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

[arielilane]

Bryan Kohberger and his attorneys met a steady stream of skepticism from the judge overseeing the murder suspect’s case at a hearing Thursday as they continued their push to drop the death penalty as a sentencing option.

Judge Steven Hippler, of Idaho’s 4th Judicial District, interjected frequently as the defense and prosecution volleyed arguments about Kohberger’s possible punishment if he is convicted at trial next summer of killing four University of Idaho students.

But the Ada County judge particularly challenged the defense about a litany of supposed justifications they presented to try to convince him to take the death penalty off the table – when the Idaho and U.S. supreme courts have established it as an option under the law.

In Idaho murder case, Kohberger’s defense argues death penalty ‘ought to be abolished’

Updated Thu., Nov. 7, 2024 at 10:10 p.m.

 

[MeadowMuffin]

I watched the hearing and am really liking Judge Hipler.

Don't think it'll take him long to refuse the D's motion to strike the DP.

Moo.

AT should have been careful what she wished for.

 

[Nila Aella]

State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger​

Ada County CR01-24-31665 / Latah County CR29-22-2805

• 11/07/2024 Motion for Permission to File Exhibits Under Seal for the Hearing on 11/07/24
• 11/07/2024 Motion for Permission to File Under Seal Documents Related to the Closed Hearing Held on 10/08/24
• 11/07/2024 Order for Permission to File Exhibits Under Seal for the Hearing on 11/07/24
• 11/07/2024 Order for Permission to File Under Seal Documents Related to the Closed Hearing Held on 10/08/24

Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

 

[Balthazar]

Most of the DP motions were ho-hum pedestrian motions.

However, AT gave a very strong and powerful argument as to why this should not be a DP case. Back in August 2023, BK was forced to choose between the right to have a speedy trial (starting October 2023) or the right to have effective counsel. The reason he could not have effective counsel by October 2023 was 100% because the prosecutor had not turned over all of the discovery to the defense. That situation forced BK to choose between two constitutional rights. THAT is a very serious issue in this case. No American citizen should be forced by a US court to chose between two of their constitutional rights. ALL of our rights must be inviolate and inseverable. Of the motions to remove the DP, I believe this was an incredibly powerful motion. AND it also appears that the prosecution has failed to meet their final date for turning over all discovery to the defense as the defense has sent an 18th discovery request. IMO, Judge Hippler may have no choice but to remove the DP from the table. Otherwise, Judge Hippler risks having this trial's verdict overturned in a higher court on appeal if it results in a conviction and DP. Judge Hippler's ruling on this will be interesting.

All JMO.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I see AT not getting her every whim and way with this new Judge. He seems by the book and sure not the kind to be intimidated or afraid of a little controversy. Good on him.

Meanwhile I bet Jtrips is having many calming and relaxing moments and few cocktails now that this is no longer on his shoulders. I'm okay with how this worked out actually.

JMO

 

[Swansee]

. Back in August 2023, BK was forced to choose between the right to have a speedy trial (starting October 2023) or the right to have effective counsel. The reason he could not have effective counsel by October 2023 was 100% because the prosecutor had not turned over all of the discovery to the defense. That situation forced BK to choose between two constitutional rights.

I understand the argument, but I wonder if speedy would have ever been a realistic option.
When the Defense did end up getting (most of) the discovery, their first reaction was to say that it's going to take them months to go through all of that. So even if the Prosecution had handed over everything by October 2023, I believe the Defense would still have needed a lot more time to sift through all of those terabytes of information, and waived speedy anyway.
JMO.

 

[ilovewings]

Most of the DP motions were ho-hum pedestrian motions.

However, AT gave a very strong and powerful argument as to why this should not be a DP case. Back in August 2023, BK was forced to choose between the right to have a speedy trial (starting October 2023) or the right to have effective counsel. The reason he could not have effective counsel by October 2023 was 100% because the prosecutor had not turned over all of the discovery to the defense. That situation forced BK to choose between two constitutional rights. THAT is a very serious issue in this case. No American citizen should be forced by a US court to chose between two of their constitutional rights. ALL of our rights must be inviolate and inseverable. Of the motions to remove the DP, I believe this was an incredibly powerful motion. AND it also appears that the prosecution has failed to meet their final date for turning over all discovery to the defense as the defense has sent an 18th discovery request. IMO, Judge Hippler may have no choice but to remove the DP from the table. Otherwise, Judge Hippler risks having this trial's verdict overturned in a higher court on appeal if it results in a conviction and DP. Judge Hippler's ruling on this will be interesting.

All JMO.

IMO there isn't a chance in h----that the judge will take the death penalty off the table. Her arguments are specious and weak.

 

[Balthazar]

I understand the argument, but I wonder if speedy would have ever been a realistic option.
When the Defense did end up getting (most of) the discovery, their first reaction was to say that it's going to take them months to go through all of that. So even if the Prosecution had handed over everything by October 2023, I believe the Defense would still have needed a lot more time to sift through all of those terabytes of information, and waived speedy anyway.
JMO.

This is why ALL of the discovery should have been proffered by the prosecutor on first ask by the defense - that was requested on 1/10/23. After that proffer, the defense should have had all discovery in this case including evidence that is exonerating to the defendant. If the defense had received ALL discovery in early 2023 when they originally requested it, then they would have had plenty of time to be ready for trial in October 2023, even if some small amounts of additional discovery was proffered along the way. Further, in most cases the discovery is sent to the defense in an organized manner which clearly shows the case against the defendant as well as anything which might be exonerating. It is, IMO, almost unheard of for the discovery to be forwarded to the defense in a disorganized "snow globe" type of proffer that the defense described to JJJ. That, in particular, is why this situation is the fault of the prosecution.

There is recent precedent for removing the DP. In the Lori Vallow case, Judge Boyce had to remove the DP as a option because of a similar situation with the prosecution who did not turn over discovery to the defense in a timely manner.

"Boyce’s decision came after Vallow Daybell’s defense team asked Boyce to dismiss execution as an option. The March 5 motion listed several reasons, including an allegation that the prosecution made “multiple discovery violations” by submitting thousands of documents and pieces of evidence past a deadline set by the court. “Defense counsel don’t know what we don’t have,” the motion said."

"“These disclosures were coming in at a time in the case when it could really prevent Lori’s counsel from having time to go through everything,” Bublitz said. “It puts you between a rock and a hard place. You have to be able to go through them in time.” Boyce said the items disclosed in March were “inarguably” and “inexcusably” late. He pointed to the large disclosure of evidence that was dropped the day after the deadline, plus the additional discovery that wasn’t provided to the defense until weeks after the initial deadline."

"“If I were to fail to address this discovery issue, I believe this case would inevitably be reversed on appeal if there was a capital conviction,” Boyce said. The defense agreed and in its motion said that “any death verdict” would be annulled, forcing the case to start over."

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article275347416.html#storylink=cpy

The prosecutor in BK's case had a complete discovery deadline in early September 2024. The defense has made their 18th supplemental request for discovery on October 30, 2024.


All JMO.

 

[Swansee]

@Balthazar
Thanks for sharing that; I haven't followed the Vallow case at all so this is all new info to me.
Very curious to find out whether judge Hippler sees these things along the same lines as judge Boyce.

 

[Megnut]

AT must be loathe to carry out her team's argument against the death penalty in open court as it gives the appearance she's jumped the hump on guilty. (Note, appearance. He hasn't been convicted. She hasn't conceded to conviction. It's just that she's forced, in raising the objections now, to accept for the sake of the argument that conviction is a reaĺ possibility. And that has to taste like battery acid.)

Behind all of her lengthy objections, AT's primary objective IMO is this:

According to her, jurors that get seated in DP trials have an easier time finding defendants guilty in the first place. I don't know what data she's basing that on or even if it's true, but it does seem to hold her sway.

In that case then, it's in her (her, her team's, the Defense's, BK's) best (legal) interest to have a jury that is the least bent toward conviction, if such a thing exists.

I do believe she thinks she has a better chance of defending BK against murder charges without the DP than against murder charges with DP because of what she believes to be true about potential jurors who don't shrink from the DP.

That's my take anyway.

JMO

 

[minazoe]

Most of the DP motions were ho-hum pedestrian motions.

However, AT gave a very strong and powerful argument as to why this should not be a DP case. Back in August 2023, BK was forced to choose between the right to have a speedy trial (starting October 2023) or the right to have effective counsel. The reason he could not have effective counsel by October 2023 was 100% because the prosecutor had not turned over all of the discovery to the defense. That situation forced BK to choose between two constitutional rights. THAT is a very serious issue in this case. No American citizen should be forced by a US court to chose between two of their constitutional rights. ALL of our rights must be inviolate and inseverable. Of the motions to remove the DP, I believe this was an incredibly powerful motion. AND it also appears that the prosecution has failed to meet their final date for turning over all discovery to the defense as the defense has sent an 18th discovery request. IMO, Judge Hippler may have no choice but to remove the DP from the table. Otherwise, Judge Hippler risks having this trial's verdict overturned in a higher court on appeal if it results in a conviction and DP. Judge Hippler's ruling on this will be interesting.

All JMO.

okay so this is a DP case so it will always risk being overturned in an appeal..it's automatic for an appeal either way.
this argument of choosing between constitutional rights I believe was addressed and I think the judge doesn't go for applying frivolous detours to this case as it is a clear quadruple murder by a maniac. mOO

 

[Balthazar]

AT must be loathe to carry out her team's argument against the death penalty in open court as it gives the appearance she's jumped the hump on guilty. (Note, appearance. He hasn't been convicted. She hasn't conceded to conviction. It's just that she's forced, in raising the objections now, to accept for the sake of the argument that conviction is a reaĺ possibility. And that has to taste like battery acid.)

Behind all of her lengthy objections, AT's primary objective IMO is this:

According to her, jurors that get seated in DP trials have an easier time finding defendants guilty in the first place. I don't know what data she's basing that on or even if it's true, but it does seem to hold her sway.

In that case then, it's in her (her, her team's, the Defense's, BK's) best (legal) interest to have a jury that is the least bent toward conviction, if such a thing exists.

I do believe she thinks she has a better chance of defending BK against murder charges without the DP than against murder charges with DP because of what she believes to be true about potential jurors who don't shrink from the DP.

That's my take anyway.

JMO

There have been numerous studies proving that DP qualified jurors are more likely to convict than non-DP qualified jurors, such as this one:

Effects of Death Qualification on Jurors' Predisposition To Convict and on the Quality of Deliberation | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

The studies of DP qualified juries at this link have had many different interesting outcomes, but, in chief found that the selection of a DP qualified jury produces a jury that is more likely to be biased against the defendant:

Death-Qualified Juries

courses2.cit.cornell.edu

 

[Balthazar]

okay so this is a DP case so it will always risk being overturned in an appeal..it's automatic for an appeal either way.
this argument of choosing between constitutional rights I believe was addressed and I think the judge doesn't go for applying frivolous detours to this case as it is a clear quadruple murder by a maniac. mOO

Judge Hippler has not yet issued ANY decisions for the 11 Motions presented at the recent DP Hearing. Judge Hippler is a professional and will issue his written decisions to accept or deny each motion. Denial of a US Citizen's Constitutional rights is NEVER a frivolous matter. Judge Hippler IS going to have to do some serious consideration of that motion and make the best, most well-reasearched, well-reasoned and well-supported decision he can.

 

[mickey2942]

<modsnip - off topic>

Does Idaho accept an "Alford" plea? Yes. Hmm, watch BK go for this...

FAQs • What is an Alford plea?

www.idahofallsidaho.gov

How Idaho Murders Suspect Bryan Kohberger Is Trying to Avoid Possible Death Sentence: 'Kitchen Sink Approach'

Bryan Kohberger faces four counts of murder in connection with the November 2022 killings of four University of Idaho students — and if convicted, the former criminology Ph.D student could face the death penalty.

people.com

 

[vls12345]

Oh yes I'm not disputing that, I'm just intrigued that Kohberger, knowing the law and criminality as he does, would choose to commit a crime over the border.

It could be as simple as he didn't want to do it at his university.

But this case is just so bizarre. I'm eagerly awaiting the trial and have been since he was arrested.

Moo.

I think people who commit murders in a DP state don't necessarily think they will be caught. I think that likely describes BK.

So, committing these murders in a DP state was not much of a consideration nor much of a deterrent, imo.

MOO.

 

[Swansee]

In the Idaho 4 case, Kaylee's family has been actively clamoring for the DP. The Mogens have echoed similar views, albeit less vocally. But this doesn't appear to be a unanimous sentiment among the victims' families.
Xana's mother has explained she is against the DP. Ethan's parents haven't said much, other than whatever happens at this trial won't "change the outcome" for them.
I don't know how much weight the families' opinions have anyway. I suppose they might be brought in to speak during the sentencing phase. But in a case like this where the families are divided on the topic, I'm not sure that would be helpful to a jury.

Idaho murder victims' parents divided over death penalty for killer

Some of the families of the victims have said they support the death penalty, while others hold a stance against it or have not made their views clear.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Sundog]

In the Idaho 4 case, Kaylee's family has been actively clamoring for the DP. The Mogens have echoed similar views, albeit less vocally. But this doesn't appear to be a unanimous sentiment among the victims' families.
Xana's mother has explained she is against the DP. Ethan's parents haven't said much, other than whatever happens at this trial won't "change the outcome" for them.
I don't know how much weight the families' opinions have anyway. I suppose they might be brought in to speak during the sentencing phase. But in a case like this where the families are divided on the topic, I'm not sure that would be helpful to a jury.

Idaho murder victims' parents divided over death penalty for killer

Some of the families of the victims have said they support the death penalty, while others hold a stance against it or have not made their views clear.

www.newsweek.com

IIRC, Idaho statute doesn't allow family members of victims to speak about their wishes regarding the DP during the sentencing phase when they address the jury, they are only allowed to speak about the loss they have experienced and the impact on their lives. This was discussed on this thread awhile back. I will see if I can find the related posts.

 

[whiterhino]

IIRC, Idaho statute doesn't allow family members of victims to speak about their wishes regarding the DP during the sentencing phase when they address the jury, they are only allowed to speak about the loss they have experienced and the impact on their lives. This was discussed on this thread awhile back. I will see if I can find the related posts.

Thanks for that, I do know what a victim impact statement is (given one myself). I just meant the personal desires of the families not so much input on the actual sentence. *idk why I misread that @ me, nvm!

 

[cherrybier]

Thanks for that, I do know what a victim impact statement is (given one myself). I just meant the personal desires of the families not so much input on the actual sentence. *idk why I misread that @ me, nvm!

Yep. Bill Thompson said he will discuss with the families their preferences, but ultimately it's the state who decides whether they seek DP. Imo.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

No.