The only remaining pieces of evidence that would make sense for his defense to believe could be exculpatory, and they may not have gotten yet, would be all of the DNA results from all the items tested in his parent's home, trash cans and receptacles, and his car.
I think BK/his defense realize his only hope of potentially being exonerated is through picking apart the DNA results (a) on the knife sheath and attempting to demonstrate it wasn't 100% his, and (b) that were collected and shown to be someone else's at his parent's home and/or in his car.
Two ways he might try and circle back to that and attack the DNA evidence, IMO, are:
Parent's House / Trash -- He wants to compare all the DNA results and labs and techniques used for all samples collected, including those LE did not submit in discovery because they were from a family member or unknown person. He wants to look for irregularities or results that can't be explained or might not fit with LE's lines of evidence. For instance, "See, they've got it all wrong, they can't even say exclusively that's my DNA right on my own pillow, it's a mix and can only be narrowed down to "close family member"!" kind of thing, or "They used different labs and/or methods for the DNA tests in PA than in ID, and they're inconsistent."
Or
His Car -- He knows there was someone else's DNA in his car that LE should have found and said something about, and he believes they should not have been eliminated as a suspect, the old SODDI or TODDI defense. He could have had an accomplice or friend or acquaintance ride in his car, or he could have planted someone else's DNA on purpose to set up SODDI/TODDI as a fallback, in the house and/or in his car. And that's why he supposedly asked if anyone else had been arrested when he was arrested.
JMO
Very interesting possibilities. Great post IMO. I agree that it's possible dna evidence is what the defense are after. Though I have a different take on speculated details.
Item 49 in Motion to Compel includes many potential forensic reports. I think it's safe to assume from the prosecution's response to the motion that some/many reports have been handed over already but due to the way these items were originally listed and numbered, the wording remains the same in defense's motion - ie ALL forensic reports et al. from a. PA ROS (return of service on search warrant); b. trash/receptacle items; and c. vehicle ROS. MOO
But I think in this motion defense isn't after all those reports. It already has some/many according to the state's response. IMO, they are after one or two particular thing/s in within the broader category but have not yet specified what it/they is/are (which report etc). June 27th for that to become clearer? MOO
RE dna, I've thought the "exculpatory information on belief and information" might be to do with forensic testing method of the trash (paternal testing and so forth) that was used to identify the suspect profile on the snap button of the sheath as BK's (ie forensic reports et al related to items from trash cans and receptacles). The snap button dna test result was part of the PCA and Defense might be looking to go there/have that questioned. Speculation only. However, if that is the case not sure how far that might go. Remember the supplemental disclosure re dna test result? That was used to ensure the search warrants in WA would still stand sans dna test result. This disclosure was not used in PA search warrant apps, but nonetheless all three search warrants (the PA residence, the vehicle and BK's person) were issued on the basis of a modified PCA. The PCA attached to the applications for PA warrants makes no mention of the dna test result on the snap button so in theory (on paper) those warrants were issued by a judge sans the sheath button evidence. So if the defense is looking to ultimately question the validity of a/all PA search warrant/s through this motion item (that's an if and speculation) then it may not go down. MOO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bouncing off...
All this speculation on item 49 of motion to compel made me think again of what the rationale/strategy might have been behind BK's standing silent/mute at the arraignment.
In at least four States that I could find, private law firms use this standard language on their websites regarding standing "mute" at arraignment. The states I found were New York, Michigan and Pennsylvannia.
@wary found a reference to Texas, and is the OP who originally came up with this.
From what I can understand, it appears that the standard reason for a defendant to be advised by counsel to stand mute in the above states is:
"“Mute” plea: ...you may “stand mute” instead of making a plea. The court will then enter a plea of not guilty.
By standing mute, you avoid silently admitting to the correctness of the proceedings against you until that point. You are then free to attack all previous proceedings that may have been irregular.""
Once criminal charges are filed, you’ll make a court appearance known as an “arraignment.” If you are incarcerated, this will […]
www.barfieldlawfirm.net
The criminal process can be complex and confusing. But it's important to know your legal rights. The best way to be informed is to contact an attorney in
www.pocono-lawyers.com
Criminal Defense Attorney Michigan. The attorneys at are all experienced criminal defense attorneys that are in court defending clients against criminal prosecution on misdemeanor and felony offenses every day. Quite simply, criminal defense is the backbone of our law firm, and we have built our...
www.alllegalmatters.com
Unionville Criminal Defense Lawyer. Unionville Criminal Defense Attorney. Giordano Law Unionville Criminal Defense Litigation Firm. Speak With An Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer in Unionville New York.<br />
www.westchestercountynylaw.com
My question is, would the same appply in Idaho? If so is this why the defendant stood silent/mute at arraignment? And if so, are some of the items in Motion to Compel part of a defense strategy to " attack previous proceedings that may have been.. [from the Defense's POV]...irregular"? Just speculation. MOO
EBM structure