometimes trials are moved after a failure to seat a local jury. (Hard to know what effect an initial [publicized] failure to seat a jury has on the eventual outcome if there is then a change of venue but it's probably NOT good.) And there are trials that weren't moved but jurors were brought in rather than moving the trial itself. Notably the C. Anthony "tot mom" trial was done that way. Casey Anthony jury selection locale a secret
The judge, Melvin Perry said "I'm not naive enough to think we'll encounter no one who has heard of this case," Perry said recently in court. "But the goal is to find people who have not been oversaturated with media."
Sequestering the Anthony out-of-town jury was quite problematic, however. In the opinion of many people, a long trial, extensive juror bonding, and very tight sequestering led to a less than ideal approach to the jury's final deliberations. And in 2011, it cost around $300,000 to bring in and sequester non-local jurors. (Approximately $430,000 in today's dollars per the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Inflation Calculator )
Pricey but cheaper than having to hold a new trial for BK. If a non-local jury is used in BK's trial, I personally cannot imagine they'd be bussed in & out on a daily basis. While they might not be "sequestered" in the usual sense, I expect they'd be provided with hotel rooms on court weeks. Perhaps they'd bus home on weekends? Or if the jury will be known to require exclusion during certain lengthier trial issues that might arise?
It seems each request for a change of venue has to stand or fall on its own merit. Saying, as some have, X didn't get a change of venue in another location so BK shouldn't isn't really relevant IMO. Each case and the attendant local circumstances are different although a judge may take into account perceived "mistakes" made in change of venue decisions in other cases. The judge in this case indicated he thought his decision was very important and would be difficult professionally. Perhaps he wasn't being truthful but I didn't get the feeling that he thought the state has a slam-dunk case to stay put & to attempt to seat a local jury (although he very well may eventually decide in favor of the state.) As others have said though, the decision can't be made for the benefit of the victims' families. I'm sympathetic but even if all family members lived in Moscow (& they don't) that wouldn't mean the trial has to stay put. Public trials exist to ensure our society remains as orderly as possible and to ensure defendants are fairly treated per our Constitution. The crime was against society/the state. Trials aren't held primarily for the benefit of the families although during trials they may be given preferential seating & "trigger warnings." If there is a conviction, during the penalty phase family members will be allowed to speak about the impact of their losses but will not be allowed to speak about the punishment that should be levied. To ensure equal justice under the law decisions just can't be made for a particular family's benefit. Although some family members (in this case specifically) seem to think they get to "vote" on decisions that are made, they really don't.
MOO
girlhasnoname
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2018
- Messages
- 10,319
- Reaction score
- 133,803
Or the pretense of.
girlhasnoname
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2018
- Messages
- 10,319
- Reaction score
- 133,803
ilovewings
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 9,270
- Reaction score
- 70,843
I agree with your thoughts on this! I believe most murderers believe they will get away with the crime, believing they are smarter than law enforcement: most of the time they are wrong, but not always: there are too many unsolved crimes out there as we know! In the case of BK, the sheath he left behind will be his undoing and I believe will convict him along with other evidence, some of which we may not know about at this point!!! Yes, LE did a great job investigating this case and they were able to keep their investigation under wraps until they apprehended the person they believe committed these horrific murders!
I have yet to hear a defense attorney in a high profile case say, well, my client could be guilty- of course the attorney is going to say their client is not guilty or innocent of the charges: It doesn't mean the attorney believes it but as you pointed out, it is part of their defense of their client and part of their job.
Cool Cats
I EXPECT DOUGHNUTS
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 12,489
- Reaction score
- 96,500
Read closely.
It referes to 2 laws:
Two Federal laws control extradition from one state to another: The Federal Fugitive Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3182; and the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9121 et. seq.
My post concerned getting arrested in PA and having to be extradited back to another State. A fugitive Warrrant is normal for Pennsylvania in BK's situation. The person arrested is not fleeing from justice.
Nila Aella
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2022
- Messages
- 1,186
- Reaction score
- 9,790
I did read both. Thanks.
JMO
Cool Cats
I EXPECT DOUGHNUTS
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 12,489
- Reaction score
- 96,500
To put it bluntly, AT could believe BK did this but puts that aside to concentrate strictly on the law. Period.
She is actually trying to show the jury there is not enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict him. Hey, he may be guilty but the prosecution cannot prove their case against him. The defense can show the prosecutions' evidence does not meet a reasonable doubt standard.
It is all about the prosecutors proving their case and AT does not think they can.
So yes, I believe someone on the large defense team including experts, could really believe BK did it but their job is to make the jury doubt the prosecution's evidence and witnessess.
2 Cents
LinasK
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 27,002
- Reaction score
- 25,560
I used to have a good friend who was a defense lawyer and that's exactly what they do. They purposely avoid asking their clients about their innocence/guilt so that the lawyers aren't lying in court.
Defense Attorneys, obviously can't say their client is guilty since it is their job to zealously defend their client, but, in my experience, Defense Attorneys certainly do not say their client is innocent if they believe their client is guilty - in my experience, they generally say nothing about guilt or innocence and simply try to get the jury to believe there is reasonable doubt. Also, as an officer of the court, Defense Attorneys cannot lie in court. So apparently, BK's Attorneys all believe he is innocent because they have stated so in court, while court is in session when they cannot lie.
All JMO.
Lying by omission? Absolutely not. They could be disbarred for that.
It is crystal clear that BK's attorneys really do believe he is innocent. Make no mistake about that.
LinasK
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 27,002
- Reaction score
- 25,560
What the Defense Attorney really feels about their client's innocence is irrelevant as long as they put up their defense in court. The one case in which we've learned that her attorney knew she was Guilty, yet was forced to keep defending her was Jodi Arias. Kirk Nurmi has since revealed that he had a hard time defending her because of that, yet the trial judge insisted that he stay on as counsel.
Cool Cats
I EXPECT DOUGHNUTS
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 12,489
- Reaction score
- 96,500
Death penalty defense lawyer Elisa Massoth said:
Our defense team firmly, and I mean firmly, believes in Mr. Kohberger's innocence.
This is one person loosely attributing a frame of mind onto an entire group of people. I do not believe that 100% of the defense team all think he did not do it.
Elisa Massoth cannot read minds.
She believes in innocence until proven guilty is how it comes across.
2 Cents
Nila Aella
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2022
- Messages
- 1,186
- Reaction score
- 9,790
Agree!
Massoth said "firmly believe", in Court.
AT also said she believed Bryan was innocent in the next hearing.
Two attorneys, both during Court.
That is significant.
That is not just defense attorneys being defense attorneys.
Their reputation and the trust the Court places in them is on the line.
JMO
LinasK
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 27,002
- Reaction score
- 25,560
Mark Geragos proclaimed Scott Peterson "Stone Cold Innocent" in court. Did he really believe it? Prior to him hiring him he espoused the opposite view as a paid talking head legal eagle. Maybe he changed his mind for money. The bottom line is that is doesn't matter what the lawyer believes as long as they do their job.
fcavanaugh
#ShineBrightForSuzanne
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2018
- Messages
- 734
- Reaction score
- 18,201
DBM. Wrong thread.
Not quite. There's an important distinction to be made between suspecting or believing your client to be guilty and knowing so. If you have factual information that places the guilt of your client beyond legal doubt, you are not allowed to mislead the court by asserting their innocence. Even in this scenario, you are still required to represent your client to the best of your ability. If your client continues to protest their innocence despite a growing/persuasive body of evidence to the contrary, you can assert anything you want ("Our defense team firmly, and I mean firmly, believes in Mr. Kohberger's innocence") no matter your private thought or feeling.
The non dissemination order does not allow any attorneys involved in the case to make public statements as to their personal beliefs re BK's guilt or innocence. Technically this doesn't apply within court hearings, so AT and co. have themselves covered there when various of them state (paraphrasing) 'my client is innocent your honour ', 'we firmly believe in our client's innocence your honour' and so forth. Moo
But why do Non Dissemination orders almost always specify that acting attorneys and their staff etc not make such statements? Because of the potential influence that a person of legal authority and erudition can have on the jury pool, creating bias and hence jeopardising a fair trial.
What an irony it is that AT and co. covered this very topic of influence of authority on the formation of bias at the COV hearing the other day. Mind boggling. And look at the effect just on this thread, let alone on other social media where folk are wondering what it means; he must be innocent if she believes it, why would they lie etc! Moo
None of BK's Defense team have any reason ostentiously to declare their personal beliefs on BK's innocence in a hearing before a judge imo. It's not going to influence the way he applies the law and runs the trial. It has zero to do with decisions he needs to make on evidence and official motions. Therefore to what purpose does the Defense find it necessary to repeatedly state in a couple of public hearings ' my client is innocent your honour'?.
It's for public consumption and part of a strategy to get in early to influence the jury pool imo. I have no doubt the judge understands this and is cognisant of the strategy and purpose behind these ' he's innocent your honour' statements.imoo
Can anyone imagine the defense outcry if prosecution was to state in an open pretrial hearing a personal belief that 'BK is guilty your honour. ' Professional attorneys need to do their jobs and fulfill their roles and keep their personal beliefs out of the public realm especially pre trial when there is a non d order in place. Just cos there is a loophole doesn't mean you have to exploit it, but if you do, well I guess good on you for the sneaky strategy!! Moo
My strong presumption is BK has told AT that he is innocent. Either AT, Mammoth and co genuinely believe him or, as I once speculated, they cannot really be so sure but in their commitment to their roles as defenders, like a method actor they suspend true personal beliefs (if actually formed);and adopt the belief that is likely to most benefit their work in defending their client. So for the duration of their work, AT may well have chosen to 'believe' unconditionally if that makes her do a better job.jmo
But personally I don't respect her spouting those beliefs as an authority figure in this case in pre trial public hearings as has the potential to create pre trial bias. And there is no way she is not aware of this. All strictly jmo.
But why do Non Dissemination orders almost always specify that acting attorneys and their staff etc not make such statements? Because of the potential influence that a person of legal authority and erudition can have on the jury pool, creating bias and hence jeopardising a fair trial.
What an irony it is that AT and co. covered this very topic of influence of authority on the formation of bias at the COV hearing the other day. Mind boggling. And look at the effect just on this thread, let alone on other social media where folk are wondering what it means; he must be innocent if she believes it, why would they lie etc! Moo
None of BK's Defense team have any reason ostentiously to declare their personal beliefs on BK's innocence in a hearing before a judge imo. It's not going to influence the way he applies the law and runs the trial. It has zero to do with decisions he needs to make on evidence and official motions. Therefore to what purpose does the Defense find it necessary to repeatedly state in a couple of public hearings ' my client is innocent your honour'?.
It's for public consumption and part of a strategy to get in early to influence the jury pool imo. I have no doubt the judge understands this and is cognisant of the strategy and purpose behind these ' he's innocent your honour' statements.imoo
Can anyone imagine the defense outcry if prosecution was to state in an open pretrial hearing a personal belief that 'BK is guilty your honour. ' Professional attorneys need to do their jobs and fulfill their roles and keep their personal beliefs out of the public realm especially pre trial when there is a non d order in place. Just cos there is a loophole doesn't mean you have to exploit it, but if you do, well I guess good on you for the sneaky strategy!! Moo
My strong presumption is BK has told AT that he is innocent. Either AT, Mammoth and co genuinely believe him or, as I once speculated, they cannot really be so sure but in their commitment to their roles as defenders, like a method actor they suspend true personal beliefs (if actually formed);and adopt the belief that is likely to most benefit their work in defending their client. So for the duration of their work, AT may well have chosen to 'believe' unconditionally if that makes her do a better job.jmo
But personally I don't respect her spouting those beliefs as an authority figure in this case in pre trial public hearings as has the potential to create pre trial bias. And there is no way she is not aware of this. All strictly jmo.
- Status