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

[Nila Aella]

As a Moscow resident, I especially appreciate this:
Supplemental Memorandum on Camera Access in the Courtroom

I tried to attend the recent hearing and it was (understandably) full. Media coverage is crucial, but as a community member, it was frustrating I couldn’t get a seat because of all the media. MOO, as always.

I liked this bit: MOO

 

[Twistinginthewind]

Grand Jury powers are outlined under the Constitution and the law. I would expect any action taken outside those powers would be appealed and overturned. MOOooo. In many jurisdictions, a defendant has the right to forgo a jury trial and allow a judge to decide his/her fate. I don't believe that' s very common but I could be wrong.

I think it's also important to remember that an impartial jury doesn't mean a jury ignorant of any information about a case. It just means they have to find a jury that's not predisposed toward a particular outcome, and can deliver a fair verdict based only on the evidence heard in court.

During my various jury duty experiences, I saw potential jurors make statements I thought might get them excused. Judges would question the jurors, sometimes fairly aggressively, about their ability to be impartial. One judge I saw practically dared people to admit they couldn't/wouldn't be impartial. One or two might have dug in their heels and said they really could not do it but most would eventually give the "right" answer and end up on a jury. Only a few that I saw even ended up excused by one side of the other. I was surprised.

Good to hear your thoughts, thank you, @maskedwoman!

I've never been a juror, ducked out a few times when I was summoned due to various reasons over the years.

MOO

 

[U.N. Known]

There will still be a large swath of the public who never bother to read about the case or have any interest in it whatsoever so I don't buy that a gag order is needed here to avoid poisoning the jury pool and I don't like these entities (lawyers, jail, police, etc.) using the gag order simply to avoid talking to the media about anything which is what it looks like they are doing. The media is meant to be the watchdog of these entities but the judge who put the gag order in place has hamstrung them and that is wrong, IMO. For all of these reasons, I believe that the gag order should be completely lifted and the sooner the better.

IMO a gag order can protect the jury pool, but I don't feel that is always the case.

IN this case, my reasoning for keeping this gag order in place for MSM is the number of outlets who have jumped into the fray to produce stories without having full information. From what (little) I've seen, I get the impression that many of them are interested in what having the information will do for their ratings/readership rather than a concern for the public.

There are numerous people who are not bound by the order who know things. They should be able to find one former jail employee or inmate who can divulge the size of BK's likely jail cell. Surely there is some way to determine the number of cell towers in the area without relying on MPD. Those are small things that a couple of the media used as reasons to lift the order. Neither those nor the others have inspired any belief that this group of journalists is prepared to be the watchdog's that they are meant to be.

Of course, my opinion doesn't actually matter, but I would be interested if the media would at least attempt the type of investigative journalism that old school journalists engaged in.

 

[U.N. Known]

I used to be fairly opposed to plea deals but, as I get older, I find more value in them under certain situations. In this case, a guilty plea to take the death penalty off the table would eliminate years and years of automatic appeals that cost an *advertiser censored* fortune on top of what it costs to keep someone in prison. And since there would be no trial, there would be no other appeals trying to get a new trial due to alleged errors by the lower court. MOOooo

Oh, I agree that a deal would be beneficial for the state. I just don't a deal is of much use to BK--for the same reasons that it is beneficial to the state. Plead guilty and his story ends. If he takes his chances and gets convicted, as you said, he would potentially have years worth of appeals. He'd still end up living a pretty long life if not all of his natural life in prison, but with some chance to get out.

 

[I'm Nobody]

Oh, I agree that a deal would be beneficial for the state. I just don't a deal is of much use to BK--for the same reasons that it is beneficial to the state. Plead guilty and his story ends. If he takes his chances and gets convicted, as you said, he would potentially have years worth of appeals. He'd still end up living a pretty long life if not all of his natural life in prison, but with some chance to get out.

Respectfully. His story needs to end.
That he might have "some chance to get out" sent chills up my spine.
The main benefit is/should be to society that this monster NEVER be allowed out to kill again however the state can achieve that.
MOO

 

[maconrich]

Respectfully. His story needs to end.
That he might have "some chance to get out" sent chills up my spine.
The main benefit is/should be to society that this monster NEVER be allowed out to kill again however the state can achieve that.
MOO

Not to be rude, but when a person is found not guilty in a court of law they absolutely are released.

 

[maconrich]

Let me be clear that while I believe everyone deserves a fair trial, I tend to get my feathers ruffled a bit when punishment is focused on before trail and conviction. If BK is found guilty I agree he should be imprisoned for life - and the same if someone else is charged and found guilty.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I am for lifting the gag order. I believe light should be shed on all legal proceedings always. Now more than ever. It benefits the victim's families as they can know the truth ASAP and it benefits the accused and their attorneys in that everything is brought to light in a timely manner, both for and against them. It also makes it easier to watchdog police, lawyers and judges which they should ALL want because people who know they are not doing anything wrong, have no reason to worry about others observing what they are doing. Finally it benefits the general public. Those who are concerned about the case can learn the facts and evidence and have their questions completely answered. The public can also consider how such a tragedy can be avoided in the future and laws may be crafted to help with this. There will still be a large swath of the public who never bother to read about the case or have any interest in it whatsoever so I don't buy that a gag order is needed here to avoid poisoning the jury pool and I don't like these entities (lawyers, jail, police, etc.) using the gag order simply to avoid talking to the media about anything which is what it looks like they are doing. The media is meant to be the watchdog of these entities but the judge who put the gag order in place has hamstrung them and that is wrong, IMO. For all of these reasons, I believe that the gag order should be completely lifted and the sooner the better.

I've been thinking about this since you posted this hours ago.

IMO, media has evolved from those early fact-finding duties and it's now become a business that's dependent on digital clicks and read through rates to survive. It's no longer about the 6:00 news. It's about 24-hour news cycles that demand attention, and expecting journalists to remain fidelitous to their traditional mission would be asking them to ignore contemporary pressures. That's unrealistic. So until journalistic standards can be re-designed to operate cohesively with the judicial system without compromising fairness, dignity, and the core tenets of presumption of innocence, gag order should stay.

I also don't agree that the media is meant to be the watchdog. The media is meant to inform the public and by default, becomes the watchdog in order to carry out that duty. But the risks and benefits of their role must also be measured, particularly in a case that hasn't just garnered public attention, but also public opinion, and strong, passionate opinion at that. It's the latter that could potentially pose a fatal blow to justice. Another reason the gag order should stay.

MOO.

 

[maconrich]

I've been thinking about this since you posted this hours ago.

IMO, media has evolved from those early fact-finding duties and it's now become a business that's dependent on digital clicks and read through rates to survive. It's no longer about the 6:00 news. It's about 24-hour news cycles that demand attention, and expecting journalists to remain fidelitous to their traditional mission would be asking them to ignore contemporary pressures. That's unrealistic. So until journalistic standards can be re-designed to operate cohesively with the judicial system without compromising fairness, dignity, and the core tenets of presumption of innocence, gag order should stay.

I also don't agree that the media is meant to be the watchdog. The media is meant to inform the public and by default, becomes the watchdog in order to carry out that duty. But the risks and benefits of their role must also be measured, particularly in a case that hasn't just garnered public attention, but also public opinion, and strong, passionate opinion at that. It's the latter that could potentially pose a fatal blow to justice. Another reason the gag order should stay.

MOO.

Sad but true.

 

[jepop]

From the State re: grand jury

Unfortunately, the State and the defense have not been able to reach agreement.

View attachment 427075


View attachment 427078

ICR 6.2 (c)

c) Availability of Record of Grand Jury Proceedings. The district judge, by motion, must permit the following persons to listen to the record of the proceedings of the grand jury or to obtain a transcript of the proceedings in the same manner as a transcript of a preliminary hearing:

(1) a prosecuting attorney,
(2) a person charged in an indictment or the attorney for the person charged, or
(3) a person charged with perjury because of the person's testimony before the grand jury.

The district judge may place conditions on the use, dissemination or publication of the record of proceedings of the grand jury, and any violation of any condition by a party granted access to the record will constitute contempt of the order of the district judge.

ICR 6.3 (c)

(c) Secrecy of Proceedings and Disclosure. Every member of the grand jury must keep secret whatever was said or done in the grand jury proceedings and the vote of each grand juror on a matter before them; but a grand juror may be required by the district judge to disclose matters occurring before the grand jury which may constitute grounds for dismissal of an indictment or grounds for a challenge to a juror or the array of jurors. No other person present in a grand jury proceeding may disclose to any other person what was said or done in the proceeding, except by order of any court for good cause shown.

ICR 6.5 (d)

(d) List of Jurors’ Votes. The presiding juror must prepare separate lists of all jurors voting in favor of and jurors voting against the indictment. The lists must remain sealed but may be disclosed to the prosecuting attorney, the defendant and defendant's counsel by order of the court.

ICAR 32 (g) (7)

(7) Except as provided by Idaho Criminal Rules or statutes, records of proceedings and the identity of jurors of grand juries;

ICAR 32(i) (4)

(4) When a record is sealed under this rule, it shall not be subject to examination, inspection or copying by the public. When the court issues an order sealing or redacting records, the court shall also inform the Clerk of the District Court of which specific files, documents and case management system records are to be sealed or redacted. When the court issues an order sealing or redacting records for purposes of public disclosure, the original records in the court file shall not be altered in any fashion

I.C.R. 6.2. Transcript of Grand Jury Proceedings | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

I.C.R. 6.3. Secrecy and Confidentiality of Grand Jury Proceedings | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

I.C.R. 6.5. Indictment | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

I.C.A.R. 32. Records of The Judicial Department - Examination and Copying - Exemption From and Limitations on Disclosure. | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

@Nila Aella. Just wanted to express my appreciation again for posting all this up in such an accessible form.

 

[maconrich]

"With the sweeping gag order and no preliminary hearing ahead of Bryan Kohberger’s murder trial, people fill in the vacuum of information with theories and “scoops” from anonymous sources."

The Death Of Dana Smithers And Other Rumors In Idaho Student Killings

With the sweeping gag order and no preliminary hearing ahead of Bryan Kohberger’s murder trial, people fill in the vacuum of information with theories and “scoops” from anonymous sources.

www.huffpost.com

 

[Nila Aella]

I've been thinking about this since you posted this hours ago.

IMO, media has evolved from those early fact-finding duties and it's now become a business that's dependent on digital clicks and read through rates to survive. It's no longer about the 6:00 news. It's about 24-hour news cycles that demand attention, and expecting journalists to remain fidelitous to their traditional mission would be asking them to ignore contemporary pressures. That's unrealistic. So until journalistic standards can be re-designed to operate cohesively with the judicial system without compromising fairness, dignity, and the core tenets of presumption of innocence, gag order should stay.

I also don't agree that the media is meant to be the watchdog. The media is meant to inform the public and by default, becomes the watchdog in order to carry out that duty. But the risks and benefits of their role must also be measured, particularly in a case that hasn't just garnered public attention, but also public opinion, and strong, passionate opinion at that. It's the latter that could potentially pose a fatal blow to justice. Another reason the gag order should stay.

MOO

Your post got me thinking too!

The media is no longer the watchdog that strictly reports findings. In the past, they dug up information during their investigations that the average person could not take time to do, then reported it to inform the public. Nowadays, they still dig up information but the reporting is not strictly findings but opinions, interpretations, and click embellishments mixed in. The findings are still there: sometimes hidden, sometimes twisted to fit a narrative, sometimes reported directly and concisely without embellishment (not all media outlets are the same). I believe people are smart enough to realize the media has changed into a business dependant on clicks. JMO

That does not mean we just live without a watchdog and let the court operate in secret. MOO

With a gag order, the truth stays hidden. Facts cannot be checked.

Without a gag order, the people can be the watchdog on both the process and the media.

Still thinking on it.....mainly about public opinions and what effect they have on justice in a court of law....

MOO
edit: spelling

 

[Nila Aella]

Media: Gag order leads to ‘rampant speculation’ in Kohberger case

The media coalition urging Latah County 2nd District Court to end a gag order in the Bryan Kohberger case filed another motion arguing it creates “a vacuum for rampant speculation

dnews.com

According to the gag order, as well as Kohberger’s attorneys, it is necessary to protect Kohberger’s right to a fair trial.

“If anything, the Gag Order prejudices Mr. Kohberger by depriving the public of quality information, creating a vacuum for rampant speculation online”

 

[Nila Aella]

Gag order

Gag order - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Looked up Prior Restraint because I was not really sure what it meant:

Prior restraint - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On gag orders and first ammend protections:

When Silence Isn’t Golden: How Gag Orders Can Evade First Amendment Protections - Yale Law School

Trials must be conducted at law, rather than in the press, and courts sometimes feel the need to assert control of the outflow of information around judicial matters to preserve the fair trial rights of litigants.

law.yale.edu

A couple of many interesting points in this article:

However, it’s often the parties who agree on a gag order. These gag orders, generally part of protective orders, can serve the purpose of encouraging parties to be more forthcoming with discovery when they are assured that the materials will go no farther than the litigation.

And after the gag order is in place, it becomes very difficult for third parties to challenge the order.

MOO

 

[schooling]

The judicial system is not structured to effectively deal with the way information is shared in 2023. Information will always reach the potential jury pool far quicker than what the process allows. Media competition is fierce so they are less likely to keep secrets for LE/Prosecutors, their standards to “go to press” are eroding, everyone (“sheriff’s sister’s brother’s cousin’s pet groomer told me…” has a platform to leak.

The spotlight on BK’s case is far beyond what you got just 10 years ago in your typical sequestered jury trial.

Not sure anyone has an answer.

Here I am writing this as a fairly objective and reasonable person. And I’m ready to lock him up and could never serve as a juror in this case.

With AI products that allow unobstructed real time access to the internet on the horizon….this is only going to get worse as it starts to become the primary method True Crime Sleuthers form theories and look at evidence. Unwittingly bias’ing an already biased AI in the process and releasing that back on to the web. The circle of life confirmation bias.

There’s no putting this cat back in the bag.

MOO

 

[ArianeEmory]

The ABC podcast is available now. Search for “King Road Killings” in your podcast client.

 

[schooling]

Not to be rude, but when a person is found not guilty in a court of law they absolutely are released.

Not to be crass in my analogy (and at the risk or serving up a straw man), but if a team is down 25 points at halftime they are likely going to lose. And it’s completely normal to start to contemplate the “what if’s” of losing as fallout from that highly likely event.

At this very moment, IMO, not all possible outcomes are equally plausible. In my eyes this is not a 50/50 shot. It’s not even 80/20 and I’ve seen nothing to convince me otherwise. And I’m extremely open minded and anti-death penalty.

I’m fully aware we haven’t heard the whole story. When we start to hear the defense’s evidence (if they choose to present any) and/or cross examination my opinion might change.

MOO

Also, I’m a Patriots fan and I was wrong that time. Maybe I’ll be wrong again.

 

[maskedwoman]

Media: Gag order leads to ‘rampant speculation’ in Kohberger case

The media coalition urging Latah County 2nd District Court to end a gag order in the Bryan Kohberger case filed another motion arguing it creates “a vacuum for rampant speculation

dnews.com

According to the gag order, as well as Kohberger’s attorneys, it is necessary to protect Kohberger’s right to a fair trial.

“If anything, the Gag Order prejudices Mr. Kohberger by depriving the public of quality information, creating a vacuum for rampant speculation online”

That second statement you quoted made me laugh. I can think of several cases where unfettered access failed to improve the quality or accuracy of their reporting one iota. At least IMO. And I'm sure we can think of cases where it's pretty clear that free access may have affected the outcome in a negative way. As much as I would like to see the trial, I'm also concerned the judge may lose his mind, knowing that everyone is watching and second-guessing his decisions. Everyone's mileage may vary.

I know media obsession with a story is nothing new but I wish it didn't happen. The other day, I thought how refreshing it would be if the media just said "nothing new today, but we're still on the case" and instead used their time to give more than 2 paragraphs to a missing or murdered child whose case isn't getting any attention because they are all busy trying to wring one new fact out of their unidentified sources.

 

[Cool Cats]

Oh, I agree that a deal would be beneficial for the state. I just don't a deal is of much use to BK--for the same reasons that it is beneficial to the state. Plead guilty and his story ends. If he takes his chances and gets convicted, as you said, he would potentially have years worth of appeals. He'd still end up living a pretty long life if not all of his natural life in prison, but with some chance to get out.

BBM

No chance to get out. I am 100% sure, if convicted, BK will end up with LWOP, but I think he will be sentenced to death if he goes to trial under the DP.

It would never be justice for the families if BK started coming up for parole in his old age. Not that he would get it, but just the fact of him coming up for it is not justice in my opinion.

Maddy's and Kaylee's parents plan to file a Motion seeking the DP while Xana's mom wants LWOP.

Families do not have to file Motions if they want the DP. According to Idaho law, victims' families already have a voice in whether the prosecution seeks the DP, but ultimately, the decision comes down to the lead elected County prosecutor.

Cara Kernodle reveals death penalty stance for daughter Xana's killer

Asked if she had a message for University of Idaho murders suspect Bryan Kohberger, Kernodle said: "I just want to know why. Why did he do this? Why did he take these kids?'

www.newsweek.com

Families of 2 U of Idaho murder victims will seek death penalty for accused killer Bryan Kohberger

The families of two of the University of Idaho murder victims have indicated that they plan to file a motion calling for the death penalty for suspected […]

www.bizpacreview.com

 

[ilovewings]

BBM

No chance to get out. I am 100% sure, if convicted, BK will end up with LWOP, but I think he will be sentenced to death if he goes to trial under the DP.

It would never be justice for the families if BK started coming up for parole in his old age. Not that he would get it, but just the fact of him coming up for it is not justice in my opinion.

Maddy's and Kaylee's parents plan to file a Motion seeking the DP while Xana's mom wants LWOP.

Families do not have to file Motions if they want the DP. According to Idaho law, victims' families already have a voice in whether the prosecution seeks the DP, but ultimately, the decision comes down to the lead prosecutor.

Cara Kernodle reveals death penalty stance for daughter Xana's killer

Asked if she had a message for University of Idaho murders suspect Bryan Kohberger, Kernodle said: "I just want to know why. Why did he do this? Why did he take these kids?'

www.newsweek.com

Families of 2 U of Idaho murder victims will seek death penalty for accused killer Bryan Kohberger

The families of two of the University of Idaho murder victims have indicated that they plan to file a motion calling for the death penalty for suspected […]

www.bizpacreview.com

I admit to never having heard of a family filing a motion for the death penalty. I have been under the impression that decision was for the prosecutor to make- I honestly don't understand the family doing that. It seems like over-reach to me: Don't they trust the prosecutor?