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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seattle1 said:
Thanks for linking the update @Nila Aella.

The subject Order goes to the defense Motion of March 23 seeking training records of three specific officers. When the state did not comply with the request by May 4, the defense filed a Motion to Compel, and oral arguments were heard on June 27.

(The State's reason for opposing the defense's request was because the officers were not expected to be called as witnesses at trial).

In granting the defense's Motion to Compel, the Court Ordered the evidence provided to the defense no later than July 14.

In support of the ruling, the Court provided the following:

Here, the three officers’ training records requested by the defense are “material to the preparation of the defense” and Kohberger has established “substantial need” for the material in the preparation of his case.

First, the defense adequately articulated the role each of these officers played in interviewing witnesses and finding and collecting potential evidence.

Second, the training records of these officers are potentially relevant to suppression issue, like in Cohagan, or to challenge the credibility of the officers and the reliability oftheir methods similar to the training records of canine officers.

Other potential uses for the training records include to help prepare the defense for examination or cross-examination of the officers at trial, or to help establish or challenge foundation for the admissibility of evidence gathered by those officers at trial.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Does this mean the Defense can call the officers to testify at trial?
 
iamshadow21 said:
My partner has it. She drives, and has done, safely, for over twenty years. She's had persistent, continuous visual symptoms since she was sixteen; she's 42 now. I'm not saying it doesn't have a variety of impacts on people, but it is possible to live, work, drive, have healthy relationships, etc. with VSS. Oh, and also have VSS and not kill people. I honestly don't see the defense or mitigation, here. If BK actually has VSS, it didn't cause=effect the death of four young people. Millions of people live with VSS, migraine auras, and hallucinations, on a daily basis, and don't creep into people's houses and stab them to death as they sleep.

It's not VSS you should fear, it's people who plan and carry out a crime like that. If this perpetrator happens to fit both those categories, that is, IMHO, a coincidence.

Very much my own opinion.
Click to expand...
Exactly, a disabilty should not be a mitigating factor.
 
Sundog said:
RSBM

I don't remember ever seeing a warrant issued for the search that the WSU police officers did when they searched the parking data base at WSU, looking for a white Elantra among the cars owned by their faculty, staff and students, and then handing that information over to the Mosdow Police Department.

It just seems odd to me that the information that university employees provide in order to park on state university campuses isn't protected like other information and that a search warrant wasn't needed.

Maybe others know why that is the case, and how WSU officers were able to do this without a warrant. Or maybe I missed the warrant information on the long list of warrants and warrant returns issued that many of our researchers here have posted over the course of this case.
Click to expand...
I don't know if the security officer needed one, to impart that info, if he did it without adding any of the personal info.

He could have just sent in a tip with the Tag number, saying they have a white Elantra with a parking permit for both universities---here is the license plate number...the end.

I don't think he'd need a warrant to allow that, once the request was made publicly for that info.
 
Judge Judge referred to the following precedent in his recent Order on Defendants Motion to Compel Discovery (on releasing training records of LEOs to BK's defense team) and I am not understanding the parallels. RBBM.

"In State v. Cohagan, 162 Idaho 717, 725, 404 P.3d 659, 667 (2017), the Idaho Supreme Court, in applying the attenuation doctrine, discussed how “the training that law enforcement officers receive regarding the law of search and seizure should play a role in evaluating the flagrancy of their behavior.” Similarly, “courts have required the government to disclose relevant canine training and certification records” to allow defendants to assess the canine’s reliability . . .

Do we have any basis to think that there was any flagrant behavior involved? Did I miss something?

And I did see a photo of a search dog outside of the house, but the three law enforcement officers whose records are requested aren't dog handlers, are they?

I'm wondering what could be in the records that we haven't been privy to could possibly apply here. (Not being snarky or hypercritical - I am just totally bumfuzzled and would appreciate input.)
 
ExpectingUnicorns said:
Judge Judge referred to the following precedent in his recent Order on Defendants Motion to Compel Discovery (on releasing training records of LEOs to BK's defense team) and I am not understanding the parallels. RBBM.

"In State v. Cohagan, 162 Idaho 717, 725, 404 P.3d 659, 667 (2017), the Idaho Supreme Court, in applying the attenuation doctrine, discussed how “the training that law enforcement officers receive regarding the law of search and seizure should play a role in evaluating the flagrancy of their behavior.” Similarly, “courts have required the government to disclose relevant canine training and certification records” to allow defendants to assess the canine’s reliability . . .

Do we have any basis to think that there was any flagrant behavior involved? Did I miss something?

And I did see a photo of a search dog outside of the house, but the three law enforcement officers whose records are requested aren't dog handlers, are they?

I'm wondering what could be in the records that we haven't been privy to could possibly apply here. (Not being snarky or hypercritical - I am just totally bumfuzzled and would appreciate input.)
Click to expand...
I am pretty surprised the judge will allow the defense training and certification records. I would have thought (perhaps wrongly), that the defense would need something like probable cause to view these records, otherwise, to me, it is a fishing expedition. well, maybe we'll find something here, but they have not provided what they are really looking for--- I don't like it
 
ilovewings said:
I am pretty surprised the judge will allow the defense training and certification records. I would have thought (perhaps wrongly), that the defense would need something like probable cause to view these records, otherwise, to me, it is a fishing expedition. well, maybe we'll find something here, but they have not provided what they are really looking for--- I don't like it
Click to expand...
It's a moot point for me. Whatever the officers did in their training, if they were incompetent, they would not have passed and been certified. It's no different than medical school, imo. Incompetents are booted out of the programs. So, yes, I agree it is a fishing exhibition by the Defense. I think the only result is that after BK is convicted, he will have no basis to accuse his attorney of ineffective counsel.

JMO
 
ExpectingUnicorns said:
Judge Judge referred to the following precedent in his recent Order on Defendants Motion to Compel Discovery (on releasing training records of LEOs to BK's defense team) and I am not understanding the parallels. RBBM.

"In State v. Cohagan, 162 Idaho 717, 725, 404 P.3d 659, 667 (2017), the Idaho Supreme Court, in applying the attenuation doctrine, discussed how “the training that law enforcement officers receive regarding the law of search and seizure should play a role in evaluating the flagrancy of their behavior.” Similarly, “courts have required the government to disclose relevant canine training and certification records” to allow defendants to assess the canine’s reliability . . .

Do we have any basis to think that there was any flagrant behavior involved? Did I miss something?

And I did see a photo of a search dog outside of the house, but the three law enforcement officers whose records are requested aren't dog handlers, are they?

I'm wondering what could be in the records that we haven't been privy to could possibly apply here. (Not being snarky or hypercritical - I am just totally bumfuzzled and would appreciate input.)
Click to expand...
After reading the order, I wondered if officer one (mentioned by AT during the hearing) was the dog handler? MOO

The only thing about officers I recall was this notice of Brady disclosure which could be anything, related or not related to the case. Under protective order. 3/27/23

COMES NOW the State of Idaho, by and through the Latah County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, and respectfully gives notice to Court and Counsel that the State has become aware of potential Brady/Giglio material related to one of the officers involved in the above-referenced case. That material, in the form Of confidential internal affairs investigation, is hereby submitted in camera to the Court.

edit:spelling
 
Last edited:
Boxer said:
Exactly, a disabilty should not be a mitigating factor.
Click to expand...

Is that what case law in Idaho says? I mean, they do have this two-part process. I thought that various things relating to the individual could come in, in a death penalty case.

Disabilities are often mitigating factors, elsewhere (and can be the core of "legal insanity" as when people who are low IQ us that as a mitigating factor).

Very interested in what exactly has been a "mitigating factor" during that trial phase - in Idaho. I thought that various conditions could "come in" in a death penalty case, during the penalty phase. ICBW.
 
@ExpectingUnicorns I also noticed in the order: BBM

By way of this Court’s own experience, when testifying at pretrial hearings or trial, officers often based their testimony on their “training and experience.”

Here, the three officers’ training records requested by the defense are “material to the preparation of the defense” and Kohberger has established “substantial need” for the material in the preparation of his case. First, the defense adequately articulated the role each of these officers played in interviewing witnesses and finding and collecting potential evidence. Second, the training records of these officers are potentially relevant to a suppression issue, like in Cohagan, or to challenge the credibility of the officers and the reliability of their methods similar to the training records of canine officers. Other potential uses for the training records include to help prepare the defense for examination or cross-examination of the officers at trial, or to help establish or challenge foundation for the admissibility of evidence gathered by those officers at trial.

Similar to a canine officer, so maybe not a canine handler. JMO
 
MyBelle said:
Is there a precedent for getting a grand jury indictment thrown out in a death penalty case in Idaho?
Click to expand...

To be honest, this is all new to me as I've never followed a criminal case of any kind of punishment where the charges and decision for the case bound over to trial (i.e., the prosecutor met probable cause) were not by Information, Complaint, and Preliminary Hearing, and where a Grand Jury Indictment was reserved for white-collar criminal cases-- or those rare criminal cases surrounded by political issues requiring secrecy.

Here, a five-day Preliminary Hearing was initially set on Jan 13 for June 26-30, 2023, and I'm not sure exactly when the decision was made to abandon the PH and give the case to a grand jury.

We expected to learn more about what the defense might be seeking to challenge about the Grand Jury Indictment on June 26 but that Motions hearing was shortened and the only Motion heard on that date was the Defense Motion to Compel Discovery (i.e., training records for three specific officers), and the Court ruled on this on June 30, in favor of the defense.

See the link below for more possible hints on the defense's groundwork to challenge the Indictment.

Seattle1 said:
www.newsweek.com

Bryan Kohberger "laying groundwork" for motion to dismiss—Attorney

Kohberger's attorneys said they are sure exculpatory evidence exists, and should have been presented to the grand jury.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

6/16/23

"A grand jury was empaneled at a time when the small community of Moscow, Idaho had been exposed to 6 months of intense local, national, and international media coverage," documents submitted by Kohberger's defense read.

"Because the state has provided extensive discovery, Mr. Kohberger knows that exculpatory evidence exists. Whether a fair and impartial panel of grand jurors was assembled amidst intense media coverage is a significant question the Defense must evaluate."

Essentially, Kohberger's lawyers are asking to review all documents which the grand jury had access to and potentially toss out their indictment, and to have more time to prepare their defense, especially as the charges against the 28-year-old could carry the death penalty.

[..]

"When you have a grand jury, in most jurisdictions [...] you have to give the defense the opportunity to present exculpatory evidence, if you will, once you know the grand jury is happening," he said.

"The challenge to exculpatory evidence, what I think the argument—they're laying the groundwork to the argument—is that 'Hey, we know there's exculpatory evidence, we didn't get a chance to present that, that is our right, even though it's a secret proceeding."

Geragos added that Kohberger's lawyer Anne Taylor is "laying the groundwork for a motion to dismiss, and what she's asking for, 'Pause this thing, we want to time out basically, so we can assemble the information that we would have presented to the grand jury."
Click to expand...
 
ExpectingUnicorns said:
Judge Judge referred to the following precedent in his recent Order on Defendants Motion to Compel Discovery (on releasing training records of LEOs to BK's defense team) and I am not understanding the parallels. RBBM.

"In State v. Cohagan, 162 Idaho 717, 725, 404 P.3d 659, 667 (2017), the Idaho Supreme Court, in applying the attenuation doctrine, discussed how “the training that law enforcement officers receive regarding the law of search and seizure should play a role in evaluating the flagrancy of their behavior.” Similarly, “courts have required the government to disclose relevant canine training and certification records” to allow defendants to assess the canine’s reliability . . .

Do we have any basis to think that there was any flagrant behavior involved? Did I miss something?

And I did see a photo of a search dog outside of the house, but the three law enforcement officers whose records are requested aren't dog handlers, are they?

I'm wondering what could be in the records that we haven't been privy to could possibly apply here. (Not being snarky or hypercritical - I am just totally bumfuzzled and would appreciate input.)
Click to expand...
^^bbm

I disagree the Cohagan citation as presented by OP represents the context in which the Court relied on Cohagan to grand the defense Motion.

IMO, I think the Court provided three, well-thought-out reasons for granting the defense Motion-- especially when the Prosecution didn't really help their position for opposing the Motion other than offering that the officers were not expected to be called as witnesses at the trial.

Seattle1 said:
In granting the defense's Motion to Compel, the Court Ordered the evidence provided to the defense no later than July 14.

In support of the ruling, the Court provided the following:

Here, the three officers’ training records requested by the defense are “material to the preparation of the defense” and Kohberger has established “substantial need” for the material in the preparation of his case.

First, the defense adequately articulated the role each of these officers played in interviewing witnesses and finding and collecting potential evidence.

Second, the training records of these officers are potentially relevant to suppression issue, like in Cohagan, or to challenge the credibility of the officers and the reliability of their methods similar to the training records of canine officers.

Other potential uses for the training records include to help prepare the defense for examination or cross-examination of the officers at trial, or to help establish or challenge foundation for the admissibility of evidence gathered by those officers at trial.
Click to expand...
^^rsbbm
 
In the Judges order:

At the outset of the hearing, the parties informed the Court that they had reached agreements on all issues except Request 160

Went back to look at the requests they reached agreement on:

Request No. 43 All body cam and dash cam footage from officers involved in the search and arrest of Bryan Kohberger in Pennsylvania.

Reguest N0. 49 All lab testing, including photographs and color diagrams and bench notes including, but not limited to: l. Copies of lab reports detailing the forensic evidence collection and analysis of items recovered at Bryan Kohberger’s parents’ home, trash cans and other receptacles, and Bryan Kohberger’s Hyundai Elantra.

Second part of Request N0. 49 All lab testing, including photographs and color diagrams and bench notes including, but not limited to: ISP and FBI Forensic Lab reports including, but not limited to, Lab reports 11 and 25

Request No. 119 All notes recordings from all Officers from Moscow Police Department As of May 4, 2023 Counsel for Mr. Kohberger has not received recordings and notes from the interrogation of Mr. Kohberger by MPD Detective Payne

Request No. 115 All police reports, audio/video evidence, and any recorded statements related to Bryan Kohberger’s arrest and incarceration in Pennsylvania.

Reguest No. 161 All reports, notes, recordings and photos...
This one was the reported redacted event. MOO

 
Seattle1 said:
To be honest, this is all new to me as I've never followed a criminal case of any kind of punishment where the charges and decision for the case bound over to trial (i.e., the prosecutor met probable cause) were not by Information, Complaint, and Preliminary Hearing, and where a Grand Jury Indictment was reserved for white-collar criminal cases-- or those rare criminal cases surrounded by political issues requiring secrecy.

Here, a five-day Preliminary Hearing was initially set on Jan 13 for June 26-30, 2023, and I'm not sure exactly when the decision was made to abandon the PH and give the case to a grand jury.

We expected to learn more about what the defense might be seeking to challenge about the Grand Jury Indictment on June 26 but that Motions hearing was shortened and the only Motion heard on that date was the Defense Motion to Compel Discovery (i.e., training records for three specific officers), and the Court ruled on this on June 30, in favor of the defense.

See the link below for more possible hints on the defense's groundwork to challenge the Indictment.
Click to expand...
The link is what I find confusing. I wasn't aware that the Defense got to participate in the Grand Jury proceedings. I always thought that is where the expression "indicting a ham sandwich" came from. So, I looked it up and Idaho does NOT allow it. I'm scratching my head.....

JMO

Grand Juries | Idaho Fourth Judicial District Court

fourthjudicialcourt.idaho.gov fourthjudicialcourt.idaho.gov

Grand jury proceedings are private and secret, prospective defendants are not entitled to be present at the proceedings, and no one is allowed to cross-examine witnesses on the defendant's behalf. Information presented to the grand jury is presented by prosecuting attorneys.
 
Updated Attorney list:

Prosecution team:
William Wofford Thompson,Jr Prosecutor
Ashley Jennings Senior Deputy Prosecutor
Bradley Rudley Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor
Jeffery D. Nye Deputy Attorney General
Ingrid C. Batey Deputy Attorney General

Defense Team:
Anne C. Taylor Chief Public Defender
Jay W. Logsdon Chief Deputy of Litigation
Elisa G. Massoth Criminal Defense Attorney
Bicka Barlow Attorney/Consultant DNA

Goncalves Family Attorney
Shanon L. Gray

Three Unknowns from Zoom hearing (gag order):
Counsel and Co counsel for ?
Counsel for ?

BF
Kelli Anne Viloria

Press Attorney:
Wendy J. Olson
Cory M. Carone

Did I miss anyone?
MOO
 
Last edited:
Nila Aella said:
@ExpectingUnicorns I also noticed in the order: BBM

By way of this Court’s own experience, when testifying at pretrial hearings or trial, officers often based their testimony on their “training and experience.”

Here, the three officers’ training records requested by the defense are “material to the preparation of the defense” and Kohberger has established “substantial need” for the material in the preparation of his case. First, the defense adequately articulated the role each of these officers played in interviewing witnesses and finding and collecting potential evidence. Second, the training records of these officers are potentially relevant to a suppression issue, like in Cohagan, or to challenge the credibility of the officers and the reliability of their methods similar to the training records of canine officers. Other potential uses for the training records include to help prepare the defense for examination or cross-examination of the officers at trial, or to help establish or challenge foundation for the admissibility of evidence gathered by those officers at trial.

Similar to a canine officer, so maybe not a canine handler. JMO
Click to expand...
"Suppression of evidence" is a term used in the United States legal system to describe the lawful or unlawful act of preventing evidence from being shown in a trial. This could happen for several reasons.
Wikipedia

MOO The conflicting accounts of surviving roommates will be challenged as suppression.
 
MyBelle said:
The link is what I find confusing. I wasn't aware that the Defense got to participate in the Grand Jury proceedings. I always thought that is where the expression "indicting a ham sandwich" came from. So, I looked it up and Idaho does NOT allow it. I'm scratching my head.....

JMO

Grand Juries | Idaho Fourth Judicial District Court

fourthjudicialcourt.idaho.gov fourthjudicialcourt.idaho.gov

Grand jury proceedings are private and secret, prospective defendants are not entitled to be present at the proceedings, and no one is allowed to cross-examine witnesses on the defendant's behalf. Information presented to the grand jury is presented by prosecuting attorneys.
Click to expand...
That link is confusing. MOO

Idaho Criminal Rule 6.1. Prosecuting Attorney’s Role with Grand Jury

(b) Powers and Duties. The prosecuting attorney has the power and duty to:

(1) present to the grand jury evidence of any public offense, however, when a prosecutor conducting a grand jury inquiry is personally aware of substantial evidence which directly negates the guilt of the subject of the investigation the prosecutor must present or otherwise disclose that evidence to the grand jury;

 
Boxer said:
"Suppression of evidence" is a term used in the United States legal system to describe the lawful or unlawful act of preventing evidence from being shown in a trial. This could happen for several reasons.
Wikipedia

MOO The conflicting accounts of surviving roommates will be challenged as suppression.
Click to expand...
Possible. During the hearing, AT did say the D may subpeona the officer that did the interview with a key witness. MOO

Went back to the live hearing posts up thread and AT listed quite a few items that might relate.

Search at 1122 King Road
Did follow-up investigations
signed lab agreements
collected evidence
Interview with key witness expected to testify.
Dozens of interviews
Follow ups on tips. Made decisions about tips given to law enforcement.

JMO
 
iamshadow21 said:
My partner has it. She drives, and has done, safely, for over twenty years. She's had persistent, continuous visual symptoms since she was sixteen; she's 42 now. I'm not saying it doesn't have a variety of impacts on people, but it is possible to live, work, drive, have healthy relationships, etc. with VSS. Oh, and also have VSS and not kill people. I honestly don't see the defense or mitigation, here. If BK actually has VSS, it didn't cause=effect the death of four young people. Millions of people live with VSS, migraine auras, and hallucinations, on a daily basis, and don't creep into people's houses and stab them to death as they sleep.

It's not VSS you should fear, it's people who plan and carry out a crime like that. If this perpetrator happens to fit both those categories, that is, IMHO, a coincidence.

Very much my own opinion.
Click to expand...

It's so subjective though, if someone has poor coping skills, is born mentally ill or develops an illness through trauma and also experiences VSS it's a completely different experience to another person living through the same disability.

Some people are good at managing to get on with things.

FWIW I don't think its a mitigating factor in the context of this crime but I could totally understand if he had slowly gone a bit insane due to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 213 more.
Total: 4,302 (members: 214, guests: 4,088)

Online statistics

Members online
214
Guests online
4,088
Total visitors
4,302
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,297
Messages
17,984,112
Members
229,082
Latest member
RyanO9600
Back
Top