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

[schooling]

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.

This case has brought a lot of interest in the legal process. The pre trial sparring match between prosecutors and the defense starts looking odd to casual observers. So any and all court filing fuels vast conspiracy theories!

Just look at the last time they were in court. I read in more than one place that the defense was getting ready to blow the lid off of a conspiracy. Instead their arguments took a beating and BK was forced to wave his right to a speedy trial.

So now it’s on to the next one…..this filing will surely do it!

 

[schooling]

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.

I think you’d find a lot of examples of this across a lot of states in the MSM. I’m a member of a minority population. So trust me when I say that I don’t need MSM to tell me that prosecutorial misconduct is not a conspiracy theory.

but I’d also bet that’s theres an order of magnitude of case examples where similar accusations and filings had no merit and didn’t go anywhere.

Also, in some corners of the internet there are wild theories about BKs DNA tied to these filings. Those people are going to be wildly disappointed. But it will be on to the next theory for them.

 

[ArianeEmory]

This case has brought a lot of interest in the legal process. The pre trial sparring match between prosecutors and the defense starts looking odd to casual observers.

More so than any other case/pre-trial I've 'followed', it feels like more like a fictional legal drama by David E Kelley or The Good Wife team.

 

[maskedwoman]

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.

Although I'm in no way casting aspersions on AT's character, I feel obligated to point out that simply being a sworn officer of the court doesn't automatically put anyone on the side of right.

 

[schooling]

If the defense has in its hands clear evidence of law enforcement planting evidence or lying or etc

That sounds exculpatory. Right?

I’m imagining 5 alarm fire level of exculpatory. Call the judge and wake him up at 3am in the morning. Emergency hearing. Chastising of the prosecution and apologizing to BK in open court. Celebratory press conference on the superior court steps. Talk show appearances. Book deals. Podcasts about finding the real killers.

Etc.

And here we are almost a year after the murders and fresh off the defendant waiving his right to a speedy trial.

 

[Sundog]

I think you’d find a lot of examples of this across a lot of states in the MSM. I’m a member of a minority population. So trust me when I say that I don’t need MSM to tell me that prosecutorial misconduct is not a conspiracy theory.

<snipped for focus>

It was suggested by OP that AT could be trying to make a name for herself in relation to accusing LE of wrong-doing. The case I posted about shows that the Justices of the Idaho Supreme Court found that there was indeed incredible wrongdoing by LE in the case she represented, including prosecutorial misconduct on top of false testimony by LE.

So this should put to bed the notion that her motive is to make a name for herself, rather than ensure justice for the clients she represents.

 

[Balthazar]

Although I'm in no way casting aspersions on AT's character, I feel obligated to point out that simply being a sworn officer of the court doesn't automatically put anyone on the side of right.

What exactly has AT done so far that makes you think she is not on the side of right?

 

[Balthazar]

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

What they "think" doesn't matter. The FBI's work is NOT above being questioned. All that matters is that they have the paper trail to prove their evidence is correct and it appears they don't. Not a good look.

 

[QB2022]

I was hazarding a bet that the false testimony would be linked to the surviving two. Perhaps arguing there are contradictions? Or suggesting they are lying?

 

[NextSprint]

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

(Snipped by me)

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.

“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.”

Key takeaway being, that questioning law enforcement is an important part of retaining our freedoms. Particularly if you're on trial for murder.

 

[NextSprint]

Although I'm in no way casting aspersions on AT's character, I feel obligated to point out that simply being a sworn officer of the court doesn't automatically put anyone on the side of right.

Correct but as a sworn officer (well, in the English system barristers are even more internal to the court than simply being an officer of it), she will know that lying can get her in extreme trouble very quickly.

 

[NextSprint]

I was hazarding a bet that the false testimony would be linked to the surviving two. Perhaps arguing there are contradictions? Or suggesting they are lying?

That would probably count as "not correcting false testimony" tbh. If - in our theoretical Grand Jury proceeding - Witness A says lots of things that help the state's case, and Witness B contradicts A, but (purely in a hypothetical situation) the prosecutor brushes off questions from the jurors about Witness A's credibility in the light of Witness B's contradicting evidence, then I believe that would count.

 

[10ofRods]

<snipped for focus>

It was suggested by OP that AT could be trying to make a name for herself in relation to accusing LE of wrong-doing. The case I posted about shows that the Justices of the Idaho Supreme Court found that there was indeed incredible wrongdoing by LE in the case she represented, including prosecutorial misconduct on top of false testimony by LE.

So this should put to bed the notion that her motive is to make a name for herself, rather than ensure justice for the clients she represents.

The two things go together, though. It's not as if someone gets a name for themselves (usually) by being a bad criminal defense attorney whose clients are all convicted and get harsh sentences.

It can be both. Nothing wrong with a person wanting to be well known. It does seem that prosecutorial misconduct is an area she has studied well, so it's natural for her to use it again. We have yet to see how well this is going to go for this client. My personal opinion is that the long wait that is about to take place in the proceedings is beneficial to the defendant, but not to the victims' families or the State or the witnesses.

This case must be hanging over the heads of DM and BF like a sword, emotionally speaking.

IMO.

 

[NextSprint]

The two things go together, though. It's not as if someone gets a name for themselves (usually) by being a bad criminal defense attorney whose clients are all convicted and get harsh sentences.

It can be both. Nothing wrong with a person wanting to be well known. It does seem that prosecutorial misconduct is an area she has studied well, so it's natural for her to use it again. We have yet to see how well this is going to go for this client. My personal opinion is that the long wait that is about to take place in the proceedings is beneficial to the defendant, but not to the victims' families or the State or the witnesses.

This case must be hanging over the heads of DM and BF like a sword, emotionally speaking.

IMO.

Let's not forget that AT is a public defender. They aren't generally wealthy lawyer types... It's not like she wants to line up her next celebrity client. JMO.

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

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.

Agree with everything, including IANAL & IMO.

I started spot-checking the cites over the weekend & thought "We have a spaghetti special here," MOO.

To be clear, IANAL & MOO.

 

[maskedwoman]

What exactly has AT done so far that makes you think she is not on the side of right?

I specifically said that I was not casting aspersions on her character. My point was that your comment assumed she was in the right simply due to being an officer of the court. The prosecution are officers of the court too. That doesn't mean they are always right any more than it does a public defender.

 

[maskedwoman]

Correct but as a sworn officer (well, in the English system barristers are even more internal to the court than simply being an officer of it), she will know that lying can get her in extreme trouble very quickly.

Of course. My point is simply that the statement is equally true for both sides.

 

[ArianeEmory]

Let's not forget that AT is a public defender. They aren't generally wealthy lawyer types... It's not like she wants to line up her next celebrity client. JMO.

This is a bit old so maybe it was refuted, but:

Bryan Kohberger's attorney is being paid $8K a week to defend him: Report

Former FBI agent Jennifer Coffindaffer said she was surprised that Anne Taylor could be taking home more than $380,000 a year for the case.

www.newsweek.com

Idaho Murders Update: Bryan Kohberger's Lawyer Is Earning $200 Per Hour

A new agreement reveals the public defender representing Idaho murders suspect Bryan Kohberger will be paid $200 per hour.

www.ibtimes.com

In any event, in my experience with American true crime, few defense attorneys take on a high profile murder case like this one unless they expect to gain something (some combo of money or fame).

 

[Balthazar]

Although I'm in no way casting aspersions on AT's character, I feel obligated to point out that simply being a sworn officer of the court doesn't automatically put anyone on the side of right.

Being a defense attorney does not automatically put someone on the side of wrong.

 

[NextSprint]

This is a bit old so maybe it was refuted, but:

Bryan Kohberger's attorney is being paid $8K a week to defend him: Report

Former FBI agent Jennifer Coffindaffer said she was surprised that Anne Taylor could be taking home more than $380,000 a year for the case.

www.newsweek.com

Idaho Murders Update: Bryan Kohberger's Lawyer Is Earning $200 Per Hour

A new agreement reveals the public defender representing Idaho murders suspect Bryan Kohberger will be paid $200 per hour.

www.ibtimes.com

In any event, in my experience with American true crime, few defense attorneys take on a high profile murder case like this one unless they expect to gain something (some combo of money or fame).

Right but doing a "good job" as a defence attorney shouldn't really be seen as malicious. It's their job, probably one they avoided commercial law (whose salaries start around $250k fresh out of college and will invariably go on to earn $millions per year) to do. JMO of course.