4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #85

Status
Not open for further replies.

ChatteringBirds

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
9,492
Reaction score
46,566
This tragedy seems to be breaking news:

Police said they responded to King Road for a report of an unconscious person. When officers arrived, they “discovered four individuals who were deceased...”


Thread #1 Thread #2 Thread #3 Thread #4 Thread #5 Thread #6 Thread #7 Thread #8 Thread #9 Thread #10
Thread #11 Thread #12 Thread #13 Thread #14 Thread #15 Thread #16Thread #17 Thread #18 Thread #19
Thread #20 Thread #21 Thread #22Thread #23Thread #24 Thread #25Thread #26 Thread #27 Thread #28
Thread #29 Thread #30 Thread #31 Thread #32 Thread #33 Thread #34 Thread #35Thread #36 Thread #37 Thread #38 Thread #39 Thread #40 Thread #41 Thread #42 Thread #43 Thread #44 Thread #45 Thread #46 Thread #47 Thread #48 Thread #49 Thread #50 Thread #51 Thread #52 Thread #53 Thread #54 Thread #55 Thread #56 Thread #57 Thread #58 Thread #59 Thread #60 Thread #61 Thread#62 Thread #63Thread #64 Thread #65 Thread #66 Thread #67 Thread #68 Thread #69 Thread #70 Thread #71 Thread #72 Thread #73 Thread #74 Thread #75 Thread #76 Thread #77 Thread #78 Thread #79 Thread #80 Thread #81 Thread #82 Thread #83 Thread #84


Media Thread/No Discussion

Probable Cause Affidavit

Press photo album (compilation courtesy of WS member cujenn81)

Moscow ID Police Department Facebook page

City of Moscow re King Road Homicide

Media Guide to the Idaho Courts

Detectives are looking to develop context for the events and people involved in the four murders at 1122 King Rd in Moscow, Idaho. Anyone who observed notable behavior, has video surveillance, or can provide relevant information about these murders:


Thread #81 Thread #82 Thread #83 Thread #84
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT CHRIS MCDONOUGH AND THE INTERVIEW ROOM

Nothing that Chris M says is allowed on this forum unless it is backed up by law enforcement.

Chris has personally lied to me. He accused an innocent man of being Brian Laundry. He lied about being removed from the Crow lawsuit. He was removed but then put back in the lawsuit and lost. Chris told me he was removed from the lawsuit and was not sued. He never told me he was added back into the lawsuit and lost. Chris was sued for getting a false confession in the murder of Stephanie Crow.
I could go on but suffice it to say anything he says is not allowed. Even if it is in mainstream media.

Again only if what he said is backed up by an actual law enforcement source.

Here is the documentation on the Crow lawsuit
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling from 2010 which overrules Dougie's decision from 2004.

Retired judge slams Crowe case


"A federal trial judge in San Diego dismissed the bulk of the civil rights suit in 2004. But six years later, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals revived the lawsuit, finding that Escondido police violated the civil rights of Crowe and his friends during “hours of grueling, psychologically abusive interrogations.”

The above links come from a great YouTube creator called Scientific Skeptic. If you go to this video there are more links describing the interrogation tools used by Chris and others in the Crow case,

Because Chris mistakenly named the wrong man on my YouTube channel and never told me to take down the false information I made this apology video when I discovered what happened,
Here is the apology video I had to make because of what Chris said on my Livestream.

The glove that Chris found was not there on the day of the Moscow Idaho murders

The MOB Crew has a great video showing the ground the day of the killing where the glove was found later in the month. On that day the glove was not there. Go to @2:35 of this video

I am not suggesting Chris did not legitimately find the glove. Just showing you it has nothing to do with the case. I will be shocked if Chris updates the story about the glove.

For those of you who know me this is an extremely unusual step for me to take. This is how strongly I feel. I was lied to but more importantly, because of Chris' actions, people's lives were threatened in the Summer Wells case.

Please do not discuss this post on this thread. If you have any questions please email me at websleuthsvideos@gmail.com

Tricia
 
ADMIN REMINDER:

It is okay for members to discuss Visual Snow Syndrome because it was referenced by BK himself in his social media. Also, iirc, a BK family member had referred to him having or possibly having OCD. Those two conditions may be discussed because they are sourced to the accused himself and to his family members.

What members can not discuss are other random mental health conditions beyond those specified above. None of us is in a position to diagnose the mental health of a person we have never met. Introducing various and sundry, potential diagnoses only serves to derail the thread with opinions, debate, unrelated personal anecdotes, etc that may end up not being remotely related to this case.

Thank you.
 
ADMIN NOTE:

Speculation must be based on some known fact. Posts about a confidential informant are not based on known fact and it is at times being stated as fact.

Many posts have been removed. Please move on from that discussion.
 
ADMIN REMINDER:

As per TOS, general discussion of the death penalty is one issue that is not allowed. In our experience, it only leads to bickering over personal beliefs. It is a social justice issue that will never be resolved through discussion at Websleuths. Members may discuss it as it relates directly to the potential of it being on the table in this specific case.

Same with politicizing. Political discussion in any fashion is a violation of TOS. IOW, reference to the Dems/Reps, blues/reds, etc has no place in this discussion. Politicizing is one violation that may result in permanent Warning Points being assigned.

Please familiarize yourselves with TOS and post accordingly.

Thanks !!
 
Pappa Rodger has now been mentioned by MSM (Dateline) so I think we can discuss. I have discussed the FB persona quite a bit. There are more articles than just Dateline, I believe.

The account was deleted after BK was arrested, but fell silent when he was arrested. I believe there were interactions between FB and the Latah County investigators.

Pappa Rodger is, I believe, the right spelling. Again, we don't really know, but the MSM is interested in it - and there was interest from LE in the account, as well.

IMO.
We approved discussion of the Pappa Rodger Reddit account back in January. (I'm not aware of a separate FB account.)

Just for the record going forward, it was specifically stated that the Pappa Rodger Reddit account was removed by Reddit prior to BK's arrest:

from: Bryan Kohberger believed to have joined online discussion groups

An admin of the group later clarified that despite Rodgers' apparent authority in the group, he was never an admin or moderator.

Kristine Cameron, wrote: 'He was on her and argued incessantly with people and said some really creepy stuff and posted similar questions to Bryan's crime questions.

'We removed Pappa Rodgers at 7:10 the evening before Bryan's arrest. He created a group page and had 6 people in it.

'No one has heard from Pappa Rodger since the arrest.'

1684990846755.png
 
ADMIN NOTE:

For those members who may have forgotten, discussion about the skinned dog is off limits:

 
ADMIN NOTE

This post lands at random.

Okay folks, bleach was speculation so please move on from that discussion.

As for what unsavory types might read here and get hints about, I'm sure there are a zillion other things they would zero in on. We can't control the universe, and we've never yet heard a perp exclaim "I did it because I read it on Websleuths" ;)
 
From Idaho Court Rules re GJs, exculpatory evidence, and privilege of defendant's counsel to present exculpatory evidence at indictment.

"(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;"

Above seems self explanatory? Moo


"(c) Evidence for Defendant. The grand jury is not bound to hear evidence for the defendant, but it is their duty to weigh all the evidence submitted to them, and when they have reason to believe that other evidence within their reach will explain away the charge, they should order such evidence to be produced, and for that purpose may require the prosecuting attorney to issue process for the witnesses."

Above reads to me as: If GJ jurors weigh the evidence and have reason to believe that there is other evidence "within their reach" which will "explain away the charge," they can call witnesses to that effect. Moo

Using information I found re the GJ processes in NJ (below), I'd think that a GJ calling witnesses to that effect in Idaho could include calling the defendent himself or other witnesses.


"An accused has no right to testify at a N.J. grand jury. However, the prosecutor may extend an invitation for a defendant or target of investigation to testify. Under this circumstance, a defendant will have the “privilege” of testifying provided he waives his Miranda rights and right to counsel as defense attorneys are not permitted to be present at grand jury proceedings."

The Idaho Court Rules don't explicity or implicitly include a privilege for a defendant's counsel to present evidence on behalf of the defendant at GJ hearing, Imo. It seems likely to me that the rules probably line up with NJ- in that a defendant himself and other material witnesses could be invited to provide evidence of an exculpatory nature only in their capacity as witnesses.Moo
 
From Idaho Court Rules re GJs, exculpatory evidence, and privilege of defendant's counsel to present exculpatory evidence at indictment.

"(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;"

Above seems self explanatory? Moo


"(c) Evidence for Defendant. The grand jury is not bound to hear evidence for the defendant, but it is their duty to weigh all the evidence submitted to them, and when they have reason to believe that other evidence within their reach will explain away the charge, they should order such evidence to be produced, and for that purpose may require the prosecuting attorney to issue process for the witnesses."

Above reads to me as: If GJ jurors weigh the evidence and have reason to believe that there is other evidence "within their reach" which will "explain away the charge," they can call witnesses to that effect. Moo

Using information I found re the GJ processes in NJ (below), I'd think that a GJ calling witnesses to that effect in Idaho could include calling the defendent himself or other witnesses.


"An accused has no right to testify at a N.J. grand jury. However, the prosecutor may extend an invitation for a defendant or target of investigation to testify. Under this circumstance, a defendant will have the “privilege” of testifying provided he waives his Miranda rights and right to counsel as defense attorneys are not permitted to be present at grand jury proceedings."

The Idaho Court Rules don't explicity or implicitly include a privilege for a defendant's counsel to present evidence on behalf of the defendant at GJ hearing, Imo. It seems likely to me that the rules probably line up with NJ- in that a defendant himself and other material witnesses could be invited to provide evidence of an exculpatory nature only in their capacity as witnesses.Moo
Thank you @jepop for the citations specific to Idaho. Further to the link quoted by OP, and specific to a [defendant's] "Right" to Introduction of Defenses or Justifications, and felony offense, I also found the following:

Right to Introduction of Defenses or Justifications

An accused is also entitled to have a valid defense or justification presented to the Grand Jury where it exonerates the accused. This obligation does not, however, impose a duty on the prosecutor to investigate or cultivate every potential defense or justification for a felony offense for which indictment is being sought. Defenses which must be disclosed to the Grand Jury are those that clearly tend to establish innocence.

Here, I'm not finding this quite self-explanatory(?).

I mean who's to say the defense agrees with the prosecution's definition of duty or whether or not the defendant's justification was presented fairly to the GJ? In other words, if my life is on the line, I don't want anybody speaking on my behalf other than myself or my representative. Just seems contrary to an individual's constitutional right to representation.

Again, admittedly, I'm biased here because, for capital, criminal matters especially, I am most confident with prosecution by Information, Complaint, & Preliminary Hearing vs GJ Indictment where at least on the federal level, mostly hears cases for narcotics trafficking, white collar and organized crime, environmental degradation, terrorism, and civil rights abuses. JMO
 
Last edited:
Thank you @jepop for the citations specific to Idaho. Further to the link quoted by OP, and specific to a [defendant's] "Right" to Introduction of Defenses or Justifications, and felony offense, I also found the following:

Right to Introduction of Defenses or Justifications

An accused is also entitled to have a valid defense or justification presented to the Grand Jury where it exonerates the accused. This obligation does not, however, impose a duty on the prosecutor to investigate or cultivate every potential defense or justification for a felony offense for which indictment is being sought. Defenses which must be disclosed to the Grand Jury are those that clearly tend to establish innocence.

Here, I'm not finding this quite self-explanatory(?).

I mean who's to say the defense agrees with the prosecution's definition of duty or whether or not the defendant's justification was presented fairly to the GJ? In other words, if my life is on the line, I don't want anybody speaking on my behalf other than myself or my representative. Just seems contrary to an individual's constitutional right to representation.

Again, admittedly, I'm biased here because, for capital, criminal matters especially, I am most confident with prosecution by Information, Complaint, & Preliminary Hearing vs GJ Indictment where at least on the federal level, mostly hears cases for narcotics trafficking, white collar and organized crime, environmental degradation, terrorism, and civil rights abuses. JMO
Thank you for posting that @Seattle1. I saw the clause you cite above but didn't think it relevant to the defense's current arguements - that they are implying/or asserting (?) exculpatory evidence may not have been presented to the GJ. (*As an aside I also believe they are looking to argue that the selection of the GJ jurors may have resulted in a biased GJ owing to media coverage - that seems to be a separate avenue being pursued - Moo).

As to the clause you cite: first, at the time the GJ was convened and throughout its deliberations did the defense have or in that time-frame produce a valid defense or justification that exonerates the accused? I recall that the State very early on in its Jan 23rd Response to D's request for discovery (which is included/referred back to in all subsequent responses) added this to Point 9 which covers the Prosecution providing all exculpatory evidence as per Brady/Giglio:

" In addition, with regard to material or information which may be exculpatory as used or interpreted, the State requests that the defendant inform the State, in writing, of the defense which will be asserted in this case, so counsel for the State can determine if any additional material or information may be material to the defense, and thus fulfill its duty under I.C.R. 16(a) and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)."


I am wondering and I guess assuming the defense had not by the time the GJ was deliberating informed the State of any Defense it was planning to assert (the assertion that they intend to pursue an Alibi defense came after the Arraignment as per Idaho Court Rules re time limits kicking in). This was only a request by the State, as the D is not bound to inform the P of any defense it plans on presenting until much closer to trial as far as I'm aware. Moo

Anyway to get to the point, at the time of the GJ I think the P would argue they had no inkling or had not been presented with a valid defense or justification that would have clearly exonerated the defendant. On top of that, the clause still seems to me to say it is up to the PA, if having knowledge of such a defense or exonerating justification ( to my mind a well supported alibi seems to be what is lying between the lines here, or another suspect), to present that to the GJ, not the defendant's attorneys. Moo

I can understand and see your position on GJ's being unfair to the defendant. Respectfully at this point I'm not sure I agree but that is fine. I don't wish to discuss the pros,cons and history of GJs in detail because I think that will veer off topic. Also, I honestly have very little prior knowledge on the topic apart from what I am learning at this very moment. Thank you for your posts. I appreciate your knowledge and background understanding of the issues.

Moo

EBM spelling

ETA: Am also aware that the terms exculpatory and exonerating may often be used inter-changeably but in fact they carry diffrent meanings.
 
Last edited:
Thank you @jepop for the citations specific to Idaho. Further to the link quoted by OP, and specific to a [defendant's] "Right" to Introduction of Defenses or Justifications, and felony offense, I also found the following:

Right to Introduction of Defenses or Justifications

An accused is also entitled to have a valid defense or justification presented to the Grand Jury where it exonerates the accused. This obligation does not, however, impose a duty on the prosecutor to investigate or cultivate every potential defense or justification for a felony offense for which indictment is being sought. Defenses which must be disclosed to the Grand Jury are those that clearly tend to establish innocence.

Here, I'm not finding this quite self-explanatory(?).

I mean who's to say the defense agrees with the prosecution's definition of duty or whether or not the defendant's justification was presented fairly to the GJ? In other words, if my life is on the line, I don't want anybody speaking on my behalf other than myself or my representative. Just seems contrary to an individual's constitutional right to representation.

Again, admittedly, I'm biased here because, for capital, criminal matters especially, I am most confident with prosecution by Information, Complaint, & Preliminary Hearing vs GJ Indictment where at least on the federal level, mostly hears cases for narcotics trafficking, white collar and organized crime, environmental degradation, terrorism, and civil rights abuses. JMO
I don't believe the Prosecution felt they had any evidence in hand that would exonerate BK.

The Defense keeps talking about such evidence, but if it truly exists, and would completely exonerated BK from these crimes, he wouldn't be sitting in jail awaiting trial with the DP on the table IMO. They still have not offered a notice of alibi statement.

I think this is all legal wrangling by AT and company.

ALL MOO
 
Thank you for posting that @Seattle1. I saw the clause you cite above but didn't think it relevant to the defense's current arguements - that they are implying/or asserting (?) exculpatory evidence may not have been presented to the GJ. (*As an aside I also believe they are looking to argue that the selection of the GJ jurors may have resulted in a biased GJ owing to media coverage - that seems to be a separate avenue being pursued - Moo).

As to the clause you cite: first, at the time the GJ was convened and throughout its deliberations did the defense have or in that time-frame produce a valid defense or justification that exonerates the accused? I recall that the State very early on in its Jan 23rd Response to D's request for discovery (which is included/referred back to in all subsequent responses) added this to Point 9 which covers the Prosecution providing all exculpatory evidence as per Brady/Giglio:

" In addition, with regard to material or information which may be exculpatory as used or interpreted, the State requests that the defendant inform the State, in writing, of the defense which will be asserted in this case, so counsel for the State can determine if any additional material or information may be material to the defense, and thus fulfill its duty under I.C.R. 16(a) and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)."


I am wondering and I guess assuming the defense had not by the time the GJ was deliberating informed the State of any Defense it was planning to assert (the assertion that they intend to pursue an Alibi defense came after the Arraignment as per Idaho Court Rules re time limits kicking in). This was only a request by the State, as the D is not bound to inform the P of any defense it plans on presenting until much closer to trial as far as I'm aware. Moo

Anyway to get to the point, at the time of the GJ I think the P would argue they had no inkling or had not been presented with a valid defense or justification that would have clearly exonerated the defendant. On top of that, the clause still seems to me to say it is up to the PA, if having knowledge of such a defense or exonerating justification ( to my mind a well supported alibi seems to be what is lying between the lines here, or another suspect), to present that to the GJ, not the defendant's attorneys. Moo

I can understand and see your position on GJ's being unfair to the defendant. Respectfully at this point I'm not sure I agree but that is fine. I don't wish to discuss the pros,cons and history of GJs in detail because I think that will veer off topic. Also, I honestly have very little prior knowledge on the topic apart from what I am learning at this very moment. Thank you for your posts. I appreciate your knowledge and background understanding of the issues.

Moo

EBM spelling

ETA: Am also aware that the terms exculpatory and exonerating may often be used inter-changeably but in fact they carry diffrent meanings.
Hey you, get outta my head. Hah
 
Thank you for posting that @Seattle1. I saw the clause you cite above but didn't think it relevant to the defense's current arguements - that they are implying/or asserting (?) exculpatory evidence may not have been presented to the GJ. (*As an aside I also believe they are looking to argue that the selection of the GJ jurors may have resulted in a biased GJ owing to media coverage - that seems to be a separate avenue being pursued - Moo).

As to the clause you cite: first, at the time the GJ was convened and throughout its deliberations did the defense have or in that time-frame produce a valid defense or justification that exonerates the accused? I recall that the State very early on in its Jan 23rd Response to D's request for discovery (which is included/referred back to in all subsequent responses) added this to Point 9 which covers the Prosecution providing all exculpatory evidence as per Brady/Giglio:

" In addition, with regard to material or information which may be exculpatory as used or interpreted, the State requests that the defendant inform the State, in writing, of the defense which will be asserted in this case, so counsel for the State can determine if any additional material or information may be material to the defense, and thus fulfill its duty under I.C.R. 16(a) and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)."


I am wondering and I guess assuming the defense had not by the time the GJ was deliberating informed the State of any Defense it was planning to assert (the assertion that they intend to pursue an Alibi defense came after the Arraignment as per Idaho Court Rules re time limits kicking in). This was only a request by the State, as the D is not bound to inform the P of any defense it plans on presenting until much closer to trial as far as I'm aware. Moo

Anyway to get to the point, at the time of the GJ I think the P would argue they had no inkling or had not been presented with a valid defense or justification that would have clearly exonerated the defendant. On top of that, the clause still seems to me to say it is up to the PA, if having knowledge of such a defense or exonerating justification ( to my mind a well supported alibi seems to be what is lying between the lines here, or another suspect), to present that to the GJ, not the defendant's attorneys. Moo

I can understand and see your position on GJ's being unfair to the defendant. Respectfully at this point I'm not sure I agree but that is fine. I don't wish to discuss the pros,cons and history of GJs in detail because I think that will veer off topic. Also, I honestly have very little prior knowledge on the topic apart from what I am learning at this very moment. Thank you for your posts. I appreciate your knowledge and background understanding of the issues.

Moo

EBM spelling

ETA: Am also aware that the terms exculpatory and exonerating may often be used inter-changeably but in fact they carry diffrent meanings.
In the video featuring Defense Attorney Mark Garagos with AB, Garagos appears to confirm that the defense does prepare and present "exculpatory evidence" to the GJ for their review and consideration -- binders of information in his example while not actually appearing before the secret GJ proceeding:


Idaho murders: Bryan Kohberger requests indictment pause | Banfield​


Jun 15, 2023 #Banfield
The lawyers for University of Idaho murder suspect Bryan Kohberger have requested a pause in the proceedings to evaluate whether the grand jury that indicted Kohberger was biased. Criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos weighs in on "Banfield."
 
In the video featuring Defense Attorney Mark Garagos with AB, Garagos appears to confirm that the defense does prepare and present "exculpatory evidence" to the GJ for their review and consideration -- binders of information in his example while not actually appearing before the secret GJ proceeding:


Idaho murders: Bryan Kohberger requests indictment pause | Banfield​


Jun 15, 2023 #Banfield
The lawyers for University of Idaho murder suspect Bryan Kohberger have requested a pause in the proceedings to evaluate whether the grand jury that indicted Kohberger was biased. Criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos weighs in on "Banfield."
Well IDK, if that's right according to Idaho Cout Rules. I don't see it anywhere. The GJ can call witnesses that may support a defense but they make the decision after the Prosecution has presented the case including exculpatory evidence as per Brady Giglio. Trump sent his layer in lieu of himself - so maybe NY rules are different. Could Mr Geragos be incorrect - IDK. Especially re the Pros informing the defense at the time the GJ was convened - I've come up with nothing for that being a requirement. Thanks for posting this though. Moo
 
Well IDK, if that's right according to Idaho Cout Rules. I don't see it anywhere. The GJ can call witnesses that may support a defense but they make the decision after the Prosecution has presented the case including exculpatory evidence as per Brady Giglio. Trump sent his layer in lieu of himself - so maybe NY rules are different. Could Mr Geragos be incorrect - IDK. Especially re the Pros informing the defense at the time the GJ was convened - I've come up with nothing for that being a requirement. Thanks for posting this though. Moo
In the video featuring Defense Attorney Mark Garagos with AB, Garagos appears to confirm that the defense does prepare and present "exculpatory evidence" to the GJ for their review and consideration -- binders of information in his example while not actually appearing before the secret GJ proceeding:


Idaho murders: Bryan Kohberger requests indictment pause | Banfield​


Jun 15, 2023 #Banfield
The lawyers for University of Idaho murder suspect Bryan Kohberger have requested a pause in the proceedings to evaluate whether the grand jury that indicted Kohberger was biased. Criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos weighs in on "Banfield."
It may be that if the GJ had sought to call witnesses that supported some exculpatory evidence the defense would then have been informed and given the opportunity and time to prepare witnesses - for eg experts - with binders of information but this never occured. ie the GJ never reached a stage when that became necesaary? Moo
 
I can understand and see your position on GJ's being unfair to the defendant. Respectfully at this point I'm not sure I agree but that is fine. I don't wish to discuss the pros,cons and history of GJs in detail because I think that will veer off topic. Also, I honestly have very little prior knowledge on the topic apart from what I am learning at this very moment. Thank you for your posts. I appreciate your knowledge and background understanding of the issues.
Moo
^^rsbm
We have a new Federal Judge in the family (investiture was two years ago) and I'm sitting on my hands not to ask any questions about a State case -- knowing Federal Prosecutors don't have to present any evidence suggesting that the target is innocent -- including an alibi.

I think what initially concerned me about fairness for the defendant here is that BK was already arrested and charged prior to any request for an Indictment by the grand jury whereas the GJ is designed to work prior to being charged and a defendant's constitutional right to representation isn't even applicable yet! Thanks again for the Idaho references. Time to sign off... Cheers. :)
 
Well IDK, if that's right according to Idaho Cout Rules. I don't see it anywhere. The GJ can call witnesses that may support a defense but they make the decision after the Prosecution has presented the case including exculpatory evidence as per Brady Giglio. Trump sent his layer in lieu of himself - so maybe NY rules are different. Could Mr Geragos be incorrect - IDK. Especially re the Pros informing the defense at the time the GJ was convened - I've come up with nothing for that being a requirement. Thanks for posting this though. Moo
IMO, it's just more evidence of how the GJ is best suited for white-collar crime and prospective defendants, unlike this case where the accused was already arrested, charged, and in custody prior to convening a GJ and the prosecutor requesting the PCA-charged defendant be Indicted. MOO
 
Thank you @Seattle1 and @jepop. Your discussion made me go back to check out the timeline and compare it to when the indictment occurred. Still looking at it and trying to parcel out the ND stuff as well as look at the supplemental requests for discovery. MOO

Not pertaining to defense or alibi, but pertaining to exculpatory information:

The D motion to compel did assert two items which the D thought contained exculpatory information: Request #49 and Request #161. May 4th

The States response to that motion to compel was May 12:

Indictment was May 16th:

IMO the State knew about those two items at the time the GJ was underway and they would have presented them during the proceedings. JMO
 
^^rsbm
We have a new Federal Judge in the family (investiture was two years ago) and I'm sitting on my hands not to ask any questions about a State case -- knowing Federal Prosecutors don't have to present any evidence suggesting that the target is innocent -- including an alibi.

I think what initially concerned me about fairness for the defendant here is that BK was already arrested and charged prior to any request for an Indictment by the grand jury whereas the GJ is designed to work prior to being charged and a defendant's constitutional right to representation isn't even applicable yet! Thanks again for the Idaho references. Time to sign off... Cheers. :)
Indeed and thank you!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
235
Guests online
3,648
Total visitors
3,883

Forum statistics

Threads
592,149
Messages
17,964,208
Members
228,703
Latest member
Megankd
Back
Top