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

[Sundog]

I like the theory!

In practice, I think the Goncalves family will file the Motion no matter what the prosecutor does or does not. So far they also seem to be heavily representing and/or influencing the Mogen family, too, so I would not think that it means anything other than the respective people being the early stages of grief, even if both families file the Motion. Considering the previous actions of the family, such as leaking information and considering suing the LE, I don't think their actions are too likely to be fully logical here.

I'm not sure what the purpose is for the G family through their attorney to file a notice or motion regarding their wishes that this case be prosecuted as a death-eligible case. Does it have something to do with a pro forma action step that could be related to the potential lawsuits they have announced?

The sentencing jury will not take into consideration the families' wishes regarding the death penalty if the case gets to that stage. If the families do mention their wishes for the dealth penalty sentence when they give their victims impact statements, then the judge will instruct the jury not to take that into account in their deliberations.

So I am thinking it must have to do with potential future lawsuits.

JMO.

 

[Sundog]

If the DP is sought, it will be a death penalty qualified jury. DP juries can be more prone to convict according to some research:

The Supreme Court held that people categorically opposed to the death penalty — perhaps as much as 40 percent of the population — can be excluded from juries in capital cases.

Research shows that the resulting ‘death qualified’ jurors are more likely to hand down convictions and often come to conclusions about punishment before the sentencing phases of their trials, and that merely going through the process of jury selection for capital cases prejudices them against defendants.”

Are "Death-Qualified" Juries Problematic? - Death Penalty​

But I don't see it as overreach just to file a Motion. Motions are filed all the time and often the judge won't even grant them.

The families would give a long list of their reasons for the DP and in the prosecutor's Opposition Motion he
would give his long list of why he is against the DP in this Case.

So why not let the judge decide? Isn't that what a judge is for when 2 sides don't agree?

Is it legal in Idaho for a judge to decide if a case should be tried as a death-eligible case? I would think that the decision would have to come from the prosecution based on their evidence and their assessment that the evidence meets the requirements for a murder or murders to be tried as death-eligible cases.

 

[Cool Cats]

It could be that Ethan's family have nothing to say about it either way, judging from the recent interview with his mother, they seem to be saying that they leave the trial to the appropriate authorities and intend to direct their energies into healing within the family and moving forward, knowing nothing can bring Ethan back to them :-(. The families aren't required to voice an opinion to the DA? I feel like they might say something like it is up to the state within the existing laws to make that decision in accordance with seriousness of crime, or something like that. Just based on the recent interview aired. Moo

I hadn't even thought of that.

That they could very well say they want to have the prosecutor decide what he thinks is best for the Case regarding getting through a trial. A DP Case changes the trial considerably.

There are a huge amount of Motions that the defense has to file in a DP Case - both for the Guilt Phase and the Penalty Phase trials. This causes alot of extra hearings and more meetings in the judge's chambers as well as taking much longer to even get to a trial. Could take a year to even start jury selection.

DP trials have to have DP qualified juries.

A defendant has to have a DP qualified attorney and in some States the defendant has to have 2 qualified DP attorneys. DP Mitigation Specialists have to be hired. Extra investigators have to be hired, extra psychologists and psychiatrists have to be hired, a ton of mitigating and aggravating evidence has to be presented, family and friends testify, all kinds of specialists have to testify and on and on.

Then if the defendant is sentenced to death there are years and years of appeals with extra attorneys on board.

Also, DP trials take longer to get through and are way more time consuming in and out of the courtroom as well as much more expensive to prosecute then a non DP Case.

The DP requires another separate trial which is super expensive. There are 2 trials instead of one.

And the Idaho Supreme Court has to be notified about certain things and respond.

Can give you a headache just thinking about it!

2 Cents

 

[Nila Aella]

DBM

 

[Nila Aella]

Idaho murder suspect wants cameras prohibited from trial, future court hearings

MOSCOW, Idaho - The man accused of killing four University of Idaho college students last fall does not want cameras allowed in his upcoming trial or any other proceedings, citing

www.kxly.com

The man accused of killing four University of Idaho college students last fall does not want cameras allowed in his upcoming trial or any other proceedings, citing the "prejudicial effects of trial publicity."

 

[Nila Aella]

• 06/06/2023 Defendants Memorandum on Cameras During Hearings
• 06/06/2023 Defendants Motion for Order Permitting Zoom Participation
• 06/06/2023 Defendants Motion to Shorten Time
• 06/06/2023 Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Press Coverage
• 06/06/2023 Objection to Medias Motion to Vacate the Amended Nondissemination Order
• 06/06/2023 Response States Response to Motion to Appeal Amend And/Or Clarify
• 06/06/2023 Response to Associated Press Motion to Intervene
• 06/06/2023 States Brief on Video Photographic Coverage
• 06/06/2023 States Supplemental Response to Defendants Motions
• 06/06/2023 Stipulation for Protective Order

Reposting because I missed a few.
MOO

 

[Cool Cats]

Is it legal in Idaho for a judge to decide if a case should be tried as a death-eligible case? I would think that the decision would have to come from the prosecution based on their evidence and their assessment that the evidence meets the requirements for a murder or murders to be tried as death-eligible cases.

Good catch Sundog. That maybe the judge can't decide this but why would their attorney file this Motion if the judge can't decide? This makes no sense. It is their attorney who files the Motions for them, he would know if the judge could decide or not under the law.

I do know that judges in Idaho are allowed to dismiss DP charges despite the prosecutor bringing the DP charges. The judge can overrule the prosecutor on this.

The defense always files Motions to have the DP dismissed and the judge can grant the Motion as happened in the Vallow trial.

I don't see why the judge couldn't legally rule on a Motion to charge the defendant with the DP. If he can dismiss the DP why couldn't he bring the DP? Judges have the power to overrule prosecutors.

I can't find anything on your specific question.

2 Cents

 

[di anna]

Idaho does not permit an insanity plea. I believe it's one of four states that simply do not have an insanity plea on the books.

The only time his mental health will be relevant is during sentencing. If he's convicted of all charges or pleads guilty to obtain a deal, the Judge has but two options: LWOP and DP. In that case, mental health issues (and character witnesses) could persuade the Judge to choose LWOP.

Kohberger has not entered an insanity plea and at his first hearing, he told the Judge he was competent to stand trial.

I don't think any evidence about possible mental illness will come in at trial.

IMO

Even though he has told the judge he was competent to stand trial, it doesn't mean he is. When would they require a competency evaluation?

 

[Twistinginthewind]

• 06/06/2023 Defendants Memorandum on Cameras During Hearings
• 06/06/2023 Defendants Motion for Order Permitting Zoom Participation
• 06/06/2023 Defendants Motion to Shorten Time
• 06/06/2023 Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Press Coverage
• 06/06/2023 Objection to Medias Motion to Vacate the Amended Nondissemination Order
• 06/06/2023 Response States Response to Motion to Appeal Amend And/Or Clarify
• 06/06/2023 Response to Associated Press Motion to Intervene
• 06/06/2023 States Brief on Video Photographic Coverage
• 06/06/2023 States Supplemental Response to Defendants Motions
• 06/06/2023 Stipulation for Protective Order

Reposting because I missed a few.
MOO

Thanks as always, @Nila Aella, for posting links to the latest court docs.

The "shorten time" (3rd from top) one doesn't seem too specific in terms of actual time the defendant wishes to shorten. But it seems related to his desire for press coverage at Hearings being by Zoom only.

"COMES NOW, Bryan C. Kohberger, by and through his attorney, Anne C. Taylor, Public Defender, and hereby moves the Court for an Order Shortening Time for hearing the Defendant’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Press Coverage and Defendant’s Motion for Order Permitting Zoom Participation at Hearing for Witness or to Continue Hearing in this matter."

ETA: Oh, wait, I didn't take in all the words and digest them. Eek! It's referring to Zoom participation being fine from defendant's perspective for "Hearing for Witness or to Continue Hearing in this matter". That's a different kettle of fish, IMO, witnesses and hearing continuances being via Zoom, not just Hearings.

 

[10ofRods]

It's my opinion that the families filed a *notice* to the court, not a motion.

jmo

Even though he has told the judge he was competent to stand trial, it doesn't mean he is. When would they require a competency evaluation?

Well then, it's up to BK and his attorneys to initiate a process by which he tries to claim he's incompetent. He plainly told the Judge that he was not (first hearing) and then on second hearing told the Judge that he understood his charges. Attorney said he wanted to stand silent .

There's been not a single word about his mental health. There has been no formal action to get him a psychiatric evaluation. He is not being held in a psychiatric facility. He told the Judge at the first hearing that he's not on mediations that alter his mental states.

Who is the "they" that would require a competency hearing?

Surely the State won't ask for that. A Judge isn't just going to ask for it, either.

The Defense needs to file a motion, I suppose. No Judge is going to declare a defendant incompetent of the defendant's own lawyers don't initiate the action, IMO.

I guess if BK were acting visibly and audibly psychotic in jail, the Police Chief could also initiate some kind of action to transfer him to a psych facility. But that hasn't happened. He's right there in the Latah County Jail, showing up for his appearances, acting normal.

He would need to be actually psychotic, I think, or borderline psychotic to get a competency hearing. His lawyers could claim he's out of touch with reality, I suppose. But I really do think he'd have to convince a psychiatrist of that. And he seems to think he's normal. At any rate, to me the "they" are his lawyers and I think they know way more about his mental states and his legal case than we do.

IMO.

 

[Nila Aella]

Thanks as always, @Nila Aella, for posting links to the latest court docs.

The "shorten time" (3rd from top) one doesn't seem too specific in terms of actual time the defendant wishes to shorten. But it seems related to his desire for press coverage at Hearings being by Zoom only.

"COMES NOW, Bryan C. Kohberger, by and through his attorney, Anne C. Taylor, Public Defender, and hereby moves the Court for an Order Shortening Time for hearing the Defendant’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Press Coverage and Defendant’s Motion for Order Permitting Zoom Participation at Hearing for Witness or to Continue Hearing in this matter."

I haven't read through them yet, but when I briefly scanned the above, I read that as he wants a witness to attend the hearing by zoom? JMO

 

[Twistinginthewind]

I haven't read through them yet, but when I briefly scanned the above, I read that as he wants a witness to attend the hearing by zoom? JMO

Yes, I edited my post to add that, because I missed it, thanks !

 

[Nila Aella]

Yes, I edited my post to add that, because I missed it, thanks !

It is strange wording...it looks like a request to shorten hearing time for press coverage AND for a witness by zoom, or to continue to the hearing if the court can't. Unsure though MOO

edited a couple times b/c I am tired and typing the wrong words

 

[Teche]

Idaho murder suspect wants cameras prohibited from trial, future court hearings

MOSCOW, Idaho - The man accused of killing four University of Idaho college students last fall does not want cameras allowed in his upcoming trial or any other proceedings, citing

www.kxly.com

The man accused of killing four University of Idaho college students last fall does not want cameras allowed in his upcoming trial or any other proceedings, citing the "prejudicial effects of trial publicity."

Is the courtroom camera totally up to the defendant or the judge?

 

[Balthazar]

I've been thinking about this since you posted this hours ago.

IMO, media has evolved from those early fact-finding duties and it's now become a business that's dependent on digital clicks and read through rates to survive. It's no longer about the 6:00 news. It's about 24-hour news cycles that demand attention, and expecting journalists to remain fidelitous to their traditional mission would be asking them to ignore contemporary pressures. That's unrealistic. So until journalistic standards can be re-designed to operate cohesively with the judicial system without compromising fairness, dignity, and the core tenets of presumption of innocence, gag order should stay.

I also don't agree that the media is meant to be the watchdog. The media is meant to inform the public and by default, becomes the watchdog in order to carry out that duty. But the risks and benefits of their role must also be measured, particularly in a case that hasn't just garnered public attention, but also public opinion, and strong, passionate opinion at that. It's the latter that could potentially pose a fatal blow to justice. Another reason the gag order should stay.

MOO.

Thanks for posting this well considered response! It is very interesting and very much appreciated.

 

[10ofRods]

Is the courtroom camera totally up to the defendant or the judge?

I believe it is entirely in the hands of the judge.

The Bill of Rights is clear about the press's rights to cover public events. Courts are paid for by the public.

However, the Judge doesn't have to approve cameras (and many are not approving cameras, instead opting to allow reporters to tweet only from just outside the courtroom. Some allow tweeting from inside the courtroom. "Tweets" is a generic term here, although that's what most reporters are doing.

I didn't follow the Vallow (madness) trial, but those who did will likely know more about what *that* judge did.

I personally think that courtroom coverage is essential. I would show it to my students, who seem completely befuddled about what a "court" actually is and do not know the difference between civil and criminal courts. It's educational. It's real. It's community. We are a society, with laws. Reporters are obligated, in my view, to cover what goes on in the community, in society.

In the end, if the Judge allows a "pool feed" (local news sets up a camera, everyone has to arrange to get feed from the local news outlet), it works. Entities like DM and Meoww will still grab stuff and make of it what they will, there's no stopping tabloid news. But I'm very impressed with the local reporting in the Idaho and Colorado cases I'm following.

Fingers crossed that we get cameras. I really want to see this trial.

imo

 

[Balthazar]

I think media literacy is an important concept, on a par with critical thinking/evaluation. It's just a shame and very tiring to always be on the alert for what is and is not accurate reporting. The way I deal with this at present as regards this case is to compare actual court docs with how various outlets report on them. But this is almost a full time job in my leisure time! Like most people, Imo, I just want accurate, balanced reporting without having to resort to constant double checking, but it's hard to know when to apply the grain of salt principle or not with some media. Moo

I so agree. I have found literally no media sources that are unimpeachable. It is so frustrating. I even read media from different countries - some are so completely and totally incorrect it makes me laugh. Yet there are people who believe all manner of crazy reporting that is so easy to disprove, so there is definitely an audience for that.

With this case, I want the facts of the prosecution case to be laid out in detail and I want to hear the defense case in detail. I also want to be assured that neither the defense nor the prosecution have withheld information from each other and that neither side is attempting to pull a stunt to win unethically. Only then will I make up my mind about this case.

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1666543670693343233

 

[Balthazar]

I'm having a Jack Nicholson moment here. If they lift the gag order I'm not sure if we can handle the truth. It will be very overwhelming and fast-paced to read and understand it all.

We've done it before in other cases. The Casey Anthony case comes to mind.

 

[Balthazar]

Is it legal in Idaho for a judge to decide if a case should be tried as a death-eligible case? I would think that the decision would have to come from the prosecution based on their evidence and their assessment that the evidence meets the requirements for a murder or murders to be tried as death-eligible cases.

The prosecutor has to decide if this is a death penalty case. The judge does not decide this at all. Then once the trial is complete and the jurors have decided if the defendant is guilty or innocent and of what charges - then, if guilty, the jury decides on the punishment.