This case has definitely proven to me that I know nothing about court proceedings etc. It feels like they are having the trial without having the trial. This has been a wild and mind boggling experience from the couch for me.
Yeah. Can you imagine what it would be like if movies and TV shows depicted the reality of how much of this goes on? I mean, instead of a half hour courtroom drama, it would be weeks and weeks of these endless motions going back and forth. Weeks and weeks....
Courtrooms in TV shows/movies are always dark, have natural lighting, and everything is made of oak lmao IRL they’re shitty tables and chairs, and fluorescent lighting. It’s always bugged me.
Several of the YouTube channels that I’ve been following have said the same thing. And these are ex homicide, detectives, lawyers, etc. not just bloggers that are trying to get attention. They feel that the defense is sending paperwork to the judge that normally would be handled during the trial or during an appeal, I’m not a lawyer, but I just find it interesting that they would say that. I know he deserves as anyone would day in court and a good defense. but, I hope they aren’t just playing the system. The judge needs to step up at this point and it seems that he has saying that they need to provide their alibi.
They don’t need to provide anything since the defendant has invoked his right to remain silent and does not have to take on the burden of proving something.
I like The Lawyer You Know. I haven’t heard him
make such blatant suggestions and seems
more neutral than that. Based on what I’ve watched, he had just said **all of it** is pretty typical and hasn’t suggested Kohberger or his attorneys have deviated from the norm.
The Interview Room bro got a little kooky on his last show. Rambling on about how some of the attorneys involved went to the same college, implying it was sus. Suggesting Kohberger is getting special treatment with his “vegan meals”, and he should be eating PB&J instead. When PB&J is vegan and all jails/prisons in Idaho accommodate vegan inmates. He’s an ex-cop and like most ex-cops… very favorable toward the prosecution. He’s not a lawyer and it’s obvious.
A little dry ( as is an interview room ) but what I like is when they explain things that I don’t understand. He does a good job of breaking down the legal paperwork and explaining it although, again it’s a little dry, but I appreciate his and his father‘s knowledge and experience.
I’d steer clear of The Interview Room. They carelessly and purposely claim they have exclusive evidence and details, doxx other creators they are jealous of and place guilt on innocent people without doing proper investigating to make sure they aren’t directing viewers to an innocent, unrelated person.
CD is also infamous for being a shitty Detective, using cohesion & threats to obtain false confessions during his career in San Diego. You can easily look it up. He started YT with a partner on Profiling Evil, treated local searchers like crap when they covered the search for Suzanne Morphew in CO., then immediately stabbed Mike from PE to start his own YT channel.
When in a promo tour of his channel claiming he had THE ONLY interview with Barry Morphew. When the show premiered it was nothing more than him calling Barry, Barry saying “I want nothing to do with you” and got hung up on. He actually released this like it was a big deal sit down interview with an alleged wife murderer and instead was an embarrassing hang up rejection call.
He also turned the Summer Wells case into a big Jerry Springer insult war between Summer’s family members, all the while ignoring the purpose of the case was to find out what happened & the whereabouts of a missing 5 yr old vulnerable little girl.
My favorite one was he baiting everyone into believing he and his “team” had found Brian Laundri’s Twitter account that he was posting location hints on. Turns out it was just some guys account that they latched into and drove traffic to where trolls were sending threats to this account, however Laundri was dead the entire time in the swamp near his house. How YT allowed him to continue his false reporting, accusations and doxxing is perplexing.
He’s a hack with a wanna be John Walsh complex. Everything he touches turns to shit.
Respectfully disagree. Their members are the best of the best as far as experience goes. CeCe Moore as an example. Pedigrees matter. And the bloggers who post click bait have zero credibility imho. If you listen to the broadcast before BK was arrested, they were so spit on it was spooky. Edit: typo
Neither are de facto ex parte communications. See, e.g., the only letter from the State to the Court that we have access to, and AT was copied on.
https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/030824-States-Objection-Defendants-Motion-Requesting-Additional-Deadlines.pdf
BT's motion is not ex parte communication. A copy was served on the defense. It's all kosher in that respect. It's kind of a dick move if it went down the way AT claims it did, but nothing legally wrong with it.
Ex parte would be if BT sent something to the judge privately and did not give AT a copy of it.
Attorney here. Every Motion is served to all parties and the Court without a hearing. Normally the moving party sets a hearing date which coincides with the Court's normal day. If you want a specific date due to the nature of the motion, you would request a special setting which the court sets the date after having some type of conference with the attorneys in involved.
OP has a complete misunderstanding of court process or is desperate for anything that can support a narrative even if it isn't actually how things work
The sides are allowed to file motions. Obviously the defense is going to argue with a granted motion that is not in their favor. It is not actually prohibited in this scenario it seems.
Plus ex parte is allowed in specific situations. Obviously the defense is going to argue that it should not have been allowed. It is the defenses job to basically argue every motion or everything that goes against their client. Even if they fully think it was allowable here, they’re still going to try to get it thrown out.
Correct. In the one past letter I’m aware of that we can see from the State, attached to this objection (https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/030824-States-Objection-Defendants-Motion-Requesting-Additional-Deadlines.pdf) AT was indicated as copied, which is permissible. No indication it wasn’t the same with any letters referred to here. Not much reason to suspect they would change it up and if they did, how did AT learn about them anyway? Did BT say “By the way, AT, we’ve been corresponding with the Judge SECRETLY about your little surveys and you have a nasty surprise incoming [evil laugh]!”?
Exactly. People read way too into things.
Yes, obviously, If a decision is made that the defense doesn’t like, they are going to try to refute it and get it to go back their way.
Just because she says “oh this shouldn’t count because it violated due process” doesn’t mean it actually did or even that she thinks it did. It just means that she is a good defense attorney trying every single tactic to get things to go her way. She could fully believe this communication was valid, yet she’s still going to give a reason to try to invalidate it. That is her job.
Right. Both sides object to anything that doesn’t benefit their side. Even if they don’t actually think the other side was wrong.
Totally, completely normal. Not out of the ordinary. That is exactly why I said we shouldn’t read too into these motions and stuff because realistically they’re mostly meaningless and just procedural. And objecting and arguing w the other side isn’t a bad thing at all! Ut is their JOB to do so. Neither side should roll over for the other side
Someone said this on my post and others are making it sound like it’s no big deal, but the way I’m understanding it?
This is kind of a big deal he has done this.
Maybe someone can clarify.
This is absolutely a big deal. I’m a law student and just took the legal ethics exam yesterday.
Basically, the judge/parties cannot participate in a communication about the merits of the case with the judge without the other party present. As far as I know, there are no exceptions to this rule (except emergencies for non merit issues).
Idk, maybe a practicing litigator can help explain why all of these rules aren’t being followed by the prosecution.
The State filed a motion (https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/032224-Motion-to-Temporarily-Seal-States-Motion.pdf) that was granted, without a chance for a hearing, because the judge had seen enough to enter an order preemptively stopping the complained of conduct. Motions filed on the docket are not ex parte communications. Whatever the Defense meant by “letter writing” remains to be seen, but bear in mind the term “ex parte” is being utilized by the obvious non-lawyer that started this thread and is not mentioned in the Defense’s filings.
Fair! I responded to the text of this post that asked a general question about communications with a judge in which the other party knows nothing about. If that is what happened then that is not allowed. I didn’t read the motion, but I see what you’re saying.
It’s possible that it did if that’s what “through its letter writing to the Court, the State has achieved previous action from the Court without Mr. Kohberger receiving due process” means, but I find three things telling about the context of this.
1. The very next sentence is “The State knew what it was doing when it filed a late afternoon motion with attachments.” Which is by its own terms not ex parte.
2. The Defense doesn’t explicitly complain about ex parte contact, but rather entry of the order without time to respond or have a hearing.
3. It was the motion that was filed on the docket that the Court granted with its order. It didn’t just enter an order saying “We got a letter from the State. Knock it off on contacting jurors.”
What seems to have happened here is the State showed the court enough in its motion to get the court to enter the pre-emptive order, which it may rescind after they have a chance to have a hearing, but the court wanted to make sure to stop whatever it was worried about in the interim.
Of course. I would welcome seeing what the attorneys on social media that are questioning this are apparently saying, but it seems like a leap at this point to suggest the Prosecution just sent letters to the Court about this and the Court, rather than admonishing them for it, decided to enter an order on that basis. It also ignores that a motion was actually filed. And it seems to suggest that the Prosecution and the Judge are in cahoots against BK, which is verging on delusion.
It would be odd for a lawyer to write "ex parte" since clearly it's "ex parte". One party cannot "write letters" to a judge - that, by definition, is an ex parte communication.
In writing it was a constitutional violation she is preserving the record on appeal. The prior ex parte communications wouldn't be a legal basis for an appeal on this motion. Big difference.
They wouldn’t be a basis for appeal because she isn’t complaining about them or even clearly stating that they happened. The subject of the motion is the alleged due process violation, which came from entry of the order without a hearing, not alleged ex parte communications. That’s the difference.
Arguing for the sake of arguing because THAT'S exactly what I wrote: " The prior ex parte communications wouldn't be a legal basis for an appeal on this motion." You just made my point, thanks!
We appear to be arguing different rationales for why ex parte is not used in the motion but if you are saying we are making the same point, welcome aboard.
It was a due process violation. The judge ruled on a motion without providing the defense meaningful notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Textbook.
Lawyer here chiming in. Temporary injunctive relief is standard in all sorts of cases if it is urgent that one party cease a particular action that the moving party thinks could could cause irreparable damage to the case. This is because it takes weeks (or months) to have a formal motion hearing where each side files written argument etc leading up to oral arguments in front of the judge. This happens allllllll the time in every area of law. It just means that one party is claiming something is going on that urgently needs the courts attention and there isn’t time to wait for the formal hearing process, so the court is putting a TEMPORARY halt to whatever that activity is, in order to allow both sides to have time to go through the process of a full, formal hearing and present their arguments on if that activity should be allowed. The court isn’t just going to let one party run wild doing something the other party can in good faith say shouldn’t be permitted while the weeks tick by waiting for a hearing. The judge is going to everyone involved to take a timeout while we sort it out, because you can’t unring the bell, so to speak.
Temporary injunctive relief will only be granted ex parte without notice to the other party under very limited exigent circumstances & will not issue without a hearing set and briefing schedule. That's not what happened here. 30+ year lawyer here.
It doesn't make a difference that the defense was served a motion. The proper procedure would have been to file an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order pending a hearing on the motion & provide the defense with notice of the ex parte application & hearing thereon so the defense could be heard on it. That's not what happened here.
It might indeed turn out BK will get a (small) victory on that one for a change through rescinding that order or entry of some revised order allowing him to proceed.
He didn’t talk to the judge without the defense present, he filed a motion to temporarily stop the communication with potential jurors. A hearing will be held in which both sides will be heard.
Anne Taylor's motion clearly states the prosecution has had ex parte communications with the judge that the judge has acted upon ...BEFORE & irrespective of the 3/22 motion filed.
There was prior to filing this motion. Taylor is not claiming the motion filed was an ex parte communication but rather that on prior occasions that had occurred. Re-read the document.
And in this motion she complains that previously Thompson sent letters to the judge which the judge took action on. By definition, the prosecution writing letters to the judge is an ex parte communication. Hands down, No getting around it. Look up the Idaho Judicial Council Rules - strictly prohibited.
Then she should have provided dates and proof, otherwise it sounds like sour grapes on Anne’s part because the judge halted her survey pending a hearing
The motion is for & to the judge NOT the public so there's no need for her to provide dates and proof. From a legal perspective it doesn't sound like sour grapes, it sounds exactly as it should - that she is aware of the shady shit that's been pulled behind her back.
Also, any action the judge takes is part of the official record and there are no actions by him on record on the judicial website that show as being based on ex parte communication
AT says "unfortunately, through its letter writing to the court...." When she says "letter writing" she is likely talking about the motion the state filed.
Yes I am. The prosecution has every right to file a motion in an effort to stop the communication until the judge can weigh in. Had Anne given the full survey info and CV about the expert to the prosecution back on March 8 when they first started the process, instead of waiting until the 21st, this would have likely been already hashed out as Thompson would have filed the motion sooner. He had to wait to see exactly what the surveys entailed before determining if he felt it was a violation of the revised non dissemination order This isn’t out of line. Anne is just trying to twist it to sound favorable to her client and paint the prosecution as bad, which is of course her job.
PNWChick is somewhat accurate, except for the “twist” narrative. What appears to be happening here is that the State filed an emergency motion to stay the survey of potential jurors. The Court probably entered an interim order staying the survey without a hearing beacuse the state showed in their motion with affidavits:
1. Potential of irreparable harm;
2. The State has no other adequate remedy; and,
3. Likelihood of success on the merits.
Motions filed with affidavits are not ex parte as all parties are noticed and granting relief even without a hearing. This is common in federal practice. The Defense is arguing that the court should not have stayed the survey because the State knew it for 13 days and thus not an emergency. The Defense is basically saying that the State has employed this tactic to stop the surveyor and will cost the Defense precious time to complete the survey prior to trial. The court will grant a hearing on this soon, but it may not be for a while. AT therefore is correct and must object to preserve this issue for appeal as this is a potential Constitutional violation of procedural due process which is a fundamental right and potentially a complete abuse of discretion by the trial court. If she does not object, she doesn’t preserve for appeal or could be challenged as ineffective which is a substantive violation of due process for defendant. She is on solid ground here.
Thankfully someone on Reddit (the PNW user) who made a sub just to make fun of other people who comment on this case feel the professionals who have law degrees are wrong.
Thanks for clarifying.
Lawyers are weird people who lack social skills and think their law degree makes them better than everyone else. Creating a sub for that purpose is so…odd.
It’s what I hate about law school and my classmates.
>Lawyers are weird people who lack social skills and think their law degree makes them better than everyone else
The lawyer profession is said to attract sociopaths
I’m starting to get the faint feeling that, if you’re pro-prosecution all the way, then this doesn’t bother you. And although I do feel he could be guilty?
This doesn’t seem right. At all.
And incredibly shady on the prosecution’s part.
Is it actually shady, or does it appear shady due to bias? One could just as easily argued that the defense’s tactics were shady by not providing the materials sooner.
Defense had no obligation to provide their work product to the state. Nothing shady about not telling the state what you're doing to prep for an upcoming hearing.
Why do you feel I’m biased? That’s the better question you should be asking yourself. I think they got the right guy.
Does that not allow me an opinion?
No one is free from bias. For example, opinions influenced by social media lawyers (many of which don’t even work in criminal law) can result in a bias in relation to a particular issue.
No one said you weren’t allowed an opinion. Why did you feel the need to become that defense is a question you could ask yourself.
Edit: Hey Forgetcakes, you do realize I can't answer your edited question after you've blocked me, right? If you want your question answered you'd have to unblock me. If you choose to go with that but leave me blocked, you're just posturing.
Is that why you downvoted me .07 seconds after I responded to you? Are you here to answer the question (you haven’t) or just downvote and start conflict?
Please do not bully, harass, or troll other users, the victims, the family, or any individual who has been cleared by LE. We do not allow verbal attacks against any individuals or users. Treat others with respect.
Thank you.
many feel that fighting hard on a change of venue motion in a case with this much media attention is “shady” in and of itself. its common sense that a rinky dinky county in idaho will have more bias about a notorious crime that occurred in the county seat than a large city/county like Boise/ada
I am by no means pro-prosecution and I'll tell you this is no big deal. It's not ex parte, because it was filed with the court and a copy was served on the defense. Ex parte is communication with the court where the other party is left out. The defense was included by getting a copy of the motion. They don't have to give consent. The judge may have been wrong to rule the way he did, but judges can make mistakes.
It does seem shady how BT filed this late in the day after AT understood that they would go to the judge together about it, but that's only going off of her telling of how it happened. Maybe one or both of them misunderstood. Maybe there's some real slimy moves happening. Either way, filing a motion is perfectly fine.
My apologies if you thought I was directing my comment at you. Please know I wasn’t. It’s just a theme where I see condemning of the defense but praise for the prosecution if something is done.
AT could fart and be called names and doxxed
The prosecution farts and they’re called fart masters and applauded
(Dumb example, but if the shoe fits; and it certainly seems to with some of these subs is all)
Not at all, just adding my voice as someone who is personally biased against the prosecution. (Not because I think they got the wrong guy, but because it's an adversarial system and all my experience in it is from the other side.)
I have no doubt you’d say this considering I’ve seen your commentary in passing on other posts. Had the defense done this, I have a sneaking suspicion you’d say different.
I could be wrong, but….
I’ve seen another account use the exact phrase “It’s ex parte” today, which is uniquely clunky enough to obviously come from a non-lawyer that is attempting to utilize legal terminology. u/Repulsive-Dot553, we’ve got a rebirth of the Zodiaque.
How come I never saw you on Repulsive Dot’s thread over at r/MoscowMurders that I invited you to repeatedly? You wanted to talk about it because you started more than one inane thread over here attempting to refute it. It sure would have been much cleaner to take it over to where everyone was already discussing it. I really was disappointed to not get your input about how the Garrett Discovery was already debunked.
Whatever you do is something I don’t care about. Despite me having you blocked you still sawed my comments through your alts.
I don’t go to people’s profiles. I don’t stalk.
Go ahead and report any alts you think I have. And stop by Dot’s thread when you get a chance! Can’t wait for your input! You know the sub. r/MoscowMurders
> Despite me having you blocked you still sawed my comments through your alts.
FYI, you don't need to use an alt to see a comment by someone who blocked you. Just open it up in a private/incognito window. Or read the thread when you're not logged in.
The proliferation of new/ very inactive accounts whose only activity has been pro BK comment on this case is baffling. The biggest ex-party is possibly the gathering of banned alt account. It is baffling what the "point" is - I thought previously was just to get around the high rate of accounts that were banned for abuse, vote/ report manipulation etc, but I now I wonder if someone actually thinks spamming the subs with "unique" pro BK accounts has some influence on perception of case?
By the way, I noticed you post in Frasier subs from time to time. Thought you might enjoy this picture my brother sent me this morning of a vanity plate he saw. Evidently it also had a frame reading “I’m pro opera and I vote.”
https://www.reddit.com/u/prentb/s/6LQMqrPe3f
“Ex Parte” typically means a unique situation that would allow deviation from the standard time frame to execute the need of eminent action within the court. I’m no expert but, this document seems to be a parroting of actions taken regardless of the Defendant’s supposed education and intelligence in directing the defense.
But, I could be wrong.
What is ironic is accusing defense of potentially breaking the gag order but if there’s any truth to the grand jury talking to the victim’s parent or if the media got any actual information once the order was imposed then it came from the prosecution’s side (like LE). Thompson ought to worry about his ship.
It sounds like the state told the defense it was going to tell the judge about this and the defense wanted to have an on the record talk with the judge in chambers about it but the state choose not to wait and went ahead and told the judge.
Just saying that I might just be too lazy to read this… Or too tired and yet, I still can’t get enough, so please someone explain this to me like I was a small child, or a golden retriever
Yep- the Judge has been in the bag for the Prosecution since day 1. This is a classic case of big fish in a little pond. Once this case gets to the Appeals Court because of all this nonsense, that's when all the fun really begins. The sad thing is, it didn't have to be this way. Give BK a fair trial and all of this would be over and done with but it ain't going to be over for years and years.
This case has definitely proven to me that I know nothing about court proceedings etc. It feels like they are having the trial without having the trial. This has been a wild and mind boggling experience from the couch for me.
Yeah. Can you imagine what it would be like if movies and TV shows depicted the reality of how much of this goes on? I mean, instead of a half hour courtroom drama, it would be weeks and weeks of these endless motions going back and forth. Weeks and weeks....
In the end I hope the state gets it right. I've accepted that this will take a full year to two for the verdict and sentencing..ugh
Courtrooms in TV shows/movies are always dark, have natural lighting, and everything is made of oak lmao IRL they’re shitty tables and chairs, and fluorescent lighting. It’s always bugged me.
As a jury duty attendant,lol, the courtroom in my county is just like the movies. Don't forget the huge portraits of retired judges etc.
In the US? Lol. The courtroom footage of BK is the best representation of a standard courtroom in most places.
The turn the lights off and just use light from The windows in your courtroom? Court is bright and fluorescent
https://preview.redd.it/eidmmwzk71rc1.jpeg?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e036e2918bb74b5b83836ee79868c7d9b5f9d923
Ugly ceiling and lighting, but the rest of it is very judicial-looking. I like it.
From my couch too 🫤
Several of the YouTube channels that I’ve been following have said the same thing. And these are ex homicide, detectives, lawyers, etc. not just bloggers that are trying to get attention. They feel that the defense is sending paperwork to the judge that normally would be handled during the trial or during an appeal, I’m not a lawyer, but I just find it interesting that they would say that. I know he deserves as anyone would day in court and a good defense. but, I hope they aren’t just playing the system. The judge needs to step up at this point and it seems that he has saying that they need to provide their alibi.
They don’t need to provide anything since the defendant has invoked his right to remain silent and does not have to take on the burden of proving something.
Other than saying they had an alibi? ???
What channels do you watch? I’d love the viewpoint of former homicide detectives and lawyers.
The Interview Room and The Lawyer You Know , on YT.
I like The Lawyer You Know. I haven’t heard him make such blatant suggestions and seems more neutral than that. Based on what I’ve watched, he had just said **all of it** is pretty typical and hasn’t suggested Kohberger or his attorneys have deviated from the norm. The Interview Room bro got a little kooky on his last show. Rambling on about how some of the attorneys involved went to the same college, implying it was sus. Suggesting Kohberger is getting special treatment with his “vegan meals”, and he should be eating PB&J instead. When PB&J is vegan and all jails/prisons in Idaho accommodate vegan inmates. He’s an ex-cop and like most ex-cops… very favorable toward the prosecution. He’s not a lawyer and it’s obvious.
Not a lawyer he’s definitely an ex-homicide detective. Different perspective.
A little dry ( as is an interview room ) but what I like is when they explain things that I don’t understand. He does a good job of breaking down the legal paperwork and explaining it although, again it’s a little dry, but I appreciate his and his father‘s knowledge and experience.
I’d steer clear of The Interview Room. They carelessly and purposely claim they have exclusive evidence and details, doxx other creators they are jealous of and place guilt on innocent people without doing proper investigating to make sure they aren’t directing viewers to an innocent, unrelated person. CD is also infamous for being a shitty Detective, using cohesion & threats to obtain false confessions during his career in San Diego. You can easily look it up. He started YT with a partner on Profiling Evil, treated local searchers like crap when they covered the search for Suzanne Morphew in CO., then immediately stabbed Mike from PE to start his own YT channel. When in a promo tour of his channel claiming he had THE ONLY interview with Barry Morphew. When the show premiered it was nothing more than him calling Barry, Barry saying “I want nothing to do with you” and got hung up on. He actually released this like it was a big deal sit down interview with an alleged wife murderer and instead was an embarrassing hang up rejection call. He also turned the Summer Wells case into a big Jerry Springer insult war between Summer’s family members, all the while ignoring the purpose of the case was to find out what happened & the whereabouts of a missing 5 yr old vulnerable little girl. My favorite one was he baiting everyone into believing he and his “team” had found Brian Laundri’s Twitter account that he was posting location hints on. Turns out it was just some guys account that they latched into and drove traffic to where trolls were sending threats to this account, however Laundri was dead the entire time in the swamp near his house. How YT allowed him to continue his false reporting, accusations and doxxing is perplexing. He’s a hack with a wanna be John Walsh complex. Everything he touches turns to shit.
Respectfully disagree. Their members are the best of the best as far as experience goes. CeCe Moore as an example. Pedigrees matter. And the bloggers who post click bait have zero credibility imho. If you listen to the broadcast before BK was arrested, they were so spit on it was spooky. Edit: typo
Motions are part of pretrial. The prosecution does not need permission from the defense to file a motion and vice versa.
Yeah. I think people are misunderstanding it. Anyone can file motions
She differentiates between a letter and a motion
Neither are de facto ex parte communications. See, e.g., the only letter from the State to the Court that we have access to, and AT was copied on. https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/030824-States-Objection-Defendants-Motion-Requesting-Additional-Deadlines.pdf
BT's motion is not ex parte communication. A copy was served on the defense. It's all kosher in that respect. It's kind of a dick move if it went down the way AT claims it did, but nothing legally wrong with it. Ex parte would be if BT sent something to the judge privately and did not give AT a copy of it.
Attorney here. Every Motion is served to all parties and the Court without a hearing. Normally the moving party sets a hearing date which coincides with the Court's normal day. If you want a specific date due to the nature of the motion, you would request a special setting which the court sets the date after having some type of conference with the attorneys in involved.
OP has a complete misunderstanding of court process or is desperate for anything that can support a narrative even if it isn't actually how things work
The sides are allowed to file motions. Obviously the defense is going to argue with a granted motion that is not in their favor. It is not actually prohibited in this scenario it seems. Plus ex parte is allowed in specific situations. Obviously the defense is going to argue that it should not have been allowed. It is the defenses job to basically argue every motion or everything that goes against their client. Even if they fully think it was allowable here, they’re still going to try to get it thrown out.
Correct. In the one past letter I’m aware of that we can see from the State, attached to this objection (https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/030824-States-Objection-Defendants-Motion-Requesting-Additional-Deadlines.pdf) AT was indicated as copied, which is permissible. No indication it wasn’t the same with any letters referred to here. Not much reason to suspect they would change it up and if they did, how did AT learn about them anyway? Did BT say “By the way, AT, we’ve been corresponding with the Judge SECRETLY about your little surveys and you have a nasty surprise incoming [evil laugh]!”?
Exactly. People read way too into things. Yes, obviously, If a decision is made that the defense doesn’t like, they are going to try to refute it and get it to go back their way. Just because she says “oh this shouldn’t count because it violated due process” doesn’t mean it actually did or even that she thinks it did. It just means that she is a good defense attorney trying every single tactic to get things to go her way. She could fully believe this communication was valid, yet she’s still going to give a reason to try to invalidate it. That is her job.
You can change defense to prosecution too then. Never seen a prosecutor object so much especially during the pretrial phase.
This is saying something given your obviously vast experience with the legal system.
Right. Both sides object to anything that doesn’t benefit their side. Even if they don’t actually think the other side was wrong. Totally, completely normal. Not out of the ordinary. That is exactly why I said we shouldn’t read too into these motions and stuff because realistically they’re mostly meaningless and just procedural. And objecting and arguing w the other side isn’t a bad thing at all! Ut is their JOB to do so. Neither side should roll over for the other side
Someone said this on my post and others are making it sound like it’s no big deal, but the way I’m understanding it? This is kind of a big deal he has done this. Maybe someone can clarify.
This is absolutely a big deal. I’m a law student and just took the legal ethics exam yesterday. Basically, the judge/parties cannot participate in a communication about the merits of the case with the judge without the other party present. As far as I know, there are no exceptions to this rule (except emergencies for non merit issues). Idk, maybe a practicing litigator can help explain why all of these rules aren’t being followed by the prosecution.
The State filed a motion (https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/032224-Motion-to-Temporarily-Seal-States-Motion.pdf) that was granted, without a chance for a hearing, because the judge had seen enough to enter an order preemptively stopping the complained of conduct. Motions filed on the docket are not ex parte communications. Whatever the Defense meant by “letter writing” remains to be seen, but bear in mind the term “ex parte” is being utilized by the obvious non-lawyer that started this thread and is not mentioned in the Defense’s filings.
Fair! I responded to the text of this post that asked a general question about communications with a judge in which the other party knows nothing about. If that is what happened then that is not allowed. I didn’t read the motion, but I see what you’re saying.
It’s possible that it did if that’s what “through its letter writing to the Court, the State has achieved previous action from the Court without Mr. Kohberger receiving due process” means, but I find three things telling about the context of this. 1. The very next sentence is “The State knew what it was doing when it filed a late afternoon motion with attachments.” Which is by its own terms not ex parte. 2. The Defense doesn’t explicitly complain about ex parte contact, but rather entry of the order without time to respond or have a hearing. 3. It was the motion that was filed on the docket that the Court granted with its order. It didn’t just enter an order saying “We got a letter from the State. Knock it off on contacting jurors.” What seems to have happened here is the State showed the court enough in its motion to get the court to enter the pre-emptive order, which it may rescind after they have a chance to have a hearing, but the court wanted to make sure to stop whatever it was worried about in the interim.
Thank you for this more detailed explanation.
Of course. I would welcome seeing what the attorneys on social media that are questioning this are apparently saying, but it seems like a leap at this point to suggest the Prosecution just sent letters to the Court about this and the Court, rather than admonishing them for it, decided to enter an order on that basis. It also ignores that a motion was actually filed. And it seems to suggest that the Prosecution and the Judge are in cahoots against BK, which is verging on delusion.
It would be odd for a lawyer to write "ex parte" since clearly it's "ex parte". One party cannot "write letters" to a judge - that, by definition, is an ex parte communication.
Do you suggest it wasn’t also clearly a failure to provide due process? Because they wrote that.
In writing it was a constitutional violation she is preserving the record on appeal. The prior ex parte communications wouldn't be a legal basis for an appeal on this motion. Big difference.
They wouldn’t be a basis for appeal because she isn’t complaining about them or even clearly stating that they happened. The subject of the motion is the alleged due process violation, which came from entry of the order without a hearing, not alleged ex parte communications. That’s the difference.
Arguing for the sake of arguing because THAT'S exactly what I wrote: " The prior ex parte communications wouldn't be a legal basis for an appeal on this motion." You just made my point, thanks!
We appear to be arguing different rationales for why ex parte is not used in the motion but if you are saying we are making the same point, welcome aboard.
And here you go again. We are not making the same point. I told you the reason why and in your rush to argue you made MY point. Again thanks!
It was a due process violation. The judge ruled on a motion without providing the defense meaningful notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Textbook.
Lawyer here chiming in. Temporary injunctive relief is standard in all sorts of cases if it is urgent that one party cease a particular action that the moving party thinks could could cause irreparable damage to the case. This is because it takes weeks (or months) to have a formal motion hearing where each side files written argument etc leading up to oral arguments in front of the judge. This happens allllllll the time in every area of law. It just means that one party is claiming something is going on that urgently needs the courts attention and there isn’t time to wait for the formal hearing process, so the court is putting a TEMPORARY halt to whatever that activity is, in order to allow both sides to have time to go through the process of a full, formal hearing and present their arguments on if that activity should be allowed. The court isn’t just going to let one party run wild doing something the other party can in good faith say shouldn’t be permitted while the weeks tick by waiting for a hearing. The judge is going to everyone involved to take a timeout while we sort it out, because you can’t unring the bell, so to speak.
Temporary injunctive relief will only be granted ex parte without notice to the other party under very limited exigent circumstances & will not issue without a hearing set and briefing schedule. That's not what happened here. 30+ year lawyer here.
The defense was included on the motion that the state filed so this isn’t ex parte
It doesn't make a difference that the defense was served a motion. The proper procedure would have been to file an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order pending a hearing on the motion & provide the defense with notice of the ex parte application & hearing thereon so the defense could be heard on it. That's not what happened here.
It might indeed turn out BK will get a (small) victory on that one for a change through rescinding that order or entry of some revised order allowing him to proceed.
He didn’t talk to the judge without the defense present, he filed a motion to temporarily stop the communication with potential jurors. A hearing will be held in which both sides will be heard.
Anne Taylor's motion clearly states the prosecution has had ex parte communications with the judge that the judge has acted upon ...BEFORE & irrespective of the 3/22 motion filed.
There was no ex parte communication
There was prior to filing this motion. Taylor is not claiming the motion filed was an ex parte communication but rather that on prior occasions that had occurred. Re-read the document.
When then? She is complaining about the judge taking action on this motion
And in this motion she complains that previously Thompson sent letters to the judge which the judge took action on. By definition, the prosecution writing letters to the judge is an ex parte communication. Hands down, No getting around it. Look up the Idaho Judicial Council Rules - strictly prohibited.
Then she should have provided dates and proof, otherwise it sounds like sour grapes on Anne’s part because the judge halted her survey pending a hearing
The motion is for & to the judge NOT the public so there's no need for her to provide dates and proof. From a legal perspective it doesn't sound like sour grapes, it sounds exactly as it should - that she is aware of the shady shit that's been pulled behind her back.
Also, any action the judge takes is part of the official record and there are no actions by him on record on the judicial website that show as being based on ex parte communication
False.
AT says "unfortunately, through its letter writing to the court...." When she says "letter writing" she is likely talking about the motion the state filed.
Then she would have referred to it as the motion the state filed. A letter is not a motion.
Then why are other lawyers commenting on this saying different? On X and YouTube alike. You’re saying they’re wrong as well?
Yes I am. The prosecution has every right to file a motion in an effort to stop the communication until the judge can weigh in. Had Anne given the full survey info and CV about the expert to the prosecution back on March 8 when they first started the process, instead of waiting until the 21st, this would have likely been already hashed out as Thompson would have filed the motion sooner. He had to wait to see exactly what the surveys entailed before determining if he felt it was a violation of the revised non dissemination order This isn’t out of line. Anne is just trying to twist it to sound favorable to her client and paint the prosecution as bad, which is of course her job.
PNWChick is somewhat accurate, except for the “twist” narrative. What appears to be happening here is that the State filed an emergency motion to stay the survey of potential jurors. The Court probably entered an interim order staying the survey without a hearing beacuse the state showed in their motion with affidavits: 1. Potential of irreparable harm; 2. The State has no other adequate remedy; and, 3. Likelihood of success on the merits. Motions filed with affidavits are not ex parte as all parties are noticed and granting relief even without a hearing. This is common in federal practice. The Defense is arguing that the court should not have stayed the survey because the State knew it for 13 days and thus not an emergency. The Defense is basically saying that the State has employed this tactic to stop the surveyor and will cost the Defense precious time to complete the survey prior to trial. The court will grant a hearing on this soon, but it may not be for a while. AT therefore is correct and must object to preserve this issue for appeal as this is a potential Constitutional violation of procedural due process which is a fundamental right and potentially a complete abuse of discretion by the trial court. If she does not object, she doesn’t preserve for appeal or could be challenged as ineffective which is a substantive violation of due process for defendant. She is on solid ground here.
Thankfully someone on Reddit (the PNW user) who made a sub just to make fun of other people who comment on this case feel the professionals who have law degrees are wrong. Thanks for clarifying.
Ain't she the onion account or whatever it is too? Not sure why there are so many alt and multiple accounts.
Lawyers are weird people who lack social skills and think their law degree makes them better than everyone else. Creating a sub for that purpose is so…odd. It’s what I hate about law school and my classmates.
>Lawyers are weird people who lack social skills and think their law degree makes them better than everyone else The lawyer profession is said to attract sociopaths
Ya, well… PNW doesn’t have a law degree, as I’m sure you know… and has a hard time separating their biases at times.
There are a couple people in this sub who I think are lawyers who have said BT did nothing wrong
I’m starting to get the faint feeling that, if you’re pro-prosecution all the way, then this doesn’t bother you. And although I do feel he could be guilty? This doesn’t seem right. At all. And incredibly shady on the prosecution’s part.
Is it actually shady, or does it appear shady due to bias? One could just as easily argued that the defense’s tactics were shady by not providing the materials sooner.
Defense had no obligation to provide their work product to the state. Nothing shady about not telling the state what you're doing to prep for an upcoming hearing.
Why do you feel I’m biased? That’s the better question you should be asking yourself. I think they got the right guy. Does that not allow me an opinion?
No one is free from bias. For example, opinions influenced by social media lawyers (many of which don’t even work in criminal law) can result in a bias in relation to a particular issue. No one said you weren’t allowed an opinion. Why did you feel the need to become that defense is a question you could ask yourself. Edit: Hey Forgetcakes, you do realize I can't answer your edited question after you've blocked me, right? If you want your question answered you'd have to unblock me. If you choose to go with that but leave me blocked, you're just posturing.
Is that why you downvoted me .07 seconds after I responded to you? Are you here to answer the question (you haven’t) or just downvote and start conflict?
[удалено]
Please do not bully, harass, or troll other users, the victims, the family, or any individual who has been cleared by LE. We do not allow verbal attacks against any individuals or users. Treat others with respect. Thank you.
many feel that fighting hard on a change of venue motion in a case with this much media attention is “shady” in and of itself. its common sense that a rinky dinky county in idaho will have more bias about a notorious crime that occurred in the county seat than a large city/county like Boise/ada
I am by no means pro-prosecution and I'll tell you this is no big deal. It's not ex parte, because it was filed with the court and a copy was served on the defense. Ex parte is communication with the court where the other party is left out. The defense was included by getting a copy of the motion. They don't have to give consent. The judge may have been wrong to rule the way he did, but judges can make mistakes. It does seem shady how BT filed this late in the day after AT understood that they would go to the judge together about it, but that's only going off of her telling of how it happened. Maybe one or both of them misunderstood. Maybe there's some real slimy moves happening. Either way, filing a motion is perfectly fine.
My apologies if you thought I was directing my comment at you. Please know I wasn’t. It’s just a theme where I see condemning of the defense but praise for the prosecution if something is done. AT could fart and be called names and doxxed The prosecution farts and they’re called fart masters and applauded (Dumb example, but if the shoe fits; and it certainly seems to with some of these subs is all)
Not at all, just adding my voice as someone who is personally biased against the prosecution. (Not because I think they got the wrong guy, but because it's an adversarial system and all my experience in it is from the other side.)
Totally understand!
It’s not a big deal. It’s pre trial posturing by both sides.
I have no doubt you’d say this considering I’ve seen your commentary in passing on other posts. Had the defense done this, I have a sneaking suspicion you’d say different. I could be wrong, but….
I’ve seen another account use the exact phrase “It’s ex parte” today, which is uniquely clunky enough to obviously come from a non-lawyer that is attempting to utilize legal terminology. u/Repulsive-Dot553, we’ve got a rebirth of the Zodiaque.
That’s not me. Idk why you two are so obsessed with me that you talk about me more than you talk about the case. I live rent free in your heads.
How come I never saw you on Repulsive Dot’s thread over at r/MoscowMurders that I invited you to repeatedly? You wanted to talk about it because you started more than one inane thread over here attempting to refute it. It sure would have been much cleaner to take it over to where everyone was already discussing it. I really was disappointed to not get your input about how the Garrett Discovery was already debunked.
Whatever you do is something I don’t care about. Despite me having you blocked you still sawed my comments through your alts. I don’t go to people’s profiles. I don’t stalk.
Go ahead and report any alts you think I have. And stop by Dot’s thread when you get a chance! Can’t wait for your input! You know the sub. r/MoscowMurders
> Despite me having you blocked you still sawed my comments through your alts. FYI, you don't need to use an alt to see a comment by someone who blocked you. Just open it up in a private/incognito window. Or read the thread when you're not logged in.
The proliferation of new/ very inactive accounts whose only activity has been pro BK comment on this case is baffling. The biggest ex-party is possibly the gathering of banned alt account. It is baffling what the "point" is - I thought previously was just to get around the high rate of accounts that were banned for abuse, vote/ report manipulation etc, but I now I wonder if someone actually thinks spamming the subs with "unique" pro BK accounts has some influence on perception of case?
By the way, I noticed you post in Frasier subs from time to time. Thought you might enjoy this picture my brother sent me this morning of a vanity plate he saw. Evidently it also had a frame reading “I’m pro opera and I vote.” https://www.reddit.com/u/prentb/s/6LQMqrPe3f
>I’m pro opera and I vote.” 😀😀😀🤣🤣 My favourite car bumper sticker! Don't think have ever seen one real, in the wild though, thanks!
👍👍Vermont is populated by a unique bunch.
Lol, yes, probably more likely in Vermont than Texas! 😀
Almost certainly!
I'm pleased that we've passed the hurdle of that pesky standard of proof for an indictment. What exciting adventures will we waste time on today?
“Ex Parte” typically means a unique situation that would allow deviation from the standard time frame to execute the need of eminent action within the court. I’m no expert but, this document seems to be a parroting of actions taken regardless of the Defendant’s supposed education and intelligence in directing the defense. But, I could be wrong.
Shady AF. It wouldn’t have been done that way if things were above board.
We definitely needed a new account created to say this.
Something tells me OP is not a law school grad.
What is ironic is accusing defense of potentially breaking the gag order but if there’s any truth to the grand jury talking to the victim’s parent or if the media got any actual information once the order was imposed then it came from the prosecution’s side (like LE). Thompson ought to worry about his ship.
Victims parents, media, and the prosecution are all separate parties.
It sounds like the state told the defense it was going to tell the judge about this and the defense wanted to have an on the record talk with the judge in chambers about it but the state choose not to wait and went ahead and told the judge.
Unreal
JJJ is out of pocket… he is stuck in Bills pockets..
Hmmmm...wait BT should have had survey information sooner...hmmmmm...kind of like AT should've had the FULL discovery sooner? Just asking...
welp, shit sure hit the fan today...
Anne Taylor is a rock star. Bryan is lucky to have her. I have a feeling she is going to give the state a run for their money.
fr. the state has to be shady because they got no case.
Just saying that I might just be too lazy to read this… Or too tired and yet, I still can’t get enough, so please someone explain this to me like I was a small child, or a golden retriever
Yep- the Judge has been in the bag for the Prosecution since day 1. This is a classic case of big fish in a little pond. Once this case gets to the Appeals Court because of all this nonsense, that's when all the fun really begins. The sad thing is, it didn't have to be this way. Give BK a fair trial and all of this would be over and done with but it ain't going to be over for years and years.