Cindizzi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2019
- Messages
- 9,621
- Reaction score
- 137,142
4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #82
- Thread starter ChatteringBirds
- Start date
- Status
Nila Aella
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2022
- Messages
- 974
- Reaction score
- 8,056
ICAR Court Administrative Rule 45
"Audio/visual coverage," as used in this rule, means broadcast, video, audio, and photographic coverage or recording of public proceedings before district and magistrate judges. Broadcast means the transmission of images or sounds by any electronic means, including but not limited to television, radio, Internet, email or streaming. Audio/visual coverage is authorized subject to the discretion of the presiding judge. The presiding judge maintains the right to limit audio/visual coverage of any public hearing when the interests of the administration of justice requires. Authorization may be revoked at any time, without prior notice, when in the discretion of the court it appears that audio/visual coverage is interfering in any way with the proper administration of justice.
I.C.A.R. 45. Cameras In the Courtroom | Supreme Court
More details at link. MOO
Like this:
(d) The presiding judge may exclude audio/visual coverage of a particular participant or direct that the identity or audio of a participant be concealed upon a determination that such coverage will have a substantial adverse effect upon a particular individual. It is expected the presiding judge will exercise particular sensitivity to victims of crime.
And this:
(g) Approval of audio/visuat coverage must be obtained in advance from the presiding judge.
I also recall a rule that said the defendant can request no cameras at hearings....I'll try to find it. MOO
Nila Aella
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2022
- Messages
- 974
- Reaction score
- 8,056
In October 2022: the supreme court sought comments on revisions to cameras in the courtroom:
idahocapitalsun.com
These are the revisions that were proposed:
MOO
Idaho Supreme Court seeks comment on revisions to cameras in the courtroom policies - Idaho Capital Sun
The Idaho Supreme Court is seeking input on proposed revisions to court rules involving cameras in the courtroom.
idahocapitalsun.com
These are the revisions that were proposed:
MOO
BeginnerSleuther
Verified Physician
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2020
- Messages
- 2,246
- Reaction score
- 18,888
There is no reason or indication to require a competency evaluation that I know of. IMO.
BeginnerSleuther
Verified Physician
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2020
- Messages
- 2,246
- Reaction score
- 18,888
The judge is the ultimate decider, IMO, but both sides should state their case. IMO, I think ONE pool camera is the solution here.
Nila Aella
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2022
- Messages
- 974
- Reaction score
- 8,056
- 06/06/2023 Defendants Memorandum on Cameras During Hearings
- 06/06/2023 Defendants Motion for Order Permitting Zoom Participation
- 06/06/2023 Defendants Motion to Shorten Time
- 06/06/2023 Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Press Coverage
- 06/06/2023 Objection to Medias Motion to Vacate the Amended Nondissemination Order
- 06/06/2023 Response States Response to Motion to Appeal Amend And/Or Clarify
- 06/06/2023 Response to Associated Press Motion to Intervene
- 06/06/2023 States Brief on Video Photographic Coverage
- 06/06/2023 Stipulation for Protective Order
I read it. Yes, I believe it's the witness, who is out of state. Needs to attend via zoom. Moo
Nila Aella
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2022
- Messages
- 974
- Reaction score
- 8,056
Some points made in the State's brief on video and photographic coverage:
The courts have not held that there is a First Amendment, or other constitutional right of the media to broadcast or photograph a proceeding. In fact, there have been circumstances where the United States Supreme Court has held that extensive broadcasting and photographing of a proceeding to be violative of a defendant’s due process rights. See Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965) and Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981).
As guidance, the State has attached the recent decision by Seventh Judicial District Judge Steven Boyce in the case of State of Idaho v. Lori Norene Vallow aka Lori Norene Vallow Daybell, case no. CR22-21-1624. A similar rationale may exist here.
The State would further note that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 prohibits courtroom photographing and broadcasting, except as otherwise allowed by rule or statute, in federal cases.
The State also has the following concerns about allowing broadcasting or photographing at the trial in this case: 1) the State has a number of sensitive witnesses who would likely be intimidated, harassed, or harmed by a live broadcast of the trial; 2) jurors, unless sequestered, would have off hours access to the broadcast which may include discussions which were outside of the jury’s purview; and 3) witnesses would also have access to broadcasts showing the specific testimony of other witnesses.
New attorney signed brief
Bradley Rudley Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
The courts have not held that there is a First Amendment, or other constitutional right of the media to broadcast or photograph a proceeding. In fact, there have been circumstances where the United States Supreme Court has held that extensive broadcasting and photographing of a proceeding to be violative of a defendant’s due process rights. See Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965) and Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981).
As guidance, the State has attached the recent decision by Seventh Judicial District Judge Steven Boyce in the case of State of Idaho v. Lori Norene Vallow aka Lori Norene Vallow Daybell, case no. CR22-21-1624. A similar rationale may exist here.
The State would further note that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 prohibits courtroom photographing and broadcasting, except as otherwise allowed by rule or statute, in federal cases.
The State also has the following concerns about allowing broadcasting or photographing at the trial in this case: 1) the State has a number of sensitive witnesses who would likely be intimidated, harassed, or harmed by a live broadcast of the trial; 2) jurors, unless sequestered, would have off hours access to the broadcast which may include discussions which were outside of the jury’s purview; and 3) witnesses would also have access to broadcasts showing the specific testimony of other witnesses.
New attorney signed brief
Bradley Rudley Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
ilovewings
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,052
- Reaction score
- 60,727
--In addition to stating they are going to seek the death penalty (which they have no legal standing to do as far as I am concerned, they plan to sue the city for the murder of their daughters- based on what? SMH--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?
10ofRods
Verified Anthropologist
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2019
- Messages
- 14,392
- Reaction score
- 178,064
What we've seen in some recent trials, is out-of-couttroom typing only; courtroom feed decided by Judge (and many judges believes this protects them in the same way that a dashcam or bodycam does, depends on the judge); camera feed available to a variety of media (Judge still in charge); and no view of the witnesses or the jury in some cases.
The jury is usually hidden, although the Judge took it in stride when they were briefly shown in an error of camera/start/stop time. That issue was fixed. IOW, the Judge (who was amazing) took on the duty of Producer/Director of Livestream to the Media of the World, on Behalf of our System of Justice, which requires transparency).
Calmest Judge I've ever seen (although the Murdaugh Judge was pret' darned amazin' too).
And I think it's great. It's not only adequate, it's engaging, and the media play their role very well (the local media - not the tabloid press). We get updates via Tweet; we get some live feed from the courtroom (even if not the face of the person talking); we get to hear and hopefully understand/learn US legal procedure and how our current system of justice works! This is civics in action. This is what people should watch. When someone is prosecuted, it's on behalf of the entire State where they live.
I hope this trial will go the same way. Haven't seen enough of this judge to know. I have a lot of empathy for him. No one has ever conducted a trial exactly like this one, and especially not in the public eye.
imo
The jury is usually hidden, although the Judge took it in stride when they were briefly shown in an error of camera/start/stop time. That issue was fixed. IOW, the Judge (who was amazing) took on the duty of Producer/Director of Livestream to the Media of the World, on Behalf of our System of Justice, which requires transparency).
Calmest Judge I've ever seen (although the Murdaugh Judge was pret' darned amazin' too).
And I think it's great. It's not only adequate, it's engaging, and the media play their role very well (the local media - not the tabloid press). We get updates via Tweet; we get some live feed from the courtroom (even if not the face of the person talking); we get to hear and hopefully understand/learn US legal procedure and how our current system of justice works! This is civics in action. This is what people should watch. When someone is prosecuted, it's on behalf of the entire State where they live.
I hope this trial will go the same way. Haven't seen enough of this judge to know. I have a lot of empathy for him. No one has ever conducted a trial exactly like this one, and especially not in the public eye.
imo
arielilane
Justice for Liz Barraza
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2005
- Messages
- 55,203
- Reaction score
- 80,378
A newly filed memorandum says the court shouldn't allow cameras to be used during hearings because they could "permit unfairly prejudicial coverage" of the case.
www.krem.com
6/7/2023
MOSCOW, Idaho — The defense attorney for the man accused of killing four University of Idaho students is asking the court to prohibit cameras from being in the courtroom as case hearings continue.
A newly filed memorandum asks the court to prohibit cameras from the courtroom during future proceedings, to include the suspect's trial. In the memorandum, the defense said prohibiting cameras and limiting media coverage will protect the suspect's Sixth Amendment rights, prevents "unfairly prejudicial coverage" and prevents courtroom participants from being harassed or distracted.
Defense for Moscow murders suspect files motion to prohibit cameras in the courtroom
A newly filed memorandum says the court shouldn't allow cameras to be used during hearings because they could "permit unfairly prejudicial coverage" of the case.
www.krem.com
6/7/2023
MOSCOW, Idaho — The defense attorney for the man accused of killing four University of Idaho students is asking the court to prohibit cameras from being in the courtroom as case hearings continue.
A newly filed memorandum asks the court to prohibit cameras from the courtroom during future proceedings, to include the suspect's trial. In the memorandum, the defense said prohibiting cameras and limiting media coverage will protect the suspect's Sixth Amendment rights, prevents "unfairly prejudicial coverage" and prevents courtroom participants from being harassed or distracted.
arielilane
Justice for Liz Barraza
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2005
- Messages
- 55,203
- Reaction score
- 80,378
'Do more of what you love' | Kaylee Jade Day, which takes place on her birthday on June 8th, will encourage people to spend the day doing something they love, just like she did every day. Click in our bio to read the story.
Cool Cats
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 10,538
- Reaction score
- 77,851
No they filed a tort that they had to file within 6 months.
This allows them 2 years to file a law suit if in the future gross misconduct is uncovered.
If negligent conduct gets uncovered that jeopardizes the witnesses or the evidence - jeopardizes the investigation - then for the sake of the community it needs to be addressed or it could happen again.
Maybe the prosecutor will seek the DP then they won't have to file their Motion to try to get the DP on the table.
If they have no legal standing, as you say, to file this type of Motion then their attorney won't file it. The attorney would know the law on this and inform the family. He would tell them they have no legal grounds to file this type of Motion.
Pretty incompetent attorney if he files Motions that are not legally viable, Motions that are just going to be dismissed by the judge. Waste of the court's time.
2 Cents
Last edited:
I replied before but it disappeared. I agree with dissemination order and hope it will maintain. I think the court process is sufficient and procedurally transparent. The motion hearings etc are open to the public. As another poster noted up thread somewhere, the content of the case is simply being delayed until trial.Moo.
If the facts of the prosecution case and defense case were laid out in detail by the press then I don't see any chance of a fair trial owing to media distortion. Lifting the order would result in the classic trial by media, imo. With this case there is no ignoring unfactual opinion that permeates extensively in much MSM. MOO
As it stands it appears some media cannot even inform the public about the difference between a motion and a notice and get that right when doing a write up about the aspirations of Goncalves on DP. It would be splendid if the reporting of even such a basic piece of court procedure was accurate. Moo
On that note, the latest releases where Shannon Gray is referenced are worrisome to me. I don't know why he is making himself so visible . He seems to like pushing boundaries and butting heads. I wish he would pull his head in as he appears to me to be a liability. I really am adrift in terms of what exactly the Goncalves are trying to achieve. I agree with others that there is over reach. I think from the latest court released docs and earlier released minutes of court meetings that both defense and prosecution find Shannon Gray's behaviour unsatisfactory and perplexing to put it mildly. All Moo.
I'm Nobody
Are you Nobody too?
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2021
- Messages
- 311
- Reaction score
- 3,229
BK's Zoom Expert Witness
"Counsel has arranged for expert witness Jean Saucier to be available via zoom on that date and time."
Jean Saucier, SVP, TRUESCOPE, Chicago
Jean manages media intelligence solutions for Truescope's existing client base in North America and Europe. With nearly 20 years of media intelligence support and platform demonstration experience, Jean's focus on client relationships makes her a key connection for clients.
Jean Saucier has public relations background.
Interesting. Not who I expected for his expert witness. I owe someone a milk shake. JMO
theorg.com
edit typo
MOTION FOR ORDER PERMITTING ZOOM PARTICIPATION AT HEARING FOR WITNESS OR TO CONTINUE HEARING
"Counsel has arranged for expert witness Jean Saucier to be available via zoom on that date and time."
Jean Saucier, SVP, TRUESCOPE, Chicago
Jean manages media intelligence solutions for Truescope's existing client base in North America and Europe. With nearly 20 years of media intelligence support and platform demonstration experience, Jean's focus on client relationships makes her a key connection for clients.
Jean Saucier has public relations background.
Interesting. Not who I expected for his expert witness. I owe someone a milk shake. JMO
Jean Saucier - SVP, Client Success at Truescope | The Org
Jean manages media intelligence solutions for Truescope's existing client base in North America and Europe.
theorg.com
edit typo
Last edited:
Nila Aella
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2022
- Messages
- 974
- Reaction score
- 8,056
FIrst paragraph in the Objection to the medias motion to vacate ammended nondissemination order:
MOO
MOO
- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 37,594
- Reaction score
- 110,116
Hey folks
Better read all The Rules. Posts introducing politics into a discussion are removed, and may result in 2 PERMANENT warning points and loss of posting privileges. With 2 warning points that never expire, that doesn't leave a lot of room for other more minor violations.
from: The Rules: Etiquette & Information
RACE/SEX/POLITICS/RELIGION BASHING, ETC
Threads or posts promoting or expressing intolerant views toward a particular social group are prohibited. Introducing social justice/injustice issues such as race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, politics, gun control, capital punishment into a discussion is not allowed.
Better read all The Rules. Posts introducing politics into a discussion are removed, and may result in 2 PERMANENT warning points and loss of posting privileges. With 2 warning points that never expire, that doesn't leave a lot of room for other more minor violations.
from: The Rules: Etiquette & Information
RACE/SEX/POLITICS/RELIGION BASHING, ETC
Threads or posts promoting or expressing intolerant views toward a particular social group are prohibited. Introducing social justice/injustice issues such as race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, politics, gun control, capital punishment into a discussion is not allowed.
- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 37,594
- Reaction score
- 110,116
Hey folks
Better read all The Rules. Posts introducing politics into a discussion are removed, and may result in 2 PERMANENT warning points and loss of posting privileges. With 2 warning points that never expire, that doesn't leave a lot of room for other more minor violations.
from: The Rules: Etiquette & Information
RACE/SEX/POLITICS/RELIGION BASHING, ETC
Threads or posts promoting or expressing intolerant views toward a particular social group are prohibited. Introducing social justice/injustice issues such as race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, politics, gun control, capital punishment into a discussion is not allowed.
Better read all The Rules. Posts introducing politics into a discussion are removed, and may result in 2 PERMANENT warning points and loss of posting privileges. With 2 warning points that never expire, that doesn't leave a lot of room for other more minor violations.
from: The Rules: Etiquette & Information
RACE/SEX/POLITICS/RELIGION BASHING, ETC
Threads or posts promoting or expressing intolerant views toward a particular social group are prohibited. Introducing social justice/injustice issues such as race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, politics, gun control, capital punishment into a discussion is not allowed.
snipped for focus @Twistinginthewind Sorry if I bungled my edits of your post. Just wanted to get Shanon Gray's stmt in there.
Is Mr. Gray suggesting that the prosecutor's decision about whether to seek the DP will be BASED ON decedents' families' discussions w prosecutor, i.e., that the prosecutor will poll those families to decide DP or no-DP by MAJORITY VOTE, and that that's how the prosecutor SHOULD decide?
Anyone interpret Gray's stmt along same line? Sometimes I read waaay too much between the lines, and this may be one of them. IDK.
__________________________________________
ID. State Constitution
"Section 22. RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS. A crime victim, as defined by statute, has the following rights:...
"(5) To communicate with the prosecution."
Section 22 – Idaho State Legislature
legislature.idaho.gov
ID Statute
"CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
"CHAPTER 53
"19-5306. RIGHTS OF VICTIM DURING INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, AND DISPOSITION OF THE CRIME. (1) Each victim of a criminal or juvenile offense shall be:...
"(f) Afforded the opportunity to communicate with the prosecution in criminal... offenses and be advised of any proposed plea agreement by the prosecuting attorney prior to entering into a plea agreement in criminal ... offenses involving crimes of violence, sex crimes..."
(sbm, to delete ref's to juvie offenses)
Section 19-5306 – Idaho State Legislature
legislature.idaho.gov
- Status
