4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #96

[jepop]

So are the defense witnesses to testify today or not? Seems if judge just took the first DP motion (method) under advisement, that Dr Wolf won't testify today as pretty sure her testimony was to be in support of that one. Moo

 

[arielilane]

@MailOnline


Idaho murders suspect Bryan Kohberger learns if he'll face death penalty

 

[Nila Aella]

So are the defense witnesses to testify today or not? Seems if judge just took the first DP motion (method) under advisement, that Dr Wolf won't testify today as pretty sure her testimony was in support of that one. Moo

Neither will testify, he took the study and article as proffers and left open hearing from Cover later if additional information is needed by the Court. D was able to use the information in the study/article submitted to the Court during their argument.

JMO

 

[jepop]

Neither will testify, he took the study and article as proffers and left open hearing from Cover later if additional information is needed by the Court. D was able to use the information in the study/article submitted to the Court during their argument.

JMO

Thanks very much for the info ( not watching live).

 

[Nila Aella]

Thanks very much for the info ( not watching live).

He also allowed AT to provide additional material to the Court from Wolf that was not included in the court submission prior to the hearing.

JMO

 

[arielilane]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1854576249823543454

 

[arielilane]

Its 10:35 am MT, 10 min recess.

 

[arielilane]

According to Court TV: defense may call witnesses:

-- Forensic pathologist
-- Law professor [who examined and researched capital punishment]

 

[arielilane]

Court is back in session

 

[arielilane]

@BrianEntin

Bryan Kohberger hearing back from break. Defense arguing to take death penalty off the table. You can stream here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1854584222767342065

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I haven't been tracking this case too closely for a while so apologies for jumping in at this juncture... but wouldn't 'taking the DP off the table' have been part of a plea deal negotiation before the trial started? Contingent on BK taking responsibility of course. Or even still is part of a negotiation that could be still put forward?

But how has the ethics of DP become part of the actual trial itself? I'm confused :/

 

[schooling]

The argument against including multiple victims as an aggravator was certainly interesting...one of their reasonings (there were others just as eyebrow raising) IMO was the argument that it's possible not all of the murders would meet 1st degree (again, MOO).

Now, I'm not a legal expert so I don't know the specifics of what Idaho considers murder 1 and whether any of the other charges raises this to murder 1.

BUT.... with my general understanding, my mind immediately jumps to the theory: BK pre-planned/pre-meditated the murder of 1 person . Entered the house with a plan to kill one person. Ended up murdering 3 more in the course of the crime (MOO). But did not intend to (and I know in some states these all still rise to 1st degree MOO).

Is this a window into the prosecutors case?

Any lawyers in here have an opinion? Was it strictly a legal argument or is it more prescient and getting down to intent?

All MOO

 

[Sundog]

@newsfromkerri

Potential death penalty method to be discussed.

<snipped for focus>

Glad to see this. It's a bigger issue than just BK.

 

[joe jones]

The argument against including multiple victims as an aggravator was certainly interesting...one of their reasonings (there were others just as eyebrow raising) IMO was the argument that it's possible not all of the murders would meet 1st degree (again, MOO).

Now, I'm not a legal expert so I don't know the specifics of what Idaho considers murder 1 and whether any of the other charges raises this to murder 1.k

BUT.... with my general understanding, my mind immediately jumps to the theory that he pre-planned/pre-meditated going inside of the house to kill 1 and ended up murdering 4 (MOO). Is this a window into the prosecutors case?

Any lawyers in here have an opinion? Was it strictly a legal argument or is it more prescient?

MOO

The argument against including multiple victims as an aggravator was certainly interesting...one of their reasonings (there were others just as eyebrow raising) IMO was the argument that it's possible not all of the murders would meet 1st degree (again, MOO).

Now, I'm not a legal expert so I don't know the specifics of what Idaho considers murder 1 and whether any of the other charges raises this to murder 1.

BUT.... with my general understanding, my mind immediately jumps to the theory that he pre-planned/pre-meditated going inside of the house to kill 1 and ended up murdering 4 (MOO). Is this a window into the prosecutors case?

Any lawyers in here have an opinion? Was it strictly a legal argument or is it more prescient?

MOO

I doubt her argument would be an admission that he only intended to kill one, as he is pleading not guilty to all 4, plus that theory makes the killing of the other 3 murders to kill witnesses which surely rises to Murder 1,

 

[schooling]

I doubt her argument would be an admission that he only intended to kill one, as he is pleading not guilty to all 4, plus that theory makes the killing of the other 3 murders to kill witnesses which surely rises to Murder 1,

I didn't say it was a direct admission. That would be silly of course. But in the initial argument the attorney (not AT) and the judge discussed what would happen if not all of the deaths met the criteria for 1st degree. The defense believes that the aggravator should only be considered then. JMO

That was my interpretation. Again, not explicit, more nuanced.

MOO

 

[joe jones]

I didn't say it was a direct admission. That would be silly of course. But her and the judge discussed what would happen if not all of the deaths met the criteria for 1st degree. The defense believes that the aggravator should only be considered then. JMO

That was my interpretation. Again, not explicit, more nuanced.

MOO

I understand now, that would be for penalty phase if he's found guilty,

 

[Sundog]

I haven't been tracking this case too closely for a while so apologies for jumping in at this juncture... but wouldn't 'taking the DP off the table' have been part of a plea deal negotiation before the trial started? Contingent on BK taking responsibility of course. Or even still is part of a negotiation that could be still put forward?

But how has the ethics of DP become part of the actual trial itself? I'm confused :/

The defense is discussing the method of execution, which could be unknown if and when a death penalty sentence is rendered. She is arguing that this is unjust to sentence a person to death and have them wait on death row, possibly for years, and not know the method of their pending execution.

That's how I am understanding what I am reading.

 

[arielilane]

Its Wiki, so take with a grain of salt.

Capital punishment in Idaho - Wikipedia

• List of people executed in Idaho
• List of death row inmates in Idaho

 

[arielilane]

Recess for lunch until 1:00 pm MT

 

[Sundog]

But how has the ethics of DP become part of the actual trial itself? I'm confused :/

I think the defense is arguing that not knowing the method of execution and having a person waiting on death row and not knowing what the method of execution will be (whether lethal injection, firing squad, gas chamber, hanging, or other).

The judge asked DT if she was arguing that a wait on death row with this unknown would be anxiety-producing and if that was what she was arguing. He then said that the courts have ruled against this argument. She wasn't prepared to be pinned down with an answer to that exact question at this time, IMO. I think she'll leave that up to her experts' testimonies, at least for now.


JMO.IANAL