Can you share your source for the screenshot here?the highest Court in Idaho, the Supreme Court, has already held that their state laws dictate that "...victim impact evidence from the victim's non-immediate family and friends was inadmissible because non-victims presented the evidence".
This stemmed originally from an appeal of a case Taylor worked on. I believe she knows well that the Supreme Court has already ruled who is entitled (under the law) to give victim impact evidence and statements, and today I think we saw several statements given by what they would say are "non-victims".
Is that right? In my opinion they should've been able to speak, but this loophole, if you want to call it that, has helped get some defendants new trials or new sentencing. And if anyone will try to exploit such a loophole on an appeal, I could see it being him. And he certainly has decisions from the highest court that would help holster such a claim. JMOO.
View attachment 603515
The sentencing was not (not argued to be) affected by the victim impact statements in the Supreme Court case I cited either. So I think that only helps BK should he choose to appeal in the future.BK's sentence was not impacted by victim statements as it was a plea deal made ahead of sentencing hearing. Perhaps that protects the case from violating this rule.
jmo
I don't believe Kohberger is like other people, who might feel belittled and emasculated by Alivea's remarks. It's likely he was intent and aroused by the passion with which she spoke to him. Such a vibrant, intense, articulate and passionate woman has likely never spoken to him in his entire life.I hope they play Alivea’s statement on loop on his drive to the prison
Steve REALLY made him feel uncomfortable!!!!!
Not taking up for her but face lifts often leave the person looking mildly surprised. She should have tried to frown.I want to know that too!!
Sigh. I hope we don't see Judge Hippler's comments about everyone who spoke today "designated as victims in our legal system" on an appeal someday.
I believe they are victims, but this issue has been brought all the way up to the Idaho Supreme Court and they have said that the law around victim impact statements applies to "immediate family members". Taylor had a case remanded for new sentencing because non-immediate family members were allowed to speak before sentencing and the highest Court deemed that was going beyond what was prescribed in their state law. I worry that Judge Hippler's comment about everyone today being victims "in our legal system" could totally be exploited on an appeal and they can argue that it is clear that his statement shows a view that does not align with both state law and what Idaho's highest Court has said. ugh.
jmoo
On our local news KTVB 7, the Goncalves son is speaking; heavily criticizing the prosecution. He is going through other cases of BT, citing how there have been plea deals and families have not got justice.
No link at this time
I can respect her job up to the point she wanted to present the surviving roommates as alternative suspects. This is where I have a hard time because defending a person is one thing, victimizing victims again to do that I can't respect that. I think people can defend someone and NOT seek to cause further harm to the innocent. No way she actually thinks either of the surviving roommates could have had anything to do with it.A defense attorney in this situation is in a difficult position. It is her job to represent her client, right to the end of the case. I think she is handling it professionally and I applaud her for taking on death penalty cases and doing her job until the end. She is upholding the values of our Constitution and criminal justice system. She's no coward, IMO, she is a brave person to do this kind of work and withstand the hatred that has been targeted toward her for her representation of BK.
He reminds me of the judge for Leticia Stauch.Wow judge hippler is the best
I wish they would quit attacking Bill ThomsonPleading guilty, no appeals is justice. I hope he comes to see that.
Today dominated the felon.
JMO
Yes, and I'm still reading about it, so I don't have any links or sources, but what I'm gathering is that some can be allowed by the judge/court. I'd like to think this court/judge was certain that everything that happened today was permissible, so as not to open themselves up to "liability" in the case of a potential appeal.FWIW the judge's remarks were prepared, hence the sentence was not formed by the vicgim statements. They were allowed. He even allowed them to be addressed directly at the felon.
This judge is a gift to justice.
JMO