4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #92

[Boxer]

So apparently there's a hearing today about the surveys. Does anyone know if that one is open to the public or not? Will it be on JJJ's YouTube?

MOO Should be sanctions.

 

[DeDee]

She didn't prove it, tho. It seems like JJJ didn't like the questions on the survey.

ID - 4 University of Idaho Students Died in Apparent Homicide, Moscow, 13 Nov 2022 ****Media Thread**** NO DISCUSSION #2

Kohberger's lawyer filed a new document in court Wednesday that says a survey they completed proves that the jury pool in Latah County is "biased" against him.

 

[Valen2]

ID - 4 University of Idaho Students Died in Apparent Homicide, Moscow, 13 Nov 2022 ****Media Thread**** NO DISCUSSION #2

Kohberger's lawyer filed a new document in court Wednesday that says a survey they completed proves that the jury pool in Latah County is "biased" against him.

I suspect she intentionally tried to create bias because she wants the case moved. Her arguing about the positives for Boise today only makes me believe this more.

 

[Megnut]

ID - 4 University of Idaho Students Died in Apparent Homicide, Moscow, 13 Nov 2022 ****Media Thread**** NO DISCUSSION #2

Kohberger's lawyer filed a new document in court Wednesday that says a survey they completed proves that the jury pool in Latah County is "biased" against him.

Wha huh? Didn't she just represent today that she didn't know what BE would conclude/recommend?????

She acts like he's a casual independent contractor and not someone she deliberately commissioned!

 

[sassyblue]

I suspect she intentionally tried to create bias because she wants the case moved. Her arguing about the positives for Boise today only makes me believe this more.

I knew she was going to aim for Boise.

Eastern Idaho...thrown in as an afterthought.

 

[Boxer]

Wha huh? Didn't she just represent today that she didn't know what BE would conclude/recommend?????

She acts like he's a casual independent contractor and not someone she deliberately commissioned!

Her case her bad. Sanction her.

 

[Balthazar]

This document, from the American Society for Trial Consultants lays out the accepted standards and principals for what should be included in change of venue surveys:

https://www.astcweb.org/Resources/Pictures/Venue%2010-08.pdf

ASTC has been around since 1982 so BT and JJJ should be knowledgeable about these standards and principals.

It is standard for Change of Venue survey instruments to include validity checking questions. It is not preferred but sometimes false facts ARE used for instrument validity checking. This should come as no surprise to the prosecutor or the judge.

None of the questions from the Change of Venue survey that were mentioned by BT contained information that is not already out in the public domain. If the information is already in the public domain, how can it be under the gag order?

All JMO.

 

[Chloegirl]

Her case her bad. Sanction her.

What would sanctions (unlikely) look like?

 

[10ofRods]

AT says she did not write the questions, claims it was a random and anonymous canvas.

Judge asks if BE was aware of the dissemination order.

AT claims BE drafted the questions from what was publicly available.

Judge, not having it.

JMO

Nice trick. She's still responsible for the people she paid (with state funds).

She hired a consultant who was willing to do PR-related things for her. Calling/talking to potential jurors, however, is considered unethical by most judges and most lawyers (both sides). Consulting firms may go ahead and do it - but when you actually share information with potential jurors, that's PR - not a unbiased assessment related to change of venue.

I believe AT knew that. Still, I suppose it's a part of legal procedure that needs to be worked out in Idaho.

IMO

 

[10ofRods]

What would sanctions (unlikely) look like?

One thing would be disregarding any of the data obtained by AT in re: venue change. If that means her venue change motion fails, that's not a sanction, it's an outcome.

I doubt it will go further. It's a negative outcome for AT but not a sanction.

An actual sanction has to come from the Idaho bar or similar. Or, if one wants to regard the denial of a motion as a sanction (that's a really broad word), then that would be the sanction. That's why she spent time talking about how her job requires her to go into gray legal territory.

OTOH, I wonder how she'll feel if Kohberger bases his appeals (in part) on his lawyer's misconduct/incompetence. Such an appeal won't go far (IMO) but would certainly be one more appeal. I'm not worried about appeals. I would like to see a more swift mechanism of justice. Mostly, I feel for Judge Judge, who has been moderate and even gracious toward the Defense.

I do not believe that AT didn't know what her consultant was up to, although I'll bet she did NOT ask for recordings or lay down many guidelines. It would be interesting to know. She had a duty to oversee anyone where she used state funds to secure an outcome.

She had a duty to know and supervise state expenditures, IMO.

 

[schooling]

If you can't get a change of venue the traditional way.....

Hire someone who unexpectedly taints what's left of the untainted pool.

JK..........

MOO

 

[schooling]

One thing would be disregarding any of the data obtained by AT in re: venue change. If that means her venue change motion fails, that's not a sanction, it's an outcome.

I doubt it will go further. It's a negative outcome for AT but not a sanction.

An actual sanction has to come from the Idaho bar or similar. Or, if one wants to regard the denial of a motion as a sanction (that's a really broad word), then that would be the sanction. That's why she spent time talking about how her job requires her to go into gray legal territory.

OTOH, I wonder how she'll feel if Kohberger bases his appeals (in part) on his lawyer's misconduct/incompetence. Such an appeal won't go far (IMO) but would certainly be one more appeal. I'm not worried about appeals. I would like to see a more swift mechanism of justice. Mostly, I feel for Judge Judge, who has been moderate and even gracious toward the Defense.

I do not believe that AT didn't know what her consultant was up to, although I'll bet she did NOT ask for recordings or lay down many guidelines. It would be interesting to know. She had a duty to oversee anyone where she used state funds to secure an outcome.

She had a duty to know and supervise state expenditures, IMO.

Sometimes it's better to "not to know". Even though you know.

You know?

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1776072712299139195

https://twitter.com/x/status/1776027402575192275

https://archive.ph/2024.04.04-232536/https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article287391460.html

 

[ilovewings]

This is what sleazy defense attorneys do when they know that they have
No defense

 

[Idaho transplant]

If you can't get a change of venue the traditional way.....

Hire someone who unexpectedly taints what's left of the untainted pool.

JK..........

MOO

Ain't it the truth! Amazing if she gets away with this and no repercussions.

Well, Boise handled the Vallow case last year (started out with the DP), Chad Daybell's trial is ongoing at this time with the DP still in play so what's one more trial next year with the DP in place??

I do know from the articles published in the Sac Bee that the State offered mental health counseling for the Vallow jurors after it ended. Some regretted having served, several stated afterwards that their lives would never be the same and that they couldn't 'unsee' the autopsy photos. This same evidence will be presented at the Daybell trial.

IMO, the Moscow murders will be even worse as far as autopsy photos.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

This document, from the American Society for Trial Consultants lays out the accepted standards and principals for what should be included in change of venue surveys:

https://www.astcweb.org/Resources/Pictures/Venue%2010-08.pdf

ASTC has been around since 1982 so BT and JJJ should be knowledgeable about these standards and principals.

It is standard for Change of Venue survey instruments to include validity checking questions. It is not preferred but sometimes false facts ARE used for instrument validity checking. This should come as no surprise to the prosecutor or the judge.

None of the questions from the Change of Venue survey that were mentioned by BT contained information that is not already out in the public domain. If the information is already in the public domain, how can it be under the gag order?

All JMO.

The gag order is not an order to the media.

 

[Vern]

Sometimes it's better to "not to know". Even though you know.

You know?

I think the sly fox's term for this is "plausible deniability".

 

[ReadySet]

I dont get it?

2 Idaho DP cases but one has unlimited amounts of $$$ to hire investigators, experts, jury consultants and unlimited amounts to pay over $100 an hour in attorney fees.

BK = $$$$

Chad Daybell =
Lead attorney not paid, defense has to pay their expensives themselves then wait to get reimbursed, judge is denying many money requests.


2 Cents

Are you maybe thinking of the Delphi case? None of that is true about the Daybell defense.

 

[Swansee]

Watched the hearing. Looks like there'll be another one next week.
I am glad JJJ offered to have monthly, or even weekly hearings if necessary. Of course, it seems a bit over the top that the parties should need to be babysat like this, but if it's what it takes to move things forward, I'm glad he's willing to do it. And yes, selfishly, I'll admit I do prefer watching the parties hash out their differences and spell out the problems plainly, than trying to guess what's going on through endless redacted motions and sealed documents.

 

[maskedwoman]

AT is upset that the Judge basically ordered her to stand down (relative to the phone surveys). Says she's been set back by these two weeks. Blaming the judge.

Judge, so not having it.

Judge says she could have had that conversation with the State and we wouldn't be here.

JMO

Due to timing, I had to listen to this while driving so could not see facial expressions or body language, but my mouth spent a good bit of time open in amazement. I could not believe some of the things coming out of AT's mouth and agree that JJJ seemed ticked. And I agree with Prosecution that the wording of those questions was highly inappropriate. And stating it was publicly available information is thoroughly disingenuous. The whole point of the survey was whether the media coverage has tainted the jury pool. Well if you "inject" them (love that term) with tainting data from the media, your client should not be eligible for a change of venue based off that survey.