- Joined
- Oct 22, 2018
- Messages
- 17,867
- Reaction score
- 297,014
Is it still Wednesday? Is it still April?
4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #92
- Thread starter ChatteringBirds
- Start date
- Status
@newsfromkerri
Judge says two questions were not in the public record. He says it's a challenging issue and something he has to struggle through. Probably won't have a decision this week.
Judge says two questions were not in the public record. He says it's a challenging issue and something he has to struggle through. Probably won't have a decision this week.
Numerous objections, raised voices, and a request from the judge to “tone it down” unraveled inside an Idaho courtroom Wednesday night during a hearing in the #IdahoMurders case.
@newsfromkerri
Change of venue hearing will be pushed to 10 a.m. on June 27 in Latah County District Court. Full day of testimony is anticipated.
Change of venue hearing will be pushed to 10 a.m. on June 27 in Latah County District Court. Full day of testimony is anticipated.
@newsfromkerri
Today's hearing lasted almost three hours. It's wrapping up now. Thanks for following along! I appreciate it.
Today's hearing lasted almost three hours. It's wrapping up now. Thanks for following along! I appreciate it.
04/10/2014 Survey Hearing
The latest #BryanKohberger hearing is scheduled to begin at 4 today. Discussion of defense's survey of 400 Latah County residents will continue, along with various other motions and dates to consider. I'll be posting updates for those of you who can't livestream it.
At this point, the biggest question is whether the trial will be moved to another county in Idaho, but that won't be determined today. Trial is supposed to take place in 2025. Families of four UI students who were killed are growing weary of delays.
Another issue that's looming is Kohberger's alibi. Judge John Judge gave the defense until April 17 to submit documents and more detail than "driving around that night," which was his previous explanation of activities.
Last week, the Kohberger hearing was feisty. Not sure what to expect today. The survey was conducted by an expert in California, and the judge and prosecutor were caught off guard by the questions. Argument is whether it violated the gag order or tainted the jury pool.
Hearing is underway. Prosecutor says his office received a presentation from the expert today, and it deals with change of venue, which is premature. Anne Taylor, defense attorney, wants Dr. Edelman to discuss his findings with the Court.
Judge John Judge is looking over the presentation. Taylor says there is nothing wrong with the process, and her expert is ready to go. Thompson argues that the "loaded questions" violated the gag order. Judge is defining public record. It's not social media or media reports.
Taylor said the questions stemmed from information that was spread far and wide. The probable-cause affidavit was public, she says. Judge is "nervous about spreading things out that shouldn't be spread.”
The questions are fair game, Taylor says. The problem with the media happened when the affidavit was first shared. Kohberger's rights are important to her, Taylor says. The media coverage is prejudicial, and the trial should not be held in this county, she says.
Thompson says the people who were called didn't necessarily have all of the facts or an awareness of all of the rumors in this case. Judge says the questions have nothing to do with guilt, innocence or even the truth, and this situation has to be fixed.
Dr. Bryan Edelman is now testifying. He's a trial consultant who conducted the telephonic survey in March. He is talking about his experience and education relating to change of venue, the death penalty and jury selection.
Edelman says he focuses on whether the media coverage is prejudicial and if it's impacted the jury pool. He collected all of the stories about Kohberger during his research. Thompson objects to PowerPoint being played in Court, says it's inappropriate.
Presentation continues. Edelman says he's aware there is a gag order in this case. He discovered it in media coverage of Kohberger case. It did not change how he did his work. Everything he used was in the media, Edelman says. He's now playing a video of a press conference.
Media not only published the affidavit, but added their own spin, Edelman says. Massive media coverage was prejudicial. Rumors and misinformation was widely spread, he says. Random digit dial telephone survey was used to assess community attitude on case.
People who read the news regularly typically have more knowledge of cases and opinions, Edelman says. The nine questions that are an issue are skipped if a person knows about the case. They are a memory prompt, he says. Questions are now on the screen.
Here is a sample of questions asked in Latah County by Edelman in Kohberger case.
Asking open-ended questions is challenging, versus using specific information to prompt recall and recognition, Edelman says. Prejudicial details come out in close-ended questions. If those questions are not included, bias can be undetected.
Edelman says survey for Kohberger case was valid. Case specific questions were appropriate. About 3% to 4% of survey takers didn't know about the case, he says. The survey was given to 400 Latah County residents.
Presentation in Kohberger case:
According to his data, 82% of survey respondents who recognized seven or more media items reported that Kohberger was guilty. Only 29% who recognized two or fewer media items believes the defendant is guilty, Edelman says.
The knife sheath allegedly being found on the bed next to one of the victims was a significant finding in the survey, he says. Another prejudicial finding was a stalking accusation that was widely reported, Edelman says.
Edelman says coverage of last week's survey discussion created undo prejudice against the defendant. He is defending his work, saying he's an objective expert, and all of the questions were developed from information in the public record.
This is a national case, everyone has been saturated with coverage, but surveys should be conducted in other counties to find out what misinformation is out there, Edelman says. Bonneville or Ada counties may be options.
Thompson says he's sorry Edelman's feelings were hurt. Edelman says he was angry about his reputation and work being questioned. Thompson says the question about Kohberger stalking a victim was false, and Edelman agrees.
Taylor says Thompson is badgering the witness. Thompson is upset that a question with false info was allowed. Edelman says some of the questions came from the media, not the affidavit.
Press conference used in presentation was to tell the media to look at the court record, Thompson says. Details were taken from PC and changed, Taylor says. Media sometime get its wrong, Edelman says, and it affects opinions. Doesn't matter if it's true or not.
Edelman is defending his use of the stalking question. He is open to continue doing the survey. Judge says the key concern is questions with untrue info. Public record is the case file. To add extra info creates a difficult situation for the Court.
Judge says this is a death penalty case, and each juror will probably be questioned individually during selection. Respondents could be people who like to talk on the phone to strangers. Others wouldn't even answer the call.
Defense says the process needs to continue. Media has created a narrative, Kohberger allegedly made multiple trips from Pullman to Moscow, and the foundation is in the public record, attorney says. Valid survey has been used in many high profile cases.
Nothing that was done was worth the hysteria expressed in this courtroom, she says. Research methods are traditional and widely used. Purpose is to give Court information.
Intent is not to poison the jury pool, attorney says. Latah County residents already know about the case, and the majority have formed an opinion that Kohberger is guilty. Police chief, coroner, search warrants and others put info in the public.
Team has the "privilege" of defending Kohberger, attorney says. We have to justify a venue change. Striking the 400 respondents from the jury pool doesn't solve the problem, she says. No case law supports that in Idaho code.
Our defense team firmly believes in Mr. Kohberger's innocence, attorney says. There is absolutely nothing that gets risked if you change venue, she says. He has a right to a fair trial.
Thompson says gag order was initiated by the defense. State's position is that questions with untrue information should not be used in survey. State is trying to use common sense here. Defense seems to indicate it's OK to taint potential jurors to justify venue change.
Prosecutor says the solution is a new survey, with a new group of people, and take out the objectionable questions. This is a big case, and it needs to be done right, Thompson says.
Judge says two questions were not in the public record. He says it's a challenging issue and something he has to struggle through. Probably won't have a decision this week.
Change of venue hearing will be pushed to 10 a.m. on June 27 in Latah County District Court. Full day of testimony is anticipated.
Today's hearing lasted almost three hours. It's wrapping up now. Thanks for following along! I appreciate it.
@newsfromkerri
The latest #BryanKohberger hearing is scheduled to begin at 4 today. Discussion of defense's survey of 400 Latah County residents will continue, along with various other motions and dates to consider. I'll be posting updates for those of you who can't livestream it.
At this point, the biggest question is whether the trial will be moved to another county in Idaho, but that won't be determined today. Trial is supposed to take place in 2025. Families of four UI students who were killed are growing weary of delays.
Another issue that's looming is Kohberger's alibi. Judge John Judge gave the defense until April 17 to submit documents and more detail than "driving around that night," which was his previous explanation of activities.
Last week, the Kohberger hearing was feisty. Not sure what to expect today. The survey was conducted by an expert in California, and the judge and prosecutor were caught off guard by the questions. Argument is whether it violated the gag order or tainted the jury pool.
Hearing is underway. Prosecutor says his office received a presentation from the expert today, and it deals with change of venue, which is premature. Anne Taylor, defense attorney, wants Dr. Edelman to discuss his findings with the Court.
Judge John Judge is looking over the presentation. Taylor says there is nothing wrong with the process, and her expert is ready to go. Thompson argues that the "loaded questions" violated the gag order. Judge is defining public record. It's not social media or media reports.
Taylor said the questions stemmed from information that was spread far and wide. The probable-cause affidavit was public, she says. Judge is "nervous about spreading things out that shouldn't be spread.”
The questions are fair game, Taylor says. The problem with the media happened when the affidavit was first shared. Kohberger's rights are important to her, Taylor says. The media coverage is prejudicial, and the trial should not be held in this county, she says.
Thompson says the people who were called didn't necessarily have all of the facts or an awareness of all of the rumors in this case. Judge says the questions have nothing to do with guilt, innocence or even the truth, and this situation has to be fixed.
Dr. Bryan Edelman is now testifying. He's a trial consultant who conducted the telephonic survey in March. He is talking about his experience and education relating to change of venue, the death penalty and jury selection.
Edelman says he focuses on whether the media coverage is prejudicial and if it's impacted the jury pool. He collected all of the stories about Kohberger during his research. Thompson objects to PowerPoint being played in Court, says it's inappropriate.
Presentation continues. Edelman says he's aware there is a gag order in this case. He discovered it in media coverage of Kohberger case. It did not change how he did his work. Everything he used was in the media, Edelman says. He's now playing a video of a press conference.
Media not only published the affidavit, but added their own spin, Edelman says. Massive media coverage was prejudicial. Rumors and misinformation was widely spread, he says. Random digit dial telephone survey was used to assess community attitude on case.
People who read the news regularly typically have more knowledge of cases and opinions, Edelman says. The nine questions that are an issue are skipped if a person knows about the case. They are a memory prompt, he says. Questions are now on the screen.
Here is a sample of questions asked in Latah County by Edelman in Kohberger case.
Asking open-ended questions is challenging, versus using specific information to prompt recall and recognition, Edelman says. Prejudicial details come out in close-ended questions. If those questions are not included, bias can be undetected.
Edelman says survey for Kohberger case was valid. Case specific questions were appropriate. About 3% to 4% of survey takers didn't know about the case, he says. The survey was given to 400 Latah County residents.
Presentation in Kohberger case:
According to his data, 82% of survey respondents who recognized seven or more media items reported that Kohberger was guilty. Only 29% who recognized two or fewer media items believes the defendant is guilty, Edelman says.
The knife sheath allegedly being found on the bed next to one of the victims was a significant finding in the survey, he says. Another prejudicial finding was a stalking accusation that was widely reported, Edelman says.
Edelman says coverage of last week's survey discussion created undo prejudice against the defendant. He is defending his work, saying he's an objective expert, and all of the questions were developed from information in the public record.
This is a national case, everyone has been saturated with coverage, but surveys should be conducted in other counties to find out what misinformation is out there, Edelman says. Bonneville or Ada counties may be options.
Thompson says he's sorry Edelman's feelings were hurt. Edelman says he was angry about his reputation and work being questioned. Thompson says the question about Kohberger stalking a victim was false, and Edelman agrees.
Taylor says Thompson is badgering the witness. Thompson is upset that a question with false info was allowed. Edelman says some of the questions came from the media, not the affidavit.
Press conference used in presentation was to tell the media to look at the court record, Thompson says. Details were taken from PC and changed, Taylor says. Media sometime get its wrong, Edelman says, and it affects opinions. Doesn't matter if it's true or not.
Edelman is defending his use of the stalking question. He is open to continue doing the survey. Judge says the key concern is questions with untrue info. Public record is the case file. To add extra info creates a difficult situation for the Court.
Judge says this is a death penalty case, and each juror will probably be questioned individually during selection. Respondents could be people who like to talk on the phone to strangers. Others wouldn't even answer the call.
Defense says the process needs to continue. Media has created a narrative, Kohberger allegedly made multiple trips from Pullman to Moscow, and the foundation is in the public record, attorney says. Valid survey has been used in many high profile cases.
Nothing that was done was worth the hysteria expressed in this courtroom, she says. Research methods are traditional and widely used. Purpose is to give Court information.
Intent is not to poison the jury pool, attorney says. Latah County residents already know about the case, and the majority have formed an opinion that Kohberger is guilty. Police chief, coroner, search warrants and others put info in the public.
Team has the "privilege" of defending Kohberger, attorney says. We have to justify a venue change. Striking the 400 respondents from the jury pool doesn't solve the problem, she says. No case law supports that in Idaho code.
Our defense team firmly believes in Mr. Kohberger's innocence, attorney says. There is absolutely nothing that gets risked if you change venue, she says. He has a right to a fair trial.
Thompson says gag order was initiated by the defense. State's position is that questions with untrue information should not be used in survey. State is trying to use common sense here. Defense seems to indicate it's OK to taint potential jurors to justify venue change.
Prosecutor says the solution is a new survey, with a new group of people, and take out the objectionable questions. This is a big case, and it needs to be done right, Thompson says.
Judge says two questions were not in the public record. He says it's a challenging issue and something he has to struggle through. Probably won't have a decision this week.
Change of venue hearing will be pushed to 10 a.m. on June 27 in Latah County District Court. Full day of testimony is anticipated.
Today's hearing lasted almost three hours. It's wrapping up now. Thanks for following along! I appreciate it.
@newsfromkerri
Surveyors Selecting Phone Numbers to Call?
Not sure how Edelman or Research Strategies collected & selected phone numbers to call.
My rough guess: They started w copies of list of Latah County registered voters. By statute, the list is open to inspection by the public.
Q: What’s on the “IDAHO VOTER REGISTRATION FORM” from which the county official compiles the Registered Voter List information.
(https://sos.idaho.gov/elections/forms/voter_registration.pdf Also avail for online registration at https://elections.sos.idaho.gov/ElectionLink/ElectionLink/ApplicationInstructions.aspxb )
Form asks for name and “Contact Information: PHONE & email, w this disclosure in same field: “NOTE: This information is optional and will become PUBLIC RECORD” (<-my CAPS)
BTW: Voter Reg Form also has fields for ”POLITICAL PARTY” & offers choice of four named parties or unidentified, no party preference; residential address; mailing address; identification, ID Dr Lic or Last 4digits of Soc Security #. Other acceptable ID’s are also listed. <- other info applicants provide on this form may help those conducting survey in deciding who to call.
Not sure if ALL the above info is on the registered voter list, but there ya go -> Reg. Voter List is open to public for inspection and copying.
Names & phone numbers for surveyors to call w’out regard to AREA CODES.
imo
===================
Much more, possibly relevant. Or not. Here's some info on ID re potential jury pool selection.
Short & sweet from "ISC. Handbook for Jurors" "Your name is drawn at random from a list of registered voters and licensed drivers, or in some instances, also drawn from other sources."
e-Page #7, hard copy #6, ¶ "3. How A Jury is Chosen"
Summary re ID. statutes:
Names of registered voters, residents of the county, are maintained on a list by a commission in the county.Also on the county list are names of people from "lists of utility customers, property taxpayers, motor vehicle registrations, drivers’ licenses, and state identification cards, which the supreme court from time to time designates."
ID. statute re Registered Voter List.
"2-206. MASTER AND COUNTY JURY LISTS OF REGISTERED VOTERS — SUPPLEMENTATION BY OTHER LISTS DESIGNATED BY SUPREME COURT — LIST AVAILABLE TO COMMISSION — OPEN TO PUBLIC INSPECTION."
County jury commissioner must "....compile and maintain a county jury list consisting of the current voter registration list for the county supplemented with names from other lists of persons resident therein, such as lists of utility customers, property taxpayers, motor vehicle registrations, drivers’ licenses, and state identification cards, which the supreme court from time to time designates...."
"(4) .... custodian shall prepare a hard copy of the list and make the custodian’s records, from which the list was compiled, available for inspection, reproduction, and copying at all reasonable times."
"(5) The master and county jury lists shall be open to the public for examination as provided by supreme court rule."
^ Universal Citation: ID Code § 2-206 (2023)
For deep divers, much more tedious reading in ISC Rules**** (#60 to #66, in 13 pages) but skimming quickly I did not find anything particularly relevant. Could have missed something.
snipped for focus. @Peppery
Not sure how Edelman or Research Strategies collected & selected phone numbers to call.
My rough guess: They started w copies of list of Latah County registered voters. By statute, the list is open to inspection by the public.
Q: What’s on the “IDAHO VOTER REGISTRATION FORM” from which the county official compiles the Registered Voter List information.
(https://sos.idaho.gov/elections/forms/voter_registration.pdf Also avail for online registration at https://elections.sos.idaho.gov/ElectionLink/ElectionLink/ApplicationInstructions.aspxb )
Form asks for name and “Contact Information: PHONE & email, w this disclosure in same field: “NOTE: This information is optional and will become PUBLIC RECORD” (<-my CAPS)
BTW: Voter Reg Form also has fields for ”POLITICAL PARTY” & offers choice of four named parties or unidentified, no party preference; residential address; mailing address; identification, ID Dr Lic or Last 4digits of Soc Security #. Other acceptable ID’s are also listed. <- other info applicants provide on this form may help those conducting survey in deciding who to call.
Not sure if ALL the above info is on the registered voter list, but there ya go -> Reg. Voter List is open to public for inspection and copying.
Names & phone numbers for surveyors to call w’out regard to AREA CODES.
imo
===================
Much more, possibly relevant. Or not. Here's some info on ID re potential jury pool selection.
Short & sweet from "ISC. Handbook for Jurors" "Your name is drawn at random from a list of registered voters and licensed drivers, or in some instances, also drawn from other sources."
e-Page #7, hard copy #6, ¶ "3. How A Jury is Chosen"
Summary re ID. statutes:
Names of registered voters, residents of the county, are maintained on a list by a commission in the county.Also on the county list are names of people from "lists of utility customers, property taxpayers, motor vehicle registrations, drivers’ licenses, and state identification cards, which the supreme court from time to time designates."
ID. statute re Registered Voter List.
"2-206. MASTER AND COUNTY JURY LISTS OF REGISTERED VOTERS — SUPPLEMENTATION BY OTHER LISTS DESIGNATED BY SUPREME COURT — LIST AVAILABLE TO COMMISSION — OPEN TO PUBLIC INSPECTION."
County jury commissioner must "....compile and maintain a county jury list consisting of the current voter registration list for the county supplemented with names from other lists of persons resident therein, such as lists of utility customers, property taxpayers, motor vehicle registrations, drivers’ licenses, and state identification cards, which the supreme court from time to time designates...."
"(4) .... custodian shall prepare a hard copy of the list and make the custodian’s records, from which the list was compiled, available for inspection, reproduction, and copying at all reasonable times."
"(5) The master and county jury lists shall be open to the public for examination as provided by supreme court rule."
^ Universal Citation: ID Code § 2-206 (2023)
For deep divers, much more tedious reading in ISC Rules**** (#60 to #66, in 13 pages) but skimming quickly I did not find anything particularly relevant. Could have missed something.
Last edited:
Wow, what a hearing!
And to think this was just an apetizer for how the actual trial is going to go.
I'll reserve my opinions on the parties' behavior, however I'm glad one thing has been cleared up. BK did not stalk the victims. Everyone agreed that was false.
Another thing that strikes me is that both Taylor and Massoth adamantly stated their belief in the innocence of their client. Which tells me they're not going to be looking for a plea deal or any kind of insanity defense but will fight til the end.
And to think this was just an apetizer for how the actual trial is going to go.
I'll reserve my opinions on the parties' behavior, however I'm glad one thing has been cleared up. BK did not stalk the victims. Everyone agreed that was false.
Another thing that strikes me is that both Taylor and Massoth adamantly stated their belief in the innocence of their client. Which tells me they're not going to be looking for a plea deal or any kind of insanity defense but will fight til the end.
Last edited:
So if he wasn't stalking one or more of the victims, then why did he repeatedly make that same drive late at night from his home to the area of the home of the victims, over and over again for weeks, or was it months even? That was verified, wasn't it? I thought it was. I thought I read he also went in to the restaurant where one or more of the victims was working more than once, but I may be misremembering that bit.
No stalking, period.
The whole restaurant rumor was debunked last year.
Massoth said, there's a lot of things in the PCA "that are just flat out not true". I thought for sur Bill Thompson was going to jump on that comment, but he didn't. Nobody objected to her statement, which is perplexing.
Yes, it was interesting to hear the state say there wasn't stalking of the victims. That idea has been discussed here so often, especially re: MM, I wasn't really sure whether it was true or not. (Although I have to admit, I never quite understood why people were so sure MM was the one who was stalked.) But BK stalking the victim(s) has been reported in the media as a known fact so often I expect lots of people might think he did that. Certainly it's not an idea conjured up by the survey-writer out of thin air. See, for example,
Bryan Kohberger stalked Idaho victims before murders, wore gloves in grocery store weeks afterward: report
Cellphone data shows that Bryan Kohberger, 28, was often in the same location as his victims before he allegedly slashed them to death, a source told The Daily Mail.
nypost.com
The above story was published only a few days after BK was arrested and was supposedly based on information from "a source close to one of the case’s investigators."
I expect there are things that aren't true in the PCA, at least they aren't true the way they were discussed for purposes of probable cause. Maybe not "a lot of things" but I doubt BT wanted to publicly debate at this point exactly how much wasn't true. Better to say nothing and hope people forget what was said. At least that's the way I see it.
MOO
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2018
- Messages
- 12,075
- Reaction score
- 160,333
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2018
- Messages
- 17,867
- Reaction score
- 297,014
FWIW every single defense attorney can say their client is innocent. Ahead of a trial and conviction, every defendant is innocent... until proven guilty! BK hasn't been tried, hasn't been convicted so, in the eyes of the law, he is innocent. (He's also been arrested so, in the eyes of a judge, there's probable cause which means the judge believes there's enough evidence to move forward with an arrest.) Plus a grand jury indictment!
I just feel compelled to knock down AT's enthusiasm a peg or fifty. She isn't IMO saying he didn't do it. She's saying IMO that he's innocent because he hasn't been proven guilty. She may believe that she has the skills to prevent the State from proving guilt beyond the reasonable doubt. So again, IMO, she isn't making a statement about whether he did or didn't do it, she's saying publicly as many times as she can get it in public record or broadcast to the media, that BK is (technically) innocent, appearing to challenge the State to 'bring it'.
Meanwhile, her actions expose her strategy. Wordiness and motion stacking, attacks on grand juries and genetic testing, grandstanding and fast-talking.
I'll give her this: I think this is why defense attorneys are defense attorneys -- not because this one or that one defendant is actually innocent, but because the burdens are always on the States to prove it BARD -- that's our standard here in the U.S. -- and she adores the challenge of forcing the State to work for it.
And at the end of my day or this start to the next one, real justice demands it. It's not enough whether I think he's guilty or not. The State has to prove it.
She's not going to make it easy.
Buckle up.
JMO
I just feel compelled to knock down AT's enthusiasm a peg or fifty. She isn't IMO saying he didn't do it. She's saying IMO that he's innocent because he hasn't been proven guilty. She may believe that she has the skills to prevent the State from proving guilt beyond the reasonable doubt. So again, IMO, she isn't making a statement about whether he did or didn't do it, she's saying publicly as many times as she can get it in public record or broadcast to the media, that BK is (technically) innocent, appearing to challenge the State to 'bring it'.
Meanwhile, her actions expose her strategy. Wordiness and motion stacking, attacks on grand juries and genetic testing, grandstanding and fast-talking.
I'll give her this: I think this is why defense attorneys are defense attorneys -- not because this one or that one defendant is actually innocent, but because the burdens are always on the States to prove it BARD -- that's our standard here in the U.S. -- and she adores the challenge of forcing the State to work for it.
And at the end of my day or this start to the next one, real justice demands it. It's not enough whether I think he's guilty or not. The State has to prove it.
She's not going to make it easy.
Buckle up.
JMO
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 70,203
- Reaction score
- 273,580
YES, and that's why I don't think these surveys are even credible or valid.
How many people do they need to call in order to get 400 people who will sit and listen to that many detailed questions and respond?
I am pretty sure they call way more people in order to get 400 respondents----How many? 800, 1000, 1200? IDK...but I know that most people would hang up if a voice asked if they had time to take a survey...
SO WHAT IS IT THAT DIFFERENTIATES THOSE 400 PEOPLE FROM THE OTHERS WHO DIDN'T RESPOND?
I think that those that do take the time to listen and respond are MORE LIKELY to be the type of people that would listen to the news and know about the local crimes and events.
So when they take the results of those questions from the 400 who agreed to listen and respond to the survey, and they say only 3 to 4% did not know about the case------ it seems to be unfairly skewed. IMO.
I think that if you could somehow question all of those who didn't respond, that percentage would be MUCH higher.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 9,748
- Reaction score
- 75,438
You make excellent points!
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2018
- Messages
- 17,867
- Reaction score
- 297,014
Agreed!
You know who takes those calls? IMO retirees... people who have time to take the call. Really doesn't tell us anything about the general awareness of the details of a case across a cross-section of a community. Those people (who did the survey), when prompted, did recognize (not recall!) quite a bit. After listening to all of it yesterday, IMO this survey is designed to measure bias. That's why it feeeels questionable. It wasn't a survey to find out what percentage of the community (of the 400) might have awareness, might be biased, but of those who are aware*, how biased are they! He screened out those with no awareness! Did we ever hear how many that was? Was it 1 of the 400? 20? 50? How many people did they call to get 400 who would play ball? How many did they call to get to the number who could recognize (not recall) details of the case?
IMO two very different things were being bandied about yesterday. One that got no coverage, whether there's an abundance of pre-trial bias in the community, and the other which got all the air-time, a fascinating dissertation and discussion of the theory of bias among people who are exposed to the media, what they can recall spontaneously and what they recognize when prompted and how that data can be used to support a change of venue. A self-fulfilling study.
If all the people who recognized details of the case as presented in the media and felt he was guilty based on a prompt from the questioner were called to be jurors (they'd all likely be dismissed on account of exposure to the study but saying they were not), in a court of law under oath and not in their kitchens, they could genuinely avow to set that aside, capable of waiting to hear all the evidence before making a legal determination. That's what voir dire is for.
All my uneducated impression and JMO
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 70,203
- Reaction score
- 273,580
I just noticed that the Judge made the same point as I was trying to make:
Judge says this is a death penalty case, and each juror will probably be questioned individually during selection. Respondents could be people who like to talk on the phone to strangers. Others wouldn't even answer the call.
I'm not sure I agree retirees are typically anxious to talk to strangers on the phone or that they have more time to talk than, say, a young person without a job who lives in his parents' basement. But fortunately, any well-done survey will contain a section on demographics. That section won't be limited to age but would include age. (And the previously posted ASTC Standards address that issue in detail along with the use of census data.) So if the majority of survey respondents were 60+ years old, that would be quite clear in the report. Nobody is going to be able to get away with leaving out demographic data when presenting survey results and there's no reason I know of to think this particular consultant would ever try to do that. Whenever a sample is drawn with the goal of making inferences about the population, the sample needs to match the population in important ways-- for example, age, sex, SES, level of education, etc.
Courts across the US require actual data when considering change of venue motions. While there can be difficulties gathering unbiased data, I'm not sure what the alternatives are. It may be that this is an entirely new situation for this particular judge and this particular DA. But the use of survey data to support a change of venue motion is hardly a revolutionary idea.
MOO
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 70,203
- Reaction score
- 273,580
Thompson says gag order was initiated by the defense. State's position is that questions with untrue information should not be used in survey. State is trying to use common sense here. Defense seems to indicate it's OK to taint potential jurors to justify venue change.
[I agree with the state here...WHY introduce untrue info to 400 more people? It makes no sense. IMO]
Prosecutor says the solution is a new survey, with a new group of people, and take out the objectionable questions. This is a big case, and it needs to be done right, Thompson says.
{ Again, I agree.]
Judge says two questions were not in the public record. He says it's a challenging issue and something he has to struggle through. Probably won't have a decision this week.
[I like this Judge. I think he is very measured]
@newsfromkerri
[I agree with the state here...WHY introduce untrue info to 400 more people? It makes no sense. IMO]
Prosecutor says the solution is a new survey, with a new group of people, and take out the objectionable questions. This is a big case, and it needs to be done right, Thompson says.
{ Again, I agree.]
Judge says two questions were not in the public record. He says it's a challenging issue and something he has to struggle through. Probably won't have a decision this week.
[I like this Judge. I think he is very measured]
@newsfromkerri
@NCWatcher @Megnut @katydid23
Dr Edelman specifically explained that demographic data is a whole section of the survey, precisely so they can know if the people they've spoken to truly reflect a full spectrum sample of the population. It also allows them to know if for example, certain demographics tend to be more or less informed, or biased in a certain way.
Dr Edelman's testimony is extremely useful to watch. I personally don't like to rely on second hand info and prefer to watch it all unedited and without some TV or SM commentator's opinion interjected.
Importantly, he also explains that he conducted the exact same type of survey, not just in countless other high profile cases but also in other cases that had a NDO.
Dr Edelman specifically explained that demographic data is a whole section of the survey, precisely so they can know if the people they've spoken to truly reflect a full spectrum sample of the population. It also allows them to know if for example, certain demographics tend to be more or less informed, or biased in a certain way.
Dr Edelman's testimony is extremely useful to watch. I personally don't like to rely on second hand info and prefer to watch it all unedited and without some TV or SM commentator's opinion interjected.
Importantly, he also explains that he conducted the exact same type of survey, not just in countless other high profile cases but also in other cases that had a NDO.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
Online statistics
- Members online
- 53
- Guests online
- 3,098
- Total visitors
- 3,151