4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #88

[QB2022]

I will be amazed if cameras are allowed, the trend seems to be increasingly to ban them. I hope a compromise can be made, such as the stauch trial. I do wonder if they are banned if the families pursue legal action?

 

[Jurisprudence]

Source please.

[snipped by me]

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/082423-Motion-to-Remove-Cameras-from-Courtroom.pdf

 

[Jurisprudence]

Yeah, it happens. And some zippers come partially undone on their own. To me, this open fly focus is needlessly meant to humiliate and degrade BK.

I don't think BK was trying to send some sick message or anything like that, nor should we care whether he was, or if he simply made a fashion faux pas. He could sit in the courtroom in his underwear and it wouldn't change the seriousness of the proceedings. Jmo.

Agree. But I also think that the camera not permitted to be fixed on his face the entire time doesn't equal him never being on camera in a shot. And, it appears there was a shot of him and in this internet viral day and age some who saw it cropped and focused on it and pointed it out. Defense complains about this in their papers. However, the media isn't looking to see if his fly is zipped as they are covering the proceedings. They're focused on covering the proceedings. The fact that his fly was unzipped is no one's fault but his own. I don't even see this as a big deal. I see this more as "So, his fly was unzipped. Who cares?" It says more about the social media people who take the time to crop it and repost it than it does about the person who forgot to zip his fly imo.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

Thank God none of us can get into BK's head and know why his zipper was unzipped.

Whatever the cause, it appears AT has chosen to try to make a mountain out of a mole hill again. If it is so important, then her team should do a visual check on their defendant before all public appearances. But she chooses, rather, to use it as a basis for a motion to ban cameras in the courtroom.

Ultimately, in my opinion, neither she nor the court have enough jurisdiction and power to control public thoughts, opinions, or gossip. Gag order or not.

Like many of her motions, I wish we could pickle this red herring.

MOO!

VERY Well said!

jmo

 

[Cool Cats]

Bryan Kohberger Secretly Alleges 24 Flaws In Idaho Murders Indictment

Lawyers for the suspected Idaho student killer Bryan Kohberger aiming to dismiss the indictment against him are alleging grand jury bias, “inadmissible” and insufficient evidence and prosecutorial misconduct. In a Wednesday filing, defense attorney Jay Logsdon revealed that Kohberger’s team was...

www.offthepress.com

Defense expert witness Gabriella Vargas testifies about genetic genealogy and DNA databases during a hearing Friday, August 18, 2023, at the Latah County Courthouse in Moscow, Idaho. (August Frank/Pool via REUTERS)

 

[SpiderFalcon]

Bryan Kohberger Secretly Alleges 24 Flaws In Idaho Murders Indictment

Lawyers for the suspected Idaho student killer Bryan Kohberger aiming to dismiss the indictment against him are alleging grand jury bias, “inadmissible” and insufficient evidence and prosecutorial misconduct. In a Wednesday filing, defense attorney Jay Logsdon revealed that Kohberger’s team was...

www.offthepress.com

View attachment 443155
Defense expert witness Gabriella Vargas testifies about genetic genealogy and DNA databases during a hearing Friday, August 18, 2023, at the Latah County Courthouse in Moscow, Idaho. (August Frank/Pool via REUTERS)

Doesn't seem like the camera was focused on the defendant for this pic......

 

[Balthazar]

He only shouted once, and that was 'STOP!' at Dr Lewis, because she would not stop rabbiting on despite an objection being made and sustained. She tried his and everybody else's patience more than anyone else, even LS, I think. There were a couple of points where the defense looked like they wanted to yeet her from the courtroom, and she was THEIR witness! Even then, it didn't feel like he did it out of his own frustration, just that he resorted to it because she was not listening to quieter, politer orders to not continue. A true gentleman doing a very difficult job with grace. Rather than 'ruining' me for all other judges, he gave me great hope that there are many of them out there, overseeing trials with quiet competence. I have great hope that this trial is going to be equally skillfully managed.

MOO

I don't think it was that she was not listening, I think she was having a hard time hearing over the noise in the courtroom - I guess it was a fan? When people are side by side it is harder to hear them than if they are facing us straight on and add that noisy fan or whatever that noise was and I can understand how she was unaware the judge had asked her to stop.

 

[Cool Cats]

​

Could use some attorneys weighing in again......​

@gitana1​

PrairieWind​

​

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

I believe so, although it's unusual:

<snipped>
When a witness is declared as hostile, he is being accused of contradicting his pre-trial statement while on the witness stand. When an attorney suspects a witness of being hostile, he makes an application to the judge, absent the jury, asking the judge to treat the witness as hostile. If the judge agrees, then the jury is made aware that the witness has made a statement that significantly differed from, or contradicted, the one he had made previously.

If the witness denies this, he is then asked to step down from the stand. The person who took the witness’ pre-trial statement is then asked to come to the stand and prove to the judge that the statement was made. The witness is then asked to return to the stand, and his prior statement is shown to him so that he can identify it as his own. Specifically, the witness is shown the section of the statement that he is accused of contradicting.

If the witness agrees that a contradiction has been made, then the judge instructs the jury to disregard his testimony, and the witness is discredited. If, however, he continues to deny a contradiction, then his statement is read into evidence. This means that his statement is read to the jury as proof of the fact that he had made a contradictory statement. Once the statement is read into evidence, then the judge clarifies to the jury that what is contained in the witness’ written statement does not prove the facts in the statement. Instead, it is merely evidence showing the witness’ credibility, or lack thereof.
Hostile Witness - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes.

Sorry for being behind (as usual, sigh), but wanted to thank you for this post, which I found extremely helpful.

 

[NextSprint]

Interesting to read AT's newest Motion to Dismiss, where she invokes Napue v Illinois as an authority for prosecutorial misconduct.

We get very little information about the basis on which she wants the indictment dismissed, because it's sealed, but if you look at the legal authorities she's invoking, it gives us a hint.

Napue relates to false testimony, namely the failure of a prosecutor to correct false testimony given to a jury (in this case, the Grand Jury that Latah County used to indict BK). This to me hints that something went on in that Grand Jury that either involved false testimony by a witness, or that a witness was so lacking credibility that they shouldn't have been giving evidence.

This is interesting why? Because if you're filing a motion/application to a court, you can't just frivolously invoke a specific legal "authority" (i.e. invoking an appeal decision which then becomes precedent/law). We can't know just yet as it's sealed, but I think this motion might have some peril in it for the prosecution... JMO.

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

Interesting to read AT's newest Motion to Dismiss, where she invokes Napue v Illinois as an authority for prosecutorial misconduct.

We get very little information about the basis on which she wants the indictment dismissed, because it's sealed, but if you look at the legal authorities she's invoking, it gives us a hint.

Napue relates to false testimony, namely the failure of a prosecutor to correct false testimony given to a jury (in this case, the Grand Jury that Latah County used to indict BK). This to me hints that something went on in that Grand Jury that either involved false testimony by a witness, or that a witness was so lacking credibility that they shouldn't have been giving evidence.

This is interesting why? Because if you're filing a motion/application to a court, you can't just frivolously invoke a specific legal "authority" (i.e. invoking an appeal decision which then becomes precedent/law). We can't know just yet as it's sealed, but I think this motion might have some peril in it for the prosecution... JMO.

Maybe she needs to check the State's social media account. They may have retracted/clarified what they said/meant.
Also, when I read some of Aesop's 27 page motions, IMO, lots of trying to get around the actual proceedings of a GJ and a good deal is what I, and IANAL, think. Perhaps bordering on "frivolous".
Just my opinions and all that.
EBM: If I'm not mistaken, many cases cited in motions may be found by the judge/prosecution to NOT be relevant to the matter at hand.
Again, IANAL and IMO.

 

[Balthazar]

Interesting to read AT's newest Motion to Dismiss, where she invokes Napue v Illinois as an authority for prosecutorial misconduct.

We get very little information about the basis on which she wants the indictment dismissed, because it's sealed, but if you look at the legal authorities she's invoking, it gives us a hint.

Napue relates to false testimony, namely the failure of a prosecutor to correct false testimony given to a jury (in this case, the Grand Jury that Latah County used to indict BK). This to me hints that something went on in that Grand Jury that either involved false testimony by a witness, or that a witness was so lacking credibility that they shouldn't have been giving evidence.

This is interesting why? Because if you're filing a motion/application to a court, you can't just frivolously invoke a specific legal "authority" (i.e. invoking an appeal decision which then becomes precedent/law). We can't know just yet as it's sealed, but I think this motion might have some peril in it for the prosecution... JMO.

Do you think this may have to do with the Brady-Giglio issue with a LE officer involved in this case? This article details what little is known about the matter:

Idaho officer under ‘internal affairs investigation’ over Bryan Kohberger case

Suspect was arrested in December in connection with the murder of four students in their shared house

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Chloegirl]

Do you think this may have to do with the Brady-Giglio issue with a LE officer involved in this case? This article details what little is known about the matter:

Idaho officer under ‘internal affairs investigation’ over Bryan Kohberger case

Suspect was arrested in December in connection with the murder of four students in their shared house

www.independent.co.uk

As I recall, it was clarified that it was something that was disclosed but related to another case. This doesn't make the officer above questioning but it also doesn't make the officer "bad". It's an assumption. I'm not glorifying police officers, I'm saying I wouldn't want to be one. It is a tough job. I can imagine the public has no clue at the intensity and difficulty.

If something wasn't handled right in relationship to another case, it could be a huge deal on that case, for that officer and their career. They could have issues in every case they handle because of not following protocol or worse. Or not. Just saying. JMOO

I am not entirely sure but it's been speculated that AT is making a career out of questioning police handling, training, etc. That reminds me of getting typecast.

 

[NextSprint]

Do you think this may have to do with the Brady-Giglio issue with a LE officer involved in this case? This article details what little is known about the matter:

Idaho officer under ‘internal affairs investigation’ over Bryan Kohberger case

Suspect was arrested in December in connection with the murder of four students in their shared house

www.independent.co.uk

It could be related IMO, or it could not be. It could be something completely unbeknown to the public thus far.

 

[Sundog]

I am not entirely sure but it's been speculated that AT is making a career out of questioning police handling, training, etc. That reminds me of getting typecast.

<snipped for focus>

I see no reason to question AT's professional ethics. She has worked in the DA's office and has seen a lot from that perspective, and from her perspective as an attorney, and also from her perspetive as a public defender. As a conscientious attorney in a death penalty case, I don't see how she can ignore irregularities (or worse) and ensure that justice is done for her clients - regardless of who they are and what charges they face.

In the case that she is known for in Idaho, it is true that she appealed to the state Supreme Court based on misleading (or worse) testimony of a law enforcement officer. And the Idaho Supreme Court judge ruled in AT's favor and wrote a scathing opinion of what the LE office testified to in the trial. So I wouldn't call this making a career out of questioning police handling, training, etc., but rather calling out LE when giving false witness/testimony.

JMO.


edited for clarity

 

[schooling]

I

Interesting to read AT's newest Motion to Dismiss, where she invokes Napue v Illinois as an authority for prosecutorial misconduct.

We get very little information about the basis on which she wants the indictment dismissed, because it's sealed, but if you look at the legal authorities she's invoking, it gives us a hint.

Napue relates to false testimony, namely the failure of a prosecutor to correct false testimony given to a jury (in this case, the Grand Jury that Latah County used to indict BK). This to me hints that something went on in that Grand Jury that either involved false testimony by a witness, or that a witness was so lacking credibility that they shouldn't have been giving evidence.

This is interesting why? Because if you're filing a motion/application to a court, you can't just frivolously invoke a specific legal "authority" (i.e. invoking an appeal decision which then becomes precedent/law). We can't know just yet as it's sealed, but I think this motion might have some peril in it for the prosecution... JMO.

false testimony but also at a more macro level, false evidence, in general.

IMO, this is another desperate attempt at invalidating the DNA evidence and prosecutors claims that the materials the defense is looking for doesn’t exist.

Hundreds of cases cite the precedent laid in Napue vs Illinois each year. I’d be surprised if it worked even a single digit percentage of the time.

MOO

 

[Sundog]

IMO, this is another desperate attempt at invalidating the DNA evidence and prosecutors claims that the materials the defense is looking for doesn’t exist.

<snipped for focus>

Is the prosecution saying that the materials that the defense is asking for don't exist - or are they saying that they don't have it, maybe the FBI has it.

Big difference, IMO.

 

[Balthazar]

As I recall, it was clarified that it was something that was disclosed but related to another case. This doesn't make the officer above questioning but it also doesn't make the officer "bad". It irritates me when we just assume they are. It's the assumption. I'm not glorifying police officers, I'm saying I wouldn't want to be one. It is a tough job. I can imagine the public has no clue at the intensity and difficulty.

If something wasn't handled right in relationship to another case, it could be a huge deal on that case, for that officer and their career. They could have issues in every case they handle because of not following protocol or worse. Or not. Just saying. JMOO

I am not entirely sure but it's been speculated that AT is making a career out of questioning police handling, training, etc. That reminds me of getting typecast.

We really don't know the outcome of the internal affairs investigation, do we? We don't know what the issue was or how serious it is. If it is very serious (planting evidence, lying, etc.) then it is MORE than appropriate to bring this forward.

If Anne Taylor has recognized that things are not right here, and has documentation to prove her allegations, then I support her raising these issues. I am certain she does not make these allegations frivolously. She is a sworn officer of the court and, as such, must behave in an ethical and honest manner. She cannot lie in her legal filings or in anything she says to the court. It is very wrong to claim she is making a career out of questioning these matters. She's actually doing a service for taxpayers. She is NOT the problem here. No one has accused her of lying or presenting false evidence. This really has NOTHING to do with BK at all. Corruption is corruption and if it exists in some previous case AND this case, it probably exists in other cases. Whatever it is she knows about, she is right to make the allegations now to try to raise awareness to put a stop to it. If not, it will continue.

JMO.

 

[schooling]

<snipped for focus>

Is the prosecution saying that the materials that the defense is asking for don't exist - or are they saying that they don't have it, maybe the FBI has it.

Big difference, IMO.

Not sure.

But it seems like the FBI thinks only the end result matters. So I’d be surprised if they had any internal policies on retaining anything related to that work.

MOO

 

[Sundog]

Idaho Supreme Court overturns Ellington murder conviction

BOISE — State Supreme Court justices have thrown out the second-degree murder conviction of a North Idaho man, citing prosecutorial misconduct and the likelihood that an Idaho State Police officer committed perjury during the 2006 trial. Jonathan Wade Ellington of Hayden was sentenced to 25...

www.spokesman.com

This is an MSM news account of the Idaho Supreme Court overturning the trial results of a well-known case in Idaho with representation by AT. Idaho Supreme Court vacated the guilty verdict of the trial and ordered a new trial. State Supreme Court judges agreed that there was false testimony provided by LE expert witness and also prosecutorial misconduct.

Edited to add part of the Justices' ruling -

In the 32-page ruling, the justices wrote the Kootenai County prosecutor engaged in misconduct during the trial, in part by engaging in improper questioning meant to turn the jury against Ellington. They also concluded that a veteran Idaho State Police officer, Cpl. Fred Rice, a witness for the prosecution, gave testimony that conflicted with statements on accident reconstruction he’d made in previous court cases and contradicted training materials he had personally prepared. “It is impossible to believe there was any truth to the testimony of Cpl. Rice,” wrote Justice Warren Jones. “It is abhorrent to this court, as it would be to any other court, that a man can be sentenced to twenty-five years for second-degree murder based primarily on the false testimony of a trooper of this state.” Jones wrote that a 1st District Court judge in Kootenai County erred in May 2007 when he refused to give Ellington a new trial, despite being presented with evidence of these problems with the prosecution’s case.