4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #84

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Observe_dont_Absorb said:
I'm confused why the defence want the training records of the three officers involved?

Is she referring to detectives who questioned BK prior to him appointing a lawyer (which he did quite quickly IIRC)?

Is she trying get specific info about the interview, questioning, and decision making protocols they would have been taught as part of their job training? If so, why? Surely if they did nothing incorrect or against procedure, the training and methods they use aren't relevant?

Is BK hoping to claim some type of prejudice or lack of adjustment for disabilities or health problems he may have I wonder? JMO MOO
Click to expand...
She said that one of the police officers claimed to have training in trauma interviews with witnesses (my paraphrase). In that case, she may want to see his/her training records to see how an interview with a trauma victim should take place. Just my thoughts.
 
arielilane said:
She reiterates she doesn't think the state is doing anything wrong but she wants deadline...
....

Click to expand...
[snipped by me for focus]

It's great that she got that on record...multiple times. Because the way a lot of people are interpreting their last filing is that the defense was implying purposeful prosecutorial misconduct. That stance has seemed to soften a little.

MOO
 
My takeaway from this brief hearing, AT and Company basically want the entire State's case in Chief.:p They want every item, record, report, note, printout, email, conversation, post it notes and doodle ever created showing how they came to identify BK as their suspect. I know she's just doing her job, and the squeaky wheel gets the oil, but this is beyond IMO.

Hopefully JTrips won't feel pressured to provide more than what is SOP, even if it is a high profile case. They are entitled to what the law allows, nothing more or nothing less. BK is entitled to a fair trial by a jury of his peers and he has excellent legal representation IMO.

ALL MOO
 
Cool Cats said:
Usually they say "at trial."

Not "if it goes to trial."

Sounds like a "slip."

Like now with the DP BK's attorneys might want him to consider a plea to avoid the DP. I believe he will take a plea to avoid the DP.

We will see if I'm right. Too much evidence against him. Most defendants in his situation take pleas to drop the DP. Rare to take it to trial.

Unless defense can find their exculpatory evidence and alot of it.

2 Cents
Click to expand...

I don't think BK and his attorney will make a plea, I think it will go to trial. Even if he is convicted, that doesn't mean he will get the death penalty. There will be another hearing where it will be determined if he will get the death penalty, and I don't think the jury will impose the death penalty, because of Idaho law and the allowance for mitigating circumstances that the jury members can consider that inspire compassion, etc. I think at least one juror will be moved to compassion when the evidence for mitigation is presented, even if BK is convicted. I think AT would be able to get LWOP before with the sentencing jury, so I don't think she would negotiate a plea bargain at this stage. JMO.

edited for clarity
 
Last edited:
IMO and MOO It seems like to me the defense is going to do the obvious and try and get as much thrown out as they can. Particularly the cellular and DNA.

I've seen some on social media start to question whether the defense was implying BK was setup. That's obviously nonsense and would be laughed out of court...

I think this is a sign that they are going to attempt to destroy the timeline. With the 3 critical components being cellular data, video, and DMs statements to police. Hence inquiring into the methods taken to help DM recall the traumatic events. Inquiring about the expert and his misidentification of the car. And questioning the accuracy of the cell data evidence. We should also probably expect to see a gigantic list of other more innocuous times BKs phone was 'off'.

If they can move the murders up or back 30 minutes and effectively take BK out of the area. OR if the jury can't be sure that he was in the area. Then you can start to open up their imagination on alternative explanations for the DNA getting in there.


MOO
 
girlhasnoname said:
My takeaway from this brief hearing, AT and Company basically want the entire State's case in Chief.:p They want every item, record, report, note, printout, email, conversation, post it notes and doodle ever created showing how they came to identify BK as their suspect. I know she's just doing her job, and the squeaky wheel gets the oil, but this is beyond IMO.

Hopefully JTrips won't feel pressured to provide more than what is SOP, even if it is a high profile case. They are entitled to what the law allows, nothing more or nothing less. BK is entitled to a fair trial by a jury of his peers and he has excellent legal representation IMO.

ALL MOO
Click to expand...

The judge has to look up precedents for AT's request for officer training documents. If there is legal precedent, then I'm sure he will allow it, since this is a death-eligible case and he doesn't want this taken up in appeal. If there is no precedent, I get the sense that he doesn't want to be the judge who creates one.
 
schooling said:
Hence inquiring into the methods taken to help DM recall the traumatic events.
Click to expand...

<snipped for focus>

The training records on investigative and interviewing techniques in relation to a witness who has been traumatized is likely relevant to the defense's case, IMO, if she is likely to call the officer as a witness during trial.

AT did something like this (although not exactly the same) in an earlier case in Idaho where she put an officer on the stand and pretty much showed that he said he did "x" which was standard in LE training, but AT did some research and found that when the same officer provided training to other officers on the procedure, he trained them differently. So he didn't follow his own training protocols. The Idaho Suprme Appellate Court overturned the case on appeal and there was a new trial.

This case has been posted several times over the course of this forum, but I will look for the MSM article that discusses this.

If AT has the transcript or tape of the officer who claimed to have trauma interview training and he/she didn't follow it, then perhaps that would be an issue at trial or on appeal. Just some thoughts, IANAL.
 
Last edited:
Sundog said:
dbm


<snipped for focus>

The training records on investigative and interviewing techniques in relation to a witness who has been traumatized is likely relevant to the defense's case, IMO, if she is likely to call the officer as a witness during trial.

AT did something like this (although not exactly the same) in an earlier case in Idaho where she put an officer on the stand and pretty much showed that he said he did "x" which was standard in LE training, but AT did some research and found that when the same officer provided training to other officers on the procedure, he trained them differently. So he didn't follow his own training protocols. The Idaho Supreme Court overturned the case on appeal and there was a new trial.

This case has been posted several times over the course of this forum, but I will look for the MSM article that discusses this.

If AT has the transcript or tape of the officer who claimed to have trauma interview training and he/she didn't follow it, then perhaps that would be an issue at trial or on appeal. Just some thoughts, IANAL.
Click to expand...
If she won on that once, you know that is what she intends to do now.
 
Sundog said:
The judge has to look up precedents for AT's request for officer training documents. If there is legal precedent, then I'm sure he will allow it, since this is a death-eligible case and he doesn't want this taken up in appeal. If there is no precedent, I get the sense that he doesn't want to be the judge who creates one.
Click to expand...
MOO AT is looking to impeach DM statement by claiming her interviewer didnt follow protocol.
 
The training records are wanted because they are relevant to what training the three officers had in regards to their actions and questions during the investigation.

The Defense has questions about some things that were said or done during the investigation. I am guessing it's in the domain of "why didn't you ask THIS person more questions?" Let's say that LE has cleared the DD driver. On what basis? What were they trained to ask and do when they had several suspects in a mass murder case?

That's what the Defense wants to know. Did they follow their training? Because that would be a strong argument that the officers did their job properly and that the training itself could be...a problem. OR, perhaps one of the officers did NOT follow their training and therefore, improperly interrogated Kohberger.

How would the Defense know if LE withholds the training content?

OTOH, it could be there is no clear training content or all kinds of content was used (and different trainers/training settings). Then, the Defense might claim that the officers were not properly trained and therefore erred in either interrogating or keeping records of their interrogations/investigations.

Something like that anyway.

IMO.
 
girlhasnoname said:
The Defense is not entitled to every single document it wishes. Wanting it and being legally entitled to it in discovery are 2 different things IMO.
Click to expand...
Never said they are entitled to every single document, but discovery and other inalienable rights of defendants are cornerstones of our criminal justice system.
 
Sundog said:
<snipped for focus>

The training records on investigative and interviewing techniques in relation to a witness who has been traumatized is likely relevant to the defense's case, IMO, if she is likely to call the officer as a witness during trial.

AT did something like this (although not exactly the same) in an earlier case in Idaho where she put an officer on the stand and pretty much showed that he said he did "x" which was standard in LE training, but AT did some research and found that when the same officer provided training to other officers on the procedure, he trained them differently. So he didn't follow his own training protocols. The Idaho Supreme Court overturned the case on appeal and there was a new trial.

This case has been posted several times over the course of this forum, but I will look for the MSM article that discusses this.

If AT has the transcript or tape of the officer who claimed to have trauma interview training and he/she didn't follow it, then perhaps that would be an issue at trial or on appeal. Just some thoughts, IANAL.
Click to expand...


Here is link to this former case of AT that she won on appeal. She also argued that a retrial after the appeal would subject her client to double jeopardy, but she lost on that, and her client was found guilty again at the retrial.

cdapress.com

Ellington attorney: Client vindicated

COEUR d'ALENE - The appellate attorney in Boise for Jonathan W. Ellington said on Tuesday his client is feeling "vindicated" after the Idaho Supreme Court threw out his second-degree murder conviction and sentence and granted him a new trial.
cdapress.com cdapress.com

This article says that AT looked at the officer's "training materials" which she got through a public records request.

www.inlander.com

Rough Justice

How an Idaho cop's "false testimony" helped send a man away for murder
www.inlander.com www.inlander.com
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 158 more.
Total: 4,195 (members: 159, guests: 4,036)

Online statistics

Members online
159
Guests online
4,036
Total visitors
4,195
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,586
Messages
17,971,376
Members
228,831
Latest member
B_Hazey
Back
Top