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

[Chloegirl]

MOO journalist are the people's detectives. Not perfect by any means, but if allowed all power conducts it's agenda in secrecy.

This gag orger is in the edge between a fair trial for BK and safety for witnesses apparently on one side and the public's wish and right to know what is going on.
Unless BK pleads out, the public will know what went on and is going on at the trial, and all parts can be scrutinized.
MOO the gag order amounts to a delay as the actions of the court are public, but have the specific content redacted.

Well reasoned, it's a very interesting way to view the gag order. I understand it, but journalism should be allowed to support the truth. This is a very tricky case and requires a lot of nuance so I'm glad it was in place I just don't know if it standing going forward makes sense. We shall see.

 

[ilovewings]

While I admit to not agreeing with their approach. I get it; they want to be legally on record requesting it. It is a bit untraditional. If it were my family there's a possibility I would want to know that I did everything I could. I'm sure no one will agree but I am opposed to the death penalty. Murder is murder. I understand this is not a popular opinion, especially in Idaho. I suppose I'm glad that they've made their feelings legally known despite disagreeing.

I googled everything I could about a family member of a victim filing a motion for the death penalty for the defendant and could find nothing. IMO such a motion is not even legal. I can understand the pain and anguish of family members of their loved one who was murdered, but there are protocols and such, and I believe such a motion would not be accepted by the court. <modsnip> I think this case, for good reason, has really caused so much pain and grief, that a gag order might really be in order here.

 

[jepop]

They have not filed yet, they simply have no reason to file until they know the prosecutor's decision. To me, it makes no sense to file the Motion before knowing the decision. If they file the Motion and then the prosecutor seeks the DP, the Motion would have to be dismissed which seems like a waste of time.

The families will hear his decision before it hits the media, so what I believe is if we do not hear of the prosecutor's decision but find out the 2 families filed the Motion, then we know the prosecutor refused to file for the DP.

Right now, we have 2 families that want the DP and 1 that wants LWOP. We don't know what Ethan's family wants but if they do want the DP then I think the prosecutor will go for it.

But what if Ethan's family wants LWOP? Then you have 2 for the DP and 2 against it. WOW!

The elected lead Prosecutor, Bill Thompson, has 60 days from Kohberger’s plea to make a determination.

Bill Thompson
View attachment 427227
The elected Prosecuting Attorney defends or prosecutes actions, applications, or motions in the District Court or Magistrate's division in which the People, the State or the County is a party. Along with the Sheriff, the Prosecutor functions as the chief law enforcement officer in Latah County. The Prosecuting Attorney is also the legal counsel for the Board of County Commissioners, as well as other elected officials and appointed boards and commissions of the county.

Prosecuting Attorney

Latah County is located in the northern Idaho panhandle; to the immediate west lies Whitman County, Washington. These counties are referred to as The Palouse, which produces a large share of the wheat, lentils, peas, oats and barley in the United States. The Palouse is home to two major...

latahcountyid.gov

It could be that Ethan's family have nothing to say about it either way, judging from the recent interview with his mother, they seem to be saying that they leave the trial to the appropriate authorities and intend to direct their energies into healing within the family and moving forward, knowing nothing can bring Ethan back to them :-(. The families aren't required to voice an opinion to the DA? I feel like they might say something like it is up to the state within the existing laws to make that decision in accordance with seriousness of crime, or something like that. Just based on the recent interview aired. Moo

 

[Sundog]

The only time his mental health will be relevant is during sentencing. If he's convicted of all charges or pleads guilty to obtain a deal, the Judge has but two options: LWOP and DP. In that case, mental health issues (and character witnesses) could persuade the Judge to choose LWOP.

Agree, but just to clarify, my understanding is that if the prosecution decides this will be a death-eligible case, then the sentencing jury will decide whether the defendant's punishment is the death penalty or life without parole. The judge has to abide by the jury's decision. If the jury isn't able to decide, then the judge can impose LWOP, but not the death penalty. (Note, I am not a lawyer, just reading Idaho law and sentencing in capital cases online.)

Also, the defendant, BK in this case, can address the sentencing jury directly on the stand, and without it being subject to cross-examination to present mitigating factors - mitigation against the death penalty. And the sentencing jury may consider BK's testimony in its deliberations.

In addition, families of the victims can make victim impact statements before the sentencing jury, but they should not address whether the appropritate sentence should be LWOP or the death penalty. If family members do address the issue of what they see as the appropriate punishment, then the jury must disregard these statements.

Also, the sentencing jury must decide if the evidence justifies "aggravated" murder in order for the death sentence to be imposed. They can either consider evidence presented during the trial phase of the case, or evidence presented during the sentencing phase. If they don't find that there is evidence for aggravated murder, then no further deliberations are necessary and the judge will impose a sentence of LWOP.


Just my interpretation of the following material that I read online about Idaho judges' instructions to sentencing juries during capital cases. These instructions may have changed over time, but most of the information is likely still relevant.

https://isc.idaho.gov/jury/criminal/1700/DeathPenaltySentencingInst-All.pdf

Edited to add note that the above link is from the webpage of the Idaho Supreme Court instructions for juries in death-eligible criminal cases.

The History and Procedures of Idaho Supreme Court | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

 

[lowes123]

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.

That game was exactly what I thought of when I read your first sentence. It will be interesting if this does make it to trial.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

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

BBM. This is the sticking point. Evidence should be presented in a court of law, not on 20/20 and Dateline where there's no rebuttal nor guarantee that the information is comprehensive and complete. I mean, Dateline was just wildly speculating for the hell of it. Let's say you want an impartial jury in Moscow, but with no gag order, the newspaper and television market is saturated with all the evidence AND COMMENTARY of that evidence. What we know about human behavior is that you can and do persuade people with commentary. IMO, there is little chance BK would get a fair trial with no gag order at all.

I also don't have much faith that just having a list of evidence is going to make the public the watchdog. It can't possibly do that without knowing the other side (meaning the defense would rebut and suddenly, we're trying the whole case in the media). All it's going to do is feed people's desire to know to find out only what the prosecution has. It won't inform about LE misconduct (if any exists) or prosecutor or even defense corruption. It's just going to be a pile of facts about BK being in jail, much like the PCA. Then what? I just don't see any positives to releasing the gag order.

If people want to speculate, let them speculate. But IMO, I think people who make an effort to be objective, can identify irresponsible speculation (such as Dateline) and disregard it accordingly. Releasing the gag order doesn't erase speculation. If anything, it would just trigger escalation of it. The only thing that will erase speculation is for the trial to be held now, in public, and clearly that isn't going to happen until at least October.

MOO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

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

But do they think that lifting the gag order will end speculation? IMO, no, they don't. They just want it lifted so they can get the scoop, which in turn, means make money.

MOO.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

>SBM> They are filing notices indicating their desire to seek capital punishment during the trial, reports NewsNation.

Shanon Gray, the Goncalves family’s attorney told NewsNation: 'We spoke with the prosecutor on the case, Mr. Thompson. He’s going to meet with all the families individually, and then make a decision based on that.

'So, the Goncalves family obviously supports the death penalty in this case.' "

Idaho victims' families will seek death penalty for accused Kohberger

Replying to my post to bring this wording forward in the thread so I can point out that this MSM article says that Shanon Gray is going to be filing "notices" indicating their desires regarding the DP on the behalf of the Goncalves and Mogen families. Not motions. ETA: FWIW, because they are not the same legal mechanism, IMO. A notice is a like a "Note to file" rather than a motion that needs to be responded to in court, AFAIK & JMO.

 

[Chloegirl]

I googled everything I could about a family member of a victim filing a motion for the death penalty for the defendant and could find nothing. IMO such a motion is not even legal. I can understand the pain and anguish of family members of their loved one who was murdered, but there are protocols and such, and I believe such a motion would not be accepted by the court. I worry that an out of control (yes I did use that description) family member could cause a problem for the case. <modsnip> I think this case, for good reason, has really caused so much pain and grief, that a gag order might really be in order here.

I'm having a Jack Nicholson moment here. If they lift the gag order I'm not sure if we can handle the truth. It will be very overwhelming and fast-paced to read and understand it all.

 

[jepop]

Replying to my post to bring this wording forward in the thread so I can point out that this MSM article says that Shanon Gray is going to be filing "notices" indicating their desires regarding the DP on the behalf of the Goncalves and Mogen families. Not motions.

Isn't it amazing the way things can take off in the digital world because of one inadvertently misplaced word!?

 

[jepop]

Agree, but just to clarify, my understanding is that if the prosecution decides this will be a death-eligible case, then the sentencing jury will decide whether the defendant's punishment is the death penalty or life without parole. The judge has to abide by the jury's decision. If the jury isn't able to decide, then the judge can impose LWOP, but not the death penalty. (Note, I am not a lawyer, just reading Idaho law and sentencing in capital cases online.)

Also, the defendant, BK in this case, can address the sentencing jury directly on the stand, and without it being subject to cross-examination to present mitigating factors - mitigation against the death penalty. And the sentencing jury may consider BK's testimony in its deliberations.

In addition, families of the victims can make victim impact statements before the sentencing jury, but they should not address whether the appropritate sentence should be LWOP or the death penalty. If family members do address the issue of what they see as the appropriate punishment, then the jury must disregard these statements.

Also, the sentencing jury must decide if the evidence justifies "aggravated" murder in order for the death sentence to be imposed. They can either consider evidence presented during the trial phase of the case, or evidence presented during the sentencing phase. If they don't find that there is evidence for aggravated murder, then no further deliberations are necessary and the judge will impose a sentence of LWOP.


Just my interpretation of the following material that I read online about Idaho judges' instructions to sentencing juries during capital cases. These instructions may have changed over time, but most of the information is likely still relevant.

https://isc.idaho.gov/jury/criminal/1700/DeathPenaltySentencingInst-All.pdf

Good information, thank you. I know very little about the procedure when it comes to the DP.

 

[ilovewings]

BBM. This is the sticking point. Evidence should be presented in a court of law, not on 20/20 and Dateline where there's no rebuttal nor guarantee that the information is comprehensive and complete. I mean, Dateline was just wildly speculating for the hell of it. Let's say you want an impartial jury in Moscow, but with no gag order, the newspaper and television market is saturated with all the evidence AND COMMENTARY of that evidence. What we know about human behavior is that you can and do persuade people with commentary. IMO, there is little chance BK would get a fair trial with no gag order at all.

I also don't have much faith that just having a list of evidence is going to make the public the watchdog. It can't possibly do that without knowing the other side (meaning the defense would rebut and suddenly, we're trying the whole case in the media). All it's going to do is feed people's desire to know to find out only what the prosecution has. It won't inform about LE misconduct (if any exists) or prosecutor or even defense corruption. It's just going to be a pile of facts about BK being in jail, much like the PCA. Then what? I just don't see any positives to releasing the gag order.

If people want to speculate, let them speculate. But IMO, I think people who make an effort to be objective, can identify irresponsible speculation (such as Dateline) and disregard it accordingly. Releasing the gag order doesn't erase speculation. If anything, it would just trigger escalation of it. The only thing that will erase speculation is for the trial to be held now, in public, and clearly that isn't going to happen until at least October.

MOO.

Let's face it- we live in an era of too much information. This has led to so many problems- all the social media sleuths speculating wildly, some to the point of accusations of innocent people--- shows like Dateline giving us information that we have no way of knowing is accurate----and some of these social media wild theories and media speculation could certainly compromise the case at issue. Sorry to say I long for the good old days but of course the genie is out of the bottle and we are now stuck with what we have.

 

[Sundog]

Good information, thank you. I know very little about the procedure when it comes to the DP.

I don't either, so did some googling. I found these instructions for judges to give to juries in death-eligible cases to be interesting.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

I'm having a Jack Nicholson moment here. If they lift the gag order I'm not sure if we can handle the truth. It will be very overwhelming and fast-paced to read and understand it all.

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

 

[Cool Cats]

My thought is this: I don't care when the families file a motion for a DP (if they do)- in my opinion it is over-reach. They need to express their feelings to the prosecutor, but at the end of the day it is the prosecutor's decision (and many many things go into such a decision) and his alone. The prosecutor may be swayed by the family and believe the DP is the right decision: on the other hand he may have reasons not to file the D.P. D.P. cases are harder to win - the defendant seems to get the benefit of the doubt in so many circumstances in a trial--- you have to have almost a perfect case to get the D.P.-

If the DP is sought, it will be a death penalty qualified jury. DP juries can be more prone to convict according to some research:

The Supreme Court held that people categorically opposed to the death penalty — perhaps as much as 40 percent of the population — can be excluded from juries in capital cases.

Research shows that the resulting ‘death qualified’ jurors are more likely to hand down convictions and often come to conclusions about punishment before the sentencing phases of their trials, and that merely going through the process of jury selection for capital cases prejudices them against defendants.”

Are "Death-Qualified" Juries Problematic? - Death Penalty​

But I don't see it as overreach just to file a Motion. Motions are filed all the time and often the judge won't even grant them.

The families would give a long list of their reasons for the DP and in the prosecutor's Opposition Motion he
would give his long list of why he is against the DP in this Case.

So why not let the judge decide? Isn't that what a judge is for when 2 sides don't agree?

 

[Sundog]

The History and Procedures of Idaho Supreme Court | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

Here is the link for the Idaho Supreme Court instructions for juries in civil, criminal, and death-eligbile cases.

 

[jepop]

Replying to my post to bring this wording forward in the thread so I can point out that this MSM article says that Shanon Gray is going to be filing "notices" indicating their desires regarding the DP on the behalf of the Goncalves and Mogen families. Not motions. ETA: FWIW, because they are not the same legal mechanism, IMO. A notice is a like a "Note to file" rather than a motion that needs to be responded to in court, AFAIK & JMO.

Ok, so here we have an eg to illustrate what has just been discussed here re accurancy of reporting.

We have the Daily M reporting "notices" and BPR (Business and Politics) reporting "motion/s".

Which is it?

The only option is to go to the relevant Court rules or legislation/laws to find out which is possible/legal. I think a member just up thread did an informed google search about the ability of family members to file motions in a criminal case re the DP and came up with nothing.

I'd say notices is correct. But this situation is extremely annoying, imo. I tend to rely a lot on the NYT for at least a semblance of accurate reporting, but even if they state "notice" it takes just one mis-report which one cannot be certain is a mis-report to elicit some doubt because... INAL and neither are many, many, people.

Idaho victims' families will seek death penalty for accused Kohberger

The attorney for Kaylee Goncalves' family said that their family support the death penalty in this case following the college student's murder.

www.dailymail.co.uk

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

ETA: I just found this online. Idaho guide to the rights of victims of crime. Could provide some answers?

https://www.ag.idaho.gov/content/uploads/2018/04/VictimsRights.pdf

 

[Chloegirl]

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

It's a famous quote from a movie I guess I thought I forgot. Jack Nicholson says "you can't handle the truth" in the movie A Few Good Men. There will be a lot of truth revealed if the gag order gets lifted. There is a lot to understand and it may be overwhelming.

 

[NyxNY]

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

 

[ArianeEmory]

I teach HS to some incredibly bright students. We make them use sources. We teach them how to evaluate those sources. They know how to do that and some do it well--for formal writing. Then revert right back to SM for personal information. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard, "but it was on TikTok" with conviction as to the information's veracity even when I have evidence to the contrary.

Ugh. TikTok as a source is what has made me realize gen z isn’t going to save us unless they can get out of the matrix.