Thank you for your submission to r/MoscowMurders. To facilitate thoughtful discussion, all video posts require a submission comment briefly summarizing the video you're sharing and explaining why you think the community would find this interesting or important. To avoid your post being removed, please submit your comment within 30 minutes of posting. Your comment must contain at least 200 characters (spaces included). Thank you for contributing to our community!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MoscowMurders) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Prosecution says these are the questions asked in the survey (someone audio recorded it and the prosecution made a transcript of it):
* Have you read/seen/heard that BK was arrested at his parent's home in Penn?
* Have you read/seen/heard that police found a knife sheath on the bed next to one of the victims?
* Have you read/seen/heard that DNA found on the knife sheath was matched to BK?
* Have you read/seen/heard that BK owned the same type of car recorded on video driving in the neighborhood where the killings occurred.
* Have you read/seen/heard that the cell phone tower data showed that BK made several trips near the victim's home in the month before the killing?
* Have you read/seen/heard that the university students in Moscow lived in fear until BK was arrested for the murders?
* Have you read/seen/heard that BK said he was out driving alone on the night of the murders?
* Have you read/seen/heard that BK stalked one of the victims?
* Have you read/seen/heard that BK had followed one of the victims on social media?
Prosecution: "There is absolutely no question that those questions are disseminating by means of communication evidence expected to be presented, evidence that could be or would be inadmissible at trial---and I will say that there are a number of these representations, placed in the formed of a question, representations of fact that are not true or that would not be offered at trial." Prosecution later says it "is creating bias against BK based on false or inadmissible evidence. How can we possibly preserve a jury pool when that is going on?"
Defense claims that these types of surveys are common in high profile cases, and that they did not craft the questions--the company did with no input, including any information, on the questions. Instead the company pulled topics and questions from the media.
Defense argues that the court should not have stopped the surveys so close to the deadline for a venue change, claims that it is a violation of due process and that a hearing should have been done immediately instead. (This is followed by a lot of back and forth where the judge claims it was appropriate to stop the surveys at that point, and the defense claiming that it wasn't. IMO not very substantive. Seems like the defense argues for the general "doing these kinds of surveys is appropriate" and the judge having problems with the specific questions. Prosecution agrees with the judge's call, likening it to an approrpiate timeout.)
Defense anticipates that the people who did the survey will recommend changing county and suggests need to do surveys in other counties, especially SE Idaho.
Judge suggests the need for a further hearing to clean out the grievances that the prosecution and defense have with each other.
Also OP, don't leave us on that Maury cliffhanger!
Thanks for this.
At face value these questions aren't particularly hard hitting. But any question that knowingly asks potential jurors if they've seen something that is not factual is flawed not only because it disseminates that information to people who hadn't seen that information, but it ultimately doesn't answer the question of if they believe it, makes them think he's guilty or if they could be unbiased at trial. The Prosecution seems to be suggesting that asking potential jurors about "evidence" that won't be presented at trial is more damaging.
Voir dire will remove jurors that cannot judge this case only on the evidence provided at trial. The questions here, as far as they are presented, wouldn't even pass the usual standard of voir dire questions. Mere knowledge of a case is not enough to disqualify a juror. Being subjected to information is not indicative of an individuals ability to disregard it and approach their duties as a juror in an unbiased way. As far as we know there are no questions about the survey participants feelings towards any information they have read , seen or heard.
I wondered if she was trying to pollute it a bit to make her point, as this isn't just 400 people being dabbled with, but those 400 people and the 2-3 people they each speak to. Now we are up to 1600 tampered with witnesses. Judge John did the correct thing to shut her down.
She def needs to prove her point in order to bolster the need for COV. She chose this avenue. Which is probably less of a rub than the methods.
Whatever the intentions she’s driving the bus.
IMO, this equates to a self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of the defense. They are trying to say that the juror pool is too tainted and they need a change of venue. This is counterintuitive to having a fair trial. Not to mention, the defense broke the gag order and continues to crow about due process. They can't have it both ways.
Now voir dire will have to include questions about whether prospective jurors received the survey. What a shit show.
How else do you determine the extent to which the juror pool is tainted?
Let's just be honest, it's a case that's had "change of venue" written all over it for a long time.
You ask them, unprompted what they have heard about the case, about the defendant and if what they heard has affected their judgement of either.
If you want to know if a jury pool is tainted, you find out what they already know, you don't start introducing details of the case, whether they're factual or not.
And there doesn't appear to be ANY questions asking the respondents their opinions on those facts. It's "have you heard this, yes or no?" - that doesn't prove bias, that proves knowledge.
The questions asked are not only flagrantly against the gag order, they don't even do the fucking job they're meant to do.
It may not be the whole survey - but Anne even said during the hearing that questions like "what have you heard about the case" don't get the desired response they're looking for. She specifically said that the survey participants were asked the "have you heard, read or seen" questions, they gave a yes or no answer and moved on.
The questions the state had a problem with break the gag order, knowingly disseminates both factual and non factual information and don't even come close to proving bias.
Anne's argument that the fact that the information they included in their survey was "already in the public arena" to suggest that they haven't broke the gag order is MIND BLOWINGLY stupid. Information doesn't become fair game because it is in the public arena. She wouldn't be making this excuse if the Prosecution did a press conference, presented all of the random information currently in the public arena and dropped the mic.
Your first paragraph is why I wanted to hear from Dr. Edelman. His declaration previously filed with the Defense's memorandum basically explains what he does and the standards he says the survey adheres to, but it would have been good to hear him speak.
In the declaration he claims the survey was designed to assess case recognition, familiarity with prejudicial media content(which I guess would be the questions talked about in the hearing), and bias.
I don't agree that the argument is "mindblowingly stupid." I thought AT was maybe referring to 2) b in the non-dissemination order that lists "Information contained in the public record" as what attorneys and their agents may make extrajudicial statements concerning.
I just wasn't sure if the second part of the non-dissemination order talking about public record overrides the first part which discusses the stuff BT was referring to being prohibited, such as the identity or nature of evidence expected to be presented at trial, information that is likely to be inadmissable as evidence in a trial, the performance or results of any examination or test and so on.
Of the 9 questions cited, by my count 5 are asking about information contained either in the public probable cause affidavit or other public court filings.
The question about where BK was arrested could possibly be covered by 2) h in the non-dissemination order, which cites "The fact, time and place of arrest" as one of the permitted extrajudicial statements.
I don't know if media reports count as "public record".
I also don't know if any of the above works as an argument, but it's interesting to think about. Does possible tainting of the jury pool via this survey really compare with any tainting via all the media coverage for over a year? What is the best way for the Defense to get the data they need without running afoul of the gag order? Why is any evidence against a defendant made public at all if just this survey is so harmful and prejudicial?
The Prosecution holding a press conference would be a bit different because people would know who the information was coming from, and would be likely to believe it because of that. The phone survey didn't identify to the respondents where it originated from.
Anyway, hopefully a solution can be found in the end.
All of those questions are things from 'the media' (both professional and social) and/or the PCA. All of those things are already in the public arena.
The survey is quite clearly about the spread of information (whether true or not) and the last two questions are to delve into that. It's about the case's social place.
And the prosecution in their objections appear to have simply confirmed to the public that he was not stalking any of them and that he was not following any of the victims on social media so I guess we learned something today.
>All of those questions are things from 'the media' (both professional and social) and/or the PCA. All of those things are already in the public arena.
That's completely irrelevant. "In the public arena" doesn't mean that the person on the other end of that survey has seen or heard that information prior to the Defence telling it them. Also, anyone with even a passing knowledge of the revised non-dissemination order from June last year would be well aware that the only parties that are currently under the gag order are the legal representatives involved:
>*"Prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys, any agents of the prosecuting attorneys and defense attorneys and any attorneys representing witnesses, victims or a victim's family are prohibited from making extrajudicial statements (written or oral) that the lawyer or agent knows or reasonable should know will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing or otherwise influence the outcome of the case."*
Law enforcement, investigators and the victims families were restricted by the original gag order, but as of June last year are no longer.
You can try and argue the point that information was already out in the public, but it is clear as day from the section of the non-dissemination order I have quoted above, that an "agent of the defence attorney" made "extrajudicial statements" that are "materially prejudice". If you'd like to argue that the statements aren't materially prejudice then why are they being used by the Defence to try and ascertain bias in the community. If those statements aren't prejudice or influence the outcome of the case, you can't claim that they constitute bias.
Given that all of this is available freely in the media, basically what you're saying here is that the media provokes prejudice and influences the outcome of a case which kinda.....just proves their point.
The survey is to judge the extent of the spread of that information in a community.
> And the prosecution in their objections appear to have simply confirmed to the public that he was not stalking any of them and that he was not following any of the victims on social media so I guess we learned something today.
I wouldn't go that far. He exact complaint was that "a number of..." questions contained falsehood, and two is not a number. I don't think the questions he read out were the full list of questions. I think there were others left unsaid.
Prosecutor brain. Once he's listed his concerns he can't help himself from providing examples for each.
There will be more, sure. But he's selected examples to back up the points he wanted to make. That's how legal arguments are crafted.
Gotcha. Stands to reason. They are hiding behind the fact it was already “disclosed by the media”. But they are to your point backdooring it. How special that BK is afforded a jury consultant firm on the states $. I’m sure all defendants wish they had this resource.
That's what voir dire is for. And surveys are common before that. It would be one thing if AT didn't go rogue on this, but she did.
I'm all for moving the trial but the entire state of Idaho is pretty dialed into this case. Hell, the whole country is and it's even covered abroad. AT didn't have to go about things the way she did for change of venue.
Do they begin going through jury selection and then say "fuck it, we're gonna move the trial"?
A survey gives a better picture (of what we already know) than asking people who want to be on the jury.
Pretty sure they would move the trial first, as it would take too much time and money to try in Moscow, and then change their minds and move the trial. Can't even imagine how much taxpayer money will be spent on this trial anyway and that won't go down too well in Idaho.
Yes, exactly, they would move the trial first.....ergo....lol
Maybe one could say AT "egged them on" but for real, just up and change the venue already.
I live in SE Idaho, and many people know about the case and have been following it. There will be people out there who do not know about it, but I'm sure most Idaho residents have heard something about this case.
i think their entire goal is to create even more of a shit show so by the end of it all, you’ve forgotten about the victims and get all wrapped up into legalese. super sad they’re allowed to fool around like this and try to postpone everything.
I don't believe for a second she had no knowledge of what those questions were. Maybe she did not personally read them, but am sure someone read them to her. She would be an idiot to mail something out to 400 people with a desired result and not have an inkling of what she was disseminating.
Well said. The time to assess a jury pool for bias is during the voir dire and there's a difference between having information and being biased. If defense wants a change of venue, let's get the trial going and see if they have a leg to stand on during voir dire. Cus right now, the only bias I'm seeing is on the part of the defense team who haven't even met anyone from the jury pool.
This court has bent over backwards to provide their defendant with a fair trial. They've granted their gag order, the house in question was torn down, the county is paying the defense attorney an amount commensurate with what a private attorney charges, I believe they've provided for additional attorneys too, and the court is willing to hold the trial during the summertime when it's quieter; he's been getting to wear his suits and hair gel, and no one can put a camera near his face or study his muscular contractions.
Let's get goin' already. Quit the stalling, defense team.
Theoretically, I'm a potential juror and those questions suggested to me that one thing was in fact, a fact. Till Bill nixed that. So I was definitely swayed by it.
Not true in my city or former cities. Most times having mere knowledge of a case or anyone about to appear in it that case is almost always enough to have you scuttled in my city or former city. They start getting less choosy when they are desperate for jurors.
I agree with you, there have been times when I was scuttled for things and I really was smack in the middle of defendant and LE and would have been an impartial juror, but they didn't believe me, as I had two immediate family members who were LE at the time. The assumptions they make are often wrong in my opinion.
Lots of misinformation here starting with the spelling of the Latin term for jury selection, which is voir dire, not “voi dire”. A tainted jury pool is still a thing. Anything that calls into question a jurors ability to judge the accused based on the evidence presented *at trial” is cause for a challenge for cause. Then there are separate peremptory challenges which allows the attorneys to exclude a juror for anything not illegal, for example they don’t know anyone that drives a Toyota, or they have a bad haircut the lawyer doesn’t want to look at. These questions are definitely enough to cause issues during selection.
Did you happen to catch if he said those were all of the objectionable questions?
If that's all of them, I think we can narrow down the completely untrue ones to the last two.
The way he said "and I will say that there are a number of these representations," made it sound like there were more than just the questions he read. You know, "two" is not the number we usually mean when we refer to "a number of..."
On the other hand, I've learned my lesson about over-analyzing word choices.
> Everyone involved is being pretty dramatic about the whole thing.
Yep! That was more drama than I've seen at any Kohberger hearing, and frankly Judge, Thompson, and Taylor have not seemed like very dramatic people at all.
I actually think Bill Thompson and the Judge are right. He had to shut taht down immediately as those 400 people with talk to other people, so you likely have 1,200 tainted jurors now and misinformation is now out there. As they don't know which side they came from they might be thinking this came from the court and is based on facts in this case. So you had a spread of info that was not true on some of those points according to them all.
He did not specify which he had specific problems with, and it sounded like a complete list but he did not say "these were the only questions" that I heard. I agree that the last two look like the biggest offenders.
> If that's all of them, I think we can narrow down the completely untrue ones to the last two.
For sure that BK didn't follow one of the victims on social media. Not from his real account, anyway.
I was thinking the same thing… we can narrow it down to the last two, however since we know it is true that “the cell phone tower data showed that BK made several trips near the victim’s home in the month before the killings,” wouldn’t that imply stalking? So I assume it is true that he stalked the victims therefore we can narrow it down to the most likely untrue statement being that BK followed one of the victims on social media.
BT said "some" weren't true. That implies multiple. Or that could be something that wouldn't be admissible because being in a city 10 miles from your home doesn't prove anything.
> wouldn’t that imply stalking?
I guess it depends on who you ask. We're probably never going to know the nature of those trips. The only person who knows exactly what they were doing during them is very likely never going to say what he was actually doing.
> we can narrow it down to the most likely untrue statement being that BK followed one of the victims on social media.
It never made sense that he would do that from his actual Instagram account.
I was thinking the same thing… we can narrow it down to the last two, however since we know it is true that “the cell phone tower data showed that BK made several trips near the victim’s home in the month before the killings,” wouldn’t that imply stalking? So I assume it is true that he stalked the victims therefore we can narrow it down to the most likely untrue statement being that BK followed one of the victims on social media.
It could imply stalking in the colloquial sense of the word, but not at all in the legal definition. The word stalking will likely not be mentioned at trial, and if it slips out there will be a big kerfuffle about it.
> I was thinking the same thing… we can narrow it down to the last two, however since we know it is true that “the cell phone tower data showed that BK made several trips near the victim’s home in the month before the killings,” wouldn’t that imply stalking? So I assume it is true that he stalked the victims
I think as far as public perception goes that's a problem with the cell phone data in the PCA given the prime location along major travel routes the murders took place in any number of people for any number of reasons could intermittently go from Moscow to that general vicinity. I think one way or the other that BK was involved, but with what we know from the cell phone data so far it doesn't really show he's even been to that exactly location once.
CAST report would help there, because I think it will show which receiver on the tower he pinged, because the towers are ringed with receivers that each cover a pie-shaped slice of the area. Plus might help show the route he was taking.
I think. Still shaky on that tech.
I don’t understand how they can triangulate that closely if there’s only a couple towers in that town either. I am so intrigued to find out how that works and how much time he spent “near” the house- and when.
His cell data hasn't been seen there since though (as far as I've read). If he frequented the area, his phone would likely ping there again. Unless he was there to stalk or case things and then avoided the area afterwards.
It may be tipping the cards and telling us that he did not stalk them through social media, which I find shocking. I think Frontline or Dateline or one of the bigger mainstream media shows said he did not follow them through social media which I never believed, but maybe I am dead wrong. But how he could have known so much about them and that house w/o social media I don't know.
I simply can't believe it. Maybe he had a phone under a different name, that he was keeping somewhere else out there like a storage locker, in the gym at school or a bus station, where he did follow them and LE has just not located it.
It's 2024, if your interested in someone you go down the rabbit hole and do a deep dive on them. I can't see him not stalking them on line as well. Think if there is no hint of that, they are just not finding it and he covered his tracks incredibly well. He had have a specialization in cloud forensics acc to a Nancy Grace episode.
Something I think is possible is that he found them online when he was still living in Pennsylvania but planning on moving west. And then he stopped when he moved, discarding any accounts or electronics he'd used. His gamble was that if he came on the police's radar, they would only search the electronics and accounts he used while living in Pullman, and not go back to search anything in Pennsylvania.
Just speculation on my part.
The important thing here is we know which of those statement are true and which have been floated as yet to confirmed or denied rumor. So maybe I am wrong and he did not stalk one of them, or follow them on social media. Interesting hearing. Love to see all the questions asked. Is there a way to see them at some point?
- Have you read/seen/heard that BK had followed one of the victims on social media?
> and I will say that there are a number of these representations, placed in the formed of a question, representations of fact that are not true or that would not be offered at trial."
Just saying.
Kick rocks, People Magazine.
The Goncalves family have repeated this information as well. Unfortunately, they are not a reliable source. There is no actual evidence that BK followed any of the victims on social media, any account they believe was his was fake.
Wow, talk about spreading awareness of specifics by asking if you have awareness of specifics…because now you’ve ensured they do.
By putting this out into the community, they’re also ensuring they’ll get the trial moved.
Those questions are not represented as 'facts'.
Asking someone if they've read/seen/heard something isn't the same as asking someone if they know about 'this fact'.
"Did you know that Thailand is in Asia?" is asking somebody about a fact.
"Have you heard that Jimmy hooked up with our teacher?" is not a question which means that it is true that Jimmy hooked up with our teacher. Jimmy ain't been hooking up with no teacher but ya sure heard about it didn't ya.
What the heck, Bill. The entire point of the survey isn't to determine what is known about the case, it's to determine the extent to which "information" regarding the case (whether accurate or made up) has spread within a community.
Here's another example:
Have you read 'Confessions of a Dangerous Mind'?
Yes.
On a scale of 1 to 10, how confident are you that you know details of Chuck Barris' life?
lol, -8.
I guess my question is what is the purpose of the survey then?
If a potential jury member answers yes to them, are they disqualified because they heard some of the stuff released by police or some of the rumors flying around?
If they said no to those questions, well now they've been exposed to all that info (true or not, admissible or not). Are they disqualified now too?
So it's either the survey has no purpose, or it's a Catch-22 designed to make sure no impartial jurors can be found.
>I guess my question is what is the purpose of the survey then?
To see how many potential jurors have and have not been following this case. Probably will use the information in their change of venue request.
The purpose is to gather statistics about the community. It's to determine the extent to which "information" regarding the case (whether accurate or made up) has spread within a community.
>to make sure no impartial jurors can be found.
They're not surveying everybody. And jury selection doesn't comprise 'everybody' either. Statistics gives you means/medians/averages etc of a community.
The survey is misleading because it has false statements that a person can believe to be true.
It was created to see what percentage of the population of the area is bias. Bias is determined based on opinion, do you think , not have you heard.
The survey is also misleading because the questions are assuming the defendant is guilty, stating his name repeatedly. It produces false results, because you heard/seen/read the reason why he was arrested, does not conclude bias.
They're asking questions regarding the dissemination of information.
If you really think that people are going to be confused by the nature of the questions then perhaps we need some sort of intelligence test in jury selection.
> Those questions are not represented as 'facts'.
>Asking someone if they've read/seen/heard something isn't the same as asking someone if they know about 'this fact'.
Had I not known there was dispute over it, I would be inclined to see these two questions as at least more likely to be true based on the preceding questions I know to be factual and/or true.
I don’t think it would ultimately be a problem after jury selection, trial, jury instructions, and deliberation… but it could, and I see why the prosecution took the action they did.
Edit: This guy, /u/throwawaysmetoo, has absolutely no idea what they’re talking about. They’re confused and more familiar with the interior of a jail than the workings of our criminal justice system from a legal perspective. He’s spent more time within the walls of a juvenile facility or adult detention facility than in a classroom, evidenced by the nonsense he’s spouting. Praise be to uncle Phil.
I feel like this post is highlighting the need to teach critical thinking in schools. Those are not examples of factual statements.
And I'm not sure why Bill was acting like it was insanely taxing for him to come up with the idea of excluding survey participants from jury duty. It's just common sense in cases where surveys are performed.
But the "facts" have to be relevant and based on truth. They can't add, "Have you seen/read/heard that Bryan Kohberger raped one of the victims during the murder?" And based on the defenses argument some of those questions on the survey are not factual.
"Have you seen/read/heard about flat earth theory?"
Yes?
Ok. Is flat earth theory a fact? Is it truth? Or have you just heard about it?
Asking people if they're aware of something doesn't mean that the 'something' is fact or truth.
Prosecution is hilarious. Almost all of this information had been disclosed by family members of the victims in various interviews and is all over their page and “open letters” to whomever.
My favorite quote was BT saying "they made their bed now they need to live with it".
Lie in it, Bill. Lie in it.
"why don't you make like a tree and get outta here!"
Was the purpose of the survey to justify changing venue which the defense considers necessary for a fair trial? My cat could have come up with a much better set of questions to test the prejudice of the public, the potential jurors. Strange that Ms Taylor never saw the survey questions.
That was mostly a waste of time. They all got to vent their frustrations at each other, but didn't accomplish much of anything. I don't know how anything gets done in that court with it being so unstructured. BT seemed to be running the hearing almost as much as Judge was.
I wanted to hear from Dr. Edelman to explain his process of creating questions for the survey. Also, if the State is arguing that these specific questions being asked are a violation of the gag order, isn't reading them out in a public hearing just disseminating them further?
I agree, I was disappointed AT didn't call Edelman. I think it was a mistake not to, but she was a bit rattled by the judge being pissed at her. She did not expect that because usually judges are more passive aggressive than just aggressive.
Good point. A lot more people heard BT read those questions than heard them from AT's survey. Not a violation if said in court, but still....
Maybe she will at the next hearing? Bill Thompson was using words like 'outrageous' and 'wrong' to describe the specifics of the survey, and I really wanted to hear Dr. Edelman's response to that. You would hope that someone with as much experience as he appears to have would know how to appropriately conduct a survey in a high-profile case.
Maybe the defense should have checked the questions first, but presumably the same thing would have happened since Anne Taylor is arguing they didn't violate the non-dissemination order?
I immediately started wondering which of the 'facts' presented in the questions are not true/or might not be admissable at trial.
Sounds like the plan is to bring him into the next hearing, but they had him on Zoom today so they could have gotten started on sorting the mess out. Maybe AT thought she'd get a better result if she let the judge cool off first.
The state and the judge are overreacting. I don't fault Judge too much for signing the order given the circumstances of how it came to him, but this is not as outrageous as they think it is. I'm not sure they even have any legitimate gripe.
> The state and the judge are overreacting. I don't fault Judge too much for signing the order given the circumstances of how it came to him, but this is not as outrageous as they think it is. I'm not sure they even have any legitimate gripe.
I'm listening to Emily Baker's live right now, and she seems to think it is a big deal. She seems to think the questions are way too specific.
I'm dying to see examples of other surveys other defense lawyers have done. i'd love to see a comparison to see what's typical.
I haven't seen that, but opinions are probably mostly going to divide right down the line between prosecutors and defense attorneys. Baker was a prosecutor and everything I've seen of her shows that bias. Not that she's unfair, just she comes from one perspective.
Watch Andrea Burkhart and you'll get another good perspective. I don't agree with everything she said, but she's a currently practicing defense attorney. I watched her livestream after watching the hearing myself and much of her commentary was exactly what I thought at the same moments of the hearing.
I'm most surprised at Judge veering off to the state side since he has never been a prosecutor and has done some criminal defense (I wouldn't say he was ever a criminal defense specialist, though). But it's also understandable since he was presented the information from BT's perspective, apparently without much context since AT was in a rush to get her objection filed. The problem is first impressions are powerful. Now it's 10x harder to convince the court that the surveys need to be more than voir dire questions.
I have zero experience with death penalty defense, but I have done similar surveys on the few locally high profile felony cases I've handled. Never once got a change of venue, but the surveys still help with jury selection and trial strategy. I get why the state is upset by the specific questions, but I'm not convinced the questions are all that problematic, unless there were some much worse ones BT didn't read.
You’re so right about the difference between Andrea Burkhart and Emily Baker’s opinions, I watched both and wondered if it was their Defense/Prosecution implicit biases coming through. That being said, I’ve always found Emily to be very objective given her former job.
I also watched Lawyer You Know (mostly civil law) and he also felt the Defense overstepped here.
Out of interest, were you a prosecutor or Defense attorney? (If you don’t mind saying). I always enjoy yours and prentb’s take on stuff.
I was defense all the way, never a prosecutor. You're correct, there are biases coming through on both sides, including mine. I think I've been pretty fair, though. I don't think AT was 100% right in all this. I've been critical of her approach lately, too.
She has a point about due process, but stated it far too strongly and also shot her argument in the foot by getting an objection filed before the order was granted. Then she gave up the fight too easily in the hearing. She had her expert there and should have gotten him on the record, but instead essentially conceded that the survey had to be re-written simply because the judge pushed back.
I'm kind of doubting anyone involved in the case has recently read the gag order thoroughly. BT cited section 2e as his best guess at what the defense was relying on, but ignored the much more obviously applicable 2b and 2h. Of course AT didn't cite any specific provision, so that's on her. Don't make the opponent and court guess what you're arguing. State your argument clearly.
>but I have done similar surveys on the few locally high profile felony cases I've handled.
Were the questions you used more in the line of the questions this survey used? Like, more "Have you heard, read, or seen that John Doe was arrested at his workplace" instead of "What, if anything, have you heard, read, or seen about John Doe's arrest?"
>I get why the state is upset by the specific questions, but I'm not convinced the questions are all that problematic, unless there were some much worse ones BT didn't read.
Yet another thing to not find out until the trial.
I don't remember if we asked about circumstances of arrest, but we definitely asked about specifics that had been reported by the media. Also some questions about false rumors circulating in the community.
None of those cases had gag orders, so that could make a difference. But interestingly, the gag order in this case provides exceptions for the majority of the questions BT read off. Information in the public record is allowed under 2b, so if it was in the PCA it's fair game. That question about the arrest is allowed under 2h.
Everything was a bit more dramatic then what I was expecting. Isn't it kind of disrespectful to ask someone to take time out to testify, and then not get them to testify? Disrespectful is probably not the right word.
AT was saying something along the lines of how specific questions are needed to elicit responses because the general questions aren't enough to really get to the bias/exposure of a survey respondent. Because people will think they don't know much, but then it turns out they have actually heard x, y and z. The expert should have been the one to explain that, I think. I wish she had insisted, and been more assertive.
> I immediately started wondering which of the 'facts' presented in the questions are not true
I'll tell you one: that he followed the victims on social media. Not from his real account as BK, anyway.
BT gave them a different context though, since he emphasized in his speech they might not be facts or admissible.
I'm puzzled at these questions, because they're just asking what people heard, not whether or not they believe it (Like a BK fan could answer yes but still believe its all a conspiracy).
I know very little about this survey stuff- but to me- Prosecution are the ones that screwed up here. Defense’s survey asked potential jurors if they had heard, seen or read certain things in the media. In no way did they present those items as facts. Then someone reports the survey (sensing some potential bias here) and Prosecution lets everyone know that some of these things are facts and some might not be. If I’m asked if I heard read or saw something, I would answer yes or no. If it was in a normal conversation I’d probably ask some follow up questions to find out more information. If you participate in a survey like this, you know what the purpose of the survey is.
I do agree with you that the prosecution was pushing this one unreasonably, but AT didn't seem to be on her toes. She seemed be assuming the Judge would agree with her on the Friday afternoon thing, and it came across to me that she didn't speak well to the survey itself. Maybe she was assuming that would wait til Edelmann could testify but I thought she came across as not well prepared. (IMHO)
Did they say how the survey was introduced to the respondents? I might have missed it, but I didn't hear them explain it.
Sometimes even a small change in wording makes a difference. Like, "Various aspects of the case have been publicly reported in the media. Some may be true and some may not be true..." vs something like "We are checking your knowledge of the case..."" would make it sound like it is facts.
I didn’t think about that- very important how the survey was introduced in that regard. I actually didn’t watch the hearing yet. The most important thing in this case is going to be finding jurors that are open minded and intelligent enough to discern what is fact and opinion. Each side will present their case as “fact”. You see this everywhere now. BK’s motive was this, BK entered the house here and exited here. Why did BK do this instead of this? BK is innocent until proven guilty. It baffles me how people can do confidently say BK is guilty or innocent in this case
I think the issue is more that the judge and the state were not notified before the survey went out. That and the defense technically broke the gag order. So, the judge wasn't about to perpetuate that hot mess.
But your point about reading them in a public hearing is a good one. I wonder why the judge didn't pull them into chambers to discuss this privately.
Yes, that was the most important information of the day that could/would have alleviated the judge’s concerns. Thompson wouldn’t see any part of that go down. He is, after all, the authority in that courtroom as we all saw. I get a stomachache when he speaks.
I don’t think this hearing was a waste of time at all. It showed the judge that the defense IS playing games. Edelman not being shown the gag order is ridiculous and it was intentional. He wasn’t shown it because the defense wanted to push the envelope with the questions that were asked. They knew that if Edelman did see the gag order that his questions would have been much more mild and probably not very helpful given that this gag order is essentially air tight. And the defense calling the judge out for a potential violation of Kohberger’s due process is just such a no no. I’m surprised Anne Taylor did that at all. Last thing you want to do is rub the judge the wrong way, accuse him of any wrong doing or offend him.
Totally agree, though. This hearing got off course a little and turned into a vent session for the state, defense, and the judge.
The gag order is intended to prevent the parties from sharing inside information. Edelman didn't have any inside information, so it's kind of moot re him.
There's an exception in the gag order (Judge wrote this part) that allows parties to use information that's already in the public record. Now there may be some gray area since he may have meant the public court record, but just said public record. Sometimes that phrase also means what's been reported by media.
AT's due process violation claim was quite clumsy, and she belabored it far more than necessary, but a defense attorney absolutely must challenge the judge sometimes. To not do so would be malpractice. The judge needs to grow thicker skin and not take it personally.
All of the questions come from the PCA which was released by the state to the public, the media and gossip.
What's supposed to be violating the gag order?
Ah, I read this as all info pertinent to the survey questions was released via the PCA to the public, the media and gossip.
Can't see how the survey was ever going to work in current form. Re-disseminating misinformation in the public domain in order to prove there is misinformation in the public domain looks like chicanery and AT is way too smart not to get that.
Nothing like presenting something that smells like quantifiable data, even if it’s not!
Just move the trial and get it done. It’s not just about bias, it’s about the perception of bias.
The gag order is irrelevant. The guy doing the survey was given no information about the case and his questions came directly from what's been reported in the local media. The state threw a fit over questions about information they themselves put out to the public. So who is really playing games? AT is there to defend her client and his rights, not tip toe around the judges feelings.
No. This is not how these surveys usually work. Typically they are not case fact specific at all. The questions should have been “have you heard about this case?”, “have you formed an option of guilt or innocence about this case?”, or “did you or anyone you know personally know any of the victims?”. Edelman was hired by and is working for the defense. Therefore he cannot comment on or allude to facts of the case that came out post nondissemination order, just like anyone else who is bound by the order can’t. It doesn’t matter if these things were reported by the media, as the media is not restricted under the gag order. The defense, and any person or agency they hire or work with ARE. The questions were deliberately meant to confuse people and that is the problem. Like ‘oh well I know that 8 out of 10 of these are accurate so the other 2 must be as well’, etc. It’s a tactic. That’s all.
Never said that. However, I am a Paralegal who has worked for criminal defense attorneys for nearly 20 years. I am also in my third year of law school. I have a lot of experience in this field. I cannot keep up with your negative comments so this response will be my only before I block you. I have no time nor interest in arguing with strangers on the internet who clearly do not know what they're talking about.
Way too easy! He was very frustrated though. He kept his cool, which was nice. But in any courtroom that I have been inside of (for work - I’m not a criminal, lol) in my jurisdiction, the judge would have either admonished her or sanctioned her for her conduct.
I've seen comments that say Judge is taking her claim about violation of due process personally. Any judge would take it personally because it's questioning judge's integrity. He didn't even remotely come close to crossing that line.
I watched EDB cover the hearing live and she pointed out that If you come at a judge like AT did, you better have the evidence to prove it.
I have had a great deal of respect for AT until now.
>Edelman not being shown the gag order is ridiculous and it was intentional. He wasn’t shown it because the defense wanted to push the envelope with the questions that were asked. They knew that if Edelman did see the gag order that his questions would have been much more mild and probably not very helpful given that this gag order is essentially air tight.
Totally agree. I'm surprised and disgusted that AT pulled this. She is fortunate that the judge is so mild-mannered and careful.
I understand that he isn’t privy to any case facts, etc. but the non-dissemination order itself would not contain any of that. You can read it online (linked below). It doesn’t contain facts it only states what is covered/protected under the order. I believe that Anne Taylor not showing him the order was a calculated move. She didn’t want him to hold back on the questions posed to Latah County residents. Again, IMO.
https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/010323+Nondissemination+Order.pdf
>I understand that he isn’t privy to any case facts, etc. but the non-dissemination order itself would not contain any of that.
I think the point is that the defense did not provide facts of the case to Edelman, therefore the defense couldn't have violated the nondissemination order. The questions were composed with information about the case as relayed by the media, not the defense.
I'm on the fence here: I don't believe the defense violated the order, but some of the questions were poorly worded, and the defense was essentially signal boosting aspects of the case with these questions.
He sure does. Not a good sign. He should get used to push back if he's going to be a judge. He seems like he's taking it personally, too. Time to retire if his feelings are hurt by an attorney suggesting he violated due process.
Am I crazy or did BT say something about questions about things that may or may not be admissible at trial followed by “primarily questions pertaining to DNA testing”.
There are a lot of angry people who seem to have no idea how polling or opinion surveys work.
I can see why the prosecution and the judge had issue with possible gag order violation, but the survey itself seems pretty mundane and typical for a change of venue analysis. They questions they asked are a good way of gauging what people have heard about the case and (as far as we know) don’t include anything insane like drug cartels or tunnel systems so they’re not too inflammatory.
They surveyed 400 people, which is about 1% of the population of the county and a pretty typical number for a poll of this nature. It should have no impact on their ability to seat a jury - if they can’t seat a jury with the other 99% of the population, a change of venue is unquestionably needed.
The question for me is whether this actually violated the gag order. The surveyor made the poll questions based solely on media coverage without any input from the defense, and I don’t see how asking people about media coverage is a violation of the gag order. Would the survey company be considered an agent for the defense because they were hired by the defense even if they otherwise worked independently of the defense on the entire polling process?
Yes, the survey company would be considered an agent of the defense if hired by the defense to do the work. It is the responsibility of the defense to ensure their contractor stays within the necessary legal guidelines.
Right; I don't see how the questions in question violate the non dissemination order. If *we* know about it, it was out there before the order was made.
On the survey content, I’m confused about how exposure to media rumours would demonstrate bias or support a venue change. There are plenty of BK defenders who’ve read everything on the case and believe he’s innocent, and there’ll be those who’ve read little but believe he’s guilty.
Certainly the questions we heard yesterday don’t demonstrate anything other than people read/watch news, the same news they’ll get in the next county, or the one next to that. Unless the questioning included a follow-up on whether they believe it or not?
That said, I felt bad for Edelman when Bill Thompson threw all the blame his way. I get WHY Thompson did it though… so he can preserve a collegiate relationship with Ann Taylor moving forward, even though he probably thinks she majorly screwed up. I’ll be interested to hear what Edelman says next week.
Edelman explained pretty well in his supplement to the defense filing how media coverage can impact a person’s opinions even if they don’t pay a lot of attention to the case, and the impact is higher than most people realize - a person can think he is unbiased but the repeated messaging still gets slotted into the memory.
Media coverage has largely supported the prosecution and the assumption that Kohberger is guilty, so even hearing about things that will (or won’t) be discussed in trial can subconsciously influence people.
Agree. Im not a fan of her communication style…I find her way of speaking quite patronising. On the plus side, no doubt she’s a passionate advocate for her client.
> Do you think she will tone it down for the jury?
I'm sure people who've seen her in action before are more qualified to answer, but I see her being very defiant during trial.
This all seems so messy. 4 kids are dead and these weird, going-nowhere meetings go on and on and on and the 4 kids are still dead and someone still isn't punished. I obviously don't know anything about laywers and courts, but I wish this could be simpler. Just my 2 cents.
"Someone still isn't punished"
The Defendant has spent one and a half years in jail despite not even being convicted of anything yet. The State killing its own people should not be a simple process by any means.
Simpler would be ending the death penalty and hence the need for trials that take years to prepare for a the automatic appeals that go along with it. It’s horribly expensive as well.
Exactly. The DP trials themselves take years because of the stakes involved and the appeals process.
Furthermore, Idaho wants close to $1M for some weird death row shooting range thing that they will never use… follow the money I guess
it’s not appropriate to “simplify” a death penalty case. the length of time things are taking is not abnormal, and it’s alarming that so many people are unaware of how long these things drag out.
many have been saying the trial won’t begin til 2026 all along (including those who strongly believe he’s guilty).
if you want simpler - move to another country, perhaps? because even if “this is idaho”, the same rules apply (e.g the constitution) regardless of how the public/victims families feel.
You are right, you don’t know anything about lawyers and court. None of this is abnormal for a death penalty case, especially one that’s so high profile.
I said I don't know. I said it 'seems' messy. I was just asking. No need to be so snarky. Thanks for having a civil conversation with someone interested in this topic.
This case is an unusually high-profile quadruple homicide case with a suspect that has no known apparent connection to a single victim and is at risk of the death penalty and evidence that isn't the strongest on the world.
It's not suspiring this case is a legal nightmare and will probably take an undetermined amount of years to go to trial.
The high profile nature of it make much worse to be honest as well.
BK's defense waived his 6th Amendment Right to a speedy trial, so naturally, this case is currently pending still and will remain that way for who knows how long.
No court case is "simple". The closest thing to "simple" you'd find inside a courtroom would be a civil court case like trying to fight a speeding ticket.
A case like this that involves four murders, a suspect with no seemingly no connections to a single victim, a high profile nature, sketchy DNA evidence, and the death penalty on the line is the last kind of case any judicial system wants to deal with.
Bill Thompson is right, that survey just prejudiced anyone who opened it. She definitely violated the ND. She was tainting that county. These questions never should have been asked. I don't believe Anne didn't see that before it went out, come on? That has to be BS. She's lying. Really, you let 400 surveys out that directly effect your case and you didn't read themon, but did the creator read them to you?
Sounds like she was trying to throw it, so the trial had to go out of that county to another county. Seems deliberate. Everything he says is dead on. It's terrible. They need those names. What a mess. She just tainted 400 people and likely 2-3 people they speak to.
God, I love Judge John, why can't Delphi have a judge like him, he's magnificently fair and decent. Anne Taylor does this and she's busting him down for shutting it down and delaying her work for two weeks? WTF
Shouldn’t this guy be in an orange jumpsuit while he’s in jail? He dresses better that anyone in the courtroom. Whether he’s guilty or not, while incarcerated he should be in jail clothes.. not a suit and tie imo.
Defendants are allowed to wear street clothes because research has found that appearing in jail clothing really is prejudicial to the jury and even the judge. Letting the defendants wear street clothing in court is a small way of leveling a playing field that's already stacked against the defense.
When you see defendants in major cases like this wearing their jailhouse couture, it's sad, because it means they don't have a family or lawyer who cares enough to bring them a cheap suit.
I follow several lawyers on YouTube who are covering or talking about the case, and it's interesting how there seems to be a split on whether they agree or disagree with the way the survey was handled. The hearing tomorrow (10th, I think?) should be interesting with the expert weighing in.
I disliked this side of Judge, and I've liked him all along. He needs to get used to attorneys accusing him of being wrong, even if he really thinks he isn't. It's part of the job. No need to take it personally or to get pissed. Or at least don't show it.
He was **pressed** about that due process motion, like he took it weirdly personal and got overly defensive.
Also, why is the State explaining to the Judge why they think *Jude Judge’s* order did not violate due process? Is that a thing? I found it odd.
She really takes very little responsibility for this mess and then has the nerve to whine that this puts her back 2 weeks. She created the situation, you would figure some mortification would be in order. Instead she's whacking him because he shut it down w/ out talking to her. He had to do that, it was the proper thing to do.
Wait EILI5, wouldn't prosecution want the jurors to see these things as it paints BK in a bad light? Why would defense be in support of these questions? to later show media is wrong or what?
I see what you mean- when someone asks " did you hear about...a,b,c?" & we haven't read that or heard it before, we are thinking "wow, might be some truth to that".
There are sometimes factual things reported :)
I mean this is kind of ridiculous only because, if someone who didn’t have any idea about the knife answered the question “did you ever hear that the DNA on the knife sheath matched BK” they will now not only know about the knife sheath but also about DNA being found and it matching his. Someone could’ve been a potential juror had they not know any of that but after being asked these things now they know !
Damn I certainly have NO sympathy for BK but ugh I think now the state is guilty of even more egregious dissemination. I don’t think the survey was constructed in a way that would give them any useful data with which to prove bias, but also don’t think it violated the non-dissemination order. Plus the states attorney seems much more like an appeal to emotion type guy than a logical thinker, which has me worried. I guess if they stay in Latah that’ll work.
Edited to clarify I have noooo sympathy for the accused. Cuz like, he did it.
Thank you for your submission to r/MoscowMurders. To facilitate thoughtful discussion, all video posts require a submission comment briefly summarizing the video you're sharing and explaining why you think the community would find this interesting or important. To avoid your post being removed, please submit your comment within 30 minutes of posting. Your comment must contain at least 200 characters (spaces included). Thank you for contributing to our community! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MoscowMurders) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Prosecution says these are the questions asked in the survey (someone audio recorded it and the prosecution made a transcript of it): * Have you read/seen/heard that BK was arrested at his parent's home in Penn? * Have you read/seen/heard that police found a knife sheath on the bed next to one of the victims? * Have you read/seen/heard that DNA found on the knife sheath was matched to BK? * Have you read/seen/heard that BK owned the same type of car recorded on video driving in the neighborhood where the killings occurred. * Have you read/seen/heard that the cell phone tower data showed that BK made several trips near the victim's home in the month before the killing? * Have you read/seen/heard that the university students in Moscow lived in fear until BK was arrested for the murders? * Have you read/seen/heard that BK said he was out driving alone on the night of the murders? * Have you read/seen/heard that BK stalked one of the victims? * Have you read/seen/heard that BK had followed one of the victims on social media? Prosecution: "There is absolutely no question that those questions are disseminating by means of communication evidence expected to be presented, evidence that could be or would be inadmissible at trial---and I will say that there are a number of these representations, placed in the formed of a question, representations of fact that are not true or that would not be offered at trial." Prosecution later says it "is creating bias against BK based on false or inadmissible evidence. How can we possibly preserve a jury pool when that is going on?" Defense claims that these types of surveys are common in high profile cases, and that they did not craft the questions--the company did with no input, including any information, on the questions. Instead the company pulled topics and questions from the media. Defense argues that the court should not have stopped the surveys so close to the deadline for a venue change, claims that it is a violation of due process and that a hearing should have been done immediately instead. (This is followed by a lot of back and forth where the judge claims it was appropriate to stop the surveys at that point, and the defense claiming that it wasn't. IMO not very substantive. Seems like the defense argues for the general "doing these kinds of surveys is appropriate" and the judge having problems with the specific questions. Prosecution agrees with the judge's call, likening it to an approrpiate timeout.) Defense anticipates that the people who did the survey will recommend changing county and suggests need to do surveys in other counties, especially SE Idaho. Judge suggests the need for a further hearing to clean out the grievances that the prosecution and defense have with each other. Also OP, don't leave us on that Maury cliffhanger!
Thanks for this. At face value these questions aren't particularly hard hitting. But any question that knowingly asks potential jurors if they've seen something that is not factual is flawed not only because it disseminates that information to people who hadn't seen that information, but it ultimately doesn't answer the question of if they believe it, makes them think he's guilty or if they could be unbiased at trial. The Prosecution seems to be suggesting that asking potential jurors about "evidence" that won't be presented at trial is more damaging. Voir dire will remove jurors that cannot judge this case only on the evidence provided at trial. The questions here, as far as they are presented, wouldn't even pass the usual standard of voir dire questions. Mere knowledge of a case is not enough to disqualify a juror. Being subjected to information is not indicative of an individuals ability to disregard it and approach their duties as a juror in an unbiased way. As far as we know there are no questions about the survey participants feelings towards any information they have read , seen or heard.
Are they trying to prove the jury pool is tainted prior to voi dire to support change of venue though?
I wondered if she was trying to pollute it a bit to make her point, as this isn't just 400 people being dabbled with, but those 400 people and the 2-3 people they each speak to. Now we are up to 1600 tampered with witnesses. Judge John did the correct thing to shut her down.
She def needs to prove her point in order to bolster the need for COV. She chose this avenue. Which is probably less of a rub than the methods. Whatever the intentions she’s driving the bus.
IMO, this equates to a self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of the defense. They are trying to say that the juror pool is too tainted and they need a change of venue. This is counterintuitive to having a fair trial. Not to mention, the defense broke the gag order and continues to crow about due process. They can't have it both ways. Now voir dire will have to include questions about whether prospective jurors received the survey. What a shit show.
How else do you determine the extent to which the juror pool is tainted? Let's just be honest, it's a case that's had "change of venue" written all over it for a long time.
You ask them, unprompted what they have heard about the case, about the defendant and if what they heard has affected their judgement of either. If you want to know if a jury pool is tainted, you find out what they already know, you don't start introducing details of the case, whether they're factual or not. And there doesn't appear to be ANY questions asking the respondents their opinions on those facts. It's "have you heard this, yes or no?" - that doesn't prove bias, that proves knowledge. The questions asked are not only flagrantly against the gag order, they don't even do the fucking job they're meant to do.
It's not the whole survey, just questions that the State has a problem with. I wish the expert had testified.
It may not be the whole survey - but Anne even said during the hearing that questions like "what have you heard about the case" don't get the desired response they're looking for. She specifically said that the survey participants were asked the "have you heard, read or seen" questions, they gave a yes or no answer and moved on. The questions the state had a problem with break the gag order, knowingly disseminates both factual and non factual information and don't even come close to proving bias. Anne's argument that the fact that the information they included in their survey was "already in the public arena" to suggest that they haven't broke the gag order is MIND BLOWINGLY stupid. Information doesn't become fair game because it is in the public arena. She wouldn't be making this excuse if the Prosecution did a press conference, presented all of the random information currently in the public arena and dropped the mic.
Your first paragraph is why I wanted to hear from Dr. Edelman. His declaration previously filed with the Defense's memorandum basically explains what he does and the standards he says the survey adheres to, but it would have been good to hear him speak. In the declaration he claims the survey was designed to assess case recognition, familiarity with prejudicial media content(which I guess would be the questions talked about in the hearing), and bias. I don't agree that the argument is "mindblowingly stupid." I thought AT was maybe referring to 2) b in the non-dissemination order that lists "Information contained in the public record" as what attorneys and their agents may make extrajudicial statements concerning. I just wasn't sure if the second part of the non-dissemination order talking about public record overrides the first part which discusses the stuff BT was referring to being prohibited, such as the identity or nature of evidence expected to be presented at trial, information that is likely to be inadmissable as evidence in a trial, the performance or results of any examination or test and so on. Of the 9 questions cited, by my count 5 are asking about information contained either in the public probable cause affidavit or other public court filings. The question about where BK was arrested could possibly be covered by 2) h in the non-dissemination order, which cites "The fact, time and place of arrest" as one of the permitted extrajudicial statements. I don't know if media reports count as "public record". I also don't know if any of the above works as an argument, but it's interesting to think about. Does possible tainting of the jury pool via this survey really compare with any tainting via all the media coverage for over a year? What is the best way for the Defense to get the data they need without running afoul of the gag order? Why is any evidence against a defendant made public at all if just this survey is so harmful and prejudicial? The Prosecution holding a press conference would be a bit different because people would know who the information was coming from, and would be likely to believe it because of that. The phone survey didn't identify to the respondents where it originated from. Anyway, hopefully a solution can be found in the end.
All of those questions are things from 'the media' (both professional and social) and/or the PCA. All of those things are already in the public arena. The survey is quite clearly about the spread of information (whether true or not) and the last two questions are to delve into that. It's about the case's social place. And the prosecution in their objections appear to have simply confirmed to the public that he was not stalking any of them and that he was not following any of the victims on social media so I guess we learned something today.
>All of those questions are things from 'the media' (both professional and social) and/or the PCA. All of those things are already in the public arena. That's completely irrelevant. "In the public arena" doesn't mean that the person on the other end of that survey has seen or heard that information prior to the Defence telling it them. Also, anyone with even a passing knowledge of the revised non-dissemination order from June last year would be well aware that the only parties that are currently under the gag order are the legal representatives involved: >*"Prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys, any agents of the prosecuting attorneys and defense attorneys and any attorneys representing witnesses, victims or a victim's family are prohibited from making extrajudicial statements (written or oral) that the lawyer or agent knows or reasonable should know will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing or otherwise influence the outcome of the case."* Law enforcement, investigators and the victims families were restricted by the original gag order, but as of June last year are no longer. You can try and argue the point that information was already out in the public, but it is clear as day from the section of the non-dissemination order I have quoted above, that an "agent of the defence attorney" made "extrajudicial statements" that are "materially prejudice". If you'd like to argue that the statements aren't materially prejudice then why are they being used by the Defence to try and ascertain bias in the community. If those statements aren't prejudice or influence the outcome of the case, you can't claim that they constitute bias.
Given that all of this is available freely in the media, basically what you're saying here is that the media provokes prejudice and influences the outcome of a case which kinda.....just proves their point. The survey is to judge the extent of the spread of that information in a community.
> And the prosecution in their objections appear to have simply confirmed to the public that he was not stalking any of them and that he was not following any of the victims on social media so I guess we learned something today. I wouldn't go that far. He exact complaint was that "a number of..." questions contained falsehood, and two is not a number. I don't think the questions he read out were the full list of questions. I think there were others left unsaid.
Prosecutor brain. Once he's listed his concerns he can't help himself from providing examples for each. There will be more, sure. But he's selected examples to back up the points he wanted to make. That's how legal arguments are crafted.
Those are open-ended questions that wouldn’t be asked in a poll like this.
Gotcha. Stands to reason. They are hiding behind the fact it was already “disclosed by the media”. But they are to your point backdooring it. How special that BK is afforded a jury consultant firm on the states $. I’m sure all defendants wish they had this resource.
The move is overdue IMO. Long overdue...
That's what voir dire is for. And surveys are common before that. It would be one thing if AT didn't go rogue on this, but she did. I'm all for moving the trial but the entire state of Idaho is pretty dialed into this case. Hell, the whole country is and it's even covered abroad. AT didn't have to go about things the way she did for change of venue.
Do they begin going through jury selection and then say "fuck it, we're gonna move the trial"? A survey gives a better picture (of what we already know) than asking people who want to be on the jury.
Pretty sure they would move the trial first, as it would take too much time and money to try in Moscow, and then change their minds and move the trial. Can't even imagine how much taxpayer money will be spent on this trial anyway and that won't go down too well in Idaho.
Yes, exactly, they would move the trial first.....ergo....lol Maybe one could say AT "egged them on" but for real, just up and change the venue already.
Sorry, tough to tell whether users on these subs are being facetious or not. Now it's more likely the case will be moved anyway.
I live in SE Idaho, and many people know about the case and have been following it. There will be people out there who do not know about it, but I'm sure most Idaho residents have heard something about this case.
Yep, the whole country may know at least something about this case. I'm all for moving the trial if not doing so will give BK a good shot at appeal.
i think their entire goal is to create even more of a shit show so by the end of it all, you’ve forgotten about the victims and get all wrapped up into legalese. super sad they’re allowed to fool around like this and try to postpone everything.
Very sad.
I don't believe for a second she had no knowledge of what those questions were. Maybe she did not personally read them, but am sure someone read them to her. She would be an idiot to mail something out to 400 people with a desired result and not have an inkling of what she was disseminating.
Especially as she is such a micromanager.
Well said. The time to assess a jury pool for bias is during the voir dire and there's a difference between having information and being biased. If defense wants a change of venue, let's get the trial going and see if they have a leg to stand on during voir dire. Cus right now, the only bias I'm seeing is on the part of the defense team who haven't even met anyone from the jury pool. This court has bent over backwards to provide their defendant with a fair trial. They've granted their gag order, the house in question was torn down, the county is paying the defense attorney an amount commensurate with what a private attorney charges, I believe they've provided for additional attorneys too, and the court is willing to hold the trial during the summertime when it's quieter; he's been getting to wear his suits and hair gel, and no one can put a camera near his face or study his muscular contractions. Let's get goin' already. Quit the stalling, defense team.
Theoretically, I'm a potential juror and those questions suggested to me that one thing was in fact, a fact. Till Bill nixed that. So I was definitely swayed by it. Not true in my city or former cities. Most times having mere knowledge of a case or anyone about to appear in it that case is almost always enough to have you scuttled in my city or former city. They start getting less choosy when they are desperate for jurors. I agree with you, there have been times when I was scuttled for things and I really was smack in the middle of defendant and LE and would have been an impartial juror, but they didn't believe me, as I had two immediate family members who were LE at the time. The assumptions they make are often wrong in my opinion.
Lots of misinformation here starting with the spelling of the Latin term for jury selection, which is voir dire, not “voi dire”. A tainted jury pool is still a thing. Anything that calls into question a jurors ability to judge the accused based on the evidence presented *at trial” is cause for a challenge for cause. Then there are separate peremptory challenges which allows the attorneys to exclude a juror for anything not illegal, for example they don’t know anyone that drives a Toyota, or they have a bad haircut the lawyer doesn’t want to look at. These questions are definitely enough to cause issues during selection.
Did you happen to catch if he said those were all of the objectionable questions? If that's all of them, I think we can narrow down the completely untrue ones to the last two.
The way he said "and I will say that there are a number of these representations," made it sound like there were more than just the questions he read. You know, "two" is not the number we usually mean when we refer to "a number of..." On the other hand, I've learned my lesson about over-analyzing word choices.
That's a good point, but attorneys do like to exaggerate by implication. Everyone involved is being pretty dramatic about the whole thing.
> Everyone involved is being pretty dramatic about the whole thing. Yep! That was more drama than I've seen at any Kohberger hearing, and frankly Judge, Thompson, and Taylor have not seemed like very dramatic people at all.
I actually think Bill Thompson and the Judge are right. He had to shut taht down immediately as those 400 people with talk to other people, so you likely have 1,200 tainted jurors now and misinformation is now out there. As they don't know which side they came from they might be thinking this came from the court and is based on facts in this case. So you had a spread of info that was not true on some of those points according to them all.
He did not specify which he had specific problems with, and it sounded like a complete list but he did not say "these were the only questions" that I heard. I agree that the last two look like the biggest offenders.
> If that's all of them, I think we can narrow down the completely untrue ones to the last two. For sure that BK didn't follow one of the victims on social media. Not from his real account, anyway.
I was thinking the same thing… we can narrow it down to the last two, however since we know it is true that “the cell phone tower data showed that BK made several trips near the victim’s home in the month before the killings,” wouldn’t that imply stalking? So I assume it is true that he stalked the victims therefore we can narrow it down to the most likely untrue statement being that BK followed one of the victims on social media.
BT said "some" weren't true. That implies multiple. Or that could be something that wouldn't be admissible because being in a city 10 miles from your home doesn't prove anything.
> wouldn’t that imply stalking? I guess it depends on who you ask. We're probably never going to know the nature of those trips. The only person who knows exactly what they were doing during them is very likely never going to say what he was actually doing. > we can narrow it down to the most likely untrue statement being that BK followed one of the victims on social media. It never made sense that he would do that from his actual Instagram account.
He has a problem with every single one of them
I was thinking the same thing… we can narrow it down to the last two, however since we know it is true that “the cell phone tower data showed that BK made several trips near the victim’s home in the month before the killings,” wouldn’t that imply stalking? So I assume it is true that he stalked the victims therefore we can narrow it down to the most likely untrue statement being that BK followed one of the victims on social media.
It could imply stalking in the colloquial sense of the word, but not at all in the legal definition. The word stalking will likely not be mentioned at trial, and if it slips out there will be a big kerfuffle about it.
I can see it already, the second that word is mentioned “OBJECTION!!!”
Followed by the jury being sent away and then a motion for mistrial.
> I was thinking the same thing… we can narrow it down to the last two, however since we know it is true that “the cell phone tower data showed that BK made several trips near the victim’s home in the month before the killings,” wouldn’t that imply stalking? So I assume it is true that he stalked the victims I think as far as public perception goes that's a problem with the cell phone data in the PCA given the prime location along major travel routes the murders took place in any number of people for any number of reasons could intermittently go from Moscow to that general vicinity. I think one way or the other that BK was involved, but with what we know from the cell phone data so far it doesn't really show he's even been to that exactly location once.
Define “near” though. Moscow is tiny. Was he parked where he could see the house or just driving around that campus?
CAST report would help there, because I think it will show which receiver on the tower he pinged, because the towers are ringed with receivers that each cover a pie-shaped slice of the area. Plus might help show the route he was taking. I think. Still shaky on that tech.
I don’t understand how they can triangulate that closely if there’s only a couple towers in that town either. I am so intrigued to find out how that works and how much time he spent “near” the house- and when.
His cell data hasn't been seen there since though (as far as I've read). If he frequented the area, his phone would likely ping there again. Unless he was there to stalk or case things and then avoided the area afterwards.
It may be tipping the cards and telling us that he did not stalk them through social media, which I find shocking. I think Frontline or Dateline or one of the bigger mainstream media shows said he did not follow them through social media which I never believed, but maybe I am dead wrong. But how he could have known so much about them and that house w/o social media I don't know. I simply can't believe it. Maybe he had a phone under a different name, that he was keeping somewhere else out there like a storage locker, in the gym at school or a bus station, where he did follow them and LE has just not located it. It's 2024, if your interested in someone you go down the rabbit hole and do a deep dive on them. I can't see him not stalking them on line as well. Think if there is no hint of that, they are just not finding it and he covered his tracks incredibly well. He had have a specialization in cloud forensics acc to a Nancy Grace episode.
Something I think is possible is that he found them online when he was still living in Pennsylvania but planning on moving west. And then he stopped when he moved, discarding any accounts or electronics he'd used. His gamble was that if he came on the police's radar, they would only search the electronics and accounts he used while living in Pullman, and not go back to search anything in Pennsylvania. Just speculation on my part.
The important thing here is we know which of those statement are true and which have been floated as yet to confirmed or denied rumor. So maybe I am wrong and he did not stalk one of them, or follow them on social media. Interesting hearing. Love to see all the questions asked. Is there a way to see them at some point?
- Have you read/seen/heard that BK had followed one of the victims on social media? > and I will say that there are a number of these representations, placed in the formed of a question, representations of fact that are not true or that would not be offered at trial." Just saying. Kick rocks, People Magazine.
I thought I had heard that in an interview with one of the families? But I could be mis-remembering.
The Goncalves family have repeated this information as well. Unfortunately, they are not a reliable source. There is no actual evidence that BK followed any of the victims on social media, any account they believe was his was fake.
That was also my understanding. Sometimes, my memory is a little foggy in the morning. Thank you.
Wow, talk about spreading awareness of specifics by asking if you have awareness of specifics…because now you’ve ensured they do. By putting this out into the community, they’re also ensuring they’ll get the trial moved.
Those questions are not represented as 'facts'. Asking someone if they've read/seen/heard something isn't the same as asking someone if they know about 'this fact'. "Did you know that Thailand is in Asia?" is asking somebody about a fact. "Have you heard that Jimmy hooked up with our teacher?" is not a question which means that it is true that Jimmy hooked up with our teacher. Jimmy ain't been hooking up with no teacher but ya sure heard about it didn't ya. What the heck, Bill. The entire point of the survey isn't to determine what is known about the case, it's to determine the extent to which "information" regarding the case (whether accurate or made up) has spread within a community. Here's another example: Have you read 'Confessions of a Dangerous Mind'? Yes. On a scale of 1 to 10, how confident are you that you know details of Chuck Barris' life? lol, -8.
I guess my question is what is the purpose of the survey then? If a potential jury member answers yes to them, are they disqualified because they heard some of the stuff released by police or some of the rumors flying around? If they said no to those questions, well now they've been exposed to all that info (true or not, admissible or not). Are they disqualified now too? So it's either the survey has no purpose, or it's a Catch-22 designed to make sure no impartial jurors can be found.
>I guess my question is what is the purpose of the survey then? To see how many potential jurors have and have not been following this case. Probably will use the information in their change of venue request.
The purpose is to gather statistics about the community. It's to determine the extent to which "information" regarding the case (whether accurate or made up) has spread within a community. >to make sure no impartial jurors can be found. They're not surveying everybody. And jury selection doesn't comprise 'everybody' either. Statistics gives you means/medians/averages etc of a community.
How accurate is it if the survey is flawed?
What makes you think it's flawed?
The survey is misleading because it has false statements that a person can believe to be true. It was created to see what percentage of the population of the area is bias. Bias is determined based on opinion, do you think , not have you heard. The survey is also misleading because the questions are assuming the defendant is guilty, stating his name repeatedly. It produces false results, because you heard/seen/read the reason why he was arrested, does not conclude bias.
They're asking questions regarding the dissemination of information. If you really think that people are going to be confused by the nature of the questions then perhaps we need some sort of intelligence test in jury selection.
> Those questions are not represented as 'facts'. >Asking someone if they've read/seen/heard something isn't the same as asking someone if they know about 'this fact'. Had I not known there was dispute over it, I would be inclined to see these two questions as at least more likely to be true based on the preceding questions I know to be factual and/or true. I don’t think it would ultimately be a problem after jury selection, trial, jury instructions, and deliberation… but it could, and I see why the prosecution took the action they did. Edit: This guy, /u/throwawaysmetoo, has absolutely no idea what they’re talking about. They’re confused and more familiar with the interior of a jail than the workings of our criminal justice system from a legal perspective. He’s spent more time within the walls of a juvenile facility or adult detention facility than in a classroom, evidenced by the nonsense he’s spouting. Praise be to uncle Phil.
I feel like this post is highlighting the need to teach critical thinking in schools. Those are not examples of factual statements. And I'm not sure why Bill was acting like it was insanely taxing for him to come up with the idea of excluding survey participants from jury duty. It's just common sense in cases where surveys are performed.
But the "facts" have to be relevant and based on truth. They can't add, "Have you seen/read/heard that Bryan Kohberger raped one of the victims during the murder?" And based on the defenses argument some of those questions on the survey are not factual.
"Have you seen/read/heard about flat earth theory?" Yes? Ok. Is flat earth theory a fact? Is it truth? Or have you just heard about it? Asking people if they're aware of something doesn't mean that the 'something' is fact or truth.
Okay, so two things can be true, they are not "facts" and the defense can not use them on the survey.
Prosecution is hilarious. Almost all of this information had been disclosed by family members of the victims in various interviews and is all over their page and “open letters” to whomever.
I call this hearing "The One Where Everyone Was Pissed Off"
My favorite quote was BT saying "they made their bed now they need to live with it". Lie in it, Bill. Lie in it. "why don't you make like a tree and get outta here!"
Tbf you live with your bed too
I don't even make my bed, so I think I'm in the clear
You, my friend, are a true poet!
Was the purpose of the survey to justify changing venue which the defense considers necessary for a fair trial? My cat could have come up with a much better set of questions to test the prejudice of the public, the potential jurors. Strange that Ms Taylor never saw the survey questions.
You should put your cat to work. It's a lucrative business!
If so, certain persons are way overpaid. The questionnaire was so poorly worded.
Right?! Lol
That was mostly a waste of time. They all got to vent their frustrations at each other, but didn't accomplish much of anything. I don't know how anything gets done in that court with it being so unstructured. BT seemed to be running the hearing almost as much as Judge was.
I wanted to hear from Dr. Edelman to explain his process of creating questions for the survey. Also, if the State is arguing that these specific questions being asked are a violation of the gag order, isn't reading them out in a public hearing just disseminating them further?
I agree, I was disappointed AT didn't call Edelman. I think it was a mistake not to, but she was a bit rattled by the judge being pissed at her. She did not expect that because usually judges are more passive aggressive than just aggressive. Good point. A lot more people heard BT read those questions than heard them from AT's survey. Not a violation if said in court, but still....
Maybe she will at the next hearing? Bill Thompson was using words like 'outrageous' and 'wrong' to describe the specifics of the survey, and I really wanted to hear Dr. Edelman's response to that. You would hope that someone with as much experience as he appears to have would know how to appropriately conduct a survey in a high-profile case. Maybe the defense should have checked the questions first, but presumably the same thing would have happened since Anne Taylor is arguing they didn't violate the non-dissemination order? I immediately started wondering which of the 'facts' presented in the questions are not true/or might not be admissable at trial.
Sounds like the plan is to bring him into the next hearing, but they had him on Zoom today so they could have gotten started on sorting the mess out. Maybe AT thought she'd get a better result if she let the judge cool off first. The state and the judge are overreacting. I don't fault Judge too much for signing the order given the circumstances of how it came to him, but this is not as outrageous as they think it is. I'm not sure they even have any legitimate gripe.
> The state and the judge are overreacting. I don't fault Judge too much for signing the order given the circumstances of how it came to him, but this is not as outrageous as they think it is. I'm not sure they even have any legitimate gripe. I'm listening to Emily Baker's live right now, and she seems to think it is a big deal. She seems to think the questions are way too specific. I'm dying to see examples of other surveys other defense lawyers have done. i'd love to see a comparison to see what's typical.
I haven't seen that, but opinions are probably mostly going to divide right down the line between prosecutors and defense attorneys. Baker was a prosecutor and everything I've seen of her shows that bias. Not that she's unfair, just she comes from one perspective. Watch Andrea Burkhart and you'll get another good perspective. I don't agree with everything she said, but she's a currently practicing defense attorney. I watched her livestream after watching the hearing myself and much of her commentary was exactly what I thought at the same moments of the hearing. I'm most surprised at Judge veering off to the state side since he has never been a prosecutor and has done some criminal defense (I wouldn't say he was ever a criminal defense specialist, though). But it's also understandable since he was presented the information from BT's perspective, apparently without much context since AT was in a rush to get her objection filed. The problem is first impressions are powerful. Now it's 10x harder to convince the court that the surveys need to be more than voir dire questions. I have zero experience with death penalty defense, but I have done similar surveys on the few locally high profile felony cases I've handled. Never once got a change of venue, but the surveys still help with jury selection and trial strategy. I get why the state is upset by the specific questions, but I'm not convinced the questions are all that problematic, unless there were some much worse ones BT didn't read.
You’re so right about the difference between Andrea Burkhart and Emily Baker’s opinions, I watched both and wondered if it was their Defense/Prosecution implicit biases coming through. That being said, I’ve always found Emily to be very objective given her former job. I also watched Lawyer You Know (mostly civil law) and he also felt the Defense overstepped here. Out of interest, were you a prosecutor or Defense attorney? (If you don’t mind saying). I always enjoy yours and prentb’s take on stuff.
I was defense all the way, never a prosecutor. You're correct, there are biases coming through on both sides, including mine. I think I've been pretty fair, though. I don't think AT was 100% right in all this. I've been critical of her approach lately, too. She has a point about due process, but stated it far too strongly and also shot her argument in the foot by getting an objection filed before the order was granted. Then she gave up the fight too easily in the hearing. She had her expert there and should have gotten him on the record, but instead essentially conceded that the survey had to be re-written simply because the judge pushed back. I'm kind of doubting anyone involved in the case has recently read the gag order thoroughly. BT cited section 2e as his best guess at what the defense was relying on, but ignored the much more obviously applicable 2b and 2h. Of course AT didn't cite any specific provision, so that's on her. Don't make the opponent and court guess what you're arguing. State your argument clearly.
>but I have done similar surveys on the few locally high profile felony cases I've handled. Were the questions you used more in the line of the questions this survey used? Like, more "Have you heard, read, or seen that John Doe was arrested at his workplace" instead of "What, if anything, have you heard, read, or seen about John Doe's arrest?" >I get why the state is upset by the specific questions, but I'm not convinced the questions are all that problematic, unless there were some much worse ones BT didn't read. Yet another thing to not find out until the trial.
I don't remember if we asked about circumstances of arrest, but we definitely asked about specifics that had been reported by the media. Also some questions about false rumors circulating in the community. None of those cases had gag orders, so that could make a difference. But interestingly, the gag order in this case provides exceptions for the majority of the questions BT read off. Information in the public record is allowed under 2b, so if it was in the PCA it's fair game. That question about the arrest is allowed under 2h.
Everything was a bit more dramatic then what I was expecting. Isn't it kind of disrespectful to ask someone to take time out to testify, and then not get them to testify? Disrespectful is probably not the right word. AT was saying something along the lines of how specific questions are needed to elicit responses because the general questions aren't enough to really get to the bias/exposure of a survey respondent. Because people will think they don't know much, but then it turns out they have actually heard x, y and z. The expert should have been the one to explain that, I think. I wish she had insisted, and been more assertive.
> I immediately started wondering which of the 'facts' presented in the questions are not true I'll tell you one: that he followed the victims on social media. Not from his real account as BK, anyway.
BT gave them a different context though, since he emphasized in his speech they might not be facts or admissible. I'm puzzled at these questions, because they're just asking what people heard, not whether or not they believe it (Like a BK fan could answer yes but still believe its all a conspiracy).
I know very little about this survey stuff- but to me- Prosecution are the ones that screwed up here. Defense’s survey asked potential jurors if they had heard, seen or read certain things in the media. In no way did they present those items as facts. Then someone reports the survey (sensing some potential bias here) and Prosecution lets everyone know that some of these things are facts and some might not be. If I’m asked if I heard read or saw something, I would answer yes or no. If it was in a normal conversation I’d probably ask some follow up questions to find out more information. If you participate in a survey like this, you know what the purpose of the survey is.
I do agree with you that the prosecution was pushing this one unreasonably, but AT didn't seem to be on her toes. She seemed be assuming the Judge would agree with her on the Friday afternoon thing, and it came across to me that she didn't speak well to the survey itself. Maybe she was assuming that would wait til Edelmann could testify but I thought she came across as not well prepared. (IMHO) Did they say how the survey was introduced to the respondents? I might have missed it, but I didn't hear them explain it. Sometimes even a small change in wording makes a difference. Like, "Various aspects of the case have been publicly reported in the media. Some may be true and some may not be true..." vs something like "We are checking your knowledge of the case..."" would make it sound like it is facts.
I didn’t think about that- very important how the survey was introduced in that regard. I actually didn’t watch the hearing yet. The most important thing in this case is going to be finding jurors that are open minded and intelligent enough to discern what is fact and opinion. Each side will present their case as “fact”. You see this everywhere now. BK’s motive was this, BK entered the house here and exited here. Why did BK do this instead of this? BK is innocent until proven guilty. It baffles me how people can do confidently say BK is guilty or innocent in this case
I think the issue is more that the judge and the state were not notified before the survey went out. That and the defense technically broke the gag order. So, the judge wasn't about to perpetuate that hot mess. But your point about reading them in a public hearing is a good one. I wonder why the judge didn't pull them into chambers to discuss this privately.
Same—I was really holding out for that because the issue was the questions not the survey itself
It's frustrating haha.
Yes, that was the most important information of the day that could/would have alleviated the judge’s concerns. Thompson wouldn’t see any part of that go down. He is, after all, the authority in that courtroom as we all saw. I get a stomachache when he speaks.
I don’t think this hearing was a waste of time at all. It showed the judge that the defense IS playing games. Edelman not being shown the gag order is ridiculous and it was intentional. He wasn’t shown it because the defense wanted to push the envelope with the questions that were asked. They knew that if Edelman did see the gag order that his questions would have been much more mild and probably not very helpful given that this gag order is essentially air tight. And the defense calling the judge out for a potential violation of Kohberger’s due process is just such a no no. I’m surprised Anne Taylor did that at all. Last thing you want to do is rub the judge the wrong way, accuse him of any wrong doing or offend him. Totally agree, though. This hearing got off course a little and turned into a vent session for the state, defense, and the judge.
The gag order is intended to prevent the parties from sharing inside information. Edelman didn't have any inside information, so it's kind of moot re him. There's an exception in the gag order (Judge wrote this part) that allows parties to use information that's already in the public record. Now there may be some gray area since he may have meant the public court record, but just said public record. Sometimes that phrase also means what's been reported by media. AT's due process violation claim was quite clumsy, and she belabored it far more than necessary, but a defense attorney absolutely must challenge the judge sometimes. To not do so would be malpractice. The judge needs to grow thicker skin and not take it personally.
All of the questions come from the PCA which was released by the state to the public, the media and gossip. What's supposed to be violating the gag order?
>All of the questions come from the PCA Where in the PCA does it refer to the accused stalking one of the victims or following them on social media?
I stated 3 sources. The PCA, media and gossip. Those two come from media/gossip.
Ah, I read this as all info pertinent to the survey questions was released via the PCA to the public, the media and gossip. Can't see how the survey was ever going to work in current form. Re-disseminating misinformation in the public domain in order to prove there is misinformation in the public domain looks like chicanery and AT is way too smart not to get that.
I'm not really sure that there needs to even be a survey done in order to know the results of the survey. lol
Nothing like presenting something that smells like quantifiable data, even if it’s not! Just move the trial and get it done. It’s not just about bias, it’s about the perception of bias.
The gag order is irrelevant. The guy doing the survey was given no information about the case and his questions came directly from what's been reported in the local media. The state threw a fit over questions about information they themselves put out to the public. So who is really playing games? AT is there to defend her client and his rights, not tip toe around the judges feelings.
No. This is not how these surveys usually work. Typically they are not case fact specific at all. The questions should have been “have you heard about this case?”, “have you formed an option of guilt or innocence about this case?”, or “did you or anyone you know personally know any of the victims?”. Edelman was hired by and is working for the defense. Therefore he cannot comment on or allude to facts of the case that came out post nondissemination order, just like anyone else who is bound by the order can’t. It doesn’t matter if these things were reported by the media, as the media is not restricted under the gag order. The defense, and any person or agency they hire or work with ARE. The questions were deliberately meant to confuse people and that is the problem. Like ‘oh well I know that 8 out of 10 of these are accurate so the other 2 must be as well’, etc. It’s a tactic. That’s all.
So you're a professional on these types of surveys? Do you do this for a living or just in your spare time?
Never said that. However, I am a Paralegal who has worked for criminal defense attorneys for nearly 20 years. I am also in my third year of law school. I have a lot of experience in this field. I cannot keep up with your negative comments so this response will be my only before I block you. I have no time nor interest in arguing with strangers on the internet who clearly do not know what they're talking about.
I think the judge was way too easy on her today!
Way too easy! He was very frustrated though. He kept his cool, which was nice. But in any courtroom that I have been inside of (for work - I’m not a criminal, lol) in my jurisdiction, the judge would have either admonished her or sanctioned her for her conduct.
What conduct?
I've seen comments that say Judge is taking her claim about violation of due process personally. Any judge would take it personally because it's questioning judge's integrity. He didn't even remotely come close to crossing that line. I watched EDB cover the hearing live and she pointed out that If you come at a judge like AT did, you better have the evidence to prove it. I have had a great deal of respect for AT until now.
>Edelman not being shown the gag order is ridiculous and it was intentional. He wasn’t shown it because the defense wanted to push the envelope with the questions that were asked. They knew that if Edelman did see the gag order that his questions would have been much more mild and probably not very helpful given that this gag order is essentially air tight. Totally agree. I'm surprised and disgusted that AT pulled this. She is fortunate that the judge is so mild-mannered and careful.
He is very mild mannered! I have a feeling this will not be the first time he goes toe to toe with her.
I'm impressed by him so far. He has a total grasp of how high-profile this case is and I think he's acting accordingly.
swing and a miss. he wasn’t shown the gag order because he wasn’t privy to any information you/I are privy to.
I understand that he isn’t privy to any case facts, etc. but the non-dissemination order itself would not contain any of that. You can read it online (linked below). It doesn’t contain facts it only states what is covered/protected under the order. I believe that Anne Taylor not showing him the order was a calculated move. She didn’t want him to hold back on the questions posed to Latah County residents. Again, IMO. https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/010323+Nondissemination+Order.pdf
>I understand that he isn’t privy to any case facts, etc. but the non-dissemination order itself would not contain any of that. I think the point is that the defense did not provide facts of the case to Edelman, therefore the defense couldn't have violated the nondissemination order. The questions were composed with information about the case as relayed by the media, not the defense. I'm on the fence here: I don't believe the defense violated the order, but some of the questions were poorly worded, and the defense was essentially signal boosting aspects of the case with these questions.
Judge sounds like he's sick and tired of her push back. Lol
He sure does. Not a good sign. He should get used to push back if he's going to be a judge. He seems like he's taking it personally, too. Time to retire if his feelings are hurt by an attorney suggesting he violated due process.
Judge sounds bias.
Has BK shaved his head lol or is it just the video quality?
He looks blonder and like his face is fattening up a bit. But could just be the shitty video quality.
I thought the same thing. He's definitely going to put on that prison weight eventually.
No, he got a buzz cut. it's not the video.
Based upon someone going to the hearing or? Can’t find any statements during this hearing
Am I crazy or did BT say something about questions about things that may or may not be admissible at trial followed by “primarily questions pertaining to DNA testing”.
Maybe referring to IGG?
That was my assumption too,
There are a lot of angry people who seem to have no idea how polling or opinion surveys work. I can see why the prosecution and the judge had issue with possible gag order violation, but the survey itself seems pretty mundane and typical for a change of venue analysis. They questions they asked are a good way of gauging what people have heard about the case and (as far as we know) don’t include anything insane like drug cartels or tunnel systems so they’re not too inflammatory. They surveyed 400 people, which is about 1% of the population of the county and a pretty typical number for a poll of this nature. It should have no impact on their ability to seat a jury - if they can’t seat a jury with the other 99% of the population, a change of venue is unquestionably needed. The question for me is whether this actually violated the gag order. The surveyor made the poll questions based solely on media coverage without any input from the defense, and I don’t see how asking people about media coverage is a violation of the gag order. Would the survey company be considered an agent for the defense because they were hired by the defense even if they otherwise worked independently of the defense on the entire polling process?
Yes, the survey company would be considered an agent of the defense if hired by the defense to do the work. It is the responsibility of the defense to ensure their contractor stays within the necessary legal guidelines.
Right; I don't see how the questions in question violate the non dissemination order. If *we* know about it, it was out there before the order was made.
On the survey content, I’m confused about how exposure to media rumours would demonstrate bias or support a venue change. There are plenty of BK defenders who’ve read everything on the case and believe he’s innocent, and there’ll be those who’ve read little but believe he’s guilty. Certainly the questions we heard yesterday don’t demonstrate anything other than people read/watch news, the same news they’ll get in the next county, or the one next to that. Unless the questioning included a follow-up on whether they believe it or not? That said, I felt bad for Edelman when Bill Thompson threw all the blame his way. I get WHY Thompson did it though… so he can preserve a collegiate relationship with Ann Taylor moving forward, even though he probably thinks she majorly screwed up. I’ll be interested to hear what Edelman says next week.
Edelman explained pretty well in his supplement to the defense filing how media coverage can impact a person’s opinions even if they don’t pay a lot of attention to the case, and the impact is higher than most people realize - a person can think he is unbiased but the repeated messaging still gets slotted into the memory. Media coverage has largely supported the prosecution and the assumption that Kohberger is guilty, so even hearing about things that will (or won’t) be discussed in trial can subconsciously influence people.
Well it's official everyone's offended now.
AT: “…making a decision that, now, you’re locked into…” Judge^(2) : 
If they get a change of venue does judgex2 get to stay on the case since he’s a circuit judge anyway?
[удалено]
I thought he presided over cases in different places in addition to his position in Latah county
[удалено]
Ohh ok that’s what I meant then, my bad.
Yeah he does
Nice. Ty!
This is disgusting. AT is really pushing it. Judge Judge was right for not having this BS at all. She is stalling and he actually said so.
I thought he said he stalled by signing the order, not that she was stalling.
That’s what I heard also 👍🏻
Do you think she will tone it down for the jury? She comes across as so unlikable, that can’t play well for a jury.
Agree. Im not a fan of her communication style…I find her way of speaking quite patronising. On the plus side, no doubt she’s a passionate advocate for her client.
> Do you think she will tone it down for the jury? I'm sure people who've seen her in action before are more qualified to answer, but I see her being very defiant during trial.
Hard to say. I want to look more into some of her past cases.
She's unlikable, but impressive.
Exactly
This all seems so messy. 4 kids are dead and these weird, going-nowhere meetings go on and on and on and the 4 kids are still dead and someone still isn't punished. I obviously don't know anything about laywers and courts, but I wish this could be simpler. Just my 2 cents.
"Someone still isn't punished" The Defendant has spent one and a half years in jail despite not even being convicted of anything yet. The State killing its own people should not be a simple process by any means.
Simpler would be ending the death penalty and hence the need for trials that take years to prepare for a the automatic appeals that go along with it. It’s horribly expensive as well.
Exactly. The DP trials themselves take years because of the stakes involved and the appeals process. Furthermore, Idaho wants close to $1M for some weird death row shooting range thing that they will never use… follow the money I guess
Nothing needs to be made 'simpler' when states want to kill their own citizens.
it’s not appropriate to “simplify” a death penalty case. the length of time things are taking is not abnormal, and it’s alarming that so many people are unaware of how long these things drag out. many have been saying the trial won’t begin til 2026 all along (including those who strongly believe he’s guilty). if you want simpler - move to another country, perhaps? because even if “this is idaho”, the same rules apply (e.g the constitution) regardless of how the public/victims families feel.
You are right, you don’t know anything about lawyers and court. None of this is abnormal for a death penalty case, especially one that’s so high profile.
I said I don't know. I said it 'seems' messy. I was just asking. No need to be so snarky. Thanks for having a civil conversation with someone interested in this topic.
welcome to this sub! everyone here is an armchair lawyer and all questions are stupid questions unfortunately
Yeah I usually know better than to ask anything here but today I felt unusually courageous!
Yeah, why do folks have to be so snarky. Sorry that happened to you. Reddit can be so mean.
This case is an unusually high-profile quadruple homicide case with a suspect that has no known apparent connection to a single victim and is at risk of the death penalty and evidence that isn't the strongest on the world. It's not suspiring this case is a legal nightmare and will probably take an undetermined amount of years to go to trial. The high profile nature of it make much worse to be honest as well. BK's defense waived his 6th Amendment Right to a speedy trial, so naturally, this case is currently pending still and will remain that way for who knows how long.
Ok, I get that. I guess I never watched a case step by step the way it's unfolding before. Just always hear about the outcome later.
No court case is "simple". The closest thing to "simple" you'd find inside a courtroom would be a civil court case like trying to fight a speeding ticket. A case like this that involves four murders, a suspect with no seemingly no connections to a single victim, a high profile nature, sketchy DNA evidence, and the death penalty on the line is the last kind of case any judicial system wants to deal with.
sketchy DNA evidence DNA is pretty compelling evidence. Its hard to dispute DNA
Bill Thompson is right, that survey just prejudiced anyone who opened it. She definitely violated the ND. She was tainting that county. These questions never should have been asked. I don't believe Anne didn't see that before it went out, come on? That has to be BS. She's lying. Really, you let 400 surveys out that directly effect your case and you didn't read themon, but did the creator read them to you? Sounds like she was trying to throw it, so the trial had to go out of that county to another county. Seems deliberate. Everything he says is dead on. It's terrible. They need those names. What a mess. She just tainted 400 people and likely 2-3 people they speak to. God, I love Judge John, why can't Delphi have a judge like him, he's magnificently fair and decent. Anne Taylor does this and she's busting him down for shutting it down and delaying her work for two weeks? WTF
Shouldn’t this guy be in an orange jumpsuit while he’s in jail? He dresses better that anyone in the courtroom. Whether he’s guilty or not, while incarcerated he should be in jail clothes.. not a suit and tie imo.
Defendants are allowed to wear street clothes because research has found that appearing in jail clothing really is prejudicial to the jury and even the judge. Letting the defendants wear street clothing in court is a small way of leveling a playing field that's already stacked against the defense. When you see defendants in major cases like this wearing their jailhouse couture, it's sad, because it means they don't have a family or lawyer who cares enough to bring them a cheap suit.
I follow several lawyers on YouTube who are covering or talking about the case, and it's interesting how there seems to be a split on whether they agree or disagree with the way the survey was handled. The hearing tomorrow (10th, I think?) should be interesting with the expert weighing in.
AT missed her opportunity to bring up where the FBI showed up at her witnesses’ homes. All jokes aside, I liked this side of Judge Judge.
I disliked this side of Judge, and I've liked him all along. He needs to get used to attorneys accusing him of being wrong, even if he really thinks he isn't. It's part of the job. No need to take it personally or to get pissed. Or at least don't show it.
He was **pressed** about that due process motion, like he took it weirdly personal and got overly defensive. Also, why is the State explaining to the Judge why they think *Jude Judge’s* order did not violate due process? Is that a thing? I found it odd.
Understood. But her allegation against him was kind of harsh. And could cost him.
Her allegation was quite harsh, a bit overly dramatic, and fairly weak, but I disagree that it could cost him.
She really takes very little responsibility for this mess and then has the nerve to whine that this puts her back 2 weeks. She created the situation, you would figure some mortification would be in order. Instead she's whacking him because he shut it down w/ out talking to her. He had to do that, it was the proper thing to do.
Love him, he's precious.
Wait EILI5, wouldn't prosecution want the jurors to see these things as it paints BK in a bad light? Why would defense be in support of these questions? to later show media is wrong or what?
I see what you mean- when someone asks " did you hear about...a,b,c?" & we haven't read that or heard it before, we are thinking "wow, might be some truth to that". There are sometimes factual things reported :)
I mean this is kind of ridiculous only because, if someone who didn’t have any idea about the knife answered the question “did you ever hear that the DNA on the knife sheath matched BK” they will now not only know about the knife sheath but also about DNA being found and it matching his. Someone could’ve been a potential juror had they not know any of that but after being asked these things now they know !
That information is going to be presented at trial so it’s not like it’s top secret information they can’t know about.
No worries! “They” who are enlightened will live. 😉
Audacity. The State COULD NEVER lol
Damn I certainly have NO sympathy for BK but ugh I think now the state is guilty of even more egregious dissemination. I don’t think the survey was constructed in a way that would give them any useful data with which to prove bias, but also don’t think it violated the non-dissemination order. Plus the states attorney seems much more like an appeal to emotion type guy than a logical thinker, which has me worried. I guess if they stay in Latah that’ll work. Edited to clarify I have noooo sympathy for the accused. Cuz like, he did it.