4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, 2022 #79

[U.N. Known]

I am fascinated by the Court's tactical moves here. Am I right that cancelling the Victims families' hearing for the 25th and setting a scheduling conference effectively freezes all the complaints until after the scheduling conference and the hearing date eventually scheduled at that conference? If the intent was just to hear both complaints at once, why not tell the press and their attorneys to show up on the 25th when the victims do or suffer in silence?

Is the judge effectively thumbing her nose at a party coming before her court? Is it acceptable under the rules for the judge to deliberately delay an action coming before the court? Or does this give the complaining parties the right to go higher? As things stand now, I'm thinking the earliest possible hearing date will be somewhere around June 25th, wink wink.

I have too many dates and details in my head right now.

I thought that the May 25 hearing was moved online to May 22. Is the coalition hearing separate from that one? I do recall that they asked for a stay on the gag order until a decision is made (I had to laugh at that. I'm sure they have headlines and stories ready to push out the moment anyone is able to talk on the record.

 

[NCWatcher]

They can't hold exculpatory evidence or the case could get tossed......Correct?

But often info is held longer than it really should be. It almost seems like it turns into a game..."I wonder how long I can get away with holding this...." And so the defense can be put at a disadvantage. If the game is played skillfully, the case won't get tossed either.
JMO (based on stories from defense attorneys I know)

 

[Sundog]

I think Bryan's attorney AT might be thinking the same. Like:

"What on earth did my client say to police?"

"5 or 15 minutes? Which is it?"

Agree, the defense team needs that information and they should have it by now, it is clearly important for the defense team.

I recall that BK's attorney in PA, LaBar, when asked what BK said to LE upon his arrest before invoking his Miranda rights, Attorney LaBar said that BK told him that he didn't remember what he said. That was over four months ago, so I am surprised that BK's defense team doesn't have it by now. AT and LaBar would have discussed this in January.

 

[PrairieWind]

But often info is held longer than it really should be. It almost seems like it turns into a game..."I wonder how long I can get away with holding this...." And so the defense can be put at a disadvantage. If the game is played skillfully, the case won't get tossed either.
JMO (based on stories from defense attorneys I know)

Sometimes the DA has difficulty getting discovery from the law enforcement agencies. For some reason some agencies are just not good at getting stuff sent to the prosecutor.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

But even if the DA has the info, it isn't discoverable just because the defense asks for it. The prosecutors may be redacting the requested material or drafting an Amended Response explaining why it won't be complying with the request. (To take but one example we have discussed: some items are discoverable ONLY if they are to be used at trial. That decision may not have been made yet.)

Discovery material isn't just photocopied and dropped in the mail. It has to be Bates stamped--a numbering system applied to the pages for future reference--and otherwise prepared before delivery.

No trial attorneys would get any work done if they jumped to comply instantly with every discovery request.

(Yes, I have prepared Responses to Discovery myself even though IANAL.)

If it's info that isn't discoverable, the onus is on the STATE to say so. Sorry, but I don't buy that this is the reason behind their failure to comply. They had adequate time and opportunity to draft an appropriate response explaining why this information isn't being turned over.

MOO.

 

[steeltowngirl]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[steeltowngirl]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[SpiderFalcon]

If it's info that isn't discoverable, the onus is on the STATE to say so. Sorry, but I don't buy that this is the reason behind their failure to comply. They had adequate time and opportunity to draft an appropriate response explaining why this information isn't being turned over.

MOO.

If I'm reading the ICR16 correctly, (IANAL), the onus is only on the prosecution to disclose, without being asked IN WRITING, any exculpatory material. Maybe they don't have any?

 

[Sundog]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

From the article -

"Massoth joins Kohberger's defense shortly after Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson called in backup from the Idaho Attorney General's Office, bringing in two high-powered assistant attorney generals from Boise."

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

If I'm reading the ICR16 correctly, (IANAL), the onus is only on the prosecution to disclose, without being asked IN WRITING, any exculpatory material. Maybe they don't have any?

View attachment 421252

Whether it's exculpatory or not, the defense asked the prosecution for this information twice. If the prosecution has the information (again, whether it's exculpatory or not), they need to turn it over as required by law. If they don't have the information, then they can easily say so. But just not provide it is playing games.

MOO.

 

[Sundog]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

This is the "America's Most Wanted" case that the media are referring to -

Home | National Registry of Exonerations

www.law.umich.edu

 

[SpiderFalcon]

Whether it's exculpatory or not, the defense asked the prosecution for this information twice. If the prosecution has the information (again, whether it's exculpatory or not), they need to turn it over as required by law. If they don't have the information, then they can easily say so. But just not provide it is playing games.

MOO.

And twice, the prosecution has responded:

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/032923%20States%20Response%20to%20Defendants%20Second%20Supp%20Request%20for%20Discovery.pdf

If they don't have it, they don't have it.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

And twice, the prosecution has responded:

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/032923%20States%20Response%20to%20Defendants%20Second%20Supp%20Request%20for%20Discovery.pdf

If they don't have it, they don't have it.



View attachment 421255

The prosecution never said they didn't have it. <modsnip>

 

[arielilane]

The University of Idaho is awarding posthumous degrees and certificates for the slain victims during the May 13 Commencement Ceremonies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[10ofRods]

I saw police giving a lesser ticket as a courtesy warning to an out of state driver new to WA traffic laws.

Oh, I agree that is what happened. I just think that if every traffic cop in Pullman took this amount of time educating an out-of-state person, that would be so different to what I've seen in every place I've lived.

I hope that this same police person gives the same lessons to all the people she stops.

 

[SpiderFalcon]

The prosecution never said they didn't have it. <modsnip>

<modsnip: Quoted post was modsnipped> This is what the prosecution said, via a court document:

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/012323%20States%20Response%20to%20Request%20for%20Discovery.pdf

TWICE.

 

[arielilane]

New attorney joins Moscow murder suspect's defense team

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

New attorney joins Moscow murder suspect's defense team

Elisa Massoth, a capital-qualified attorney, has been added as co-counsel for Bryan Kohberger, the man accused of murdering four University of Idaho students.

www.ktvb.com

Elisa Massoth, a capital-qualified attorney, has been added as co-counsel for Bryan Kohberger, the man accused of murdering four University of Idaho students.

MOSCOW, Idaho — An attorney in Payette, Idaho has joined the defense team of the Moscow murder suspect Bryan Kohberger, according to new court documents.
As of May 8, Elisa G. Massoth, a capital-qualified criminal attorney, has been added as co-counsel for Kohberger, the man accused of murdering four University of Idaho students last November.

According to her website, Massoth is qualified to defend clients charged with the death penalty. She is Idaho's Criminal Justice Panel representative and the former president of the Idaho Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Before her time as president, she spent 11 years on the board of directors.
Massoth joins Anne Taylor, a public defender from Kootenai County, as part of Kohberger's defense team. Taylor was appointed to represent Kohberger shortly after he was extradited to Idaho from Pennsylvania.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

<modsnip: Quoted post was modsnipped> This is what the prosecution said, via a court document:

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/012323%20States%20Response%20to%20Request%20for%20Discovery.pdf

TWICE.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. Until the state says, in so many words, that they don't have it (which they didn't do in the above link, IMO), I find it unbelievable they don't have Moscow PD notes, for example. I can buy they don't have all the car data back, but there are some things they should have had long before now. So I just don't buy it. MOO.

 

[Sundog]

Given her expertise on eyewitness testimony, I assume that the new attorney, EM, who is now on BK's defense team, will be very interested in DM's description of the person she saw the morning of the murders, and all the details of the physical state, etc. of DM that morning and the night before.

In her appeal regarding the America's Most Wanted Case she represented, nothing was spared in relation to the eyewitness/victim, and also how LE handled the video lineup, etc. The details are described at the link below.

The conviction was overturned on appeal, and the prosecution decided not to hold a new trial. Hard to imagine that this vicious criminal went free.

Home | National Registry of Exonerations

www.law.umich.edu

 

[Sundog]

Issues regarding eyewitness testimony in famous case represented on appeal by Elisa Massoth, new attorney on BK's defense team -

Mammoth identified several problems that undercut the validity of the identification process. The attack had occurred nearly two years earlier, and LeBrane had suffered traumatic head injury. In addition, she said she had smoked two marijuana joints on the night of the crime, and at some point during the attack, she lost her glasses, which greatly impaired her vision. LeBrane said that although it was dark, her interior dome light was on for a brief part of the attack, and that her attacker’s face was at times within three inches of her own. LeBrane had described that assailant, the one who drove her car and later stabbed her, as most likely Hispanic or Native American, very tall and thin, and with long, greasy hair. She said he lacked facial hair, but his face appeared to have a bad rash. In addition, she said her attacker spoke English.

In the aftermath of the attack, while recovering at her home in Washington, LeBrane had viewed three separate photo lineups administered by a police officer in Port Townsend. Wurdemann was in none of these, but each time LeBrane picked a different man – none who was a plausible suspect – as her assailant. After John Wurdemann became a suspect, LeBrane asked investigators to conduct a video lineup, so that she could get a better sense of movement and voice. Wurdemann was one of six men in that lineup, but he was the only one who resembled LeBrane’s basic description of this assailant.

Daniel Reisberg, a behavioral psychologist from Reed College in Portland, Oregon, who has studied eyewitness memory, testified at the evidentiary hearing on March 5, 2015. “In this setting, in which there really was only one realistic option,” he explained, “the police had artificially made this a very easy choice. Therefore, essentially, guaranteeing that they were going to inflate witness confidence. And so, this lineup has -- I mean, almost everything that could go wrong did go wrong.”



Source - John Wurdemann - National Registry of Exonerations