4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #104

[Megnut]

This is rich. Defense: exclude the traffic stop, force the State to prove identity another way.

State: it is incriminating. It's not irrelevant or overly prejudicial. Just because the Defense doesn't  like it doesn't mean it should be excluded under "overly prejudicial".

Judge asks State to answer to it as a bad act. And finds the discussion between BK and the officer shows the BK might appear have something to hide (by not wanting to give his phone number).

State doesn't see anything about that traffic stop as being prejudicial, that is a bad act, they aren't arguing about what kind of person he is.

Defense asks a ruling for the expert to testify to the details but to have the video thrown out.

 

[Megnut]

D: this is a highly circumstantial case.

Want the video out because the State can benefit in extra ways because of conclusions the jury can draw.

Judge is weighing unfair evidence --

Rule applies to prior bad acts. Not just acts.

This is a "bad act" in that it was a traffic stop.
It is relevant. It is powerful evidence or effective evidence, that doesnt make it unfairly prejudicial.

Jury won't think because he sped or didn't wear a seat belt he's more likely to have committed murder.

Judge will watch the video. He is concerned about the dialogue. He finds the communication might be irrelevant. And he may require some redaction.

 

[Megnut]

I didn't see him when he entered, are BK's hands shackled?

 

[Sweeper2000]

Glad they got this show on the road. Justice for the 4 and those affected by it.

Anyone care to have a guess on how long this will be before the verdict comes in?

My guess about six weeks.

 

[CHEL]

I would be livid listening to his attorney asking for his family be included in the courtroom if I were any of the victims family.

 

[Megnut]

Seriously? Omg the D says the video out because they think it's unfairly prejudicial for BK (when it's just really good evidence) because they don't eat the jury to draw inferences, but they are begging to allow BK's family to be in the courtroom to give IMO the JURY the aappearance that BK is well loved and supported.

Talk about double standard! They WANT the jury to draw the inference that BK's family is fully behind him.

D says that leaving his family out of the courtroom is a violation of the Constitution.

Oh, man, now he needs his family in the courtroom because of his ASD.

 

[MassGuy]

Prosecution response to this motion regarding the family in the court should be interesting. It sounds like one family member may be called, which I assume is his sister.

 

[iamshadow21]

Glad they got this show on the road. Justice for the 4 and those affected by it.

Anyone care to have a guess on how long this will be before the verdict comes in?

My guess about six weeks.

This is an evidentiary hearing, not the trial.

 

[Megnut]

I can't believe the D is making the argument so directly. Basically we need to use BK's family so the jury thinks he has support.

jmo

 

[QB2022]

Well he didn't need his family to allegedly murder 4 people.

 

[MassGuy]

State intends to call some family members but not all of them. Judge is siding with the defense, saying the prosecution can call these family members up front and present them out of order.

State doesn't love the idea but that's what they will do if necessary.

 

[Warwick7]

When the judge says to the defense, "I don't think we are reading the rule the same way", you know whose reading is gonna win out, and it isnt gonna be good for defense.

Judge Hippler: "It's not a bad act to buy things on Amazon".

Here ya go, @Warwick7, BAM!

THATS RIGHT!! I'm loving this judge!
Bam!!

 

[Megnut]

State : BK doesn't have a right to have his family in the courtroom.

Judge asks the State to call family members right away. State only intends to call a few family members....

Judge is looking for accommodation. Call them upfront to testify so they can be present for the remainder of the trial.

State says the D shouldn't be able to dictate how they present their case (order of witnesses, etc).

D trying to use the right to a public trial to cover the right of his family to be there....

D sppeals to the judge's humanity. Says the family is devastated because of headlines that they're going to be called as witnesses.

Judge is going to take it under advisement.

 

[Warwick7]

Defense wants the traffic stop out because they say the crime is prior act but not on a level with the crime.

Defense says it show BK in Moscow, at night, in the car, arguing, not wanting to give his phone number... clear video of the car...

They don't want the State to introduce all those elements to the jury.

Judge: why is that a problem?

D: because it might show that his car is similar to the one in the 1122 video.

Judge: isn't that the point?

BBM her words are telling on her.

 

[Warwick7]

Judge: I see how it's prejudicual that he has a white Elantra because it's not good for the defendant, I don't see how it's overly prejudicial.

Judge: it makes it relevant, it doesn't make it overly prejudicial.

Judge: you and I don't get to tell the State how to try their case.

BBM
You go Judge!!!!!! Bam!!

 

[Megnut]

Judge is sharp.

Moo. If the State has to call family right away, they might lead with the Amazon purchase. The D might be sorry for what they asked for.

JMO

 

[SteveP]

State : BK doesn't have a right to have his family in the courtroom.

Judge asks the State to call family members right away. State only intends to call a few family members....

Judge is looking for accommodation. Call them upfront to testify so they can be present for the remainder of the trial.

State says the D shouldn't be able to dictate how they present their case (order of witnesses, etc).

D trying to use the right to a public trial to cover the right of his family to be there....

D sppeals to the judge's humanity. Says the family is devastated because of headlines that they're going to be called as witnesses.

Judge is going to take it under advisement.

BK's attorney stated that BK's family would be here for every hearing, but simply cannot afford to be. If they cannot afford to come to a hearing, how are they going to afford to be at trial, every day for three months? Just wondering...

 

[Megnut]

AT: BK didn't ask to have ASD. BK sits rigid, speaks longer on topics, holds his hands a certain way, etc.

AT says that the State shouldn't get to use BK's condition and behavior against him.

Judge says he can issue an instruction during the penalty phase.

 

[CHEL]

Did anyone actually diagnose him with autism?

 

[Megnut]

BK's attorney stated that BK's family would be here for every hearing, but simply cannot afford to be. If they cannot afford to come to a hearing, how are they going to afford to be at trial, every day for three months? Just wondering...

D said the State should subpoena them and then pay their expenses as witnesses.

Hello. Why, if they're so important to their case, why don't they call them as witnesses?

Jmo