4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 73

[Cool Cats]

In terms of pre-trial publicity, I think the Constitutional rights of the accused (and the rights of the victims for justice) outweigh any thirst for knowledge on the part of the public. During the trial, I think it's a bit of a different story as the jury can be sequestered. I think the latter is a much, much stronger case. The former, not so much.

MOO.

It is fairly rare to fully sequester a jury during the trial. It would be far more likely that the jury will be partially sequestered during trial then fully sequestered during jury deliberations.

In 2021, the jury in the Derek Chauvin murder trial was partially sequestered during trial then fully sequestered during deliberations.

What this entailed was:

1.) Jurors had special parking spots and a private entrance to the courthouse. The entrance was not used by the general public.

2.) Throughout their day in court the jurors were kept completely separate from other people. Court security kept a close eye on them and they were not allowed to discuss the trial or look at any news reports on the trial.

3.) At night they were allowed to go home with strict instructions not to look at news or discuss the trial.

4.) During deliberations they were fully sequestered in a hotel, including overnight. They were not allowed to have their phones or electronic devices with them. They had to bring packed bags to court and went from court directly to the hotel.

 

[Dotta]

I remember Derek Ch. trial was live streamed (or televised?)
Is it common in the USA?
I guess this trial due to the horrific details might not be.
JMO

 

[maskedwoman]

View attachment 403993


Not sure why potential jurors who are not familiar with the case would be less capable of taking in the facts and understanding the science. Seems to me they would possibly be more capable as they wouldn't necessarily be predisposed to some of the facts and/or the science. JMO.

I agree they would be certainly be open-minded about the case. My experience being in jury pools or on juries for longer trials (3 ties), or being sequestered, was that most of the people who ended up on the juries were retired or didn't work at all for whatever reason. Anyone self-employed was excused unless they just didn't raise their hands. People with chronic illnesses often can't serve. Anyone pursuing higher education simply can't do it. People with small children, traveling spouses and children, were all excused. Often key people at small companies were excused, such as the only payroll person, etc. A lot of young people will stand on their heads or flat out lie not to serve, sometimes due to employer pressure. So you end up with older, less educated jurors. In the last 15 years, I've helped care for relatives on both sides of my family with Alzheimers. Because of that, I have to add that older jurors could have beginning cognitive issues that can effect their clear understanding of the facts years before they are debilitating. Because of all those things, I am doubtful that being available and less predisposed automatically equates to more or even equally capable.

 

[al66pine]

"Gag Orders" During Trial?

... Typical criminal court overreach that attempts to protect constitutional rights of the defendant (and victims) to the total exclusion of others (including the public) deserving of more weighty consideration.
This judge is either inexperienced in trials of great public interest or acting out of misguided fear. ... It needs to be litigated. JMO

snipped for focus @WingsOverTX, Speaking gen'ly, not to this specific case exclusively, I see “gag order” during trial differently.

If jury's guilty/not guilty verdict is (supposed to be) rendered based upon evidence presented in COURTROOM, then why should either prosecution or defense need to make statements to MSM, soc. media, or anyone outside the courtroom DURING TRIAL?
During trial what does "the public" need to know that is not being presented as evidence?
During trial, what do prosecution or defense need to say publicly other than what they are already communicating by putting on witnesses, in the ct. room?

Do they want to say something which the judge has ruled or would rule inadmissible as evidence in court?
If so, and if media make it public during trial, is it possible even sequestered jurors would not learn of it? In USA in 2023? And not consider it in their jury deliberations?

The "gag order" in BCK's case does not prohibit MSM or soc media from publishing/broadcasting/podcasting/Tweeting/etc. about witnesses' testimony, demonstrative evidence, motions, or other trial events. Every network can have multiple talking heads, analyzing every aspect of the trial down to the molecular level.
Every columnist can editorialize about the trial daily.
Any Tweeter can rant about “hidden political agendas” in a trial. Or fake science. Or little green men in flying saucers. Whatever. That’s 1A Rights.*

Atty’s rep’ing the state or def’t in a criminal case are officers of the court and subject to the judge’s orders, relating to their actions in the courtroom, and also outside the courtroom relating to the case.

The Cow speaks: moo, imo, jmo.
_______________________________________________
* First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia.

 

[Cool Cats]

I remember Derek Ch. trial was live streamed (or televised?)
Is it common in the USA?
I guess this trial due to the horrific details might not be.
JMO

It depends on which state the trial is in.

This was the first time a Minnesota trial had been broadcast because courts in Minnesota have long opposed electronic media coverage.

Many media outlets live streamed the trial. It was all over social media and the Internet with live coverage from Court TV and even local access available for those without cable TV.


.

 

[Cassady]

RBBM.

Here's an example of the rationale (including federal and state precedents) of a trial judge who did just that: People v Pankey

IMO in this case you cited the judge ruled on the change of venue motion prior to the trial starting/VD. The ruling was that there was not enough evidence to support the motion and more evidence may come up in VD, in which case the motion could be renewed.

I am not sure what jurisdiction you practice in or how many criminal cases you have tried, but I cannot imagine any judge in any high profile criminal case waiting to rule on a pre-trial change of venue motion until the trial starts...IMO

It should be noted too that the case you cited had some pre-trial publicity, locally, but it was also a nearly 40 year old cold case. Even after the discovery of the body and arrest, there has not been national news media covering that case everyday like in this case.

Also Weld County Colorado has more than 250K people. Latah County Idaho has under 40K people. The ability to get a panel in for VD is much more difficult in this case and thus any motion to change venue in this case will be litigated prior to the start of the trial...IMO

 

[Cool Cats]

I.C.A.R. 45. Cameras In the Courtroom | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

Idaho Court Administrative Rule 45. Cameras In the Courtroom

"Audio/visual coverage," as used in this rule, means broadcast, video, audio, and photographic coverage or recording of public proceedings before district and magistrate judges.

Broadcast means the transmission of images or sounds by any electronic means, including but not limited to television, radio, Internet, email or streaming.

Audio/visual coverage is authorized subject to the discretion of the presiding judge. The presiding judge maintains the right to limit audio/visual coverage of any public hearing when the interests of the administration of justice requires.

Authorization may be revoked at any time, without prior notice, when in the discretion of the court it appears that audio/visual coverage is interfering in any way with the proper administration of justice.

 

[Cool Cats]

IMO in this case you cited the judge ruled on the change of venue motion prior to the trial starting/VD. The ruling was that there was not enough evidence to support the motion and more evidence may come up in VD, in which case the motion could be renewed.

I am not sure what jurisdiction you practice in or how many criminal cases you have tried, but I cannot imagine any judge in any high profile criminal case waiting to rule on a pre-trial change of venue motion until the trial starts...IMO

It should be noted too that the case you cited had some pre-trial publicity, locally, but it was also a nearly 40 year old cold case. Even after the discovery of the body and arrest, there has not been national news media covering that case everyday like in this case.

Also Weld County Colorado has more than 250K people. Latah County Idaho has under 40K people. The ability to get a panel in for VD is much more difficult in this case and thus any motion to change venue in this case will be litigated prior to the start of the trial...IMO

Agree.

Change of venue is decided before the first day of trial.

No judge waits to rule on change of venue until the trial starts because it is not possible to do so.

No trial of any kind can start until a jury is completely seated including alternates.

Once the trial starts with opening arguments, the venue has already been selected and the jury chosen.

It is during the trial that the judge can decide to sequester the jurors. Any time before, during or after the trial, the judge can decide to sequester the jury.

 

[Helechawagirl]

Yes, but IMO LE interviewed the driver as per PCA (see relevant page of PCA) and elimnated him/her and the vehicle very early on. The DD driver identified themselves to LE I believe. LE have no reason to name the driver or expose them to the public IMO.

I agree. I was just wondering if there were two cars and BK’s was mistakenly thought to be driving around, but that seems unlikely.

 

[NCWatcher]

I count 8 on maps.google, with 7 of them being major chains or similar (not counting guest houses or BnB's).

Gosh, it sure seems like the number of jurors who could live 300 miles from home for a week at a time, during trial (or the whole trial) would be small. Rules a lot of people out, IMO.

Seems to me it would rule out lots of folks. Of course, the pool is usually smaller for any case expected to take more than a few days anyway.

The Casey Anthony jury was imported from Pinellas County to Orlando. That's about 100 miles. Still not a realistic distance to travel daily-- Florida is hardly full of wide open spaces and empty roads so that likely could mean daily driving times of up to 5-6 hours round trip. Even with transportation provided (like a bus) that would make for a long day--- and it seems one could argue jurors would be too exhausted to listen in court if transported daily even 100 miles, never mind 300. (Seems to me 300 miles would be a driving time of at least 5 hours one way.)

Of course, the Anthony jury was fully sequestered and some say that affected the verdict. Certainly in hindsight it's easy to see that lots of group bonding developed from well-meaning efforts to keep the jurors comfortable. (Taxpayer-funded weekend recreation trips to Disney, for example) And group bonding may lead to "group think."

Moving the entire trial brings up other issues, of course. I know during the discussion of the potential COI it was repeatedly pointed out AT was the only DP qualified PD in northern Idaho. Some people (not necessarily here) acted like importing a PD from hundreds of miles away was no big deal. I'm not sure that's true. (And unlike a juror, a PD wouldn't have to be involved just during the trial.)
JMO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I live in Middle Tennessee and I can recall a jury being brought in from Chattanooga to Nashville, but that's only around 130 miles.

Same thing happened in the Casey Anthony trial.

Judge Moves Jurors, Not Trial, in Murder Case (Published 2011)

Casey Anthony will be tried for first-degree murder in Orlando, Fla., where she was charged, but jurors will be brought in from Clearwater and sequestered.

www.nytimes.com

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

It is fairly rare to fully sequester a jury during the trial. It would be far more likely that the jury will be partially sequestered during trial then fully sequestered during jury deliberations.

In 2021, the jury in the Derek Chauvin murder trial was partially sequestered during trial then fully sequestered during deliberations.

What this entailed was:

1.) Jurors had special parking spots and a private entrance to the courthouse. The entrance was not used by the general public.

2.) Throughout their day in court the jurors were kept completely separate from other people. Court security kept a close eye on them and they were not allowed to discuss the trial or look at any news reports on the trial.

3.) At night they were allowed to go home with strict instructions not to look at news or discuss the trial.

4.) During deliberations they were fully sequestered in a hotel, including overnight. They were not allowed to have their phones or electronic devices with them. They had to bring packed bags to court and went from court directly to the hotel.

I think this case is also fairly rare so it wouldn't surprise me if the jury is fully sequestered. As another poster pointed out, it's 2023. Sending jurors home at the end of the day with a high profile case like this, it's inevitable they will run into a snippet here or there unless we're expecting these folks to get rid of all electronic equipment, including television sets, car radios, phones, computers, and even then, it's very easy for a well-meaning friend or neighbor with a kid at UI to mention something out of turn without even thinking about it. There's just no escape from a case like this in a state like Idaho and particularly in that particular area of Idaho where the population is small and people are generally connected by a few degrees of separation. Unless the trial is moved and/or they import a jury from elsewhere, I just don't see how they couldn't sequester the jury.

MOO.

 

[Cool Cats]

I think this case is also fairly rare so it wouldn't surprise me if the jury is fully sequestered. As another poster pointed out, it's 2023. Sending jurors home at the end of the day with a high profile case like this, it's inevitable they will run into a snippet here or there unless we're expecting these folks to get rid of all electronic equipment, including television sets, car radios, phones, computers, and even then, it's very easy for a well-meaning friend or neighbor with a kid at UI to mention something out of turn without even thinking about it. There's just no escape from a case like this in a state like Idaho and particularly in that particular area of Idaho where the population is small and people are generally connected by a few degrees of separation. Unless the trial is moved and/or they import a jury from elsewhere, I just don't see how they couldn't sequester the jury.

MOO.

That ship has already sailed. I'm sure every juror selected would have heard about and read about this case.

What they look for is if a juror is biased or not and can they just look at the evidence presented at trial.

Jurors can do this without being sequestered, there are negative factors in being sequestered that judges consider.

But it remains to be seen.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

That ship has already sailed. I'm sure every juror selected would have heard about and read about this case.

What they look for is if a juror is biased or not and can they just look at the evidence presented at trial.

Jurors can do this without being sequestered, there are negative factors in being sequestered and this jury will not be in any danger, will not need that kind of protection.

But it remains to be seen.

I disagree. Sure, everyone has heard about this case, but doubt most know anything more than a bunch of college kids were killed and someone was arrested.

Sequestering a jury isn't necessarily due to what they know in the here and now or for protection; it's also because of what's going to come out during trial and how they may be influenced.

MOO.

 

[SophieRose]

I remember Derek Ch. trial was live streamed (or televised?)
Is it common in the USA?
I guess this trial due to the horrific details might not be.
JMO

Depends on the state and the judge. Back in 1999 (Court TV days) the judge in the Charles Ng trial (murders happened in 1984-85) in California allowed only opening statements to be televised, which was bad enough.

TV News Clip of Ng Trial Shocks Victim's Survivors / Video shows woman bound in chair

TV News Clip of Ng Trial Shocks Victim's Survivors / Video shows woman bound in chair

www.sfgate.com

"We were shocked," O'Connor said yesterday from his home in Coldwater, Mich. "Not seeing your daughter all those years and then seeing her in the chair. Here it comes on at 11 o'clock and (Ng) is cutting the blouse off my daughter."

The judge at Ng's trial allowed the media in for opening statements, so the videos of Brenda O'Connor and another victim, Kathleen Allen, were fair game for TV stations to show. Whether their decision to do so was ethical or moral was a subject of much debate yesterday.

 

[Sleuth2010]

Freedom of the Press : (is not yelling FIRE in a movie theatre )

" Re-read the gag order. Judge Megan Marshall's gag order continues the gag through the whole trial.
'shall remain in full force and effect throughout the entirety of of this case...'

Understand pre-trial gag orders, but limiting outflow of facts during trial seems to create more wild speculation.
Who will that protect? Beginning to understand why the press is objecting.
jmo moo

The facts of the trial matter—i.e. whether there will be publicity and whether that publicity would actually prejudice the trial?"

imo moo

 

[Cool Cats]

I disagree. Sure, everyone has heard about this case, but doubt most know anything more than a bunch of college kids were killed and someone was arrested.

Sequestering a jury isn't necessarily due to what they know in the here and now or for protection; it's also because of what's going to come out during trial and how they may be influenced.

MOO.

Full sequestration, which includes sequestration during the evidence portion of the trial, is particularly uncommon.

There are 3 other options besides full sequestration.

1.) Partial sequestered jury including during deliberations.
2.) Sequestered only during deliberations.
3.) Anonymous jury.

The Derek Chauvin trial jury is only partially sequestered until deliberation

The Chauvin trial jury is currently supervised while in the courthouse but can return home at night. They’ll be sent to hotels during deliberation.

www.wfaa.com

An innominate jury, also known as an anonymous jury, is a jury whose members are kept anonymous by court order. This may be requested by the prosecution or defense in order to protect the jury from:

Media - Jury Tampering - Social Pressure (to return a particular verdict)

These 3 trials involved full sequestration:

The trials of O.J. Simpson in 1995, George Zimmerman in 2013, Bill Cosby in 2017.

2 of these trials involved very high profile celebrities and one involved heightened social pressure with protests around the country.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

They will hear everything that comes out at trial.

Sequestration during the evidence portion of the trial is particularly uncommon.

It is more likely they will be sequestered during deliberations even though courts have generally moved away from sequestration during jury deliberation in recent years.

There is also the 2 options of an anonymous jury or a partial sequestered jury.

The Derek Chauvin trial jury is only partially sequestered until deliberation

The Chauvin trial jury is currently supervised while in the courthouse but can return home at night. They’ll be sent to hotels during deliberation.

www.wfaa.com

An innominate jury, also known as an anonymous jury, is a jury whose members are kept anonymous by court order. This may be requested by the prosecution or defense in order to protect the jury from the media, potential jury tampering, or social pressure to return a particular verdict.

These 3 trials involved jury sequestration:

The trials of O.J. Simpson in 1995, George Zimmerman in 2013, Bill Cosby in 2017 were modern cases in which it was done.

2 of these trials involved very high profile celebrities and one involved heightened social and racial tension including unrest against LE with protests around the country.

There are many more examples of jury sequestration. Bottom line is that I'll be shocked if the jury on this case isn't sequestered, especially if it stays in the Moscow area. MOO.

 

[NCWatcher]

There are many more examples of jury sequestration. Bottom line is that I'll be shocked if the jury on this case isn't sequestered, especially if it stays in the Moscow area. MOO.

I don't know what will happen but

1. Sequestration is expensive and some say it may produce odd verdicts.
2. People who can serve on a sequestered jury without undue hardship may differ in lots of ways from those who can't. I don't know that the difference leads to a particular bias though.
3. It would seem hard to justify continuing the gag order during a trial with a sequestered jury.

JMO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I don't know what will happen but

1. Sequestration is expensive and some say it may produce odd verdicts.
2. People who can serve on a sequestered jury without undue hardship may differ in lots of ways from those who can't. I don't know that the difference leads to a particular bias though.
3. It would seem hard to justify continuing the gag order during a trial with a sequestered jury.

JMO

Agree the gag order will likely be lifted if the jury is sequestered. I think the best thing that could happen is moving the trial to Boise, IMO.