ID - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 70

Status
Not open for further replies.
EXCEPT (and there always seems to be at least one exception in these rules and codes!), the Supreme Court of Idaho has ruled that Public Defenders offices are not firms within the understanding of 1.10 of the code, since they are not for profit nor financial endeavours. As I'm sure has already been stated here somewhere, possible COI imputation to an entire public defender's office is performed on a case by case need, and there must be clear concurrent conflict of interest with other lawyers in the PD office. With the appointment of a conflict defender to replace AT, there is no concurrent COI, IMO.

The case that set this standard is itself interesting in light of BK: a man convicted of murdering his wife claimed after the trial his PD and the entire PD office had a conflict of interest because someone in that office had represented the mother of the victim. The mother's case was a civil matter seeking the life insurance of her deceased/murdered daughter and depended on finding the man guilty as the slayer. That case appears to have far more conflict of interest possibility than BK and AT, yet the courts found there was none because the man himself admitted he received an adequate defense.
Doubt BK would admit he had an adequate defense if it meant a do over. He could carry that card for years, playing it at the opportune time.
 
I think the erratic behavior of the white Elantra driving around the home that night would have still led to them to BK, maybe not as quickly.

MOO
Personally I think MOO he wiped the sheath clean and wasn’t too worried when he found it lost because he wore gloves after he cleaned it. But the snap button retained some DNA, so MOO this may be the only DNA they do find, and MOO it’s an overwhelming piece of evidence.
 
I think the erratic behavior of the white Elantra driving around the home that night would have still led to them to BK, maybe not as quickly.

MOO
The Elantra would have made him a main suspect but LE needed something that placed him inside the house to arrest him.

I followed a cold case and read whatever I could on it. A suspect was never mentioned in any articles. Then I found a comment on a discussion of the case of a suspect. Later I found notes on a city council meeting where this person was complaining of police harassment over ten years later after the murders, still no mention in newspapers. When they finally did a DNA test, it was not him. Mention only because LE keep tabs on suspects.
 
Last edited:
Appealing Conviction on Claim of Not Getting "The Top" Counsel?
Has that claim ever been made and upheld, I wonder? Don’t they have to point to specific things that their counsel did wrong?
MOO
@wary
If you have not already seen post I made ~ 30 min. ago, pls read.
Q 1. Have done no research, but not aware of crim convictions being overturned on def't not getting "The Top" counsel.
[[[ETA
Just think, if not getting "the top" counsel "in the state was basis for overturning conviction, wouldn't (nearly) all convicted def'ts win on appeal?
Then go to trial again, & if convicted, appeal again on same basis? Or as our cohort @Laughing says; Lather. Rinse Repeat.
Not all def'ts get "the top" counsel.

Also quite subjective. If the accused is convicted, is that automatically reversible error, if he did not have "the top" counsel????????????]]]

"Ineffective Assistance of Counsel" is the basic standard for an appellate ct. to overturn a crim. conviction & order a new trial. Read my earlier post.

Q2. Yes, per SCOTUS.
" To prove they received ineffective assistance, a criminal defendant must show two things:
"Deficient performance by counsel."
"Resulting prejudice, in that but for the deficient performance, there is a “reasonable probability” that the result of the proceeding would have differed."
"The foregoing test was set forth in Strickland v. Washington (1984)"
 
Last edited:
Items I did not see listed or addressed: Please correct me if I missed something or if I am wrong on one or more. MOO

#10 Search warrants
#12 Inducement
#13 Indentification
#14 Other crimes,wrongs or acts
#15 Electronic Surveillance
#16 Drugs
#17 Supoenas
#18 Certifications of LE


edit: added links and MOO
It appears that the State has just responded by lumping everything into one production. It is probably all in there, just not separated out. I do far more civil litigation than criminal, and in a civil case I would object to this response, stating the documents need to be related to each request. But in a criminal case its a little different. The DA has likely produced all the documents requested, the defense attorneys are just going to have to sort through it to find them.
 
Not bagging an approved source. Commenting on connection between the public debate re yay or nay COI and the players and victims in this case.

IMO the "unfortunate consequences" could easily have been avoided, at least in relation to both parents of the second victim, simply by MSM deciding not to name them. Or even better, by making the decision to not publicise the fact at all, pending some investigative reporting into what constitutes a COI. I feel the vulnerable and grieving parent interviewed and seen by millions of the public was exploited in order to bring the issue sensationally before the public eye. MOO

Whilst I think it's good that the public learn about legal processes, the greatness of COIs being in the public realm for debate would be helped along, IMO, by having media inform and report accurately and sensitively; but mostly alI I have seen in MSM is the exposure of vulnerable victims, the ill informed and ill spirited demonisation of a Public Defender, and the undermining of trust in the PDO MOO
I personally wouldn't describe much of what I have read and seen in MSM as encouraging healthy debate.

If there is soemthing to resolve it will get resolved and the public will move on with no consequences, the media with no consequences, three parents (victims), and likely the PD qualified to be on the case, with consequences. MOO

EBM
Amen to all of that.
I agree fully and thanks for expressing it so eloquently.

I'm not afraid of exploring dark roads, I do it all the time, very dark.

This, however makes me shudder, my entire body heaves when I see it.

It's the cruelty.
Now mainstream.
 
The Elantra would have made him a main suspect but LE needed something that placed him inside the house to arrest him.
<snipped for focus>
I wonder if this is always true from a legal standpoint?

Would LE be able to arrest someone and demonstrate probable cause with circumstantial evidence but not evidence that places them "at the scene"?

Would it matter if the seriousness of the crimes, number of people killed, or danger to the public were "elevated"?

TIA, JMO
 
I wonder if this is always true from a legal standpoint?

Would LE be able to arrest someone and demonstrate probable cause with circumstantial evidence but not evidence that places them "at the scene"?

Would it matter if the seriousness of the crimes, number of people killed, or danger to the public were "elevated"?

TIA, JMO
DNA is still circumstantial evidence IMO.

Have a look at the LE application for search warrant that includes the PCA and LE's requests to the judge that issued the search warrant. And the judges affirmations in response to LE's requests.

LE requested and the judge granted, that the sheath dna need not be included as necessary to establish Probable Cause, whilst also making clear that this in no way made the the dna evidence, exculpatory. LE's reasons for the request are also outlined.

In summary (IANAL so am unable to word this as it should be) LE/investigators wanted to be sure that should the sheath dna at some future point (PH/Trial?) ever be excluded from evidence, that the defense would be unable to question the validity of the PCA. To my mind, what this mean is that yes, the arrest would still have been made sans sheath dna, and that the PCA stands and shows probable cause sans sheathe dna.ETA: MOO.

The application for Warrant and judge response are attached. It's 30 pages but the statements I refer to are in there.

I have trouble cutting and pasting from the doc, but will attempt in a future post.

 
Last edited:
DNA is still circumstantial evidence IMO.

Have a look at the LE application for search warrant that includes the PCA and LE's requests to the judge that issued the search warrant. And the judges affirmations in response to LE's requests.

LE requested and the judge granted, that the sheath dna need not be included as necessary to establish Probable Cause, whilst also making clear that this in no way made the the dna evidence, exculpatory. LE's reasons for the request are also outlined.

In summary (IANAL so am unable to word this as it should be) LE/investigators wanted to be sure that should the sheath dna at some future point (PH/Trial?) ever be excluded from evidence, that the defense would be unable to question the validity of the PCA. To my mind, what this mean is that yes, the arrest would still have been made sans sheath dna, and that the PCA stands and shows probable cause sans sheathe dna. The application for Warrant and judge response are attached. It's 30 pages but the statements I refer to are in there.

I have trouble cutting and pasting from the doc, but will attempt in a future post.

Thank you, jepop, this is so helpful! Happy Friday all!
 
I think the erratic behavior of the white Elantra driving around the home that night would have still led to them to BK, maybe not as quickly.

MOO
It was totally the elantra that lead LE to BK according to the PCA.


The white elantra (designated as "suspect Vehilce 1" following specialist analysis of video/camera footage from local neighbourhood for Nov 13th), lead to BK's white elantra being identified through both WSU records (standard electronic search) and a WSU campus officer finding and calling in a white elantra in the lot of BK's appartments (which came back to BK). <modsnip - no link> It wasn't until DEc 27th/28th that LE were able to match the sheath dna with bk' (via an obtained sample of BK's fahther's DNA). MOO

see pp5-10 for white elantra identification leading to BK identification.
see p18 for sheath dna matched to BK, through paternal sample collected.

Edit, spelling
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IF the sheath had not contained DNA, would BK be in jail right now? Would they have known it was him, but not had enough for a judge to sign a warrant? Is that the sole source of DNA found at the scene?
IMO, probably yes. *ETA yes, warrant would have still been issued, IMO*. I noticed something that addresses this question in the application for search warrant. Attached a post about.

 
Last edited:
DNA is still circumstantial evidence IMO.

Have a look at the LE application for search warrant that includes the PCA and LE's requests to the judge that issued the search warrant. And the judges affirmations in response to LE's requests.

LE requested and the judge granted, that the sheath dna need not be included as necessary to establish Probable Cause, whilst also making clear that this in no way made the the dna evidence, exculpatory. LE's reasons for the request are also outlined.

In summary (IANAL so am unable to word this as it should be) LE/investigators wanted to be sure that should the sheath dna at some future point (PH/Trial?) ever be excluded from evidence, that the defense would be unable to question the validity of the PCA. To my mind, what this mean is that yes, the arrest would still have been made sans sheath dna, and that the PCA stands and shows probable cause sans sheathe dna.ETA: MOO.

The application for Warrant and judge response are attached. It's 30 pages but the statements I refer to are in there.

I have trouble cutting and pasting from the doc, but will attempt in a future post.

Thanks @jepop I'm not quite understanding the part about the sheath DNA.

Could you please explain like I'm five? tysm
 
If this is a DP case do all 4 families have to agree that BK get the death penalty for it to happen?
I’m not a lawyer, but I think the parents can share their opinion, but do not have any actual power in that regard; it’s up to the prosecution to ask for it and for a jury to decide on the punishment. Judge may have final say based on Idaho’s laws. Attorneys, please weigh in. JMO
 
IF the sheath had not contained DNA, would BK be in jail right now? Would they have known it was him, but not had enough for a judge to sign a warrant? Is that the sole source of DNA found at the scene?
I believe that is addressed in the Discovery document that was released today where LE said the PCW is strong enough to stand alone wo the knife sheath.jmo
 
It appears that the State has just responded by lumping everything into one production. It is probably all in there, just not separated out. I do far more civil litigation than criminal, and in a civil case I would object to this response, stating the documents need to be related to each request. But in a criminal case its a little different. The DA has likely produced all the documents requested, the defense attorneys are just going to have to sort through it to find them.

Might have provided some of the info in the 995 pages wo creating a separate category. JMO

In the response by the state:

11. The State objects to requests by the Defendant for anything not otherwise addressed above on the grounds that such requests are outside the scope of I.C.R. 16 and/or are not subject to disclosure under ICR 16(g) (work product and informants).

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/012323 States Response to Request for Discovery.pdf
 
I’m not a lawyer, but I think the parents can share their opinion, but do not have any actual power in that regard; it’s up to the prosecution to ask for it and for a jury to decide on the punishment. Judge may have final say based on Idaho’s laws. Attorneys, please weigh in. JMO
You are correct. I'm not an attorney, but as our lawyers on here have noted before for other cases, like all murders, this is being tried as a crime against the state rather than as a crime against the families. Of course, they're directly impacted by the crime far more than the average citizen of the state and I do think most prosecutors try to at least gauge the family's response to the death penalty, but their permission is not needed to pursue a death penalty or indeed even whether or not to press charges.
 
Thanks @jepop I'm not quite understanding the part about the sheath DNA.

Could you please explain like I'm five? tysm
Hello, You're such a great reader! Ready for your test? Okaay...

(a) Read the paragraphs italicised and bolded from 1.Application for search Warrant dated; Supplemental Disclosure 12/29/2022.
then...
(b) Read the paragraph bolded from 2. Search Warrant granted by the Judge 12/29/2022


1.The Application by LE for Search Warrant. Premises

Supplemental Disclosure pp5-6

"SUPERIOR
COURT , WHITMAN COUNTY , WASHINGTON
"STATEOF
WASHINGTON )
COUNTYOF
WHITMAN...
[snipped BM]
APPLICATION
FOR SEARCH WARRANT...
[snipped BM for focus]
Supplemental Disclosure re DNA Test
I
have been informed by Detective JR Talbott of the Idaho State Police, that :
1.
On November 13 , 2022 , a sheath was recovered at the King Road Residence under or
next
to the body of MadisonMogen. The Idaho State Crime Lab obtained a male
DNA
profile (Suspect Profile) from the sheath. ( This is also referred to in Sgt.
Blaker's
sworn statement Exhibit A.)
On
December 27 , 2022 , law enforcement agents / officers in Pennsylvania recovered
trash
that originated from the Kohberger family residence . That trash was sent to the
Idaho
State Crime Lab for testing . On December 28 , 2022 , the Idaho State Lab
reported
that a DNA profile was obtained from the trash ; it was compared to the
Suspect
DNA Profile ; the Lab personnel concluded that the source of the trash dna
profile
was a male and was not being excluded as the biological father of the source
of
the Suspect Profile . At least 99.9998 % of the male population would be expected
to
be excluded from the possibility of being the biological father of the source of the
SuspectProfile.
This
information is being provided to the court pursuant to my duty and obligation to be fully
candid with the court . I do not believe this information is exculpatory for the suspect . However ,
if the court believes it is exculpatory , then the court should consider this supplemental disclosure
in its evaluation of the existence of probable cause, or lack thereof .

But I am specifically asking the court to NOT consider this supplemental disclosure as evidence
supporting
the existence of probable cause . The reason for this request is that if the dna test
results
are held inadmissible at some point, such a ruling would not impact the finding of
probable
cause for this warrant , so long as this court is satisfied as to probable cause regardless
of
the dna test result" (bolded and Italicised by me).

2. Search Warrant granted by Judge for Residence p1 of 4.

"STATE OF WASHINGTON )
COUNTY
OF WHITMAN
SUPERIORCOURT,
WHITMANCOUNTY, WASHINGTON
SWNO:
2-29-2022 A..."
[snipped for focus]
"...TO
ANY PEACE OFFICER IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON :
Upon the
sworn complaint made before me, there is probable cause to believethat the crime( s)
of
Murder in the first degree and Burglary , per Idaho Code has been committed , in Idaho, and that
evidence
of that/those crime( s) ; or contraband, the fruits of crime , or things otherwise criminally
possessed;
or weapons or other things by means of which a crime has been committed or reasonably
appears
about to be committed ; is concealed in or on certain premises.
In
making this determination, this court did not consider the information in the Supplemental
Disclosure
re DNA Test as evidence supporting the existence of probable cause . This court also does
not
consider the information in that Supplemental Disclosure to be exculpatory."
(Bolded by me)


ETA: 1. plus 2. = "...this
court is satisfied as to probable cause regardless of the dna test result"
 
Last edited:
Thanks @jepop I'm not quite understanding the part about the sheath DNA.

Could you please explain like I'm five? tysm
With or without the DNA on the sheath, they had enough evidence to arrest BK.

The document points out that even if the DNA evidence were omitted, it wouldn’t have helped to clear BK. It wasn’t someone else’s DNA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
109
Guests online
804
Total visitors
913

Forum statistics

Threads
589,928
Messages
17,927,781
Members
228,003
Latest member
Knovah
Back
Top