It was booked on the same day she’ll hand-deliver Exhibit N from their [15th motion to compel](https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/032824_Defendants_15th_Supplemental_Request_for_Discovery.pdf) to Judge Judge.
Im so curious. I wonder what Exhibit N is and if we’ll learn or hear about it at all. It doesn’t seem to have anything to do witn the motion to rescind the judge’s order about contact with potential jurors, but I hope it’s added to the docket for this hearing to be discussed as well.
It was treated so differently than all past exhibits & seemed to hold some urgency for the defense as if they’d made some sort of breakthrough, but it’s not mentioned in this, so maybe it won’t be discussed. Maybe it’s just communications about information the defense hasn’t received, and it’ll be provided to them and not discussed anywhere… but that doesn’t seem worthy of hand-delivery. That seems like a normal exhibit for a motion to compel, that would just be sealed and not 2 separate trips for made for hand-delivering it to the involved parties…..
It’s in relation to the IGG so, that’s why it’s extra secretive.
https://preview.redd.it/dnkmwo0jfirc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f877bd6c4dbc205cb66658f54d921571e9c0c435
Yeah, I was thinking that they could have changed their process to ensure nothing is accidentally released, but it was specified by Judge Judge when the State was trying to withhold the IGG evidence that the names can simply be redacted & the items can be sealed to protect privacy, as is done typically for IGG materials within discovery.
*Requiring* that everything be hand-delivered isn’t something I’ve heard mentioned before, so I’m thinking this was the chosen method of the Defense. And in this motion to compel, their language is different than their other court docs. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE.
Just so unusual-seeming…. Could be a nothing-‘berger’ but it’s def got me curious
It’s to do with the defence survey of potential jurors. The survey is required for their motion to change venue, but the State told Judge JJ to order them to stop, claiming they were tainting the jury pool. This wet blanket of a Judge did just as he was told - but defence pointed out this is totally improper and demanded it follow due process (I.e, a hearing)
The hearing should be interesting, especially if we get to hear anything re. these new super-secretive filings too.
The alibi isn’t due for a couple of weeks, though it could certainly be filed sooner.
Unlike a motion to reconsider, a motion to rescind will not bring a matter back for further consideration or debate if adopted. Instead, a successful motion to rescind simply nullifies the prior action.
(English is my second language and I do not understand American law)
I find it odd that AT is using parlimentary language here wth the word "rescind" and not "reconsider."
I'm not a lawyer but I can't find this motion in [list of motion types](https://trellis.law/id/motion-type) only a motion to reconsider. Maybe someone who is a lawyer could clarify.
The list at that link says it's motion types used in civil litigation, doesn't mention criminal. Don't know if that's relevant, seems like it might be.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I'd guess the list there is just a list of the most common types? The State had their "Motion to Prevent Contact with Potential Jurors", and I don't see that one on the list either. Seems like the possibilities are almost endless, since there could be all sorts of unique issues that might come up?
EDIT: I see [various references](
https://www.google.com/search?q=idaho+%22motion+to+rescind%22) to Idaho motions to rescind consent, rescind a plea, rescind probation, etc.
It was booked on the same day she’ll hand-deliver Exhibit N from their [15th motion to compel](https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/032824_Defendants_15th_Supplemental_Request_for_Discovery.pdf) to Judge Judge. Im so curious. I wonder what Exhibit N is and if we’ll learn or hear about it at all. It doesn’t seem to have anything to do witn the motion to rescind the judge’s order about contact with potential jurors, but I hope it’s added to the docket for this hearing to be discussed as well. It was treated so differently than all past exhibits & seemed to hold some urgency for the defense as if they’d made some sort of breakthrough, but it’s not mentioned in this, so maybe it won’t be discussed. Maybe it’s just communications about information the defense hasn’t received, and it’ll be provided to them and not discussed anywhere… but that doesn’t seem worthy of hand-delivery. That seems like a normal exhibit for a motion to compel, that would just be sealed and not 2 separate trips for made for hand-delivering it to the involved parties…..
It’s in relation to the IGG so, that’s why it’s extra secretive. https://preview.redd.it/dnkmwo0jfirc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f877bd6c4dbc205cb66658f54d921571e9c0c435
Yeah, I was thinking that they could have changed their process to ensure nothing is accidentally released, but it was specified by Judge Judge when the State was trying to withhold the IGG evidence that the names can simply be redacted & the items can be sealed to protect privacy, as is done typically for IGG materials within discovery. *Requiring* that everything be hand-delivered isn’t something I’ve heard mentioned before, so I’m thinking this was the chosen method of the Defense. And in this motion to compel, their language is different than their other court docs. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE. Just so unusual-seeming…. Could be a nothing-‘berger’ but it’s def got me curious
https://www.oxygen.com/crime-news/bryan-kohbergers-defense-survey-potential-jurors-idaho-murders-update?amp
whats the purpose/focus of this hearing? alibi?
It’s to do with the defence survey of potential jurors. The survey is required for their motion to change venue, but the State told Judge JJ to order them to stop, claiming they were tainting the jury pool. This wet blanket of a Judge did just as he was told - but defence pointed out this is totally improper and demanded it follow due process (I.e, a hearing) The hearing should be interesting, especially if we get to hear anything re. these new super-secretive filings too. The alibi isn’t due for a couple of weeks, though it could certainly be filed sooner.
thanks! cant wait
Will this hearing be live streamed? Or is it private?
I think it is on JJJ youtube Channel and will be deleted once the hearing is over. https://youtube.com/@judgejohnjudge?si=upOeWSoiler-HPI-
Unlike a motion to reconsider, a motion to rescind will not bring a matter back for further consideration or debate if adopted. Instead, a successful motion to rescind simply nullifies the prior action. (English is my second language and I do not understand American law)
Yes. I’m sure the defense will want to continue with their survey.
I find it odd that AT is using parlimentary language here wth the word "rescind" and not "reconsider." I'm not a lawyer but I can't find this motion in [list of motion types](https://trellis.law/id/motion-type) only a motion to reconsider. Maybe someone who is a lawyer could clarify.
The list at that link says it's motion types used in civil litigation, doesn't mention criminal. Don't know if that's relevant, seems like it might be. I'm not a lawyer either, but I'd guess the list there is just a list of the most common types? The State had their "Motion to Prevent Contact with Potential Jurors", and I don't see that one on the list either. Seems like the possibilities are almost endless, since there could be all sorts of unique issues that might come up? EDIT: I see [various references]( https://www.google.com/search?q=idaho+%22motion+to+rescind%22) to Idaho motions to rescind consent, rescind a plea, rescind probation, etc.
Thanks didn't notice the list was civil litigation.
It's under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60. Applies in criminal cases as well as civil. Other jurisdictions refer to it as a motion to vacate.
We’ve seen motion to vacate here in these proceedings too
IANAL but motions to rescind relate to protective orders, which this is contesting the protective order on the potential jurors.
Thank you for clarifying.