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

[Swansee]

The NDO text states that:
"...agents of the prosecuting attorney or defense attorney, are prohibited from making extrajudicial statements, written or oral, concerning this case, other than a quotation from or reference to, without comment, the public records of the case."
(BBM)
The questions that we have seen are all things that were in the public records of the case as reported by local media. The defense's agent (Edelman) didn't comment on them in the course of the survey, but purely referenced them, and this seems to adhere to the rules of the NDO, whether he had seen it or not.
However, we have not seen all the questions, so it's hard to form an opinion.
MOO.

 

[maskedwoman]

Bryan Kohberger Prosecutors Release Taped Phone Call​

MSN

Survey Questions

1. Have you read, seen or heard if Bryan Kohberger was arrested at his parent's home in Pennsylvania?
2. Have you read, seen or heard if police found a knife sheath on the bed next to one of the victims.?
3. Have you read, seen or heard that DNA found on the knife sheath was later matched to Bryan Kohberger?
4. Have you read, seen or heard if Bryan Kohberger owned the same type of car reported seen driving in the neighborhood where the killings occurred?
5. Have you read, seen or heard if the cell phone tower data showed that Bryan Kohberger made several trips near the victims' home in the month before the killing?
6. Have you read, seen or heard if the university students in Moscow and their parents lived in fear until Bryan Kohberger was arrested for the murders?
7. Have you read, seen or heard If Bryan Kohberger said that he was out driving alone on the night of the murders?
8. Have you read, seen or heard that Bryan Kohberger stalked one of the victims?
9. Have you read, seen or heard that Byran Kohberger had followed one of the victims on social media?

Wow. That's not a survey. "Here is a list of things that might prejudice you against my client's client, so I'm going to make sure you hear about all of them." If this is a complete list of "question", then they apparently did not ask whether the person being surveyed had drawn any conclusions about the case, or been following it closely on social media, etc. Holy moley.

 

[Swansee]

@maskedwoman
It's not the complete list. We know from the last hearing that the questions took up multiple pages (BT repeatedly refers to "the questions on page 2" and "the questions on page 4"). There were a lot more, and we have no idea what those were.

 

[Dotta]

"Families of Idaho quadruple murder victims ​

slam court for refusing to set trial date ​

and allowing constant setbacks.​

• The families of Kaylee Goncalves and Xana Kernodle released a furious statement after the latest delay
• They pleaded with the courts to 'please, please, start making some decisions, get to work, and quit playing the delay game' ."

Families of Idaho quadruple murder victims slam court delays

In a furious statement released after a judge declined to set a trial date this week, the families of pleaded with the courts to 'please, please, start making some decisions.'

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[NCWatcher]

What standards?

A random document off the internet?

Where does this document even come from and how does it even relate to this case?

I looked up the writings you posted and they have nothing to do with the Kohberger case. The survey company did not use this as a guideline.

By their own admission they only used MSM articles.

2 Cents

The document posted is from the American Society of Trial Consultants, a decades-old professional organization for trial and litigation consultants. The ASTC was cited by the jury consultant in this case so it's hard to see the practice standards put forth by that group as random irrelevant internet information. The main document is entitled "VENUE SURVEYS: PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS." So I'm not sure why there's a question about "what standards?"

Of course, the jury consultant didn't fashion questions for the change of venue survey from the information contained in the standards. The goal of the survey wasn't to assess the respondents' knowledge of the ASTC's professional standards so no one would do that. Rather, one of the purposes of the survey was to assess respondents' knowledge of this case. So as the consultant said, MSM articles about the case were used in formulating questions. And as the standards state, "Case awareness is usually measured with a closed-ended questions carefully designed to include a very short neutral description of the case based on information that appeared in the media." Using previously-disclosed media information in questions would seem to me to be consistent with the requirements of the gag order but I'm not an attorney. I do understand the concern that asking questions at all might taint the jury pool but given that community surveys are a long-permitted approach to venue issues, I don't see a way around that. In ANY case, not just this one. Naming a person/defendant in a survey could cause some respondents to look back at public information or talk to family/friends too. So could reports in the media of periodic hearings (much less televising those.) But at least here on WS, we don't worry much about those latter exposures perhaps because we want the information!

None of us have seen all the survey questions. So we don't know if areas that should have been assessed were missed. And people may not like the standards put forth by the ASTC. Fair enough, people can have all sorts of opinions/likes/dislikes but that doesn't make the group or the standards irrelevant to the case. In all the discussion here though, I've still not seen any examples of what questions people think should have been asked to assess case awareness except that they shouldn't have been the ones that we know were asked! "Not those/something else" isn't very explanatory IMO.

MOO

 

[Balthazar]

It would take me a very long post to answer.

But to summarize: jury consultants can write closed-ended questions that contain no information about the case and do it all the time. And CoV motions usually depend on way less specific information than was in these questions. It's actually a huge departure from what I've seen in my years as a jury consultant/jury watcher.

You can actually find samples online through Google.

IMO.

As rare as it is to see an actual Change of Venue survey, people often confuse Community Attitude Surveys which are used much more frequently in criminal trials with Change of Venue Surveys. Community Attitude Surveys explore prospective juror attitudes to specific topics pertinent to the case. Community Attitude Surveys are used in many if not most criminal cases and many civil cases as well. Change of Venue Surveys ask specific questions about what was in the local media in regards to the case. A Change of Venue Survey HAS to ask these specific questions because it is measuring how the local media has impacted the local population's opinions of the case. For this reason, the information used in the questionnaire is usually taken directly from local newspapers, just as it was in this case.

There is also a third type of survey called a Juror Attitude Survey which is used in the case of a national product or service to find out how people around the country view the product and litigation in relation to the product.

Community Attitude Survey vs. Change of Venue Survey: When Should Each Be Used? – The Red Well

JMO.

 

[arielilane]

A Motion Hearing is scheduled a 4:00 pm PT today. IIRC, BK won't be present. Please correct this if it's not correct info. TIA

 

[Cool Cats]

The document posted is from the American Society of Trial Consultants, a decades-old professional organization for trial and litigation consultants. The ASTC was cited by the jury consultant in this case so it's hard to see the practice standards put forth by that group as random irrelevant internet information. The main document is entitled "VENUE SURVEYS: PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS." So I'm not sure why there's a question about "what standards?"

Of course, the jury consultant didn't fashion questions for the change of venue survey from the information contained in the standards. The goal of the survey wasn't to assess the respondents' knowledge of the ASTC's professional standards so no one would do that. Rather, one of the purposes of the survey was to assess respondents' knowledge of this case. So as the consultant said, MSM articles about the case were used in formulating questions. And as the standards state, "Case awareness is usually measured with a closed-ended questions carefully designed to include a very short neutral description of the case based on information that appeared in the media." Using previously-disclosed media information in questions would seem to me to be consistent with the requirements of the gag order but I'm not an attorney. I do understand the concern that asking questions at all might taint the jury pool but given that community surveys are a long-permitted approach to venue issues, I don't see a way around that. In ANY case, not just this one. Naming a person/defendant in a survey could cause some respondents to look back at public information or talk to family/friends too. So could reports in the media of periodic hearings (much less televising those.) But at least here on WS, we don't worry much about those latter exposures perhaps because we want the information!

None of us have seen all the survey questions. So we don't know if areas that should have been assessed were missed. And people may not like the standards put forth by the ASTC. Fair enough, people can have all sorts of opinions/likes/dislikes but that doesn't make the group or the standards irrelevant to the case. In all the discussion here though, I've still not seen any examples of what questions people think should have been asked to assess case awareness except that they shouldn't have been the ones that we know were asked! "Not those/something else" isn't very explanatory IMO.

MOO

How the survey was conducted is not in dispute.

It is just the questions that are being disputed so I don't need to research further.

 

[NCWatcher]

How the survey was conducted is not in dispute.

It is just the questions that are being disputed so we don't need to research further.

I'm not sure what you are saying about people having no need to research further. The guidelines posted address recommended question construction, not just survey procedures. The guidelines also note that questions to assess case awareness should use information available in the media. Of course, the ASTC guidelines weren't specifically constructed to apply to this case but the jury consultant made the ASTC relevant in his report. No professional guidelines or standards could ever be constructed to specifically apply to a current case. That doesn't make them random or irrelevant. No law is specifically constructed to apply to a case currently being tried either.
MOO

 

[Cool Cats]

I'm not sure what you are saying about people having no need to research further. The guidelines posted address recommended question construction, not just survey procedures. The guidelines also note that questions to assess case awareness should use information available in the media. Of course, the ASTC guidelines weren't specifically constructed to apply to this case but the jury consultant made the ASTC relevant in his report. No professional guidelines or standards could ever be constructed to specifically apply to a current case. That doesn't make them random or irrelevant. No law is specifically constructed to apply to a case currently being tried either.
MOO

I prefer to just research the case not get hyper focused on details of how survey procedure developed.

 

[NCWatcher]

I prefer to just research the case not get hyper focused on details of how survey procedure developed.

Choosing not to focus on the ASTC professional standards for change of venue survey construction is certainly up to you as well as to any other person on WS. But a preference to focus other things doesn't make the standards irrelevant (or off-topic) for everyone or make them simply a "random internet document." I expect throughout this case, or really any case, "the usual standards of practice" for professional witnesses will be relevant. And according to the consultant, the ASTC guidelines govern his practice and how he chose to construct the survey questions.

MOO

 

[Cool Cats]

Choosing not to focus on the ASTC professional standards for change of venue survey construction is certainly up to you as well as to any other person on WS. But a preference to focus other things doesn't make the standards irrelevant (or off-topic) for everyone or make them simply a "random internet document." I expect throughout this case, or really any case, "the usual standards of practice" for professional witnesses will be relevant. And according to the consultant, the ASTC guidelines govern his practice and how he chose to construct the survey questions.

MOO

.For me personally I think this survey discussion is too hyper focused on survey details when it is only the
questions about Bryan that got the survey shut down.

2 Cents

 

[Balthazar]

.For me personally I think this survey discussion is too hyper focused on survey details when it is only the
questions about Bryan that got the survey shut down.

2 Cents

The problem with your initial post was that it said:

"This shows that the survey did not even meet minimal requirements.

There are several things listed that the defense needed to do in a survey but did not do.

Many of their questions revealed specific information about the case as opposed to finding out what the general public heard for themselves.

It was up to the general public to let the surveyor know they heard XYZ, not up to the surveyor to tell them what XYZ actually is.

2 Cents"

1. If someone has never seen the entire Change of Venue Survey they have no way of knowing IF the survey meets "minimal requirements" or not.
2. If a person is also completely unaware of the ASTC industry standards for how these surveys are to be written they do not know what the requirements are, minimal or otherwise.

JMO

 

[Teche]

" It was the blatant mishandling of it, the poor excuses, and the outrage and her attitude with the judge that was so surprising and disappointing to see."

Exactly. Her client is beyond guilty. The experts and teams in law enforcement got their killer. The murderer, is getting and has coming, exactly what he earned.


As for " counsel," being professional is one thing, maturity and attitude is another...

Attitude is Everything.
-
imo moo jmo

It must be time-consuming to get 400 people to survey when many individuals now don't answer unfamiliar phone numbers. My potential spam calls go to voicemail.

 

[Cool Cats]

The problem with your initial post was that it said:

"This shows that the survey did not even meet minimal requirements.

There are several things listed that the defense needed to do in a survey but did not do.

Many of their questions revealed specific information about the case as opposed to finding out what the general public heard for themselves.

It was up to the general public to let the surveyor know they heard XYZ, not up to the surveyor to tell them what XYZ actually is.

2 Cents"

1. If someone has never seen the entire Change of Venue Survey they have no way of knowing IF the survey meets "minimal requirements" or not.
2. If a person is also completely unaware of the ASTC industry standards for how these surveys are to be written they do not know what the requirements are, minimal or otherwise.

JMO

I don't need to know how guidelines are set for writing Motions. I don't need to know the guidelines of how Arrest Warrants are composed.

Likewise, I do not need to dig into dozens of guidelines on how to give a survey. Survey guidelines are not in dispute, just some of the Kohberger questions.

2 Cents

 

[Balthazar]

It must be time-consuming to get 400 people to survey when many individuals now don't answer unfamiliar phone numbers. My potential spam calls go to voicemail.

I do the same.

What I keep thinking is that BT's complaint may lead to another survey, so another 400 respondents and more weeks of delay to the start of the trial. Meanwhile we're up to supplemental discovery request 15. If BT didn't have everything last August, how did he think he could go to trial in 2023?

 

[arielilane]

LIVE: Idaho Student Murders — ID v. Bryan Kohberger — Hearing​

The man accused of killing four University of Idaho students will appear in court Wednesday. After a fiery hearing last week about whether or not Bryan Kohberger’s defense team violated a gag order by issuing surveys to the people of Latah County, the judge pushed another motions hearing to this week. Kohberger faces several charges including four counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of Ethan Chapin, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Kaylee Goncalves.


and there is the Judge's site:
https://www.youtube.com/@judgejohnjudge

 

[al66pine]

Atty Comment: "Unusual" Ct. Order after "Sealed Filings*

Mar. 28 pub. date, non-involved atty said* using surveys is not unusual, but is he trying to imply nefarious action by ct. or prosecution w. -
1. Ct. order handing down so "QUICKLY"
2. Prosecution making SEALED filings.

In THIS case from early days, seems extrajudicial communications w or to the public has been a disputed issue.
Ct. issued NonDissemination Orders (NDO), first on Jan. 3, 2023 and another (amended, revised) order on June 23, 2023.

Re ^ 2. Seems imo prosecution filing sealed motions to prevent def't's or def't agent's (further? IDK) (alleged) NDO violations was more appropriate than filing UNSEALED motions, which would have been immed'ly summarized & editorialized on in MSM & then further sliced & diced in soc media.

And here we are, w much of this survey info in the public eye anyway.

Re ^ 1. Without looking for exact dates of prosecution-def't atty meeting, pro's motion, hearing, ct. order, and more detail, IDK how QUICKLY the judge issued the order. But even if unusually "quick," that does not necessarily mean unfounded.

"The judge is due to hear a further hearing to decide how to remedy the jury contamination problem," ** sooo MORE to COME.

__________________________________
* "Michael McAuliffe, a former federal prosecutor and former elected state attorney, told Newsweek on Thursday that "While it is not unusual in high profile cases for the parties to use surveys to gauge views of various case-related issues––including familiarity with the case or the defendant––it is unusual to have a court issue a prohibition of such measures quickly after a flurry of sealed filings."
Mar 28, 2024
^Bryan Kohberger's lawyer is fishing for info about potential jurors

** msn pub. date = Mon. Ap 8

MSN

 

[arielilane]

@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.


6:15 PM · Apr 10, 2024


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.


6:18 PM · Apr 10, 2024


Edit: to include:

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.
6:28 PM · Apr 10, 2024

 

[arielilane]

@newsfromkerri

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.


6:59 PM · Apr 10, 2024