4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, 2022 #77

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I have questions for all my favorite geniuses:

1. Was there a decision from the NV court on whether BF has to come to the preliminary hearing?

2. IANAL, so, (PURE SPECULATION) if "someone" let him in, and testifies to that, would they then have to drop the burglary charge?

3. If they drop the burglary charge, is it still a "Death Penalty" case?

4. What else could possibly be EXCULPATORY, y'all????

If he was seen with someone else who he claims perpetrated the murders following which he was too afraid to speak out against would that be even a possible scenario at this point?

 

[10ofRods]

The most interesting thing about this is that the defense feels she has "exculpatory" information. I wonder what information she might have that the defense feels is exculpatory? Further, I wonder what information she might have that the defense feels would potentially even prevent a trial (reason for wanting her at the PH). More and more I'm wondering if BK knew these ladies prior to the murder. There's more here than a random quadruple murder, IMO.

All MOO.

Something as minor as "I didn't hear anything between 4 and 5 am" might be regarded as exculpatory in some trials. It all depends on the overall pattern of facts. It's up to the jury to weigh whether a person, sleeping 2 floors below the carnage, should have heard something.

It could be something else, but I'm guessing that they just want to pull her into court and be able to find things out (what BF knows) at the Prelim.

It's also possible that there's something in the police reports that the defense wants to get at, through BF. no way of knowing.

And yes, it's possible that BK had contact with house members. Perhaps the defense theory is that the house members had seen him at a party (and might want to interview survivors about said party). The defense doesn't have to have a strong theory at this time and might actually have very little else to call upon. We just don't know.

IMO.

 

[10ofRods]

A mtion to quash requires first consultation which I don't see has occurred. Regardless, all this is easily fixed. Why is BF fighting this so hard? What is going on?

I figure she's traumatized and simply hopes not to have to do it.

The Court disagrees. She likely has all kinds of minor details she can attest to, and even if not major ones, defense still has a right to call her. But she's young and probably hopes to be outside the reach of Idaho law.

Is it possible that the Defense simply wants a chance to hear her testimony at the Prelim? Wouldn't this stand a chance of backfiring if they didn't have a theory about what her testimony might contain?

I too wonder what is going on.

 

[Boxer]

What would we expect any defense attorney to do to defend a client? Calling witnesses-- including witnesses who may also be victims--is a necessary part of criminal trial work.

A few pages back on this thread people were saying the defense attorney in this case must know her client is guilty because the PH wasn't until June. So she was somehow "making" BK stay in jail. Now she's criticized for possibly mounting a defense? I don't get it.
JMO

MOO The June date was for time to process and respond to discovery.
MOO the AT subpeona for BF is going to be about contradicting DMs account with a conflicting account.

 

[Boxer]

Something as minor as "I didn't hear anything between 4 and 5 am" might be regarded as exculpatory in some trials. It all depends on the overall pattern of facts. It's up to the jury to weigh whether a person, sleeping 2 floors below the carnage, should have heard something.

It could be something else, but I'm guessing that they just want to pull her into court and be able to find things out (what BF knows) at the Prelim.

It's also possible that there's something in the police reports that the defense wants to get at, through BF. no way of knowing.

And yes, it's possible that BK had contact with house members. Perhaps the defense theory is that the house members had seen him at a party (and might want to interview survivors about said party). The defense doesn't have to have a strong theory at this time and might actually have very little else to call upon. We just don't know.

IMO.

Right could be fishing.

 

[Cool Cats]

A mtion to quash requires first consultation which I don't see has occurred. Regardless, all this is easily fixed. Why is BF fighting this so hard? What is going on?

Could be hardship - like she can't afford to leave her job?

How does she travel there? She can't be forced to drive long distance through the desolate Nevada desert, alone.

Does the Idaho court pay for 2 way plane fare? Plus hotel, food, transportation from hotel to court and back again?

What about her attorney fees?

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Right could be fishing.

Sorry, I don't see a judge signing off on transporting a witness from NV to ID for a prelim hearing for a fishing expedition. Just doesn't sound realistic to me. The judge obviously thought BF had something to add to the hearing of probable cause.

MOO.

 

[vls12345]

I guess with all this re: BF having to appear at the hearing, DM will also likely be called to appear? (Sorry if I missed that being mentioned already.)

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Could be hardship - like she can't afford to leave her job?

How does she travel there? She can't be forced to drive long distance through the desolate Nevada desert, alone.

Does the Idaho court pay for her out of State travel, hotel, food, transportation from hotel to court and back again?

What about her attorney fees?

Is this witness made of money?

BBM.

Yes.

Subpoenaing Out of State Witnesses - A Step-by-Step Guide

This article provides a starting point for prosecutors seeking to subpoena out-of-state witnesses by using the Uniform Act.

www.naag.org

 

[Boxer]

Sorry, I don't see a judge signing off on transporting a witness from NV to ID for a prelim hearing for a fishing expedition. Just doesn't sound realistic to me. The judge obviously thought BF had something to add to the hearing of probable cause.

MOO.

Yes, an ostensible cause with fringe benefits.

 

[Sundog]

Could be hardship - like she can't afford to leave her job?

How does she travel there? She can't be forced to drive long distance through the desolate Nevada desert, alone.

Does the Idaho court pay for 2 way plane fare? Plus hotel, food, transportation from hotel to court and back again?

What about her attorney fees?

Is this witness made of money?

The hardships seem minor compared to a defendant facing the death penalty. Her testimony is clearly an important part of the process, regardless of the hardships for her personally. This case is much larger than BF. A lot hangs in the balance, for both sides, imo.

 

[vls12345]

Could the ID or IDs that were found in BK's vehicle have belonged to BF? Is that potentially why the defense would be calling her for this hearing?

MOO.

 

[Boxer]

MOO this BF subpeona explains the inclusion of the latent foot print by DMs door in the arrest warrant, the print supports her winess statement about the early morning of 12/13/22.

 

[Cool Cats]

The hardships seem minor compared to a defendant facing the death penalty. Her testimony is clearly an important part of the process, regardless of the hardships for her personally. This case is much larger than BF. A lot hangs in the balance, for both sides, imo.

Not the point.

If a witness can't afford to fly long distance and pay for hotel and what-not it is hardship.

But it was just posted that it won't be hardship because the State of Idaho will pay everything, not sure about attorney fees.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Could the ID or IDs that were found in BK's vehicle have belonged to BF? Is that potentially why the defense would be calling her for this hearing?

MOO.

IMO, if they were BF's IDs, that would be the least of BK's worries. MOO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Not the point.

If a witness can't afford to fly long distance and pay for hotel and what-not it is hardship.

But it was just posted that it won't be hardship because the State of Idaho will pay everything, not sure about attorney fees.

A man's life is on the line. If he's innocent (and I get the prevailing opinion here is that he's not), and a witness has information that can exonerate him, there is no hardship that would excuse her, IMO.

 

[Sundog]

If BK was falsely charged with murdering 4 innocent souls, or justified in doing what he did, he should be eager to put on his big boy pants, take the witness stand and tell his side of the story.
If BK does not remember the events clearly, in detail, or at all, this may be a basis for challenging HIS defense/testimony.

<snippped for focus>

But this is not how our legal system works in the United States. BK is innocent until proven guilty. I don't think any of us would really want it any other way.

 

[10ofRods]

Yes, an ostensible cause with fringe benefits.

Ostensible cause would be easy to find and state, I'd think. Until BF testifies to what she heard and saw during that 24 hour period (or longer, depending on other evidence), there isn't an on-record account of what she knows. For all we know, Defense is using someone else's discovery/statements to indicate that BF was indeed involved in finding the bodies and calling 911 (in some way). She certainly may have seen blood footprints at some point in time.

Both sides could call her, really. But it's interesting that the Defense may want her to impeach DM (that's my first hunch).

A man's life is on the line. If he's innocent (and I get the prevailing opinion here is that he's not), and a witness has information that can exonerate him, there is no hardship that would excuse her, IMO.

Exactly. Although I don't think the Defense has to show the Court exactly what she'll testify to, before she does it. She needs to be under oath. It might turn out well for BK - but it might not.

Prelims can be very interesting in that regard.

IMO.

 

[WillenFan21]

Since that gag order is in place now and the supreme court ruled in favor will we learn anything of what happens in the preliminary hearing?

 

[10ofRods]

Could the ID or IDs that were found in BK's vehicle have belonged to BF? Is that potentially why the defense would be calling her for this hearing?

MOO.

Yes, although that's risky, IMO. She could testify to a innocent reason why he has her ID (if he does) or she could totally throw him under the bus. Presumably, the Defense has some idea of what she might say (but, then again, they may not - stranger things have happened in courtrooms).

IMO.