MOO Should be sanctions.So apparently there's a hearing today about the surveys. Does anyone know if that one is open to the public or not? Will it be on JJJ's YouTube?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
MOO Should be sanctions.So apparently there's a hearing today about the surveys. Does anyone know if that one is open to the public or not? Will it be on JJJ's YouTube?
ID - 4 University of Idaho Students Died in Apparent Homicide, Moscow, 13 Nov 2022 ****Media Thread**** NO DISCUSSION #2She didn't prove it, tho. It seems like JJJ didn't like the questions on the survey.
I suspect she intentionally tried to create bias because she wants the case moved. Her arguing about the positives for Boise today only makes me believe this more.ID - 4 University of Idaho Students Died in Apparent Homicide, Moscow, 13 Nov 2022 ****Media Thread**** NO DISCUSSION #2
Kohberger's lawyer filed a new document in court Wednesday that says a survey they completed proves that the jury pool in Latah County is "biased" against him.
Wha huh? Didn't she just represent today that she didn't know what BE would conclude/recommend?????ID - 4 University of Idaho Students Died in Apparent Homicide, Moscow, 13 Nov 2022 ****Media Thread**** NO DISCUSSION #2
Kohberger's lawyer filed a new document in court Wednesday that says a survey they completed proves that the jury pool in Latah County is "biased" against him.
I knew she was going to aim for Boise.I suspect she intentionally tried to create bias because she wants the case moved. Her arguing about the positives for Boise today only makes me believe this more.
Her case her bad. Sanction her.Wha huh? Didn't she just represent today that she didn't know what BE would conclude/recommend?????
She acts like he's a casual independent contractor and not someone she deliberately commissioned!
Her case her bad. Sanction her.
AT says she did not write the questions, claims it was a random and anonymous canvas.
Judge asks if BE was aware of the dissemination order.
AT claims BE drafted the questions from what was publicly available.
Judge, not having it.
JMO
What would sanctions (unlikely) look like?
Sometimes it's better to "not to know". Even though you know.One thing would be disregarding any of the data obtained by AT in re: venue change. If that means her venue change motion fails, that's not a sanction, it's an outcome.
I doubt it will go further. It's a negative outcome for AT but not a sanction.
An actual sanction has to come from the Idaho bar or similar. Or, if one wants to regard the denial of a motion as a sanction (that's a really broad word), then that would be the sanction. That's why she spent time talking about how her job requires her to go into gray legal territory.
OTOH, I wonder how she'll feel if Kohberger bases his appeals (in part) on his lawyer's misconduct/incompetence. Such an appeal won't go far (IMO) but would certainly be one more appeal. I'm not worried about appeals. I would like to see a more swift mechanism of justice. Mostly, I feel for Judge Judge, who has been moderate and even gracious toward the Defense.
I do not believe that AT didn't know what her consultant was up to, although I'll bet she did NOT ask for recordings or lay down many guidelines. It would be interesting to know. She had a duty to oversee anyone where she used state funds to secure an outcome.
She had a duty to know and supervise state expenditures, IMO.
Ain't it the truth! Amazing if she gets away with this and no repercussions.If you can't get a change of venue the traditional way.....
Hire someone who unexpectedly taints what's left of the untainted pool.
JK..........
MOO
This document, from the American Society for Trial Consultants lays out the accepted standards and principals for what should be included in change of venue surveys:
ASTC has been around since 1982 so BT and JJJ should be knowledgeable about these standards and principals.
It is standard for Change of Venue survey instruments to include validity checking questions. It is not preferred but sometimes false facts ARE used for instrument validity checking. This should come as no surprise to the prosecutor or the judge.
None of the questions from the Change of Venue survey that were mentioned by BT contained information that is not already out in the public domain. If the information is already in the public domain, how can it be under the gag order?
All JMO.
I think the sly fox's term for this is "plausible deniability".Sometimes it's better to "not to know". Even though you know.
You know?
Are you maybe thinking of the Delphi case? None of that is true about the Daybell defense.I dont get it?
2 Idaho DP cases but one has unlimited amounts of $$$ to hire investigators, experts, jury consultants and unlimited amounts to pay over $100 an hour in attorney fees.
BK = $$$$
Chad Daybell =
Lead attorney not paid, defense has to pay their expensives themselves then wait to get reimbursed, judge is denying many money requests.
2 Cents
Due to timing, I had to listen to this while driving so could not see facial expressions or body language, but my mouth spent a good bit of time open in amazement. I could not believe some of the things coming out of AT's mouth and agree that JJJ seemed ticked. And I agree with Prosecution that the wording of those questions was highly inappropriate. And stating it was publicly available information is thoroughly disingenuous. The whole point of the survey was whether the media coverage has tainted the jury pool. Well if you "inject" them (love that term) with tainting data from the media, your client should not be eligible for a change of venue based off that survey.AT is upset that the Judge basically ordered her to stand down (relative to the phone surveys). Says she's been set back by these two weeks. Blaming the judge.
Judge, so not having it.
Judge says she could have had that conversation with the State and we wouldn't be here.
JMO