4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #82

[Nova]

Good catch Sundog. That maybe the judge can't decide this but why would their attorney file this Motion if the judge can't decide? This makes no sense. It is their attorney who files the Motions for them, he would know if the judge could decide or not under the law.

I do know that judges in Idaho are allowed to dismiss DP charges despite the prosecutor bringing the DP charges. The judge can overrule the prosecutor on this.

The defense always files Motions to have the DP dismissed and the judge can grant the Motion as happened in the Vallow trial.

I don't see why the judge couldn't legally rule on a Motion to charge the defendant with the DP. If he can dismiss the DP why couldn't he bring the DP? Judges have the power to overrule prosecutors.

I can't find anything on your specific question.

2 Cents

It doesn't work both ways. Only four or five states allowed judicial overrides in favor of the d.p. and state Supreme Courts and/or SCOTUS have ruled that capital punishment MUST be a decision made by a jury.

Judicial override - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Basically, in the USA you don't get executed unless a jury orders it. And in most or all states, a jury can't order it if the prosecution doesn't ask for it.

 

[al66pine]

Is the courtroom camera totally up to the defendant or the judge?

@Teche
The "Media Guide to Idaho Courts" publication linked below explains special rules re cameras & recording in ID courts. See page 6 & 7.

I have not followed detail of the motions flying around this specific case, but others here w greater brains capable of retaining detail who have been paying scrupulous attn to those motions can undoubtedly provide a more definitive answer.
[ ETA: looks like some answers have already been posted:]

https://isc.idaho.gov/files/ISC_Media_Guide_2020.pdf

Good background on multiple topics.

 

[PromotedPawn]

What is a Jack Nicholson moment, if I might ask, respectfully? I've never heard that reference before. TIA

Do you want to know the truth?

 

[Nila Aella]

A newly filed memorandum says the court shouldn't allow cameras to be used during hearings because they could "permit unfairly prejudicial coverage" of the case.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1666565745122091008

Defense for Moscow murders suspect files motion to prohibit cameras in the courtroom

A newly filed memorandum says the court shouldn't allow cameras to be used during hearings because they could "permit unfairly prejudicial coverage" of the case.

www.krem.com

6/7/2023

MOSCOW, Idaho — The defense attorney for the man accused of killing four University of Idaho students is asking the court to prohibit cameras from being in the courtroom as case hearings continue.

A newly filed memorandum asks the court to prohibit cameras from the courtroom during future proceedings, to include the suspect's trial. In the memorandum, the defense said prohibiting cameras and limiting media coverage will protect the suspect's Sixth Amendment rights, prevents "unfairly prejudicial coverage" and prevents courtroom participants from being harassed or distracted.

Interesting how there is NO mention of the prosecutor's brief in this story.
Actually, haven't found a mention of the States points anywhere, yet.
Saw a couple of mentions that the State is leaving it up to the Judge. (This is the first sentence in the Brief, which is followed by reasons supporting No cameras!).

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case...tes Brief on Video Photographic Coverage.pdf

MOO

 

[maconrich]

Interesting how there is NO mention of the prosecutor's brief in this story.
Actually, haven't found a mention of the States points anywhere, yet.
Saw a couple of mentions that the State is leaving it up to the Judge. (This is the first sentence in the Brief, which is followed by reasons supporting No cameras!).

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/060623 States Brief on Video Photographic Coverage.pdf

MOO

I thought so too. They have access to the full document(s) but opted IMO to ignore the rest of it in order to promote their agenda. MOO. It's going to take a lot of effort IMO to trust much of what's put out there -- effort and responsible journalism on their part that is. I guess the best we can do, IMHO, is to read the documents so we can see / understand the facts. Unfortunately, IMHO, a lot of people (that aren't on here) won't be doing the same and will, instead, believe what the media reports.

Personally, I found it interesting that the defense and prosecution agreed on not wanting cameras in the courtroom and on keeping the gag order in effect. And the defense presented solid points, IMHO.

Edited to add that the prosecution presented solid points too, and I sincerely hope the judge will take their recommendations into consideration.

 

[Cool Cats]

It doesn't work both ways. Only four or five states allowed judicial overrides in favor of the d.p. and state Supreme Courts and/or SCOTUS have ruled that capital punishment MUST be a decision made by a jury.

Judicial override - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Basically, in the USA you don't get executed unless a jury orders it. And in most or all states, a jury can't order it if the prosecution doesn't ask for it.

I know the supreme court ruled that only a jury decides capital punishment. What me and another poster want to know is this:

If the Idaho prosecutor does not go for the DP, can the G family file a Motion to have the judge overturn the prosecutor's decision? Does the judge have the legal right to do this?

Do you know?

I want information about Idaho specifically.

Thanks

 

[Nila Aella]

I thought so too. They have access to the full document(s) but opted IMO to ignore the rest of it in order to promote their agenda. MOO. It's going to take a lot of effort IMO to trust much of what's put out there -- effort and responsible journalism on their part that is. I guess the best we can do, IMHO, is to read the documents so we can see / understand the facts. Unfortunately, IMHO, a lot of people (that aren't on here) won't be doing the same and will, instead, believe what the media reports.

Personally, I found it interesting that the defense and prosecution agreed on not wanting cameras in the courtroom and on keeping the gag order in effect. And the defense presented solid points, IMHO.

Edited to add that the prosecution presented solid points too, and I sincerely hope the judge will take their recommendations into consideration.

I was wavering a little on the gag order. Mainly regarding the potential for abuse of process.
After the "creepy" resume entry headline and completely unbalanced reporting on the cameras in the courtroom issue, my opinion is once again a solid. I will trust the Judge to ensure that the process is sound. MOO

I also want to point out, regarding cameras in the courtroom, I saw the same unbalanced posting on SM.

Both the Prosecution and Defense are letting the Judge decide: because that is how it is done in Idaho under the rules of law.

And Both the prosecution and defense wrote points supporting NO CAMERAS in the courtroom.

MOO
JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

• 06/06/2023 Defendants Memorandum on Cameras During Hearings
• 06/06/2023 Defendants Motion for Order Permitting Zoom Participation
• 06/06/2023 Defendants Motion to Shorten Time
• 06/06/2023 Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Press Coverage
• 06/06/2023 Objection to Medias Motion to Vacate the Amended Nondissemination Order
• 06/06/2023 Response States Response to Motion to Appeal Amend And/Or Clarify
• 06/06/2023 Response to Associated Press Motion to Intervene
• 06/06/2023 States Brief on Video Photographic Coverage
• 06/06/2023 Stipulation for Protective Order

Just posting again because one link was coming up "page not found" on the prevous post MOO

Interesting, thanks for all your court posts. I wonder why this:

Records from the University of Idaho pertaining to other individuals including students, faculty and staff, and records from the University of Idaho's Office of Civil Rights Investigation (OCRI)

• 06/06/2023 Stipulation for Protective Order

 

[Nila Aella]

Interesting, thanks for all your court posts. I wonder why this:

Records from the University of Idaho pertaining to other individuals including students, faculty and staff, and records from the University of Idaho's Office of Civil Rights Investigation (OCRI)

• 06/06/2023 Stipulation for Protective Order

I am a little behind in reading all this in detail, but I also noticed this one when scanning. All on that list have me very curious, especially the OCRI. JG that maybe it has to do with survivors? ? Staff and faculty at the U of I (maybe the students instructors? or Guidance Couselor?). No clue about the OCRI - have to look that one up. MOO

 

[maconrich]

Interesting, thanks for all your court posts. I wonder why this:

Records from the University of Idaho pertaining to other individuals including students, faculty and staff, and records from the University of Idaho's Office of Civil Rights Investigation (OCRI)

• 06/06/2023 Stipulation for Protective Order

Wonder if it ties to this section of the State's argument against having cameras...

Edited to add #1 and #3

On page 2 of
STATE’S BRIEF ON VIDEO
AND PHOTOGRAPHIC
COVERAGE

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/060623%20States%20Brief%20on%20Video%20%20Photographic%20Coverage.pdf

 

[Nila Aella]

Office of Civil Rights Investigation and what they do at U of I

Civil Rights & Investigations

The Office of Civil Rights & Investigations focuses on practices that make all members of the University of Idaho community feel welcome, wanted, accepted, respected and supported.

www.uidaho.edu

The Office of Civil Rights & Investigations (OCRI) is responsible for ensuring compliance with federal and state laws related to discrimination or harassment based on a protected class. This includes retaliation when engaging in a protected process. We undertake necessary investigations and prepare recommendations and written reports. University of Idaho employees have a responsibility to report cases of discrimination and harassment.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I believe it is entirely in the hands of the judge.

The Bill of Rights is clear about the press's rights to cover public events. Courts are paid for by the public.

However, the Judge doesn't have to approve cameras (and many are not approving cameras, instead opting to allow reporters to tweet only from just outside the courtroom. Some allow tweeting from inside the courtroom. "Tweets" is a generic term here, although that's what most reporters are doing.

I didn't follow the Vallow (madness) trial, but those who did will likely know more about what *that* judge did.

I personally think that courtroom coverage is essential. I would show it to my students, who seem completely befuddled about what a "court" actually is and do not know the difference between civil and criminal courts. It's educational. It's real. It's community. We are a society, with laws. Reporters are obligated, in my view, to cover what goes on in the community, in society.

In the end, if the Judge allows a "pool feed" (local news sets up a camera, everyone has to arrange to get feed from the local news outlet), it works. Entities like DM and Meoww will still grab stuff and make of it what they will, there's no stopping tabloid news. But I'm very impressed with the local reporting in the Idaho and Colorado cases I'm following.

Fingers crossed that we get cameras. I really want to see this trial.

imo

The entire A Murdaugh trial was televised recently, as was the L. Stauch trial, with the exception of not showing the exhibits or witnesses while testifying. One in SC one in CO, I don't know what this Judge will decide here in ID, but BK should have no influence that decision IMO.

It should be what is SOP for any Defendant.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Office of Civil Rights Investigation and what they do at U of I

Civil Rights & Investigations

The Office of Civil Rights & Investigations focuses on practices that make all members of the University of Idaho community feel welcome, wanted, accepted, respected and supported.

www.uidaho.edu

The Office of Civil Rights & Investigations (OCRI) is responsible for ensuring compliance with federal and state laws related to discrimination or harassment based on a protected class. This includes retaliation when engaging in a protected process. We undertake necessary investigations and prepare recommendations and written reports. University of Idaho employees have a responsibility to report cases of discrimination and harassment.

Could this be in relation to the notice of Brady Violation or IA review?

JMO

 

[iamshadow21]

The entire A Murdaugh trial was televised recently, as was the L. Stauch trial, with the exception of not showing the exhibits or witnesses while testifying. One in SC one in CO, I don't know what this Judge will decide here in ID, but BK should have no influence that decision IMO.

It should be what is SOP for any Defendant.

MOO

You could see the witnesses and exhibits in the Stauch trial. Including autopsy photos. The only things you couldn't see were exhibits or witnesses that were outside the range of the camera for some reason. So, some things like maps or diagrams up on an easel for the jury, or Dr Lewis, who at times sat in her wheelchair in front of the jury rather than in the witness box due to frailty/mobility issues.

The only thing not covered was the jury box, for obvious reasons.

MOO

 

[AusLaw]

I know the supreme court ruled that only a jury decides capital punishment. What me and another poster want to know is this:

If the Idaho prosecutor does not go for the DP, can the G family file a Motion to have the judge overturn the prosecutor's decision? Does the judge have the legal right to do this?

Do you know?

I want information about Idaho specifically.

Thanks

Hi, long time lurker around here since 2017, specifically since the Pennsylvania murders committed by Cosmo DiNardo and his cousin.

<modsnip>

In regards to your questions about families possibly overriding a prosecutor by way of a motion in seeking the death penalty in a capital case, I have found that such a thing is just not possible in Idaho and very likely all throughout The United States.

In Idaho, the decision to seek the death penalty in a capital case is made solely the prosecutor and is not subject to judicial review. In Idaho, a sentence of death cannot be imposed unless the prosecutor has filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty. Therefore, the family of the victim cannot file a Motion to have the judge overturn the prosecutor's decision not to seek the death penalty. Sentencing in capital cases

Idaho law does indeed provide a list of victims families rights during the investigation, prosecution, and disposition of the crime. These rights include being treated with fairness, respect, dignity, and privacy; being allowed to be present at all proceedings; having the opportunity to communicate with the prosecution; and others. But as you can see in the link provided, none of these rights include the ability to challenge the prosecutor's decision not to seek the death penalty. Victims rights

 

[maskedwoman]

<snipped for focus>
He would need to be actually psychotic, I think, or borderline psychotic to get a competency hearing. His lawyers could claim he's out of touch with reality, I suppose. But I really do think he'd have to convince a psychiatrist of that. And he seems to think he's normal. At any rate, to me the "they" are his lawyers and I think they know way more about his mental states and his legal case than we do.

IMO.

That's exactly what happened in the Ron Jeremy case. His lawyer came into court and reported that his client had not recognized him (which would have been a jolt, I'm sure) and the lawyer was concerned he wouldn't understand the proceedings. The judge ordered him evaluated and he was found to be suffering from moderate to advanced dementia, and could not stand trial.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Interesting how there is NO mention of the prosecutor's brief in this story.
Actually, haven't found a mention of the States points anywhere, yet.
Saw a couple of mentions that the State is leaving it up to the Judge. (This is the first sentence in the Brief, which is followed by reasons supporting No cameras!).

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/060623 States Brief on Video Photographic Coverage.pdf

MOO

Interestingly, that's just more confirmation of media bias and reasons the gag order shouldn't be lifted and cameras shouldn't be allowed.

JMO.

 

[NCWatcher]

The entire A Murdaugh trial was televised recently, as was the L. Stauch trial, with the exception of not showing the exhibits or witnesses while testifying. One in SC one in CO, I don't know what this Judge will decide here in ID, but BK should have no influence that decision IMO.

It should be what is SOP for any Defendant.

MOO

I'm not sure there is a SOP for any defendant. The media has no interest in televising the trials of most defendants. Trials go on day in and day out all over the country with no press interest and little public interest. And it seems the law in Idaho I.C.A.R. 45. Cameras In the Courtroom | Supreme Court
allows the judge to limit cameras based on the "administration of justice." That would argue against having an across the board SOP.
JMO

 

[arielilane]

@AusLaw, nice first post and welcome!

 

[Nila Aella]

Could this be in relation to the notice of Brady Violation or IA review?

JMO

These are the initiatives of OCRI​

Complaint Investigation​

Investigate discrimination and harassment complaints, provide written reports and determine action to be taken.

---

Title IX Coordination​

Monitor gender equity in all UI terms and conditions of employment, educational and co-curricular opportunities. Includes sexual discrimination and sexual harassment prevention and complaint response.

---

Education and Outreach​

Information and educational outreach on arc of issues regarding human rights, access, inclusion, diversity dimensions, equity and equal opportunity.

---

Universitywide Policy & Procedure Review​

Embed diversity practices systemically

And Title IX

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title34-vol1/pdf/CFR-2010-title34-vol1-sec106-31.pdf

OCRI and TItle IX

Title IX is a part of the Education Amendments of 1972 and is a comprehensive federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity, regardless of status. Title IX applies to employees and students alike. Examples of the types of discrimination that are covered under Title IX include the failure to provide equal opportunity in athletics, discrimination based on pregnancy, and sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is a form of discrimination and sexual assault is the most pernicious form of sexual harassment.

Title IX provides protection for students in connection with all academic, educational, extra-curricular, athletic, and other programs of the school. This includes U of I-sponsored or U of I-related activities (off-campus trips, sororities and fraternities affiliated with school, etc.). This also affects students during academic breaks and summer. It may also cover activity that occurs off school grounds if there is carry-over into the educational setting (e.g., if a student is sexually assaulted off-campus by another student and must continue to interact with or see the other student on campus). All U of I students are expected to abide by the Student Code of Conduct as long as they are students at the U of I. The code applies to any location or any time of the year to current, accepted or enrolled students.

But they do other things too:
Code of Conduct/retaliation/discrimination/violent threatening behavior etc....this page has links for all those topics

Policy and Procedure

The University of Idaho has a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, sexual orientation, disability, or status as a Vietnam era veteran. This policy applies to all programs, services, and facilities, and includes, but is not limited to...

www.uidaho.edu

MOO
edit: spelling