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...
Relative to
Idaho v Hansen and
"...victim impact evidence from the victim's non-immediate family and friends was inadmissible because non-victims presented the evidence," take note two things are applicable here:
First, whether non-immediate family members are afforded the right to be heard at sentencing and/or deliver a victim impact sentence is
at the discretion of the sentencing court, and in this case, Judge Hippler previously ruled the surviving roommates were deemed crime victims.
Second, this case was covered by a fixed sentence plea agreement where the victim impact statements were not going to affect the sentence of the defendant, and there is no disadvantage or concern of prejudice. MOO
Judge Hippler outlined jury and evidence procedures in the Kohberger case Thursday and signaled he may appoint a special prosecutor to investigate potential violations of the nondissemination order.
www.kivitv.com
