4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #96
- Thread starter ChatteringBirds
- Start date
Nila Aella
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2022
- Messages
- 1,191
- Reaction score
- 9,850
From reading his order:
Reasons for COV:
Presumed prejudice
Safety
Logistics
JMO
Nila Aella
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2022
- Messages
- 1,191
- Reaction score
- 9,850
I did look at the CD COV. There was a slight delay before a new Judge/district was assigned. Oct 8 (COV) to Oct 20 (Supreme Court Order) in that case.
JMO
Nila Aella
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2022
- Messages
- 1,191
- Reaction score
- 9,850
Edit: added link to cases page
IMO ultimately this is for the best (JJJ gave lots of very good practical reasons in section 2 of his order), but I kinda hope JJJ stays on... I've gotten used to it being him!
I guess it's up to the Idaho Supreme Court now and we'll hopefully find out soon. Boise I guess?
I'm guessing it may be moved to the brand new courthouse being built in Nez Perce if it's completed in time.
A courthouse for the next century
arielilane
Justice for Liz Barraza
arielilane
Justice for Liz Barraza
Imo, you nailed it!
arielilane
Justice for Liz Barraza
May
Judge Judge is off the case, and imo, it is a good thing. No further comment about it. It's an opinion with no further details.
I wonder if it's pro forma in a situation like this when a trial is moved to a new location in Idaho, and if part of the process of turning the case over to the Idaho Supreme Court to determine a new venue also includes the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to select not only the new venue, but also the judge who will preside over the case. If that is part of the process, then presumably the Supreme Court could select Judge Judge to preside over the case in the new venue?
I expected this would have to happen due to the extensive negative media coverage. I also noticed JJJ was not making many decisions over the past few months, when decisions he was being asked to make, seemed rather simple and straightforward but could have later implications for the trial. IMO, JJJ was likely expecting/planning for this as well and didn't want to cause issues for whoever WILL be the judge for this trial.
I do believe, for the residents of Moscow, this is the right decision. The media converging on Moscow and all the people coming in for the trial would have been a complete and utter mess for their small city.
All JMO.
arielilane
Justice for Liz Barraza
Just read the Goncalves' family statement. I stand with the family. I always have and I always will.
They're the voice for their daughter Kaylee. Glad to see how they keep it loud and strong, louder than BK's whimpers.
They are given no choice but to push back.
All my love and support to Kaylee Goncalves’ family. Stay strong. Your love is stronger than evil BK.
They're the voice for their daughter Kaylee. Glad to see how they keep it loud and strong, louder than BK's whimpers.
They are given no choice but to push back.
All my love and support to Kaylee Goncalves’ family. Stay strong. Your love is stronger than evil BK.
arielilane
Justice for Liz Barraza
@BrianEntin
There will also be a new judge assigned in the Bryan Kohberger case.I expected just change of venue.But the ruling indicated a new Judge too.
1:59 PM · Sep 9, 2024
There will also be a new judge assigned in the Bryan Kohberger case.I expected just change of venue.But the ruling indicated a new Judge too.
1:59 PM · Sep 9, 2024
SpiderFalcon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2023
- Messages
- 281
- Reaction score
- 3,006
@Sundog , here is the ICR 21 link, which answers what the Idaho Supreme Court will do, according to the way JJJ wrote the COV:
I.C.R. 21. Transfer for Trial | Supreme Court
JJJ specifically put in his order: https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...r-Granting-Defendants-Motion-Change-Venue.pdf
Which says: (B) if the original judge does not desire to continue the assignment over the case, the judge must enter an order transferring the case without specifying the new place of venue, and then refer the case to the administrative director of the courts for assignment by the Supreme Court to a court of proper venue in another judicial district and assignment of a specific judge to preside in the criminal proceeding.
SpiderFalcon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2023
- Messages
- 281
- Reaction score
- 3,006
@Sundog Your attachment is for a Change of Venue on a CIVIL PROCEDURE.I don't think it is clear that Judge Judge wants to take himself off the case, particularly if he didn't say so in his ruling, but Idaho Statute is somewhat unclear about this -
(2) Venue Changed Pursuant to Subsection (a)(1)(A) or (B). If change of venue is granted pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(A) or (B) to a different judicial district is granted, the court must enter an order changing venue and suggesting a court of proper venue and refer the case to the administrative director of the courts for assignment by the Supreme Court to a court of proper venue and for assignment of a specific judge to preside. If the original judge does not desire to continue the assignment over the case, the judge may so indicate in the order.
BBM
See full Idaho Statute, below, on "Change of Venue".
Published on Supreme Court (https://isc.idaho.gov)
Home > I.R.C.P. 40.1. Change of Venue
I.R.C.P. 40.1. Change of Venue
Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 40.1. Change of Venue.
(a) Motion for Change of Venue. A judge may change venue only upon motion by any party.
(1) Discretionary. A judge may grant a change of venue or change the place of trial to another county as provided by statute or when it appears by affidavit or other satisfactory proof that:
(A) there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had in the county in which the action is filed, or
(B) the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.
(2) Mandatory. The judge must change the venue of a trial when it appears by affidavit or other satisfactory proof that the county designated in the complaint is not the proper county, which motion must be made no later than 14 days after the party files a responsive pleading.
(3) Objection to Change of Venue. Upon a motion for change of venue under subsection (2), the court may consider an objection based upon subsections (1)(A) or (1)(B). The court may deny an otherwise proper motion for change of venue under subsection (2) if it finds that an impartial trial cannot be had in the proper venue or that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by retaining jurisdiction in the county where the action is filed.
(4) Sanctions. When a judge grants a motion for change of venue pursuant to subsection (2), the court may assess sanctions against the party who filed the action or the party’s attorney if the court finds that the action was filed in the improper venue without good cause.
(b) Change of Venue in Same Judicial District. If venue is changed to a court of proper venue within the same judicial district, the judge granting the change of venue must:
(1) order the case transferred to a specific court of proper venue within the judicial district; and
(2) continue the assignment over the case, unless the administrative district judge reassigns the case to another judge of the judicial district.
(c) Change of Venue to a Different Judicial District.
(1) Venue Changed Pursuant to Subsection (a)(2). If change of venue to a different judicial district is granted pursuant to subsection (a)(2) a new presiding judge is assigned as follows:
(A) if the original judge desires to continue the assignment over the case, the judge may so indicate in the order, suggesting a court of proper venue, and refer to the administrative director of the courts for assignment by the Supreme Court to a court of proper venue and for assignment of a specific judge to preside; or
(B) if the original judge does not desire to continue the assignment over the case, the judge must enter an order transferring the case to a proper county and the receiving judicial district must assign a judge pursuant to the assignment procedures of that district.
(2) Venue Changed Pursuant to Subsection (a)(1)(A) or (B). If change of venue is granted pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(A) or (B) to a different judicial district is granted, the court must enter an order changing venue and suggesting a court of proper venue and refer the case to the administrative director of the courts for assignment by the Supreme Court to a court of proper venue and for assignment of a specific judge to preside. If the original judge does not desire to continue the assignment over the case, the judge may so indicate in the order.
(d) Disqualification of Judge on Change of Venue.
(1) Change of Venue Within a Judicial District. If a judge is disqualified from further handling of a proceeding in which a change of venue has been granted to a court of proper venue within the same judicial district, the administrative district judge must reassign the case to another judge of the judicial district.
(2) Change of Venue to a Different Judicial District. If a judge is disqualified from further handling of a proceeding in which a change of venue has been granted to a different judicial district, the administrative district judge of the receiving judicial district must refer the case to the administrative director of the courts for assignment by the Supreme Court to a court of proper venue and assignment of a specific judge.
(Adopted March 1, 2016, effective July 1, 2016; amended September 9, 2016, effective September 9, 2016, amended April 25, 2018, effective July 1, 2018.)
Powered by DrupalP
The Judge, in his COV order, used ICR 21, which is for CRIMINAL CHANGE OF VENUE.
Okay, thanks for the clarification. I'll try to delete my post.
You quoted my post that said:
Is this true though? This keeps getting repeated as fact and then taken and quoted as fact.
The poster said: It is exceedingly troublesome that the prosecution won't turn over the discovery concerning the exact steps it took to retrieve and compare DNA samples.
Is this true? Isn't this poster talking about the match of the DNA on the sheath to the BK? Can anyone provide a link where the defense has said the prosecution won't turn over discovery concerning the exact steps it took to retrieve and compare DNA samples? Genuinely asking--there have been so many motions I may have missed it.
And replied with:
There was an entire hearing about the DNA and basically, at that time, the prosecution wanted nothing about the DNA turned over to the defense because they claimed it was not used to obtain any warrants and they were not going to use the STR or IGG as evidence. The defense brought in Leah Larkin as their DNA witness and she wrote this affidavit.
https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...rkin-Support-Defendants-3rd-Motion-Compel.pdf
What Ms. Larkin had to say in court was very interesting and well worth hearing. You can view video of her testimony on Youtube. After this hearing, JJJ allowed the defense limited access to information about the STR and IGG.
And I replied with:
That hearing was about the IGG. The post you quoted was not referring to the IGG. If you have a link showing the defense says the dna on the sheath is not a match to BK, please post it. There are so many motions and filings, I may have missed it.
I asked for a link showing the defense has challenged the actual dna match on the sheath to BK. You replied with links regarding the challenge to the IGG. So I asked if you had a link to what was being discussed in that exchange--did the defense challenge the actual dna match to BK. This issue keeps popping up in these threads because of the challenge to the IGG, which is completely separate. And then it's quoted and repeated and accepted as fact that there's a problem with the match. It's really important to keep distinguishing between the two.
So I guess we agree that, to our knowledge, the defense has not challenged the dna match on the sheath to BK.
IMO