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

[BeginnerSleuther]

IF therre is an actual conflict of interest - not a potential or hypothetical conflict that creates bad look in the public eye, or an uncomfortable ethical situation for a conscientious attorney; and

IF BK did not or can not waive the conflict; and

IF the conflict demonstrably results in actual substandard representation that likely contributed to BK's conviction, then BK could argue that AT's representation denied him his Constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel.

For me, those are big "ifs." I think AT will stay on the case, and there will be no COI. Others see it differently, and that's OK.

One attorney has declared that CK (CN) could seek to disqualify AT from representing BK. I'm not sure that's true, since the court has approved substitution of counsel in her case. But assuming CK is hoping for a successful prosecution, conviction and death sentence for BK, trying to disqualify AT could - perversely - create a defense issue damaging to the prosecution.

I've come around to @Cassady 's POV to a limited extent. Here's the hypothetical that could blow things up if it's real. This is pure speculation on my part:

Let's imagine that from the beginning, CK (or another of AT's parent clients) has been interviewed several times by investigators who were looking for drug related motives for XK's murder. She has led them to believe that neither she nor her daughter has been threatened by dealers. However, in the course of AT's representation she has made a statement to the contrary. AT would be constrained to keep this statement confidential even though it would help BK's SODDI defense. That would be a real conflict of interest that could significantly affect the outcome of BK's trial.

I can think of no other scenario in which AT would have a real COI. If CK were to seek AT's disqualification, BK and his supporters would certainly suggest that CK's motive was to conceal the truth about an alternate perpetrator in order to secure BK's conviction. That proceeding could turn into a PR nightmare and perhaps a legal problem for the DA - not to mention AT if she had not withdrawn from the case before CK filed her motion.

All this is imaginary and I don't believe there's any truth to it. The PD's intake process for BK would have included a discussion of this potential conflict issue, and AT would know what CK did and did not say in confidence. Yes, this assumes that the PD has capital defense standards and procedures in place and uses them, but I have no reason to assume otherwise.

I don't know, I feel like AT is only human and if she was as close to CK as CK said on AB (close enough to appoint her POA at least, per CK and I recognize CK may have used the wrong term, but the sentiment is the same), then I would be concerned about her objectivity. CK is a victim too. If I or my loved one was on trial for murder, I'd be very, very nervous if my attorney had a pre-existing relationship with one of the people I am accused of victimizing. I'd wonder if she can truly give her all to my case. Even if I know she'll do what she's supposed to do as a professional, I would just wonder if she had the ability to defend me to the fullest of her capabilities.

 

[CSIDreamer]

Maybe. I guess it depends when in the process you mean. I'm not a lawyer but...

ICJI 1700 Death Penalty Sentencing Instructions - Idaho Supreme Court https://isc.idaho.gov/jury/criminal/1700/DeathPenaltySentencingInst-All.pdf

Jury is told (bold added by me)

Victims have the right to personally address you by making a victim impact statement, which is a statement concerning the victim’s personal characteristics and the emotional impact of the murder. A victim impact statement is not made under oath and is not subject to cross-examination. A victim may not make any statements that are characterizations or opinions about the crime, the defendant, or the appropriate sentence, and you should disregard any such comments.
JMO

Oh! Thank you for that!

 

[WingsOverTX]

MOO. It's a wait and see world--COI and DP

Pre-trial pre-conviction I'm hopeful that a change of venue happens so this COI "ineffective counsel" chip is taken away from BK and image in the public (jury pool). My fear is that there may be a chip on someone's shoulder to prove they can handle this huge national interest case which could actually mess it up, reasons stated by @CGray123 and others. Besides the PD's potential use of a drug-related motive, there is the alleged stalking of XK which her mother may have discussed/mentioned to AT. It's my belief that size matters here. The PD's office seems too small to handle family cases that oppose each other. Think about that in any other legal situations, divorce? your lawyer drops you to rep your spouse. Dom violence? burglary? When would that be okay? I get AT is the only DP qualified PD. My first thought, AT was emergency appointed and they'll appoint someone else, but there is no someone else qualified there. So why are they keeping this case? I want a Fair trial, no chips on either side. MOO

Post-conviction I'm hopeful Idaho swaps the killer to another state where his punishment doesn't take decades due to Idaho's lack of drugs for death penalty.

Our constitution states where trials should take place, not where post-conviction punishments should happen.
"In practice, it is prison bureaucrats — not judges, not legislatures, and not political communities — who choose where punishment may take place." [pg 1872 prisoner trade]

Article III Judicial Branch Section 2 Justiciability Clause 3 Trials​

• The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed;

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-3/section-2/

The Prisoner Trade - Harvard Law Review

It is tempting to assume that the United States has fifty distinct state prison systems. For a time, that assumption was correct. In the...

harvardlawreview.org

RBBM re:

What drug-related motive would the PD use?

I have only seen mention of KG possibly having a stalker, not XK. Do you have a source re: XK?

TIA for your responses. And thanks for the Article III info.

 

[ChitBrick]

Not sure if this has been posted

 

[MrB327]

I don't know, I feel like AT is only human and if she was as close to CK as CK said on AB (close enough to appoint her POA at least, per CK and I recognize CK may have used the wrong term, but the sentiment is the same), then I would be concerned about her objectivity. CK is a victim too. If I or my loved one was on trial for murder, I'd be very, very nervous if my attorney had a pre-existing relationship with one of the people I am accused of victimizing. I'd wonder if she can truly give her all to my case. Even if I know she'll do what she's supposed to do as a professional, I would just wonder if she had the ability to defend me to the fullest of her capabilities.

FYI, her name is actually Cara Northington, CN.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I can't help but wonder what BK's parents are thinking about this COI debate. And what advice they would give to their son about who should defend him. And what effect it would have on him and the decisions he has to make going forward to trial.

I think I have a new respect for how pretrial publicity (MSM & social media) may affect so many different aspects of the decisions made before the trial even begins. And the effects those decisions could have on the outcome of the trial.

I have an opinion that I think he looks pretty darn guilty right now. But my priority is not to have a jury find him guilty. My highest priority is that he have a fair and honest trial. And I don't want my opinion to derail a fair trial. Word are powerful. I must watch my words more carefully.

MOO

 

[rabidstoat]

I have an opinion that I think he looks pretty darn guilty right now. But my priority is not to have a jury find him guilty. My highest priority is that he have a fair and honest trial. And I don't want my opinion to derail a fair trial. Word are powerful. I must watch my words more carefully.

MOO

He looks darn guilty to me too. However, I realize I've only heard one side of the evidence, and what seems damning to me may not be the full story. Heck, there was that one story of a guy whose DNA was at the scene, under the fingernails of the victim, and he was like, "Well, I drink a lot, *advertiser censored*, maybe I did do it and blocked it out?" Only it turns out that it was a matter of DNA transfer, where the same paramedics who showed up to what turned out to be a murder victim had also dealt with the suspect a few hours earlier. It was the paramedics who transferred the suspect's DNA to the victim, and it turns out the suspect was innocent. So in short: stranger things have happened.

Framed for Murder by His Own DNA

We leave traces of our genetic material everywhere, even on things we’ve never touched. That got Lukis Anderson charged with a brutal crime he didn’t commit.

www.themarshallproject.org

 

[Love Never Fails]

Bbm
Exactly.

What does COI mean?

 

[Zella]

What does COI mean?

conflict of interest

 

[Love Never Fails]

conflict of interest

Oh of course. I’m sorry! been gone a few days.

<modsnip> Not sure how I feel about the defense attorney representing the parents of those killed. Then representing BK. Small world.

 

[gliving]

10. To the extent that information exists regarding an informant who is not going to be produced as a witness, including recordings or written statements of an informant or that identify an informant, such information is not subject to disclosure and the State asserts informant privilege under I.C.R. 16(g)(2), and prays for appropriate protective orders pursuant to I.C.R. 16(1) as necessary.

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 !.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

Can someone translate this, please? It's something about an knowing an informant won't be a witness and informant privilege and protection. tia

 

[Sleuth2010]

10. To the extent that information exists regarding an informant who is not going to be produced as a witness, including recordings or written statements of an informant or that identify an informant, such information is not subject to disclosure and the State asserts informant privilege under I.C.R. 16(g)(2), and prays for appropriate protective orders pursuant to I.C.R. 16(1) as necessary.

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 !.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

Can someone translate this, please? It's something about an knowing an informant won't be a witness and informant privilege and protection. tia

10: if there is a person with knowledge of the crime, they will not be called as a witness. this includes all information (recordings, writings, etc) that the person might have given or relayed to the prosecutor. this person's information is not, by law, have to be told / disclosed. the prosecution asks the court ("prays") to protect this person with knowledge and all their information. the prosecution is asking the judge to order protection.

11: the prosecution (objects) will not go-along-with what the defendant is the asking of the prosecution or anything else.
because the law !.C.R. states they are not (by law) required to give to defendant (ICR16(g)) (work product) information that someone who is not going to testify has. think private investigator.

footnote *** this is exactly why the courts and law needs to update verbiage (words and written words) this is 2023, no more barristers (lawyers) keeping people out of the courts and facts of law. Not to mention their fees (money $$$$$ ;-)

 

[Nila Aella]

10: if there is a person with knowledge of the crime, they will not be called as a witness. this includes all information (recordings, writings, etc) that the person might have given or relayed to the prosecutor. this person's information is not, by law, have to be told / disclosed. the prosecution asks the court ("prays") to protect this person with knowledge and all their information. the prosecution is asking the judge to order protection.

11: the prosecution (objects) will not go-along-with what the defendant is the asking of the prosecution or anything else.
because the law !.C.R. states they are not (by law) required to give to defendant (ICR16(g)) (work product) information that someone who is not going to testify has. think private investigator.

footnote *** this is exactly why the courts and law needs to update verbiage (words and written words) this is 2023, no more barristers (lawyers) keeping people out of the courts and facts of law. Not to mention their fees (money $$$$$ ;-)

Re number 11

I believe the "on the grounds that such requests are outside the scope of !.C.R. 16." refers to everything else they left out in the response JMO
and the informant part ICR 16g refers to the informant of number 10.

ICR 16g states:

(g) Prosecution Information Not Subject to Disclosure.

(1) Work Product. Disclosure must not be required of:

(A) legal research or of records,

(B) correspondence, or

(C) reports or memoranda to the extent that they contain the opinions, theories or conclusions of the prosecuting attorney or members of the prosecuting attorney's legal staff.

(2) Informants. Disclosure must not be required of an informant's identity unless the informant is to be produced as a witness at a hearing or trial, subject to any protective order under subsection (l) of this rule or a disclosure order under subsection (b)(6) of this rule.

I.C.R. 16. Discovery and Inspection | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/012323%20States%20Response%20to%20Request%20for%20Discovery.pdf

edit: added the states grounds for not disclosing in quotations - outside the scope of ICR 16

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Or, if she is replaced with a different public defender, he would claim he did not have the most effective counsel because she is the top public defender.

People on trial are not entitled to the "most" effective counsel, but rather effective counsel.

 

[gliving]

10: if there is a person with knowledge of the crime, they will not be called as a witness. this includes all information (recordings, writings, etc) that the person might have given or relayed to the prosecutor. this person's information is not, by law, have to be told / disclosed. the prosecution asks the court ("prays") to protect this person with knowledge and all their information. the prosecution is asking the judge to order protection.

Awesome sauce @Sleuth2010

Does this mean a potential witness has immunity? ??

 

[gliving]

footnote *** this is exactly why the courts and law needs to update verbiage (words and written words) this is 2023, no more barristers (lawyers) keeping people out of the courts and facts of law. Not to mention their fees (money $$$$$ ;-)

I agree. It's all so formal and technical. Just spit it out.

 

[Nova]

Do the families actually have to agree? They aren't filing charges--the DA/prosecutor is. They might consult with the families, but they don't really have a say I don't think.

They don't have veto-power or a "final say", but we should remember that in most jurisdictions in the US (anyway), District Attorney--who may not be the actual prosecutor but who has final say over charging decisions--is an elected position. So there is political clout to consider as well as statutory control.

It doesn't benefit a DA politically to lose a trial or to fall short in the penalty phase. On the other hand, no DA wants the relatives of murder victims calling him/her "soft on crime" in ad campaigns for the next election.

Not being in on the meetings and having seen no data on the matter, I can't speak to exactly how much influence survivors have, but it falls somewhere between "controlling influence" and "no influence at all", I expect.

 

[jepop]

I can't help but wonder what BK's parents are thinking about this COI debate. And what advice they would give to their son about who should defend him. And what effect it would have on him and the decisions he has to make going forward to trial.

I think I have a new respect for how pretrial publicity (MSM & social media) may affect so many different aspects of the decisions made before the trial even begins. And the effects those decisions could have on the outcome of the trial.

I have an opinion that I think he looks pretty darn guilty right now. But my priority is not to have a jury find him guilty. My highest priority is that he have a fair and honest trial. And I don't want my opinion to derail a fair trial. Word are powerful. I must watch my words more carefully.

MOO

I love your post and just had to say it.

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

I'm back at school myself and haven't had a chance to post or comment, and I've tried keeping up with the threads and posts.

JMO, If guilty, etc.,
I am just interested in anyone else's thoughts on BK committing multiple murders as part of research for his thesis. I have suggested this before and had some feedback regarding BK thinking rationally, but I am looking for hypothetical feedback as if he is not thinking rationally.
As a hypothetical example for my theory, BK wants his thesis to be regarding pre or post-emotions, his survey results are mixed, but he wants to prove a point.
He proves his point...
Whatever that point may be.
JMO

 

[jepop]

Bryan Kohberger defense attorney represented Maddie Mogen's dad

The lawyer representing the only suspect in the brutal slayings of four University of Idaho students in the town of Moscow in November has multiple ties to the victims' parents.

www.dailymail.co.uk

• Bryan Kohberger's defense attorney has multiple ties to the victims' families
• His lawyer is Anne Taylor, the chief public defender for Kootenai County
• Taylor was linked to the cases of Xana Kenodle and Madison Mogen's parents

A possible conflict of interest ?
What does everyone think ?
Imo.

IMO, Characterising AT as having "multiple ties to the victim's families" isn't really that accurate, MOO, and could imply personal relationships or anything really, IMO. My understanding is that she has represented three parents of the victims in the past in her role as as a Public Defender, so the" ties" are those of PD-client nature and the number is three. MOO