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

[Warwick7]

Then why enter in disguise, late at night with a very deadly knife? Not a Swiss pocket knife, not a short every day keep in your pocket kind of knife, but a knife almost 12 inches in overall length with a blade over 6 inches?

MOO

Exactly!

 

[Warwick7]

Also he wasn't to know how many Ring Doorbells or Nest cameras or gate / garage / fence perimeter security cameras he was hitting, as well as car dashcams or vehicle motion sensored security cameras. Had he really scrutinised the frontage of every single home and checked every single vehicle? Of course not. So he was doing something very high risk and seemingly reckless. Unless he never intended to kill anyone that night and something unfolded.

JMO MOO

BBM
Moo narcissistic people, like KB, are reckless because they have no empathy and have no fear.

 

[maskedwoman]

I'm struggling to come up with a scenario where it really matters to the case if BK's blood is on his own mattress. I'm also struggling to imagine a scenario where someone cuts themselves shaving, runs over to their bed and just bleeds onto their mattress, but that's more due to it being gross than whether it's impactful for the case. Nor do I recall ever seeing anyone not using a straight razor cut themselves shaving seriously enough for it to produce a substantial stain on a mattress. Can't really imaging him using one of those either.

I don't see AT worrying about the blood on his mattress until the DA tries to claim he was injured during the attack. But, I don't see how they can prove that, unless a witness can testify that they saw him injured before he left. Am I missing something?

4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, 2022 #78

Not the being thorough part, the lack of any evidentiary return on all the testing they did, IMO. I edited my post to delete that last part about how it made LE look. Not the being thorough part, the lack of any evidentiary return on all the testing they did, IMO. I edited my post to delete...

www.websleuths.com

 

[SpiderFalcon]

I'm struggling to come up with a scenario where it really matters to the case if BK's blood is on his own mattress. I'm also struggling to imagine a scenario where someone cuts themselves shaving, runs over to their bed and just bleeds onto their mattress, but that's more due to it being gross than whether it's impactful for the case. Nor do I recall ever seeing anyone not using a straight razor cut themselves shaving seriously enough for it to produce a substantial stain on a mattress. Can't really imaging him using one of those either.

I don't see AT worrying about the blood on his mattress until the DA tries to claim he was injured during the attack. But, I don't see how they can prove that, unless a witness can testify that they saw him injured before he left. Am I missing something?

4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, 2022 #78

Not the being thorough part, the lack of any evidentiary return on all the testing they did, IMO. I edited my post to delete that last part about how it made LE look. Not the being thorough part, the lack of any evidentiary return on all the testing they did, IMO. I edited my post to delete...

www.websleuths.com

It might only matter if he "bled" at the scene. If they find his actual blood in the house with the victims.

 

[U.N. Known]

Just tossing this out there: Since the analysts couldn't get a good enough image to even guess at the license plate, it's also possible that, despite their cool tools, they couldn't make out enough detail about the car to be dead certain whether it was a 2015 or 2016. MOOooo

4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, 2022 #78

RBBM: Ah, so maybe his lawyer when in PA (forgotten his name) was present during that interview do you think? MOO Yes, I think this is referring to at the time of his arrest when J. Labar was representing him. MOO...

www.websleuths.com

I think it's a good toss.
The PCA is written to connect the lack of a front plate to show that the car belongs to someone from a state that does not require one (i.e, BK). However, it is just as plausible that the front plate was removed and/or that there were no plates on the white Elantra seen near King Road the night of the murders.

I'm struggling to come up with a scenario where it really matters to the case if BK's blood is on his own mattress. I'm also struggling to imagine a scenario where someone cuts themselves shaving, runs over to their bed and just bleeds onto their mattress, but that's more due to it being gross than whether it's impactful for the case. Nor do I recall ever seeing anyone not using a straight razor cut themselves shaving seriously enough for it to produce a substantial stain on a mattress. Can't really imaging him using one of those either.

I don't see AT worrying about the blood on his mattress until the DA tries to claim he was injured during the attack. But, I don't see how they can prove that, unless a witness can testify that they saw him injured before he left. Am I missing something?

4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, 2022 #78

Not the being thorough part, the lack of any evidentiary return on all the testing they did, IMO. I edited my post to delete that last part about how it made LE look. Not the being thorough part, the lack of any evidentiary return on all the testing they did, IMO. I edited my post to delete...

www.websleuths.com

Right. If the only blood they found in the apartment is his, I cannot imagine the prosecution attempting to use that as proof of murder.

I understand why LE was compelled to search their main (only?) suspect's apartment. I'm struggling to understand why anyone believes that even if BK is the killer, that he left King Road a bloody mess, drove around for some time and still had wet blood from the victims on himself when he returned home. Not only that, but that he then got into his bed, got the victim's blood on his pillow case and left it there for six weeks. And also believe that he tossed his shower curtain because it had blood from the crime scene.

Am I missing something?

 

[NCWatcher]

I'm struggling to come up with a scenario where it really matters to the case if BK's blood is on his own mattress. I'm also struggling to imagine a scenario where someone cuts themselves shaving, runs over to their bed and just bleeds onto their mattress, but that's more due to it being gross than whether it's impactful for the case. Nor do I recall ever seeing anyone not using a straight razor cut themselves shaving seriously enough for it to produce a substantial stain on a mattress. Can't really imaging him using one of those either.

I don't see AT worrying about the blood on his mattress until the DA tries to claim he was injured during the attack. But, I don't see how they can prove that, unless a witness can testify that they saw him injured before he left. Am I missing something?

4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, 2022 #78

Not the being thorough part, the lack of any evidentiary return on all the testing they did, IMO. I edited my post to delete that last part about how it made LE look. Not the being thorough part, the lack of any evidentiary return on all the testing they did, IMO. I edited my post to delete...

www.websleuths.com

I don't see why BK's own blood on a pillow or mattress pad at his home would matter either (assuming the bedding blood is his.) I'm also not sure that either bedding stain is "substantial." The mattress pad blood is described as a "brown irregular drip," for example.

IF it happened (and it hasn't so far or if it has, we don't know it) I do not think finding BK's blood at the scene of the murders would make blood on his bedding more important. Certainly his blood at the murder scene would be a huge deal by itself. But I don't see why anyone would then care if he might have then continued to bleed on his bedding at home later on. That would be irrelevant as it would be just as likely he could have bled on the bedding at another time for reasons unconnected with the crime. The relevant fact would be his blood at the scene.
JMO

 

[maskedwoman]

True, but don't you think that if they found that kind of evidence, they'd have removed some of it? And yet, it's not on the list of what's taken.

Editing to add: if there were evidence of massive chemical clean-up in the apartment, I would expect to see things like carpet samples removed, maybe some sheetrock sections, some cleaning supplies, etc. IIRC, we saw none of that, so while we don't know what LE found, we do know what they took. Pretty clearly. And WA is especially tricky with these things. For example, LE got that phone warrant for the storage unit even though the door was open and they had the key (right thing to do, but doesn't always happen).

I agree. If he was bloody enough for his apartment to require a major cleanup, I would have expected his car to be a horror show before cleaning. Since they majorly broke down his car, I'm hopeful they at least found smear evidence of a blood clean up in the car.

ETA to correct bad typo

 

[U.N. Known]

Question: Since the last document dump, I've seen a few posts asking about Sgt Blaker's interrogation of BK. Where in the documents does it indicate that he was one of the interrogators? I looked, but could not find his name mentioned anywhere. What have I missed?

EDIT: I meant Payne, though I didn't see that either (obviously). My follow up is below with responses, thank you.

 

[maconrich]

Question: Since the last document dump, I've seen a few posts asking about Sgt Blaker's interrogation of BK. Where in the documents does it indicate that he was one of the interrogators? I looked, but could not find his name mentioned anywhere. What have I missed?

The article linked below discusses Sgt Blaker but nothing about him interviewing BK. Apparently Det Payne did interrogate him though. Not sure if I missed something about Sgt Blaker. Attaching the bit about Det Payne.

Link to news article about Sgt Blaker:

Unsealed court documents reveal details of search warrant request, findings

And Det Payne:

 

[Nila Aella]

Question: Since the last document dump, I've seen a few posts asking about Sgt Blaker's interrogation of BK. Where in the documents does it indicate that he was one of the interrogators? I looked, but could not find his name mentioned anywhere. What have I missed?

Det Payne? (I haven't seen Blaker mentioned?)

From the motion to compel:

3. Mr. Kohberger requests an Order for the State to disclose the following items included in the Defendant’s I“ Supplemental Requestfor Discovery:

Request No. 119 All notes recordings from all Officers from Moscow Police Department

As of May 4, 2023 Counsel for Mr. Kohberger has not received recordings and notes from the interrogation of Mr. Kohberger by MPD Detective Payne.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/050423%20Motion%20to%20Compel%20Discovery.pdf

 

[Deleted member 39678]

MOO I think you are mistaken, it is not okay if the light turns red. It's only okay if you wait in the intersection and make it through before the light changes. If you blocked the intersection no matter how briefly, you violated the right of way of the vehicles that had a green light. This causes gridlock.
That is why BK got pulled over, he was blocking the intersection and vehicles that had a green light could not go until he could finish making his turn. It's a terrible problem in CA. Having sat thru multiple lights in the Bay Area, unable to go on a green light, this causes a lot of stress and road-rage.

In addition to the so-called anti-gridlock law, some cities prohibit entering an intersection to wait, even if you think you will clear before the light turns red.

Know the Road with the CHP: Do you legally have to keep the road clear for cross traffic?

If you're driving on a busy surface street, do you legally have to keep intersections clear for cross traffic? What about driveways?

abc30.com

"The Vehicle Code actually addresses this situation," said Sgt. Brian Pennings with the California Highway Patrol. "It says that you shall pull forward into the intersection when the light turns green, at which time you need to yield to oncoming traffic that's close enough to constitute an immediate hazard."

"Once the roadway is clear from traffic and pedestrians, at which time you may safely make your left turn. If you're in a situation where you're sitting in the middle of the intersection, waiting for traffic to clear and the light turns red. You're still okay," he said.

Know the Road with the CHP: Do I enter the intersection while making a left turn and waiting for traffic?

An ABC30 viewer wanted to know: if I have a green circular light and am turning left at an intersection but am waiting on traffic, do I enter the intersection or wait behind the line?

abc30.com

 

[U.N. Known]

The article linked below discusses Sgt Blaker but nothing about him interviewing BK. Apparently Det Payne did interrogate him though. Not sure if I missed something about Sgt Blaker. Attaching the bit about Det Payne.

Link to news article about Sgt Blaker:

Unsealed court documents reveal details of search warrant request, findings

And Det Payne:

Yes, Det. Payne is the correct person. I edited my original post. Thank you.

Det Payne? (I haven't seen Blaker mentioned?)

From the motion to compel:

3. Mr. Kohberger requests an Order for the State to disclose the following items included in the Defendant’s I“ Supplemental Requestfor Discovery:

Request No. 119 All notes recordings from all Officers from Moscow Police Department

As of May 4, 2023 Counsel for Mr. Kohberger has not received recordings and notes from the interrogation of Mr. Kohberger by MPD Detective Payne.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/050423%20Motion%20to%20Compel%20Discovery.pdf

Yep, it was Payne. Thanks for including the above. I've read, well apparently skimmed! that motion more than once and missed that.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

I agree. If he was bloody enough for his apartment to require a major cleanup, I would have expected his car to be a horror show before cleaning. Since they majorly broke down his car, I'm hopeful they at least found smear evidence of a blood clean up in the car.

ETA to correct bad typo

Apparently, the defense doesn't have the information about the car, either.

Request No. 49 — All lab testing, including photographs and color diagrams and bench notes including, but not limited to:

1. Copies of lab reports detailing the forensic evidence collection and
analysis of items recovered at Bryan Kohberger’s parents’ home,
trash cans and other receptacles, and Bryan Kohberger’s Hyundai
Elantra.

What I wonder is why, if the car contained a lot of the victims' DNA, this has not been shared with the defense yet? The car was seized end of December, so seems like test results would be available.

 

[SpiderFalcon]

Apparently, the defense doesn't have the information about the car, either.

Request No. 49 — All lab testing, including photographs and color diagrams and bench notes including, but not limited to:

1. Copies of lab reports detailing the forensic evidence collection and
analysis of items recovered at Bryan Kohberger’s parents’ home,
trash cans and other receptacles, and Bryan Kohberger’s Hyundai
Elantra.

What I wonder is why, if the car contained a lot of the victims' DNA, this has not been shared with the defense yet? The car was seized end of December, so seems like test results would be available.

If the FBI is doing any of the testing, it's going to take A LOT longer. I don't think even the prosecution has this yet, IMO.

 

[jepop]

I wonder how any of this applies to WHY the prosecution hasn't provided these items:
View attachment 420408

This is from: I.C.R. 16. Discovery and Inspection | Supreme Court

Thanks for raising. This is of interest to me too. It may be nothing, but am curious as to why the State's responses to both of the Defense's Supplemental requests referred back to their (the State's) first response of January 23. The State's January 23 Response to Discovery included this at point 11:

"11. The State objects to requests by the Defendant for anything not otherwise addressed
above on the grounds that such requests are outside the scope of I.C.R. 16 and/or are not subject to disclosure under ICR 16(g) (work product and informants)"

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

I think, from what SGH suggests in several posts, most of what was requested by the Defense in it's first Request and Supps Requests x2 was handed over, but as pointed out, the six items listed in the Defense's motion to compell obviously have not.

Just some thoughts, and many, many questions:

Maybe the ID prosecution doesn't have possession of these yet, as all of these were in PA: ETA, and also FBI:
View attachment 420409View attachment 420410
View attachment 420412

Ditto: Just some thoughts and questions.

The FBI was working alongside PA police during the arrest and search of the PA residence and the Elantra. MOO. Would the Elantra still be in PA? Would PA have some of the incarceration records being sought here? What's the FBI's role?

Re the x2 possible exculpatory items/info referred to in defenses motion to compell, the below caught my eye in State's January 23 Response to Discovery. Perhaps other posters might have some thoughts? I know the State has already lodged one Doc with the Court re Brady/Giglio (sp?) material, but could point Nine (9) of January 23 Response have any bearing on the relevant items listed on Defenses Motion to compel?
Emphasis mine.

"9. All material or information within the prosecuting attorney's possession or control
which tends to negate the guilt of the accused as to the offense charged or which would tend to reduce the punishment therefore have been or will be disclosed or otherwise made available. See Exhibit "A." In addition, with regard to material or information which may be exculpatory as used or interpreted, the State requests that the defendant inform the State, in writing, of the defense which will be asserted in this case, so counsel for the State can determine if any additional material or information may be material to the defense, and thus fulfill its duty under I.C.R. 16(a) and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)."

Anyone have any thoughts? I don't really know how to interpret the bit I emphasised or if it could even have any relevance at all.

MOO

 

[al66pine]

Where Was BK Stopped?

Respectfully, I'm wondering about the CA. or "my state" traffic law discussion, as if they applied to WSU Police Officer Isobel Luengas' stop for running a red light, presumably in violation of Washington state statute.* A quibble? Me? Okay, GBARD.

And yes, BK's quibbling w LEO shows something of his personality, but personally I'm not assigning deep psychological significance to their convo.
imo.
________________________________________
Police video shows Idaho killings suspect in traffic stop
* Or maybe a campus traffic restriction?

 

[SpiderFalcon]

"11. The State objects to requests by the Defendant for anything not otherwise addressed
above on the grounds that such requests are outside the scope of I.C.R. 16 and/or are not subject to disclosure under ICR 16(g) (work product and informants)"

I think this speaks for itself, in that: If it's work product, IE: Notes, photos, testing, that hasn't been put into an official REPORT (and submitted to the Prosecutor's office), then it's still part of the "investigation", as in, still being worked on, and the defense doesn't have the right to it. YET. IMO

And if it's an informant, and the prosecution isn't using that informant (or his/her information) in their case, they don't have to disclose that to the defense. IMO

The FBI was working alongside PA police during the arrest and search of the PA residence and the Elantra. MOO. Would the Elantra still be in PA? Would PA have some of the incarceration records being sought here? What's the FBI's role?

I read somewhere (BUT CANNOT LOCATE, even tho I've been looking for days) that the Elantra is with the FBI. IMO, JMO, from what I've seen, this would make the most sense. That's a pretty BIG item, and chain of custody would really need to be maintained. But, JMO, MOO, ICBR.

Re the x2 possible exculpatory items/info referred to in defenses motion to compell, the below caught my eye in State's January 23 Response to Discovery. Perhaps other posters might have some thoughts? I know the State has already lodged one Doc with the Court re Brady/Giglio (sp?) material, but could point Nine (9) of January 23 Response have any bearing on the relevant items listed on Defenses Motion to compel?
Emphasis mine.

"9. All material or information within the prosecuting attorney's possession or control
which tends to negate the guilt of the accused as to the offense charged or which would tend to reduce the punishment therefore have been or will be disclosed or otherwise made available. See Exhibit "A." In addition, with regard to material or information which may be exculpatory as used or interpreted, the State requests that the defendant inform the State, in writing, of the defense which will be asserted in this case, so counsel for the State can determine if any additional material or information may be material to the defense, and thus fulfill its duty under I.C.R. 16(a) and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)."

MOO

As far as the two "exculpatory" items, I've questioned this:

1. IMO, PURE SPECULATION, if one of the roommates let the killer in, would this take away the burglary charge, and would that affect the murder charges with regard to the death penalty?
2. IMO, PURE SPECULATION, though @10ofRods made a really excellent post about "boilerplate" language (I think we might be from the same part of the country, but maybe not, and also, the term "boilerplate" was later delved into, in depth by some other posters) I think where those "exculpatory" statements are subject to interpretation, and what they are asking for may not even be available to the prosecution yet.

 

[Nila Aella]

If the FBI is doing any of the testing, it's going to take A LOT longer. I don't think even the prosecution has this yet, IMO.

IMO This testing would be fast tracked. I find it hard to believe the prosecution does not have the initial interrogation report and/or at least some results from the PA home/car items processed. JMO

Thanks for raising. This is of interest to me too. It may be nothing, but am curious as to why the State's responses to both of the Defense's Supplemental requests referred back to their (the State's) first response of January 23. The State's January 23 Response to Discovery included this at point 11:

"11. The State objects to requests by the Defendant for anything not otherwise addressed
above on the grounds that such requests are outside the scope of I.C.R. 16 and/or are not subject to disclosure under ICR 16(g) (work product and informants)"

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

I think, from what SGH suggests in several posts, most of what was requested by the Defense in it's first Request and Supps Requests x2 was handed over, but as pointed out, the six items listed in the Defense's motion to compell obviously have not.


Ditto: Just some thoughts and questions.

The FBI was working alongside PA police during the arrest and search of the PA residence and the Elantra. MOO. Would the Elantra still be in PA? Would PA have some of the incarceration records being sought here? What's the FBI's role?

Re the x2 possible exculpatory items/info referred to in defenses motion to compell, the below caught my eye in State's January 23 Response to Discovery. Perhaps other posters might have some thoughts? I know the State has already lodged one Doc with the Court re Brady/Giglio (sp?) material, but could point Nine (9) of January 23 Response have any bearing on the relevant items listed on Defenses Motion to compel?
Emphasis mine.

"9. All material or information within the prosecuting attorney's possession or control
which tends to negate the guilt of the accused as to the offense charged or which would tend to reduce the punishment therefore have been or will be disclosed or otherwise made available. See Exhibit "A." In addition, with regard to material or information which may be exculpatory as used or interpreted, the State requests that the defendant inform the State, in writing, of the defense which will be asserted in this case, so counsel for the State can determine if any additional material or information may be material to the defense, and thus fulfill its duty under I.C.R. 16(a) and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)."

Anyone have any thoughts? I don't really know how to interpret the bit I emphasised or if it could even have any relevance at all.

MOO

From the original discovery request: 1/10/2023

11. Exculpatory evidence. Provide to the defendant all material evidence within the scope of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976), Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 115 S.Ct. 1555 (1995) and their progeny. Specifically, any and all favorable or exculpatory evidence, information, and documents in possession of the prosecuting attorney’s office or other agency or person available to the prosecution through due diligence.

BBM

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/011023%20Request%20for%20Discovery.pdf

Third request from AT:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned pursuant to Rule 16 of the Idaho Criminal Rules, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and Article I, § 1, 2, 13 and 17 of the Constitution of the State of Idaho requests discovery and inspection of all materials discoverable by defendant per I.C.R. 16(b)(1)-(8) and the aforementioned Constitutional provisions including but not limited to the following information, evidence and materials:

In the 3rd request for discovery, AT focuses mainly on DNA under two main categories. So I think the defense hasn't gotten these items yet (in addition to what is listed on the motion to compel). JMO

Standard DNA discovery
Genetic Genealogy testing and search

I compared the 1 and 3 request initial statements and the only thing left out was ICR 16b 9 which deals with videos that the state previously responded AT could request from each LE entity.

States response to # 9 after first request:

In addition, deputies and officers from the Latah County Sheriffs Office, Idaho State Police, Moscow Police Department, Idaho Fish and Game and other law enforcement agencies may record their law enforcement contacts via an audio recorder or audio/video recorder. Any audio and video recordings related to this matter are available for review and duplication on request, subject to the provisions of I.C.R. 16(b )(9). Pursuant to said subsection, and except as otherwise specified herein, any such digital media is unredacted and may contain protected information, thus further distribution is restricted by I.C.R. 16(b)(9)(A), unless the State provides express written consent or by order of the Court

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/050323%20Defendants%203rd%20Supplemental%20Request%20for%20Discovery.pdf

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

Back when the first request for discovery/response was posted, I compared the two point by point. There were multiple items left out in the States response. MOO

At the end of the State's response the statement:

11. The State objects to requests by the Defendant for anything not otherwise addressed above on the grounds that such requests are outside the scope of !.C.R. 16 and/or are not subject to disclosure under ICR 16(g) (work product and informants).

IMO this statement was referencing the reasons for everything they left out of the first response. I don't see how work product could be related to the interrogation report, processing of evidence from the car/home, or lab results? Maybe related to requests five and six though: All reports/recordings/notes for ?, and training records. MOO

I'd like to know about that last bit too. I did think it is odd for the State to request what the defendants defense to the charge was going to be. Is that a normal request? Why not just hand over everything they have that would be considered exculpatory, regardless of what his defense will be? Maybe the State just wants to be especially sure they don't leave something out? JMO

 

[jepop]

IMO This testing would be fast tracked. I find it hard to believe the prosecution does not have the initial interrogation report and/or at least some results from the PA home/car items processed. JMO


From the original discovery request: 1/10/2023

11. Exculpatory evidence. Provide to the defendant all material evidence within the scope of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976), Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 115 S.Ct. 1555 (1995) and their progeny. Specifically, any and all favorable or exculpatory evidence, information, and documents in possession of the prosecuting attorney’s office or other agency or person available to the prosecution through due diligence.

BBM

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/011023%20Request%20for%20Discovery.pdf

Third request from AT:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned pursuant to Rule 16 of the Idaho Criminal Rules, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and Article I, § 1, 2, 13 and 17 of the Constitution of the State of Idaho requests discovery and inspection of all materials discoverable by defendant per I.C.R. 16(b)(1)-(8) and the aforementioned Constitutional provisions including but not limited to the following information, evidence and materials:

In the 3rd request for discovery, AT focuses mainly on DNA under two main categories. So I think the defense hasn't gotten these items yet (in addition to what is listed on the motion to compel). JMO

Standard DNA discovery
Genetic Genealogy testing and search

I compared the 1 and 3 request initial statements and the only thing left out was ICR 16b 9 which deals with videos that the state previously responded AT could request from each LE entity.

States response to # 9 after first request:

In addition, deputies and officers from the Latah County Sheriffs Office, Idaho State Police, Moscow Police Department, Idaho Fish and Game and other law enforcement agencies may record their law enforcement contacts via an audio recorder or audio/video recorder. Any audio and video recordings related to this matter are available for review and duplication on request, subject to the provisions of I.C.R. 16(b )(9). Pursuant to said subsection, and except as otherwise specified herein, any such digital media is unredacted and may contain protected information, thus further distribution is restricted by I.C.R. 16(b)(9)(A), unless the State provides express written consent or by order of the Court

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/050323%20Defendants%203rd%20Supplemental%20Request%20for%20Discovery.pdf

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

Back when the first request for discovery/response was posted, I compared the two point by point. There were multiple items left out in the States response. MOO

At the end of the State's response the statement:

11. The State objects to requests by the Defendant for anything not otherwise addressed above on the grounds that such requests are outside the scope of !.C.R. 16 and/or are not subject to disclosure under ICR 16(g) (work product and informants).

IMO this statement was referencing the reasons for everything they left out of the first response. I don't see how work product could be related to the interrogation report, processing of evidence from the car/home, or lab results? Maybe related to requests five and six though: All reports/recordings/notes for ?, and training records. MOO

I'd like to know about that last bit too. I did think it is odd for the State to request what the defendants defense to the charge was going to be. Is that a normal request? Why not just hand over everything they have that would be considered exculpatory, regardless of what his defense will be? Maybe the State just wants to be especially sure they don't leave something out? JMO

Thanks @Nila Aella, some great points and yes re the RBBM part of your post, I have wondered about this for a while. Would this language be somehow relevant? "In addition, with regard to material or information which may be exculpatory as used or interpreted,..."?.

ETA: On a general note, the reason I'm interested in the States's first Response in JAn is because both of the State's responses to defense's Supp Requests 1 and 2 refer the defense back to the State's Jan response. The six items that are subject to the defense's motion to compel come from the first two Supplemental Requests.

I read point 11 of State's Jan response the same way as you - that it encompassed everything state were leaving out of the response. So yes, it could be that as far as the four non belief of exculpatory items in defense's motion - that the state was referring defense back to point 11. MOO

 

[Nila Aella]

Thanks @Nila Aella, some great points and yes re the RBBM part of your post, I have wondered about this for a while. Would this language be somehow relevant? "In addition, with regard to material or information which may be exculpatory as used or interpreted,..."?.

Yes! Great catch.
MOO