4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #82

[jepop]

Question for the group (I somehow just noticed that we can change the color of the text):

Do any of you support amending or lifting the gag order for the media? Initially, I did for the sake of my own curiosity and as a counter to the lunacy on social media. Then I read the recently released support of motion documents. I must say that I am underwhelmed by most of the reasons provided for lifting the order.

I don't live near Moscow, ID, so perhaps citizens there want to know the size of BK's jail cell or if he was granted the internship to feel safe, but I would be more on the side of this group of journalists if they were looking for the release of actual evidence that supports (or doesn't) BK as the offender. I want MSM to investigate and report, but what I read looks more like a desire for tittle-tattle than for true investigation for the public.

Thoughts?

Some of the reasons given motions in support of the lift appear to be unrelated to gag order and rather an issue say between the journalist and the source. For instance,the size of BK's cell probably has little to do with the rationale behind the gag order. The admin at the jail is not a party to the investigation, a member of the prosecuting team, LE working directly on the case or defense or an attorney involved in the case. Would public knowledge of the cell size affect Bk's right to a fair trial? Is it to do with anything related to the prosecution/defense of the defendant or the ongoing investigation? I don't really think so. Moo

Essentially, what many of the motions in support are complaining about is outside individuals using the gag order as a sort of excuse not to speak with the press. So I figure their complaints are more to do with outside individuals perhaps misinterpreting it. I am not even sure it's an issue for the court, beyond possible clarification. Moo

RSBM: Evidence that actually "supports (or not) BK as offender" as stated in your post is exactly the sort of info that should be not be released and is why the gag order is in place,Imo.

ETA: Idk but some of the motions sort of appear semi ridiculous to me.I mean there's been a lot of reporting from various outlets recently about remembering the victims - nice reports that don't affect the investigation or BK's right to a fair trial- and a few investigative reports and other bits and pieces. Some of the Asst.Press seem to be expecting the court to solve their problems with any chickens that may have come home to roost in terms of certain people just not wanting to engage. The Court can't force them to engage. Some of the motions are almost obtuse if read from that perspective. All Moo.

 

[Odeto BJ]

Some of the reasons given motions in support of the lift appear to be unrelated to gag order and rather an issue say between the journalist and the source. For instance,the size of BK's cell probably has little to do with the rationale behind the gag order.

EBM: Good take, and of course you and I were typing coincidentally....interesting exchange in any case

 

[Balthazar]

snipped by me for focus:

I foresee more grand juries and judges making decisions instead of a standard 'trial' jury, due to [ETA (#s)]: (1) the heinousness of the crimes, (2) the amount of (IMO) irrefutable evidence LE has that indicates BK is the one who killed them, and (3) the high profile nature of the case (that has in turn shone the spotlight on innocent people connected to the case who require protection of their identities to keep from harm, as stated in the reasons for sealed documents).

The US Bill of Rights sets forth what law enforcement, judges, grand juries and juries do. What you are suggesting is IMPOSSIBLE in the United States. Our Bill of Rights states:

"Article the sixth... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the seventh... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eighth... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article the ninth... In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article the tenth... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

 

[jepop]

EBM: Good take, and of course you and I were typing coincidentally....interesting exchange in any case

I think we're probably talking about the same thing, just coming at it from slightly different angles - the issue is with trusting the press, possibly frustration with certain members of the press, not the gag order per se. The motions seem to address things that the gag was not designed to cover. Moo.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

Question for the group (I somehow just noticed that we can change the color of the text):

Do any of you support amending or lifting the gag order for the media? Initially, I did for the sake of my own curiosity and as a counter to the lunacy on social media. Then I read the recently released support of motion documents. I must say that I am underwhelmed by most of the reasons provided for lifting the order.

I don't live near Moscow, ID, so perhaps citizens there want to know the size of BK's jail cell or if he was granted the internship to feel safe, but I would be more on the side of this group of journalists if they were looking for the release of actual evidence that supports (or doesn't) BK as the offender. I want MSM to investigate and report, but what I read looks more like a desire for tittle-tattle than for true investigation for the public.

Thoughts?

Good question, @U.N. Known.

To answer your question directly, no, I personally don't support lifting the gag order.

I'm not sure about amending it, whether it could be done as some sort of compromise, to the satisfaction of all parties, how that would even work, and if it would be worth the trouble.

I haven't read the latest objections to the gag order from media representatives/journalists that were filed this week, but I don't expect them to be much different from the first ones, which I thought were, to use your turn of phrase, underwhelming.

JMO

 

[Twistinginthewind]

The US Bill of Rights sets forth what law enforcement, judges, grand juries and juries do. What you are suggesting is IMPOSSIBLE in the United States. Our Bill of Rights states:

"Article the sixth... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the seventh... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eighth... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article the ninth... In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article the tenth... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Thanks for pointing this out, @Balthazar. I posted after this that it was a rhetorical question, and I appreciate hearing why it is not possible from everyone's perspectives. JMO

 

[Chloegirl]

Some of the reasons given motions in support of the lift appear to be unrelated to gag order and rather an issue say between the journalist and the source. For instance,the size of BK's cell probably has little to do with the rationale behind the gag order. The admin at the jail is not a party to the investigation, a member of the prosecuting team, LE working directly on the case or defense or an attorney involved in the case. Would public knowledge of the cell size affect Bk's right to a fair trial? Is it to do with anything related to the prosecution/defense of the defendant or the ongoing investigation? I don't really think so. Moo

Essentially, what many of the motions in support are complaining about is outside individuals using the gag order as a sort of excuse not to speak with the press. So I figure their complaints are more to do with outside individuals perhaps misinterpreting it. I am not even sure it's an issue for the court, beyond possible clarification. Moo

RSBM: Evidence that actually "supports (or not) BK as offender" as stated in your post is exactly the sort of info that should be not be released and is why the gag order is in place,Imo.

You said it right there.

 

[Justice101]

Question for the group (I somehow just noticed that we can change the color of the text):

Do any of you support amending or lifting the gag order for the media? Initially, I did for the sake of my own curiosity and as a counter to the lunacy on social media. Then I read the recently released support of motion documents. I must say that I am underwhelmed by most of the reasons provided for lifting the order.

I don't live near Moscow, ID, so perhaps citizens there want to know the size of BK's jail cell or if he was granted the internship to feel safe, but I would be more on the side of this group of journalists if they were looking for the release of actual evidence that supports (or doesn't) BK as the offender. I want MSM to investigate and report, but what I read looks more like a desire for tittle-tattle than for true investigation for the public.

Thoughts?

Even though releasing this info would be interesting, I currently believe the gaga order is the best thing to do under the circumstances.

If all of the evidence is released by various parties for the sake of their own side of the story (prosecution, police, defendant's lawyer, etc.), all it is going to do is muddy the water for a jury.

The other side of it is if the gag order stands and the defendant takes a plea deal, will we as the public have lost hearing of ALL of the evidence because it does not get presented due to no real trial?

I admit I have mixed feelings on the subject.

 

[Balthazar]

Question for the group (I somehow just noticed that we can change the color of the text):

Do any of you support amending or lifting the gag order for the media? Initially, I did for the sake of my own curiosity and as a counter to the lunacy on social media. Then I read the recently released support of motion documents. I must say that I am underwhelmed by most of the reasons provided for lifting the order.

I don't live near Moscow, ID, so perhaps citizens there want to know the size of BK's jail cell or if he was granted the internship to feel safe, but I would be more on the side of this group of journalists if they were looking for the release of actual evidence that supports (or doesn't) BK as the offender. I want MSM to investigate and report, but what I read looks more like a desire for tittle-tattle than for true investigation for the public.

Thoughts?

I am for lifting the gag order. I believe light should be shed on all legal proceedings always. Now more than ever. It benefits the victim's families as they can know the truth ASAP and it benefits the accused and their attorneys in that everything is brought to light in a timely manner, both for and against them. It also makes it easier to watchdog police, lawyers and judges which they should ALL want because people who know they are not doing anything wrong, have no reason to worry about others observing what they are doing. Finally it benefits the general public. Those who are concerned about the case can learn the facts and evidence and have their questions completely answered. The public can also consider how such a tragedy can be avoided in the future and laws may be crafted to help with this. There will still be a large swath of the public who never bother to read about the case or have any interest in it whatsoever so I don't buy that a gag order is needed here to avoid poisoning the jury pool and I don't like these entities (lawyers, jail, police, etc.) using the gag order simply to avoid talking to the media about anything which is what it looks like they are doing. The media is meant to be the watchdog of these entities but the judge who put the gag order in place has hamstrung them and that is wrong, IMO. For all of these reasons, I believe that the gag order should be completely lifted and the sooner the better.

 

[Gemmie]

KAYLEE JADE DAY June 8, 2023, her birthday
"do more of what you love"

Photo from KXLY

Community called on to celebrate Kaylee Jade Day in honor of Moscow Murders victim

COEUR D'ALENE, ID. — The family of U of I murder victim Kaylee Goncalves is calling on folks to do more of what they love on Kaylee's birthday, June 8.

www.kxly.com

I think I'll pull out a long forgotten about jade ring from my jewelry box and wear it on the 8th to remind me of Kaylee Jade whenever I look at it.

 

[GRT]

Good question, @U.N. Known.

To answer your question directly, no, I personally don't support lifting the gag order.

I'm not sure about amending it, whether it could be done as some sort of compromise, to the satisfaction of all parties, how that would even work, and if it would be worth the trouble.

I haven't read the latest objections to the gag order from media representatives/journalists that were filed this week, but I don't expect them to be much different from the first ones, which I thought were, to use your turn of phrase, underwhelming.

JMO

In general, I'm not a fan of gag orders because I believe that most juries will decide a case based on the evidence presented at trial. That's where putting rumors to rest should take place, JMOO.

For me, one of the biggest reasons to have a gag order is to protect the privacy of innocent people, but I'm not sure that gagging LE and attorneys will stop the invasion of the media into private lives.

 

[maskedwoman]

Everyone else is, it's all about the $$$$. Print media has lost almost half of their revenue and marketshare in the last 10-15 years.

Service Annual Survey Shows Continuing Decline in Print Publishing Revenue

I think it's predictable that everyone who can do a podcast will try to capture a bit of that podcast revenue, but I'm skeptical of how long a podcast about one crime can continue with a gag order in place. New information is life's blood to a podcast and the gag order will prevent nearly all of that - if they employ any journalistic standards, that is. MOOooo

 

[Twistinginthewind]

Even though releasing this info would be interesting, I currently believe the gaga order is the best thing to do under the circumstances.

If all of the evidence is released by various parties for the sake of their own side of the story (prosecution, police, defendant's lawyer, etc.), all it is going to do is muddy the water for a jury.

The other side of it is if the gag order stands and the defendant takes a plea deal, will we as the public have lost hearing of ALL of the evidence because it does not get presented due to no real trial?

I admit I have mixed feelings on the subject.

I have mixed feelings as well.

But since the gag order is already in place, I feel like it's a matter of leaving well enough alone.

If there don't seem to be any critical needs that aren't being met by any parties who are integral to the case due to the gag order.

I don't think the press / media is integral to the case, but I wouldn't be privvy to potential negative impacts of the gag order on those who are integral -- the victims' & accused's families & legal reps, LE and the state of Idaho.

It's complicated, IMO.

 

[maskedwoman]

MOO:

I agree, @Justice101, especially that there will be no public trial.

I foresee more grand juries and judges making decisions instead of a standard 'trial' jury, due to [ETA (#s)]: (1) the heinousness of the crimes, (2) the amount of (IMO) irrefutable evidence LE has that indicates BK is the one who killed them, and (3) the high profile nature of the case (that has in turn shone the spotlight on innocent people connected to the case who require protection of their identities to keep from harm, as stated in the reasons for sealed documents).

I'm not sure of the legal vehicles available to the prosecution and defense to have that 'moment of reckoning' -- can GJs be used for this, even though by law, the defendant and attorneys do not participate in GJ proceedings -- as in, could they make an exception in a case like this, and all sit down in a GJ or GJ-like setting together and hash things out?

Either way, BK and his defense team will be considering the following regarding punishment options for 1st degree murder (and in this case make that x 4) (BUBM):

"TITLE 18
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 40
HOMICIDE
18-4004. Punishment for murder. Subject to the provisions of sections 19-2515 and 19-2515A, Idaho Code, every person guilty of murder of the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life, provided that a sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the prosecuting attorney filed written notice of intent to seek the death penalty as required under the provisions of section 18-4004A, Idaho Code, and provided further that whenever the death penalty is not imposed the court shall impose a sentence.

If a jury, or the court if a jury is waived, finds a statutory aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt but finds that the imposition of the death penalty would be unjust, the court shall impose a fixed life sentence.

If a jury, or the court if a jury is waived, does not find a statutory aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt or if the death penalty is not sought, the court shall impose a life sentence with a minimum period of confinement of not less than ten (10) years during which period of confinement the offender shall not be eligible for parole or discharge or credit or reduction of sentence for good conduct, except for meritorious service."

Section 18-4004 – Idaho State Legislature

Grand Jury powers are outlined under the Constitution and the law. I would expect any action taken outside those powers would be appealed and overturned. MOOooo. In many jurisdictions, a defendant has the right to forgo a jury trial and allow a judge to decide his/her fate. I don't believe that' s very common but I could be wrong.

I think it's also important to remember that an impartial jury doesn't mean a jury ignorant of any information about a case. It just means they have to find a jury that's not predisposed toward a particular outcome, and can deliver a fair verdict based only on the evidence heard in court.

During my various jury duty experiences, I saw potential jurors make statements I thought might get them excused. Judges would question the jurors, sometimes fairly aggressively, about their ability to be impartial. One judge I saw practically dared people to admit they couldn't/wouldn't be impartial. One or two might have dug in their heels and said they really could not do it but most would eventually give the "right" answer and end up on a jury. Only a few that I saw even ended up excused by one side of the other. I was surprised.

 

[maskedwoman]

I cannot wrap my head around why BK would plead guilty for LWOP (The Alford plea has been discussed ad nauseam, so I'll not include that in my comment). The only reason I can fathom that the Mr. Thompson and co. would offer LWOP as a "deal" is if they have concerns about getting a guilty verdict.

From the DA's perspective, offering BK deal would save the state a lot of money. This case has likely already cost ID a lot, more so because BK has a PD. They'd save further expense and time along with a closed case and closure for the families, if they made providing details of the crime and planning part of the deal.

BK OTOH, would guarantee himself a permanent spot in maximum security prison for what could be the next 60 years. He would have no chance for an appeal after pleading guilty (not a realistic one anyway), and he would probably have to expose a lot of information about how and why he committed the crime (so, he'd have to be guilty). If he isn't guilty, he couldn't meet a confession requirement.

IMO, if he's guilt, he's better off taking his chances with a jury. One, he could be found not guilty, Two, he could be given the harder sentence, but spend years with appeals or just die of natural causes before they called his number.

I used to be fairly opposed to plea deals but, as I get older, I find more value in them under certain situations. In this case, a guilty plea to take the death penalty off the table would eliminate years and years of automatic appeals that cost an *advertiser censored* fortune on top of what it costs to keep someone in prison. And since there would be no trial, there would be no other appeals trying to get a new trial due to alleged errors by the lower court. MOOooo

 

[Nila Aella]

• 06/06/2023 States Supplemental Response to Defendants Motions

 

[Nila Aella]

• 06/02/2023 Declaration of Gillian Flaccus in Support of Supplemental Memorandum
• 06/02/2023 Declaration of Wendy Olson in Support of Supplemental Memorandum
• 06/02/2023 Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Vacate the Amended Nondissemination Order
• 06/02/2023 Supplemental Memorandum on Camera Access in Courtroom

 

[Balthazar]

I used to be fairly opposed to plea deals but, as I get older, I find more value in them under certain situations. In this case, a guilty plea to take the death penalty off the table would eliminate years and years of automatic appeals that cost an *advertiser censored* fortune on top of what it costs to keep someone in prison. And since there would be no trial, there would be no other appeals trying to get a new trial due to alleged errors by the lower court. MOOooo

I honestly would be more comfortable with a plea deal in this case for the same reason. <modsnip>

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

• 06/02/2023 Declaration of Gillian Flaccus in Support of Supplemental Memorandum
• 06/02/2023 Declaration of Wendy Olson in Support of Supplemental Memorandum
• 06/02/2023 Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Vacate the Amended Nondissemination Order
• 06/02/2023 Supplemental Memorandum on Camera Access in Courtroom

As a Moscow resident, I especially appreciate this:
Supplemental Memorandum on Camera Access in the Courtroom

I tried to attend the recent hearing and it was (understandably) full. Media coverage is crucial, but as a community member, it was frustrating I couldn’t get a seat because of all the media. MOO, as always.

 

[Nila Aella]

From the State re: grand jury

Unfortunately, the State and the defense have not been able to reach agreement.

ICR 6.2 (c)

c) Availability of Record of Grand Jury Proceedings. The district judge, by motion, must permit the following persons to listen to the record of the proceedings of the grand jury or to obtain a transcript of the proceedings in the same manner as a transcript of a preliminary hearing:

(1) a prosecuting attorney,
(2) a person charged in an indictment or the attorney for the person charged, or
(3) a person charged with perjury because of the person's testimony before the grand jury.

The district judge may place conditions on the use, dissemination or publication of the record of proceedings of the grand jury, and any violation of any condition by a party granted access to the record will constitute contempt of the order of the district judge.

ICR 6.3 (c)

(c) Secrecy of Proceedings and Disclosure. Every member of the grand jury must keep secret whatever was said or done in the grand jury proceedings and the vote of each grand juror on a matter before them; but a grand juror may be required by the district judge to disclose matters occurring before the grand jury which may constitute grounds for dismissal of an indictment or grounds for a challenge to a juror or the array of jurors. No other person present in a grand jury proceeding may disclose to any other person what was said or done in the proceeding, except by order of any court for good cause shown.

ICR 6.5 (d)

(d) List of Jurors’ Votes. The presiding juror must prepare separate lists of all jurors voting in favor of and jurors voting against the indictment. The lists must remain sealed but may be disclosed to the prosecuting attorney, the defendant and defendant's counsel by order of the court.

ICAR 32 (g) (7)

(7) Except as provided by Idaho Criminal Rules or statutes, records of proceedings and the identity of jurors of grand juries;

ICAR 32(i) (4)

(4) When a record is sealed under this rule, it shall not be subject to examination, inspection or copying by the public. When the court issues an order sealing or redacting records, the court shall also inform the Clerk of the District Court of which specific files, documents and case management system records are to be sealed or redacted. When the court issues an order sealing or redacting records for purposes of public disclosure, the original records in the court file shall not be altered in any fashion

I.C.R. 6.2. Transcript of Grand Jury Proceedings | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

I.C.R. 6.3. Secrecy and Confidentiality of Grand Jury Proceedings | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

I.C.R. 6.5. Indictment | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

I.C.A.R. 32. Records of The Judicial Department - Examination and Copying - Exemption From and Limitations on Disclosure. | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov