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.
from:
Idaho v. Hansen
View attachment 603515