ID - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 70

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Moriarty said:
EXCEPT (and there always seems to be at least one exception in these rules and codes!), the Supreme Court of Idaho has ruled that Public Defenders offices are not firms within the understanding of 1.10 of the code, since they are not for profit nor financial endeavours. As I'm sure has already been stated here somewhere, possible COI imputation to an entire public defender's office is performed on a case by case need, and there must be clear concurrent conflict of interest with other lawyers in the PD office. With the appointment of a conflict defender to replace AT, there is no concurrent COI, IMO.

The case that set this standard is itself interesting in light of BK: a man convicted of murdering his wife claimed after the trial his PD and the entire PD office had a conflict of interest because someone in that office had represented the mother of the victim. The mother's case was a civil matter seeking the life insurance of her deceased/murdered daughter and depended on finding the man guilty as the slayer. That case appears to have far more conflict of interest possibility than BK and AT, yet the courts found there was none because the man himself admitted he received an adequate defense.
Click to expand...
Wow, I'm super happy you posted. A day or two ago I posted the link to the Idaho Public Defender Commission. Crickets. :)
 
Cassady said:
As an attorney how do you fully investigate a past client for a current client when the subject of the past representation is exactly what the current client wants you to investigate?

And doing so without "materially limiting" either your ability to investigate for the current client or keep confidences of the former client?

Forwarding to trial, is the attorney able to stand up in court and argue that the former client's involvement with the illegal drug world or any past charges or convictions, including those that she represented them on, provides motives for others to commit these horrible crimes and not her current client?

IMO it is a dance most attorneys would not try to do because of the potential conflict issues...IMO.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, the subject of AT's representation of the victim family members was not "exactly what the current client wants you to investigate." This states the COI rule issue both inaccurately and too broadly.

Investigators for both the PD and the DA can interview AT's former clients about whether they of their children have been threatened or extorted by drug dealers without getting into anything they said in confidence to AT. They have every reason to do so independent of anything AT knows from those attorney client conversations. IMO, the risk is zero that AT would have to disclose confidential information from the victim families in order to investigate fully whether a SODDI defense could be made.

Most attorneys don't live in a state with only 14 attorneys qualified to lead a death penalty defense, only one of whom is in the relevant district. Uncomfortable situations must be borne in the circumstances, so long as they don't violate the rules.
 
Auntie Cipation said:
Wouldn't there be a number of Washington or Montana or Utah death penalty-qualified defense attys who are also licensed to practice in Idaho? It seems like either bringing in a new defense atty or moving the case to an adjacent state might be the easiest solution? MOO
Click to expand...
The issue is not just experience and licensure - they would have to be admitted to practice in Idaho AND listed by the PDC as DP qualified. Not impossible, but not easy either. Most importantly, not necessary IMO.
 
ExpectingUnicorns said:
It seems our judicial system is speculating that this will be a capital case. They have even, evidentially, put so much weight on this speculation that it has restricted the pool of public defenders from which they can draw.
Why then, isn't the same weight given to the speculation of conflict of interest?

As though it's good and wise to speculate on one issue but irrelevant on the other?
Click to expand...
As long as the DA has not taken the DP off the table, the PDs must treat this as a death penalty case for purposes of allocating resources. MOO
 
CGray123 said:
I'm looking for The New York Times or some other MSM to get it and curate it for us...
Click to expand...
How does that work in the US? Can the media request access to these types of documents before the trial commences (which might seem unfair or even disruptive to either side of a court case preparing their arguments), or are they restricted to reporting what is presented in court during the trial and can then request access after if the criminal investigation is closed? Does it vary state by state?

Also, would the publication ban or partial ban affect any such requests?
 
Nila Aella said:
I am comparing the request with the response.
Click to expand...
My impression is that these are boilerplate documents that pretty much cover any possible document, resource, etc. held by the other side. Basically saying, "Give me everything you have" and the response being, "We have provided everything there is that we can share..." except for the appendix of the response which clearly states, "Here is what you got." Does that seem accurate?

I suppose one could figure out as much by what LE/DA don't have to give as by what they do...?
 
Moriarty said:
How does that work in the US? Can the media request access to these types of documents before the trial commences (which might seem unfair or even disruptive to either side of a court case preparing their arguments), or are they restricted to reporting what is presented in court during the trial and can then request access after if the criminal investigation is closed? Does it vary state by state?

Also, would the publication ban or partial ban affect any such requests?
Click to expand...

I have a hunch that the Constitutional right to a fair trial will override the public’s desire to satisfy its curiosity. (And believe me, I’m as curious as anyone here!)

However, the legal details definitely vary state by state. As a general rule, you can’t ever go wrong checking what the laws of an individual state are—

However, the ‘gag order,’ as I understand it, applies to non-official commentary, not to official documents, so it probably doesn’t apply.

MOO
 
Moriarty said:
My impression is that these are boilerplate documents that pretty much cover any possible document, resource, etc. held by the other side. Basically saying, "Give me everything you have" and the response being, "We have provided everything there is that we can share..." except for the appendix of the response which clearly states, "Here is what you got." Does that seem accurate?

I suppose one could figure out as much by what LE/DA don't have to give as by what they do...?
Click to expand...
#9 in the response about exculpatory evidence. The state requested the defendant, in writing, inform the state of the defense asserted so the state can determine what information may be material. So to me that means not all of the exculpatory evidence was produced.

This one also says all material within the prosecuting attorney possession or control have been or will be disclosed or otherwise made available before the above statement about the defendant informing the state of defense asserted.JMO

I also didn't see anything about the requested drug tests. JMO

#11 The state objects to requests by defendant for anything not otherwise addressed.

I am still comparing, there are a couple more I think were not addressed by the state.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/012323 States Response to Request for Discovery.pdf

edit: spelling
edit: added 2nd paragraph in #9
 
Last edited:
Moriarty said:
How does that work in the US? Can the media request access to these types of documents before the trial commences (which might seem unfair or even disruptive to either side of a court case preparing their arguments), or are they restricted to reporting what is presented in court during the trial and can then request access after if the criminal investigation is closed? Does it vary state by state?

Also, would the publication ban or partial ban affect any such requests?
Click to expand...
Good question! Access to public records is a state law issue with potential Federal law (Constitutional Due Process) consequences. It is common for custodians of court records and criminal justice records to redact or limit access to some records, which they have discretion to do. Sometimes a judge will seal such records at the request of a party, to protect compelling interests related to the integrity of the process. As it stands, I think custodians of evidence in this case will not risk releasing anything until the MSM challenge to the judge's gag order is decided. Whether that decision will be made before the preliminary hearing in June remains to be seen.
 
Nila Aella said:
#9 in the response about exculpatory evidence. The state requested the defendant, in writing, inform the state of the defense asserted so the state can determine what information may be material. So to me that means not all of the exculpatory evidence was produced.
Click to expand...
IMO, the response doesn't imply that not all exculpatory evidence has been produced. Whether evidence is exculpatory or not depends on what the defendant is claiming in his defense. For example, if he is claiming that he did drive the car to the neighborhood on previous occasions but that he went to visit a friend in a nearby apartment, evidence that he did have and visit the friend would be exculpatory. But if he's claiming that he was never in the neighborhood, then such evidence would not be exculpatory.
 
Nila Aella said:
#9 in the response about exculpatory evidence. The state requested the defendant, in writing, inform the state of the defense asserted so the state can determine what information may be material. So to me that means not all of the exculpatory evidence was produced. [snipped BM]
Click to expand...


Could that mean certain material/info would only become exculpatory evidence in the event of the particular defense asserted?

edited- deletion
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 169 more.
Total: 1,104 (members: 170, guests: 934)

Online statistics

Members online
170
Guests online
934
Total visitors
1,104
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,778
Messages
17,958,695
Members
228,605
Latest member
0maj0
Back
Top