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

[wary]

I think it’s from the date charges are filed. JMO

Section 19-3501 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

View attachment 423201

I didn’t read it all, and I’m not a lawyer, but does this, (from the link,) apply?

“When action may be dismissed…”

“(3) If a defendant, whose trial has not been postponed upon his application, is not brought to trial within six (6) months from the date that the defendant was arraigned before the court in which the indictment is found.”

So, his trial was not postponed; his preliminary hearing was postponed. That looks to me as though the clock starts ticking on Monday.

MOO

PS I suspect that it’s a moot point, and that the trial will be postponed anyway—I hope we’ll see it some time in 2024.

 

[Cool Cats]

Grounds for Motion to Dismiss Indictment in ID???

Could BK's def. team gain traction on any of the four following grounds?

"Idaho Criminal Rule 6.6." (in its entirety)
"Grounds for Motion to Dismiss Indictment"
"A motion to dismiss the indictment may be granted by the district court on any of the following grounds:
• a valid challenge to the array of grand jurors;
• a valid challenge to an individual juror who served on the grand jury that found the indictment, except that finding of the valid challenge to one or more members of the grand jury is not grounds for dismissal of the indictment if there were 12 or more qualified jurors concurring in the finding of the indictment;
• that the charge in the indictment was previously submitted to a magistrate at preliminary hearing and dismissed for lack of probable cause; or
• that the indictment was not properly found, endorsed and presented as required by these rules or by the statutes of the state of Idaho."

Effective 2017. I.C.R. 6.6. Grounds for Motion to Dismiss Indictment | Supreme Court

=======================================
RE #1 & #2.
IIRC, @10ofRods post, re Section 2-212 of Idaho Code (https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/statutesrules/idstat/Title2/T2CH2.pdf)
discusses irregularities in selection of jurors (basically failure to comply w statute) for which the judge may stay proceedings, and quash the indictment, or grant other relief.
@10ofRods, pls correct any ^misstatement or misunderstanding^ re your post. TiA.

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

Not sure, honestly. I haven't followed the Daybell-Vallow case very closely, which is the only other murder case in Idaho that could provide an example of judge selection. Perhaps Judge John Judge is just presiding over the arraignment, or presided over the GJ and so is signing off on the court...

www.websleuths.com

=================================================
Which, if any of the reasons in 4 ^bullets?

IIUC, we/gen.pub/websleuthers have no info re possible irregularities, so no reason, ATM, to think def. team has basis for #1 or #2 challenge to indictment.

#3 could be grounds for dismissing indictment, only if the charge(s) had been submitted at to magistrate at PH & dismissed for lack of PC. So nope, not #3.

So, what about bullet #4?

NO

Watch them go all out to get the DNA ruled inadmissible. Trying to get evidence tossed out is all they can do, that and trying to discredit expert witnesses by calling their own expert witnesses. And they will try to throw out the DP on grounds of being cruel and unusual and illegal in most countries, a standard Motion can't remember how it's worded, but they will fight against it.

 

[arielilane]

“If this individual is the right one, then he picked the wrong family.” Friday at 9/8c on an all-new #Dateline.

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

https://twitter.com/DatelineNBC

 

[10ofRods]

Grounds for Motion to Dismiss Indictment in ID???

Could BK's def. team gain traction on any of the four following grounds?

"Idaho Criminal Rule 6.6." (in its entirety)
"Grounds for Motion to Dismiss Indictment"
"A motion to dismiss the indictment may be granted by the district court on any of the following grounds:
• a valid challenge to the array of grand jurors;
• a valid challenge to an individual juror who served on the grand jury that found the indictment, except that finding of the valid challenge to one or more members of the grand jury is not grounds for dismissal of the indictment if there were 12 or more qualified jurors concurring in the finding of the indictment;
• that the charge in the indictment was previously submitted to a magistrate at preliminary hearing and dismissed for lack of probable cause; or
• that the indictment was not properly found, endorsed and presented as required by these rules or by the statutes of the state of Idaho."

Effective 2017. I.C.R. 6.6. Grounds for Motion to Dismiss Indictment | Supreme Court

=======================================
RE #1 & #2.
IIRC, @10ofRods post, re Section 2-212 of Idaho Code (https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/statutesrules/idstat/Title2/T2CH2.pdf)
discusses irregularities in selection of jurors (basically failure to comply w statute) for which the judge may stay proceedings, and quash the indictment, or grant other relief.
@10ofRods, pls correct any ^misstatement or misunderstanding^ re your post. TiA.

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

Not sure, honestly. I haven't followed the Daybell-Vallow case very closely, which is the only other murder case in Idaho that could provide an example of judge selection. Perhaps Judge John Judge is just presiding over the arraignment, or presided over the GJ and so is signing off on the court...

www.websleuths.com

=================================================
Which, if any of the reasons in 4 ^bullets?

IIUC, we/gen.pub/websleuthers have no info re possible irregularities, so no reason, ATM, to think def. team has basis for #1 or #2 challenge to indictment.

#3 could be grounds for dismissing indictment, only if the charge(s) had been submitted at to magistrate at PH & dismissed for lack of PC. So nope, not #3.

So, what about bullet #4?

You have it right, as usual. All I did was find the statute. This gives me a lot to think about.

I do think (and could be wrong) that if anything happens to quash the GJ indictment (which I strongly doubt), a PH can still be had, if I am understanding properly.

 

[10ofRods]

No one can waive their right to a speedy trial BEFORE they are even indicted and BEFORE they even get to make a plea in their arraignment. A trial can't even be scheduled until then.

Utter nonsense. He hasn't even had his arraignment yet.

BK simply waived his right to having his probable cause hearing in 14 days. Media is wrong.

No one knows if he will waive his speedy trial rights or not. If I was innocent I would not waive mine and sit for years in jail.

Do you have a citation in Idaho law for that? Truly curious.

I am going to be very disappointed in all the MSM sources here, if that's not what happened. I do believe he waived it - but I'm following WS rules about MSM.

So I need a source. You're usually onto something.

 

[10ofRods]

I believe he waived his right to preliminary hearing within 14 days. Someone can check the docket. A waiver of speedy trial has to be in writing.

It looks to be sealed, but I'm going by the Case Summary. I don't know how to check the docket from the past.

IMO.

 

[10ofRods]

I think it’s from the date charges are filed. JMO

Section 19-3501 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

View attachment 423201

I think so too and, more than that, it seems to be in keeping with how the State is behaving/filing.

I find it hard to believe that local sources, including in Boise, got it entirely wrong.

IMO>

 

[arielilane]

The question everyone is asking: Why would anyone want to murder four innocent souls?
@Dateline_Keith with exclusive new details Friday at 9/8c on an all-new #Dateline.

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

https://twitter.com/DatelineNBC

 

[arielilane]

How can Kohberger's defense in Idaho search 51 terabytes of data?

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

https://twitter.com/NewsNation

 

[katydid23]

That seems weird. Who would be threatening or intimidating these potential witnesses? Its not like BK is part of a local gang. or are they being intimidated about something else? Very strange and sad. When cases are heavily publicized like this one, you always get some weirdos coming out of the woodwork. But these must be threats that more than just that.

The way I am reading it, the threats are possibly coming from some of the true crime you-tuber fans, who are convinced that DM and BF and others are the suspicious parties here. There are a lot of intense people who loudly proclaim such theories.

They rope in locals that were seen in various videos, like the noise complaint police cams, and the final videos of MM and KG, walking to the food truck, etc. Anyone and everyone they are seen speakinbg to or not speaking to are included in these speculative scenarios.

 

[maconrich]

Do you have a citation in Idaho law for that? Truly curious.

I am going to be very disappointed in all the MSM sources here, if that's not what happened. I do believe he waived it - but I'm following WS rules about MSM.

So I need a source. You're usually onto something.

I'm not sure what you're looking for - if you're wanting to see / hear that BK waived his right to a speedy PH, here's the link.
If you're looking for him waiving his right to a speedy trial, I've not seen anything that says that.

Bryan Kohberger status hearing in Idaho court [1/12/23]

Bryan Kohberger appeared in Latah County court on Thursday. Bryan Kohberger waived his right to a speedy preliminary. That hearing is scheduled for June 26, 2023.

www.wnep.com

 

[10ofRods]

I believe he waived his right to preliminary hearing within 14 days. Someone can check the docket. A waiver of speedy trial has to be in writing.

Is there something in the MSM reporting that makes you think it wasn't in writing?

He hasn't been arraigned, which I understand to be a separate issue. Yet, he's in jail.

Can you help us understand how a person can be reported to have waived their right to a speedy trial in Idaho, is currently held (apparently without bail)?

I believe that he had to waive his right to a speedy trial, under Idaho law, when he waived his right to the PH within 14 days. I doubt that any state has an option to first waive a right to a speedy PH (but not a speedy trial) but I am intensely interested if it's possible that's the case.

Of course, Idaho law is paramount here. At any rate, given that he had the means to postpone his PH, it seems Idaho (the State) has decided to pull out the GJ card. If he only waived his right to a prelim (rather than the whole trial) I would like to see MSM or other approved source on that. F

TIA.

IMO.

Not trying to argue - these issues are difficult to decode, jmo.

 

[10ofRods]

I'm not sure what you're looking for - if you're wanting to see / hear that BK waived his right to a speedy PH, here's the link.
If you're looking for him waiving his right to a speedy trial, I've not seen anything that says that.

Bryan Kohberger status hearing in Idaho court [1/12/23]

Bryan Kohberger appeared in Latah County court on Thursday. Bryan Kohberger waived his right to a speedy preliminary. That hearing is scheduled for June 26, 2023.

www.wnep.com

I just posted 4 or more WS approved links on that matter and I assume no one wants me to post them again. It's on this thread.

So you're saying that MSM had it totally wrong?

Could be. Do you have a source for that?

 

[maconrich]

I just posted 4 or more WS approved links on that matter and I assume no one wants me to post them again. It's on this thread.

So you're saying that MSM had it totally wrong?

Could be. Do you have a source for that?

I saw the posts. But I'm not convinced. The hearing in Jan is, IMHO, solid. Plus if he more recently waived his right to a speedy trial, wouldn't that be covered under the gag order?
Edited to add: the msm articles all show the Jan date -- they got it wrong. Please listen to the actual video recording from the hearing. They clearly say PH several times. Then never mention a speedy trial.
Edited again to add that I'm not saying you are wrong. But I am saying the articles got it wrong.

 

[10ofRods]

I saw the posts. But I'm not convinced. The hearing in Jan is, IMHO, solid. Plus if he more recently waived his right to a speedy trial, wouldn't that be covered under the gag order?
Edited to add: the three msm articles all show the Jan date -- they got it wrong. Please listen to the actual video recording from the hearing. They clearly say PH several times. Then never mention a speedy trial.

Why does he need to do it "more recently"?

You seem to be saying that he waived, first, his right to a PH (but I see no separate ID statute on that - would love if someone could provide it, maybe @Alpine has a record?

You're claiming that MSM got it totally wrong (and since then, yes, the original documents are sealed, AFAIK).

i think the only way (in Idaho and many other places) to waive a speedy prelim is to waive a speedy trial. But if you have statutes that say otherwise, please advise.

In many states, waiving the right to a speedy PH is the same as waiving the right to a speedy trial. From what I can see in ID statutes, there's only one fork in the road: one either proceeds with the speedy PH/Trial or not. I would like to see something to the contrary.

Otherwise, I'll agree with you. MSM is wrong; no one knows ID law sufficiently and BK gets a second chance to now either waive or not waive his right to a speedy trial. Here's my conclusion:

1) If he did not waive his right to a speedy trial, maybe he ought to have his lawyers do that now - because Idaho is closing in on him and wants the trial to go ahead, because he has not asserted his right otherwise. The GJ might then have been convened in order to get him what he wants: a speedy trial.

Great. Then both BK and Idaho agree he should be tried ASAP. Is that how you're reading the Defense's strategy and motions?'

Not directed at you, but does anyone have any MSM or any other citation that states that, in Idaho, one can ask to have the prelim delayed without waiving their right to a speedy trial? From my perspective, that seems like a recipe for chaos and of all the states I've looked at, Idaho seems quite...conservative and prim.

At any rate, if anyone has a citation outside MSM that indicates that Idaho has separate statutes regarding PH timing (it is the first step toward trial), please advise.

Because we've wasted pages and pages of WS posts on the view that he did indeed (according to MSM) waive his right to a speedy trial. If there's any evidence that he did otherwise, then I need to rethink everything (and that has to be outside the rules of WS) and I find that bizarre.

Where I live, one has to have a PH within X amount of time (21 days, I think). Waiving that is exactly and legally the same as waiving the right to a speedy trial, because it's the first legal step.


I now await someone posting statutes from ID that say differently (and knowing WSers, if such statute exists it will be found).

IMO.

 

[10ofRods]

I saw the posts. But I'm not convinced. The hearing in Jan is, IMHO, solid. Plus if he more recently waived his right to a speedy trial, wouldn't that be covered under the gag order?
Edited to add: the msm articles all show the Jan date -- they got it wrong. Please listen to the actual video recording from the hearing. They clearly say PH several times. Then never mention a speedy trial.
Edited again to add that I'm not saying you are wrong. But I am saying the articles got it wrong.

'Addition: I don't think anyone gets two chances to waive their right to a speedy trial in the US.

Please advise if you have citations, otherwise.

IMO.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

I think it’s from the date charges are filed. JMO

Section 19-3501 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

View attachment 423201

Thank you, @Cindizzi , for posting those specifics here.

I am with you on this, and just IMO:

When BK waived his right to a "speedy trial" back in January 2023 when he was arrested and his first hearing occurred upon his arrest for the 5 felony charges, that was when the clock started ticking, even though what could be next for him as accused on 5 felony counts was uncertain.

E.g., the PH (which has now been superseded by the GJ indictment), which is a precursor to either that can bring a person to trial (a PH or in this case a Grand Jury Indictment), and then a subsequent trial in front of a jury of his peers, it doesn't matter how he/they got there, and regardless of which comes first before his potential trial, he waived his right to a speedy trial, of any kind.

I could be wrong (ICBW), maybe legal experts will weigh in, although I continually find what the layperson thinks is the "take home" is what it is, we can all read the Idaho Criminal Rules, afterall.

Please feel free to prove this wrong with cite and verse in Idaho law. I've looked through most of it, and it's not super clear. so this ^^^^ is my opinion only

MOO

 

[Nova]

It was a strategic move by the State to ensure he goes to trial as GJ are usually more favorable to the Prosecution. No guessing what a Judge might rule.They also don't have to allow the Defense to learn every minuscule detail of their case, nor do their witnesses need to testify before trial. Of course the Defense will know what the State has through the Discovery Process.

I think they might have gone the GJ route in the very beginning, but they didn't have enough of the evidence back from testing, warrants, subpoenas, etc. and they may have even thought he was a flight risk or a danger back in December.

BK's waiving his right to a speedy trial gave them time to get enough of the results of the evidence back and present to a GJ. I think we will be surprised at how very much they do indeed have against BK.

MOO

Thank you for that very cogent explanation!

But it's a scary thought that the DA feared it couldn't get past a PH that would still be over a month away. That doesn't scream "very much" evidence to me...

 

[Boxer]

Thank you for that very cogent explanation!

But it's a scary thought that the DA feared it couldn't get past a PH that would still be over a month away. That doesn't scream "very much" evidence to me...

MOO IMO more that the defense was seeking to go after (and for their benefit re-traumatize) survivor- witnesses.

 

[Boxer]

MOO Grand Juries are guaranteed in the US constitution, PHs are not.