4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #89

[al66pine]

Victims' Rights, Families. Access to Discovery?

Anybody know why the G family assumed that they'd get access to Discovery?

@cottonweaver
Not clear to me that the G family actually thought, assumed or were told (by their counsel or prosecution) they would receive discovery.

Clipped from the X/tweet:
"The case is surrounded by secrecy.
Everything is either sealed or redacted.
The family has not received any discovery on the case or any information about the facts of the case from the state."

X/Tweet does not actually claim, that family/ies should receive discovery or "information about the facts," under ID. law.
Just seems to IMPLY they should.

On this point, per ID. Constitution & ID statutes* re "victims' rights" they are not entitled to receive discovery.
Briefly they shall be "afforded the opporunity to communicate w the prosecution."*
And presumably at a later point (unless the state and the def't are discussing it now), family/ies are entitled to ---
"be advised of any proposed plea agreement by the prosecuting attorney prior to entering
into a plea agreement."*

If prosecution has any obligation to provide "information on facts of the case" the family stmt. implies, I've missed it.

imo
___________________________________
* This has been posted, quoted, and discussed many times. Relevant sections here.

ID. Constitution
"Section 22. RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS.
"....(4) To be present at all criminal justice proceedings.
"(5) To communicate with the prosecution.
"(6) To be heard, upon request, at all criminal justice proceedings considering a plea of guilty, sentencing, incarceration or release of the defendant, unless manifest injustice would result."

Section 22 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

ID. Statute
"19-5306. Rights of victim during investigation, prosecutionand disposition of the crime.
(1) Each victim of a criminal or juvenile offense shall be:...
(e) Heard, upon request, at all criminal justice
proceedings considering a plea of guilty, sentencing, incarceration, placing on probation or release of the defendant unless manifest injustice would result;..."
"(f) Afforded the opportunity to communicate with the prosecution in criminal or juvenile offenses, and be advised of any proposed plea agreement by the prosecuting attorney prior to entering
into a plea agreement in criminal or juvenile offenses involving crimesof violence, sex crimes or crimes against children;..."
Section 19-5306 – Idaho State Legislature

A "PLAIN LANGUAGE" explanation of ID. law, published by ID. Atty. Gen., dtd. Jan 2023:

https://www.ag.idaho.gov/content/uploads/2018/04/VictimsRights.pdf

 

[girlhasnoname]

You're totally right about that so I will digress here. But if you're going to use anyone's imagery in your photography, you should still be following a release process. This often applies to more commercial and other aspects. JMOO

I agree Professional Courtesy is a good thing.

 

[al66pine]

Victims' Rights, Families. Access to Discovery? More

I wonder if it isn't possible that they are using the term "discovery" in a much broader sense than the legal use of it, as in what the State and the Defense are required to turn over to each other. I wonder if they are using the words to more broadly mean "evidence and facts of the case."

@gremlin444 Possible, yes.
But I wonder if " family statement" was written by a fam member? Or by someone else, such as S. Grayor other atty who orig'ly repped Goncalves fam, or ??? IDK

Like my post just above, stmt does not claim that family is entitled to discovery or "info about the facts" under ID. law. Just IMPLIES it.

But as you said--- stmt. may be using the term more broadly than typical legal usage. IDK.

 

[Cool Cats]

Anybody know why the G family assumed that they'd get access to Discovery?

They never said that. They say they haven't received any discovery so they need the trial televised to help get out the facts. At least they can see the trial in person.

 

[cottonweaver]

They never said that. They say they haven't received any discovery so they need the trial televised to help get out the facts. At least they can see the trial in person.

from the statement on the previous page

'The family has not received any discovery on the case or any information about the facts of the case from the state'

That's how I interpreted the sentence

PS If it ends up like Lori Vallow - it'll be late audio upload.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Ah, Walmart, bless you. You're an evil megacorp, but your surveillance is the crux of many a prosecution case. Used their credit card? Paid cash, but used their discount card? Didn't use anything identifiable at the point of sale, but walked past a millionty-one cameras while buying their bleach and garbage bags? Walmart sees all. Walmart knows all. And Walmart will hand it all over to LE without any problem.

MOO

Walmart - The All Knowing

 

[10ofRods]

Actually, unless there is an expectation of privacy (bathrooms, locker rooms, private homes, backyards, etc.) you can take pictures in public without the consent of the person.

<snipped>

Taking Photos in Public​

If you stand in a public place, you can usually take a photo of anything you can see. That means in a public park, on a public beach, on a city street or in an outdoor spectacle, like a marathon, you can shoot photos to your heart's content. Take snaps of trees and sidewalks, yes, but go ahead and snap shots of people, too. Be a little careful however if you are using a telephoto lens. Just because your feet are on public land doesn't mean that you can shoot into private property.

Laws About Being Photographed Without Permission

Yep, we don't need consent to take pictures at a public place. No one has to run around at Disneyland asking others in the crowd for permission to have them in the picture.

Indeed, when our neighbor put a camera pointed at our driveway (so they could log when we weren't home and organize burglaries), local LE said we could only make our fence taller. Camera is still there. We now have security cameras of our own, obviously. Our cameras capture a lot that goes on in our neighborhood and we ever have to use that video for LE purposes, we do not have to ask permission to show LE who is out and about publicly (and that includes areas of front yards visible from the street).

If someone points a camera through someone's windows, though, that's against the law where I live.

What we aren't supposed to 'shoot into' is people's houses (although there are some weird cases where people have been told they have no "expectation of privacy" when their window is directly opposite someone else's window and people are looking out their windows (at each other). It's merely rude, apparently, but not always illegal.

IMO.

 

[10ofRods]

You're totally right about that so I will digress here. But if you're going to use anyone's imagery in your photography, you should still be following a release process. This often applies to more commercial and other aspects. JMOO

Depends on the photography. Journalists and anthropologists do not throw away pictures taken in public, as we would not be able to document...all kinds of things, but particularly protests, riots, and war. My image is not owned by me if I'm out in public. It's a courtesy to ask, but street photography is a real thing, as well.

I know of no legal consequences for taking pictures in public and using those images as part of journalistic or academic work. If you're going to put someone's identifying information in the caption, that's tabu in anthropology and limited in the journalistic process (if there's been a car accident and there's a police report on file, a reporter can use pictures of the accident, the driver standing there, and then get the name from the police report - if they want to; the editor has to decide whether there's a risk; usually there isn't).

And stores (like Walmart) post the fact that they're photographing everyone, which is a disclaimer and there's no need for Walmart to ask each individual for ID - they can use those pictures as they wish (but rarely do).

My hobby is watching street videography...anyone can walk down the street with their camera phone on, and for some, that feels like a safety measure (like a car cam - which is also legal).

IMO.

 

[Cool Cats]

He did say that but it was before they had made any connection to BK . It was one of his first 3 interveiws ,I think. I wondered if it had to do with tower pings and cell numbers at the time.

I have this in saved docs just don’t have time to quote-I remember KG father stating that BK was close enough to the victims’ house to connect to their Wi-Fi. Anyone remember that?

Steve “Gonzo” Goncalves never said anything publically about BK until after BK's arrest. This is the type of information that is dangerous to get out. If a suspect thinks LE is "on to him" possibly will arrest him, he could disappear, take hostages, commit suicide like Brian Laundrie, suicide by cop, etc...

Goncalves never said BK actually touched their WiFi, he said he was close enough to do so.

 

[Trebor5591]

https://x.com/brianentin/status/1701663017195512011?s=61&t=Vp-AZ81ShrhzLNqqCFHAgA

View attachment 446554View attachment 446555

IMO, and with all due respect to the victim's families, the above statement it all wrong. Cameras in the courthouse turn the trials into circuses. There were no camera's allowed in the Lori Vallow trial, but there was good reporting on every aspect of that trial and IMO the public was well informed and justice was served.

 

[Trebor5591]

Anybody know why the G family assumed that they'd get access to Discovery?

I would say they have a fundamental misunderstanding about the role and responsibilities of the victims families in the trial of BK, IMO. Its understandable that they want to be involved, and engaged, but in truth, they have no real role to play in the trial of BK until it comes time to hear the victim impact statements. Unless their testimony will be sought in the trial itself, for some reason. MOO

 

[Sundog]

Wouldn't he be prohibited by law from accepting payment? I mean, the offer would have to go to someone besides him, right?

Maybe it varies by state. In theory, Son of Sam laws would prohibit him actually inking any deal on his own. Some lucky author(s) are going to get the book deals (and screenwriters, perhaps).

He's going to get lots of interview offers, for sure (when the trial is over and gag order is gone), for sure. But he can't sign a contract for pay, if he's convicted.

That's my understanding anyway, I'm sure there are people here who know more about this corner of law and publishing.

IMO.

Any profit from BK writing a book would go to a victims' compensation fund, he would not be able to profit from a book, but he can still write it.

 

[arielilane]

Few thoughts.

1) 48 hours took their time and didn't rush anything out.

2) Assuming number 1 was strategic, I hope there's new reporting

3) I hope they were able to independently corroborate the information reported out by Dateline and the ABC News Podcast special. If they do then it's a good sign we'll see some of that evidence in trial.

Agreed. Appears some of the victims' family corroborated with 48 Hrs, but I'm not anticipating new info though glad the case remains in the news. It's too bad other crimes are not afforded the same. A little off topic, I support whatever the families' wishes are. Would not want to be living their lives. So very sad for them. moo

 

[Boxer]

Yes. And it still raises questions in my head. I am not a specialist at all. Having set up several internet wi-fis, i know that the devices in the house live their own lives. I now wonder if: 1) the easiest scenario - BK knew the password and would log into wifi before, so his phone automatically logged into a known wifi. Maybe some passwords are super easy, and BK, being interested in such things, could figure it out. 2) there could have been two wi-fis. Not impossible if it was a party house. One, private, and one, public for the guests. BK would use the public one before, and his phone recognized it.

Only his phone was dark during these hours, this is unusual. Maybe, when he approached the house the morning after, with the phone being with him and on, the phone made a handshake?

MOO The "handshake" is referring to his earlier visits.

 

[10ofRods]

Any profit from BK writing a book would go to a victims' compensation fund, he would not be able to profit from a book, but he can still write it.

I understand that part but am confused about what such a contract could entail. He can voluntarily write anything he likes of course. And could someone else profit by partnering with him?

 

[Sundog]

I understand that part but am confused about what such a contract could entail. He can voluntarily write anything he likes of course. And could someone else profit by partnering with him?

I, also, wonder about that. I wonder about the BTK book with Ramsland as an example.

This is what I have been able to find so far. It sounds to me like the lawyer for the families has developed a contract where Ramsland would get about 25% of any profit/royalties and the victims' families would get about 75% of profits, and that the families of the victims would have final say in the approval of any media portrayals of BTK and his victims. At least that's how I interpret this section of the article, below.

One question people often ask about this unusual collaboration is whether Rader profits from it. He doesn’t, Ramsland explained. In the past 40 years, so-called Son of Sam laws — named after David Berkowitz, who considered selling his story to great outrage in 1977 — have prevented a number of murderers from making money from their stories. In 2005, Thompson worried that Son of Sam laws did not go far enough: They varied from state to state, and a 1991 court ruling had found them to be too broad and possibly unconstitutional. So Thompson and his then co-counsel, Mark Hutton, drew up a contract that gave the families of the victims 75 percent of the profits of all media rights. The current contract, though slightly different, is similarly generous. (Sony has already optioned a TV series.)

Edited to add link

The Serial Killer’s Co-Author (Published 2016)

Katherine Ramsland has written many books on macabre subjects, but her latest volume takes a startling new form: a collaboration that lets a notorious murderer — Dennis Rader, a.k.a. the ‘B.T.K. Killer’ — tell his own story.

www.nytimes.com

 

[katydid23]

Why would the defense even mention he was out driving late on 11/12, if not to try and get ahead of the information he was near them earlier?

I was thinking they wanted to say that because it seems more suspicious if he was home all night of the 12th, and early morning of the 13th, and then just went out at 3 am, for no apparent reason. JMO

 

[Boxer]

I was thinking they wanted to say that because it seems more suspicious if he was home all night of the 12th, and early morning of the 13th, and then just went out at 3 am, for no apparent reason. JMO

That does read a bit better.

But it's a pretty small change to BK out driving, went home, left again turned off his phone in Pullman
headed to the Moscow Pullman highway. Drove around Moscow.

But there isn't much for AT to say.

 

[katydid23]

Interesting update. That's not how we were taught in college. There's an actual release of use form you're supposed to have people sign off on to consent. Maybe this is just CYA but it's a good idea nonetheless. JMOO

I think those release forms are only needed if the photos or videos are going to be printed in publications of some kind. You can take a picture of anyone you want---but I don't think you can sell it to a magazine or paper unless you have a release form. UNLESS IT IS A PUBLIC FIGURE, IMO

 

[Charlot123]

MOO The "handshake" is referring to his earlier visits.

Well, there are so many ways to figure out a password.

Didn't BK take HVAC classes? Naive question - but do some of these places offer internet installation?