4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #93

[NCWatcher]

Well I'm going in for jury duty now and could care less what was said in hearings leading up to trial.

Jurors can do.... "Just the facts mam"

I have never heard a jury foreperson say they voted guilty due to defense or prosecution grandstanding in pre-trial hearings.

BBM

But the concern wouldn't be what a jury foreperson (or any other juror) SAYS or necessarily even what they THOUGHT explained their vote. There are lots of experiments showing unconscious effects on preferences and unconscious factors that affect decisions and affect openness to persuasion.

For example, in a study purportedly of consumer preferences participants were shown an exhibit of products. (Pantyhose-- it was an older study) The different pairs were rotated in their positions in the display across participants. People showed a high preference for whatever the pair was on the right when they viewed the display. But they didn't say "I liked it because it was on the right." Rather, they said things such as I liked the color, the texture, the "feel" of that pair etc. Turns out, right-handed people (about 85% of the population) unconsciously prefer stuff on the right. People also show a preference for the familiar. Hence the litter of campaign signs that pop up before every election. I have never heard a voter say "I voted for Smith for water commissioner because his signs were everywhere" but research suggest that DOES happen. Not with every voter, obviously, but it may happen enough that Smith wins if his opponent posted fewer signs.

And there is a lot of research showing pre-trial information does affect jury decisions. For example, Pretrial Publicity’s Effects on Jurors’ and Judges’ Decisions (Chapter 7) - The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making

"Pretrial publicity includes all media coverage (traditional and social media) of cases making their way to trial. Although many jurors believe they can ignore what they have read or heard about the case, and many judges believe they can effectively rehabilitate jurors exposed to PTP, this is typically not the case."

In BK's case, the gag order is supposed to help curtail pre-trial publicity. And I can see the logic in closing hearings...but that needs to be ALL hearings, IMO, not just picking and choosing which ones to close. IMO both sides are trying to work pre-trial publicity to their advantage. And they wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't, I guess.
IMO

 

[jepop]

I think the point they're trying to make is this:
I often hear mainstream media commenters saying : "if he was innocent he'd be screaming it from the rooftops!".
He obviously can't scream it from the rooftops, or make any public statements at all. So he's probably asked his lawyers to scream it for him, at every hearing, and that's what they've been doing.
That doesn't mean he IS, but IMO it shows his team doing the closest thing possible to what media commenters are saying he should be doing.

It's possible! But JMO it's strategic. On the face of it appears as the D team voicing their personal beliefs publicly. However I'd bet strategy rather than a lapse of professionalism at pretrial phase. jmo

 

[jepop]

Totally, totally agreed on this. What else is she going to say? "My client's guilty as sin. I wish I didn't have to try this case with this sanctimonious academic, who's also a pathological liar, as a defendant." A lawyer disciplinary board would probably bring disciplinary action against her for anything along those lines. And I'm glad she's not saying it, he needs counsel and deserves a fair trial. But that so-called "alibi" is a joke, it's more of the same that we've already seen with this defendant, AT is herself an academic, she's had years of schooling, she has to know herself it's not looking good for BK.

"What else is she going to say?"

For sure certainly not what you suggest. My point is probably, strictly speaking she doesn't need to say anything about her personal belief in his innocence at this point, given the ND order, fair trial concerns and the fact that she is an attorney in the case...unless it is strategy in which case she is doing her job in an innovative manner and taking every chance she gets! moo

 

[maskedwoman]

Anne Taylor's filing says there is proof that on other occasions BK has been star gazing.
Note.... "Other occasions."

Star gazing won't hold up in front of a jury....Why?

Because he would need the proof on his phone for November 13, 2022 at 4:00 to 4:30 AM. There has been no filings from AT that says BK's phone took videos or photos at 4 to 4:30 am that night.

You know how photos always spring up on your phone and other digital devices? Mine just came up to show me what I recorded on my phone a year ago, a house fire a few houses down.

What did BK record on his phone that night? Nothing. He turned it off to commit 4 murders and burglary.

2 Cents

I am so disappointed that this nonsense is being allowed as even a pretend "alibi" by the court. There is proof that I have been out horseback riding on many occasions but, unless there is no proof that I was horseback riding on a specific date, that is not an alibi. It wouldn't clear come close to clearing me as a suspect during a police investigation, so I don't understand why it's even being entertained by the court for an alibi for his trial.

 

[Megnut]

I am so disappointed that this nonsense is being allowed as even a pretend "alibi" by the court. There is proof that I have been out horseback riding on many occasions but, unless there is no proof that I was horseback riding on a specific date, that is not an alibi. It wouldn't clear come close to clearing me as a suspect during a police investigation, so I don't understand why it's even being entertained by the court for an alibi for his trial.

Plus, as best I can follow it, it's an alibi for before 2 am and after 4 am essentially. It's an alibi to nothing!

Jmo

 

[Justice101]

AT is claiming the State has only provided snips of video (of the white car) and no audio.

Jmo

Who cares what the car sounds like. What?????

None of my 8 security cameras on my house/property have audio. 4K video but no audio. Who cares about audio unless it is a ring camera for your front door.

They did say there was a THUMP from the house caught on a camera BUT that has nothing to do with the car. the car was parked at the time.

 

[Justice101]

To dumb down my way too long post without constantly editing.

It seems like as the defense sees what’s going to make it into trial. (Likely damning IMO)

They are trying to create confusion about what’s not going to make it into trial. (MOO)

It’s like a public game of Go Fish. But instead of a deck of cards we’re playing with every single object on planet earth.

“Do you have a purple car with green wheels and a hat on its roof?”

“Go fish”

“You are withholding the purple car with green wheels and a hat on its roof! It exists because we asked for it. What are you hiding? ”

That’s satire btw. Not direct quotes.

MOO

LMAO!!! Well done!

 

[Justice101]

FBI information needs to be turned over and judge Judge said this is notoriously difficult.

The prosecution wants a closed hearing to protect BK 's rights and not prejudice the jury pool against him.

The prosecution is bending over backwards to give BK a fair trial. A DP trial has a higher standard to meet and the prosecution doesn't want Anne Taylor crying in her soup that her innocent client didn't get his exculpatory evidence or regular evidence or a fair jury so now he has grounds for appeal.

I have never seen so many multiple hearings for trial issues that should take only one hearing.

BK is the most pampered indigent defendant I have ever seen, including money spent. I'm surprised the defense isn't taking turns rocking him to sleep at night.

2 Cents

Just spit out my coffee! Good one!

 

[ilovewings]

Just spit out my coffee! Good one!

That is a good one for sure!!!!

 

[Balthazar]

His alibi doesn't meet the threshold.

JMO

If that is true, then BT should want to take full advantage of the alibi in front of the jury instead of getting it excluded. This is an opportunity for him to demonstrate before the jury how wrong the defense is and grandstand. I don't know many prosecutors who wouldn't leap at such an opportunity. JMO.

 

[Megnut]

About his alibi defense, it's up to the Court. Judge says it lacks specificity. That's not an opinion. It's the law, applied.

The State is already on course to show how this defendant and no other commit the crimes. Silly to waste time debunking "he was somewhere else" when there's no data to back that up. If I understand her argument, AT is representing that they can't elaborate on their super secret details until they have certain discovery from the State but I think she's playing fast and loose here. Like she isn't going to commit to BK being at a certain, identifiable, verifiable somewhere until the State provides CCTV with full audio or somesuch.

We don't even know that she doesn't have it.

Besides, it's not the State's job to lay out discovery to her liking.

Nor is it the State's job to debunk all the places BK might have been but wasn't that night/morning.. They only need to prove BARD the place he was. The one place where his DNA was found, despite obvious attempts not to leave DNA, in the one place he left behind and hadn't thoroughly sanitized.

AT is a good table-pounder, I'll give her that.

JMO

 

[SpiderFalcon]

By virtue of arrest, the State does think he's guilty (that they can prove it BARD), but I think you are right about the Defense. She can't make public statements so she's using open hearings to saturate the media. Pure strategy.

As well, she's "getting it out there" that the State is refusing to turn over discovery. But I find this disingenuous too. In some cases it's discovery she already has, reports that don't exist, etc. The State can't give her what they don't have.

Today she got about 150,000 words in just under an hour out to the general public. Goal met.

JMO

Trial by hearing.....that's what she is attempting...

JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

I am so disappointed that this nonsense is being allowed as even a pretend "alibi" by the court. There is proof that I have been out horseback riding on many occasions but, unless there is no proof that I was horseback riding on a specific date, that is not an alibi. It wouldn't clear come close to clearing me as a suspect during a police investigation, so I don't understand why it's even being entertained by the court for an alibi for his trial.

BK's alibi is being treated differently than other defendants due to the infamous notoriety of the murders, the court playing to the media and this is a DP case.

Treated differently as seen here:

Later in the filing, the prosecution writes: "It has now been approximately 11 months since the State filed its 'Request for Discovery Disclosure; Alibi Demand' on May 23, 2023, and almost a year and a half since the homicides occurred. The defendant has been given more time than he is legally entitled in order to provide his alibi."

The prosecution says the alibi lacks the "specificity required" by an Idaho law which states "that the defense 'shall state the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi.'"

Why Prosecutors Say Idaho Murders Suspect Bryan Kohberger’s Alibi Is Inadequate

Prosecutors say Bryan Kohberger's alibi lacks the "specificity required" by an Idaho law.

people.com

 

[Cool Cats]

BBM

But the concern wouldn't be what a jury foreperson (or any other juror) SAYS or necessarily even what they THOUGHT explained their vote. There are lots of experiments showing unconscious effects on preferences and unconscious factors that affect decisions and affect openness to persuasion.

For example, in a study purportedly of consumer preferences participants were shown an exhibit of products. (Pantyhose-- it was an older study) The different pairs were rotated in their positions in the display across participants. People showed a high preference for whatever the pair was on the right when they viewed the display. But they didn't say "I liked it because it was on the right." Rather, they said things such as I liked the color, the texture, the "feel" of that pair etc. Turns out, right-handed people (about 85% of the population) unconsciously prefer stuff on the right. People also show a preference for the familiar. Hence the litter of campaign signs that pop up before every election. I have never heard a voter say "I voted for Smith for water commissioner because his signs were everywhere" but research suggest that DOES happen. Not with every voter, obviously, but it may happen enough that Smith wins if his opponent posted fewer signs.

And there is a lot of research showing pre-trial information does affect jury decisions. For example, Pretrial Publicity’s Effects on Jurors’ and Judges’ Decisions (Chapter 7) - The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making

"Pretrial publicity includes all media coverage (traditional and social media) of cases making their way to trial. Although many jurors believe they can ignore what they have read or heard about the case, and many judges believe they can effectively rehabilitate jurors exposed to PTP, this is typically not the case."

In BK's case, the gag order is supposed to help curtail pre-trial publicity. And I can see the logic in closing hearings...but that needs to be ALL hearings, IMO, not just picking and choosing which ones to close. IMO both sides are trying to work pre-trial publicity to their advantage. And they wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't, I guess.
IMO

Well I hope the.......

"unconscious effects on preferences and unconscious factors that affect decisions and affect openness to persuasion."

........doesn't translate to innocent people getting convicted and guilty people walking out scott free.

It is called Voir dire and it has been working for decades.

 

[NCWatcher]

Well I hope the.......

"unconscious effects on preferences and unconscious factors that affect decisions and affect openness to persuasion."

........doesn't translate to innocent people getting convicted and guilty people walking out scott free.

It is called Voir dire and it has been working for decades.

As the quote I posted indicates, there are serious concerns about voir dire being able to magically mitigate/rule out all effects of pre-trial publicity. It may be the best we've got but it's definitely not a perfect process. So sometimes the guilty may go free. Certainly we absolutely know that despite voir dire, innocent people have been convicted. Of course, during voir dire (and in other settings) people SAY they won't be affected by pre-trial publicity or by happenings outside of court during the trial. Some are probably lying but most probably aren't. They think they won't be affected by their prior exposure to information (no one admits voting for a candidate just because they saw his/her name on signs either) but people often are affected by things they aren't consciously aware of. That's just a fact. So closing hearings makes sense to me but doing it inconsistently in a willy-nilly fashion doesn't.
MOO

 

[Cool Cats]

As the quote I posted indicates, there are serious concerns about voir dire being able to magically mitigate/rule out all effects of pre-trial publicity. It may be the best we've got but it's definitely not a perfect process. So sometimes the guilty may go free. Certainly we absolutely know that despite voir dire, innocent people have been convicted. Of course, during voir dire (and in other settings) people SAY they won't be affected by pre-trial publicity or by happenings outside of court during the trial. Some are probably lying but most probably aren't. They think they won't be affected by their prior exposure to information (no one admits voting for a candidate just because they saw his/her name on signs either) but people often are affected by things they aren't consciously aware of. That's just a fact. So closing hearings makes sense to me but doing it inconsistently in a willy-nilly fashion doesn't.
MOO

For the Kohberger trial what will be significant and will likely seal his fate is what matters most to a jury...

DNA evidence. DNA is the single most important piece of evidence for a jury.
Also, the Kohberger trial will have other pieces of evidence that are significant to a jury.

What Evidence Matters to Jurors? The Prevalence and Importance of Different Homicide Trial Evidence to Mock Jurors

The present research explores how important different trial evidence is to mock jurors’ decisions. Study 1 surveys legal professionals to determine what evidence is common at homicide trials. Study 2 utilizes the list of evidence generated in ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Key words: evidence, homicide trial, juror decision-making

The present research explores how important different trial evidence is to mock jurors’ decisions. Study 1 surveys legal professionals to determine what evidence is common at homicide trials.

Study 2 utilizes the list of evidence generated in Study 1 to ask mock jurors to report how important each piece of evidence would be in deciding their verdicts.

The results indicate that DNA is most important to mock jurors, followed by:

fingerprints,
the weapon,
video records,
crime-scene photos,
gunshot residue,
bodily secretions,
video confession,
testimony from a forensic expert,
and eyewitness testimony.

Study 3 utilizes a different methodology wherein mock jurors were presented with folders labeled with different evidence and asked to choose the piece of evidence they wanted to learn more about first, second, and so on.

The results from Study 3 indicate again that DNA evidence is most important to mock jurors, followed by video confession evidence, eyewitness testimony, and fingerprint evidence. Implications are discussed.

 

[wendy44]

If that is true, then BT should want to take full advantage of the alibi in front of the jury instead of getting it excluded. This is an opportunity for him to demonstrate before the jury how wrong the defense is and grandstand. I don't know many prosecutors who wouldn't leap at such an opportunity. JMO.

It's not necessarily that he wants it excluded. He wants the Alibi Response to follow Idaho Code so that it cannot be tailored to the evidence.
JMO

 

[NCWatcher]

For the Kohberger trial what will be significant and will likely seal his fate is what matters most to a jury...

DNA evidence. DNA is the single most important piece of evidence for a jury.
Also, the Kohberger trial will have other pieces of evidence that are significant to a jury.

What Evidence Matters to Jurors? The Prevalence and Importance of Different Homicide Trial Evidence to Mock Jurors

The present research explores how important different trial evidence is to mock jurors’ decisions. Study 1 surveys legal professionals to determine what evidence is common at homicide trials. Study 2 utilizes the list of evidence generated in ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Key words: evidence, homicide trial, juror decision-making

The present research explores how important different trial evidence is to mock jurors’ decisions. Study 1 surveys legal professionals to determine what evidence is common at homicide trials.

Study 2 utilizes the list of evidence generated in Study 1 to ask mock jurors to report how important each piece of evidence would be in deciding their verdicts.

The results indicate that DNA is most important to mock jurors, followed by:

fingerprints,
the weapon,
video records,
crime-scene photos,
gunshot residue,
bodily secretions,
video confession,
testimony from a forensic expert,
and eyewitness testimony.

Study 3 utilizes a different methodology wherein mock jurors were presented with folders labeled with different evidence and asked to choose the piece of evidence they wanted to learn more about first, second, and so on.

The results from Study 3 indicate again that DNA evidence is most important to mock jurors, followed by video confession evidence, eyewitness testimony, and fingerprint evidence. Implications are discussed.

It's pretty amazing to see how high eyewitness testimony was rated in the third study (after the pilot study narrowed down the categories) despite apparently being rated dead last in Study #2. Certainly it's known eyewitness testimony is often unreliable evidence. But in reality many jurors still like it. Many studies have shown that per the intro to the above article. It's possible Study #2 participants were different somehow from typical jurors.

I also find it a bit odd jurors in Study #2 didn't want to hear from forensic experts but did prefer to see all kinds of "forensic type" evidence like fingerprints, bodily secretions, gun shot residue, and even the murder weapon. I'm not sure how any of those come in without some sort of expert testimony!

Regardless, the studies above didn't look at pre-trial influences or at unconscious influences, but looked only at mock juror overt preferences for different kinds of evidence at trial. So it's really apples and oranges. Unconscious factors in juror decision-making and conscious preferences for evidence are different things entirely.

I don't doubt many jurors today prefer to see DNA evidence. TV shows like CSI have pretty much guaranteed that. And I'm sure DNA will play a big role in this trial. But that doesn't mean pre-trial influences can be discounted as unimportant.
MOO

 

[Sundog]

BK's alibi is being treated differently than other defendants due to the infamous notoriety of the murders, the court playing to the media and this is a DP case.

Treated differently as seen here:

Later in the filing, the prosecution writes: "It has now been approximately 11 months since the State filed its 'Request for Discovery Disclosure; Alibi Demand' on May 23, 2023, and almost a year and a half since the homicides occurred. The defendant has been given more time than he is legally entitled in order to provide his alibi."

The prosecution says the alibi lacks the "specificity required" by an Idaho law which states "that the defense 'shall state the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi.'"

Why Prosecutors Say Idaho Murders Suspect Bryan Kohberger’s Alibi Is Inadequate

Prosecutors say Bryan Kohberger's alibi lacks the "specificity required" by an Idaho law.

people.com

IIRC from our earlier discussions, according to Idaho law on the Alibi Rule, a judge has a certain amount of discretion regarding the timeline for submission of a defendant's alibi, including up to the beginning of trial.

Given that this is a DP case, I think the judge will continue to try to accomodate the defense regarding their alibi defense submission, although he will push to get it submitted and likely set some more deadlines.

JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

IIRC from our earlier discussions, according to Idaho law on the Alibi Rule, a judge has a certain amount of discretion regarding the timeline for submission of a defendant's alibi, including up to the beginning of trial.

Given that this is a DP case, I think the judge will continue to try to accomodate the defense regarding their alibi defense submission, although he will push to get it submitted and likely set some more deadlines.

JMO

Yup.

I have watched a lot of murder trials and DP trials and more $ is spent for BK and more leeway and time is given on Motion rulings for him compared to what I can compare it to.

Coddled comes to mind. Sorta makes me gag.