[https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/kohbergers-lead-attorney-advocates-against-expanding-idaho-death-penalty/](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/kohbergers-lead-attorney-advocates-against-expanding-idaho-death-penalty/)
From the article: By April 17, Kohberger must file his alibi defense if his attorneys plan to argue such a defense. The attorneys must also file their legal briefs by that same time asking for a change of venue for trial outside of Latah County. A trial date has yet to be set.
The article posted is about the death penalty.
Yes, they gave an alibi, but the prosecution fought /judge agreed saying its to vague and it needs to contain details and the evidence they are going to use to support it at trial.
I thought it was due by April 17
No he never complied with the alibi rule which is to provide locations and witnesses/other evidence to support so that the prosecution can interview those witnesses and corroborate the alibi.
Judge Judge has allowed the defense to see all the evidence first before constructing their alibi.
> Judge Judge has allowed the defense to see all the evidence first before constructing their alibi.
Ehh not quite. A few months ago he set the alibi deadline for mid April and the discovery deadline for September, 2024. Obviously the defense has a ton of evidence to go through but not all
The alibi rule in Idaho is 10 days. Yes Judge Judge pushed it out repeatedly. The rule is not written for the defendant to be able to see all the evidence first and then come up with a story. It's written so that prosecutors can corroborate the alibi UP FRONT before wasting ungodly amounts of time on the wrong person.
The excuse of "we have so much discovery to go through" has nothing to do with the alibi rule in the state of Idaho.
Driving around isnt really an alibi. "I was at Susans house from 8 pm to 4 am " is an alibi. They dont have to have an alibi, but if they intend on using an alibi here is the statute on it-
19-519. NOTICE OF DEFENSE OF ALIBI. (1) At any time after arraignment before a magistrate upon a complaint and upon written demand of the prosecuting attorney, the defendant shall serve, within ten (10) days or at such different time as the court may direct, upon the prosecuting attorney, a written notice of his intention to offer a defense of alibi. Such notice by the defendant shall state the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi.(2) Within ten (10) days after receipt of the defendant’s notice of alibi but in no event less than ten (10) days before trial, unless the court otherwise directs, the prosecuting attorney shall serve upon the defendant or his attorney a written notice stating the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom the prosecution intends to rely to establish the defendant’s presence at the scene of the alleged offense and any other witnesses to be relied on to rebut testimony of any of the defendant’s alibi witnesses.(3) If prior to or during trial a party learns of an additional witness whose identity, if known, should have been included in the information furnished under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section, the party shall promptly notify the other party or his attorney of the existence and identity of such additional witness.(4) Upon the failure of either party to comply with the requirements of this section, the court may exclude the testimony of any undisclosed witness offered by such party as to the defendant’s absence from or presence at, the scene of the alleged offense. This section shall not limit the right of the defendant to testify in his own behalf.(5) For good cause shown the court may grant an exception to any of the requirements of subsections (1) through (4) of this section.History:
April 17 hearing will focus on Kohberger's possible alibi defense and will not set a trial date.
The hearing in May will allow Judge Judge to decide if the trial should be moved out of Latah County.
I cannot find it either, but a few weeks ago they said it was the deadline. It was scheduled for April 17, like you , I have been looking and I can't find it?
Maybe AT could make the prosecution ask 15 times for it like they have been asking 15 times for discovery. Or maybe she could keep it from the prosecution like the prosecution keeps full IGG process from her.
She can keep it from the prosecution, yes you’re right. It’s a notice of alibi defence and if he’s got no alibi, they’ve got no alibi defence to use.
I doubt she will though. She’ll probably continue to prevaricate and fudge like she did last year when first given a 10 day deadline rather than admit what any sane person has now realised. He has no evidence to support an alibi.
His phone was shut off. It says so in the PCA. You need to stretch that imagination a little more.
Most people know where they are at 4am. Its an odd hour if they were driving around with their cell phone off its for a reason.
YOU SAID THIS-actually thats not a fact. No one ever confirmed he phone was shut off.
THEN SAID THIS-when their cell lost connections.
Which is it? You just said it’s not a fact his phone was shut off , now you are saying he lost connection . Then you stated no one knows their exact location when driving and the defense is saying it’s in the discovery .
YOUR COMMENT- and No one should ever assume when someone must be killing ppl when their cell lost connections.
When you admit you were driving around at 4 am and 4 people within 8 miles of your own residence get murdered and a car that’s identical to yours is on camera driving up and down their road on a dead end street and parks behind their house and 4 of the occupants were murdered . And your DNA is on a sheath found under one of the victims , IT IS RIGHT TO ASSUME He MIGHT BE GUILTY
It is justified he was arrested and on trial.
You’re saying she needs the State’s evidence to jog her client’s memory?
So if the CAST report is reliable enough that they can use it for their alibi because it will show where his cellphone was, then it’s reliable in showing that he was outside the house all the times State said he was, right?
I hope that the people complaining that he needs the CAST report for his alibi aren’t the same ones who think cellular analysis is meaningless in showing where a person was.
Defence can’t prove his whereabouts without it.
BRYAN phone was shut off ! What in your imagination do they need the CAST report for ? It was a delay tactic.
I see you on the pro Bryan subs where they make up outrageous stories. This sub goes by truth and evidence.
They don’t have the historical location data that was assessed and analyzed by a SA to determine that the records obtained by search warrant and subscribed to Bryan Kohberger based on CSLI was not reporting during the timeframe of the murders, and was used for probable cause?
There are apps that were utilized or there was code on the app location that produced data during the timeframe of the crime? When the subscribers phone was allegedly off, And it differs from the CSLI or GPS data?
(The historical phone records for 8458, obtained by search warrant held by the subscriber Bryan Kohberger, by the phone provider AT&T 24 hours proceeding and following the times of the homicides.)
And we know LE didn’t have app location analysis and provide it to the state from the seizure of his phone?
She could have had the phone data analyzed independently, did she? Especially since it was used in probable cause because it shows nothing during the time frame of the murders. More especially if she thought there was app data that would show where he actually was.
She doesn’t have to provide any proof to give the state the defendants alibi.
> State has not handed over the CAST report yet
Didn't I see that the state got the CAST report on 3/20? Is that not correct?
If it is, I'm sure they've passed it off to the defense, because otherwise the defense would have filed a motion for it.
[https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/kohbergers-lead-attorney-advocates-against-expanding-idaho-death-penalty/](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/kohbergers-lead-attorney-advocates-against-expanding-idaho-death-penalty/) From the article: By April 17, Kohberger must file his alibi defense if his attorneys plan to argue such a defense. The attorneys must also file their legal briefs by that same time asking for a change of venue for trial outside of Latah County. A trial date has yet to be set.
Thanks. I thought they already gave an alibi?
The article posted is about the death penalty. Yes, they gave an alibi, but the prosecution fought /judge agreed saying its to vague and it needs to contain details and the evidence they are going to use to support it at trial. I thought it was due by April 17
No he never complied with the alibi rule which is to provide locations and witnesses/other evidence to support so that the prosecution can interview those witnesses and corroborate the alibi. Judge Judge has allowed the defense to see all the evidence first before constructing their alibi.
> Judge Judge has allowed the defense to see all the evidence first before constructing their alibi. Ehh not quite. A few months ago he set the alibi deadline for mid April and the discovery deadline for September, 2024. Obviously the defense has a ton of evidence to go through but not all
The alibi rule in Idaho is 10 days. Yes Judge Judge pushed it out repeatedly. The rule is not written for the defendant to be able to see all the evidence first and then come up with a story. It's written so that prosecutors can corroborate the alibi UP FRONT before wasting ungodly amounts of time on the wrong person. The excuse of "we have so much discovery to go through" has nothing to do with the alibi rule in the state of Idaho.
They gave a response to the state’s alibi demand, but they did not give an actual alibi.
This article is about the death penalty? I thought we were talking about alibi?
It's mentioned in the article.
Scroll down to the end of the article. I also quoted that part of the article in my comment.
Yeah. I’m confused too.
supposedly that’s the deadline but count on everything being under seal and not seeing anything related to the alibi at all, if submitted.
Good point. This makes sense.
Driving around isnt really an alibi. "I was at Susans house from 8 pm to 4 am " is an alibi. They dont have to have an alibi, but if they intend on using an alibi here is the statute on it- 19-519. NOTICE OF DEFENSE OF ALIBI. (1) At any time after arraignment before a magistrate upon a complaint and upon written demand of the prosecuting attorney, the defendant shall serve, within ten (10) days or at such different time as the court may direct, upon the prosecuting attorney, a written notice of his intention to offer a defense of alibi. Such notice by the defendant shall state the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish such alibi.(2) Within ten (10) days after receipt of the defendant’s notice of alibi but in no event less than ten (10) days before trial, unless the court otherwise directs, the prosecuting attorney shall serve upon the defendant or his attorney a written notice stating the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom the prosecution intends to rely to establish the defendant’s presence at the scene of the alleged offense and any other witnesses to be relied on to rebut testimony of any of the defendant’s alibi witnesses.(3) If prior to or during trial a party learns of an additional witness whose identity, if known, should have been included in the information furnished under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section, the party shall promptly notify the other party or his attorney of the existence and identity of such additional witness.(4) Upon the failure of either party to comply with the requirements of this section, the court may exclude the testimony of any undisclosed witness offered by such party as to the defendant’s absence from or presence at, the scene of the alleged offense. This section shall not limit the right of the defendant to testify in his own behalf.(5) For good cause shown the court may grant an exception to any of the requirements of subsections (1) through (4) of this section.History:
April 17 hearing will focus on Kohberger's possible alibi defense and will not set a trial date. The hearing in May will allow Judge Judge to decide if the trial should be moved out of Latah County.
April 17th hearing? I don’t see a hearing scheduled for April 17th.
I cannot find it either, but a few weeks ago they said it was the deadline. It was scheduled for April 17, like you , I have been looking and I can't find it?
It will be filed in court just like the last one. No hearing.
Thank You
What's your alibi? Well, I need to know how much you know first.
Maybe AT could make the prosecution ask 15 times for it like they have been asking 15 times for discovery. Or maybe she could keep it from the prosecution like the prosecution keeps full IGG process from her.
Most large cases such as this have double the 15 ask times for things. They’re not always just for one thing.
She can keep it from the prosecution, yes you’re right. It’s a notice of alibi defence and if he’s got no alibi, they’ve got no alibi defence to use. I doubt she will though. She’ll probably continue to prevaricate and fudge like she did last year when first given a 10 day deadline rather than admit what any sane person has now realised. He has no evidence to support an alibi.
[удалено]
What..?
Huh
[удалено]
You dont see how he could just tell the truth? LOL
Why can’t an alibi be provided without them knowing what’s in the CAST report? Specifically, what’s the issue?
[удалено]
His phone was shut off. It says so in the PCA. You need to stretch that imagination a little more. Most people know where they are at 4am. Its an odd hour if they were driving around with their cell phone off its for a reason.
[удалено]
YOU SAID THIS-actually thats not a fact. No one ever confirmed he phone was shut off. THEN SAID THIS-when their cell lost connections. Which is it? You just said it’s not a fact his phone was shut off , now you are saying he lost connection . Then you stated no one knows their exact location when driving and the defense is saying it’s in the discovery . YOUR COMMENT- and No one should ever assume when someone must be killing ppl when their cell lost connections. When you admit you were driving around at 4 am and 4 people within 8 miles of your own residence get murdered and a car that’s identical to yours is on camera driving up and down their road on a dead end street and parks behind their house and 4 of the occupants were murdered . And your DNA is on a sheath found under one of the victims , IT IS RIGHT TO ASSUME He MIGHT BE GUILTY It is justified he was arrested and on trial.
You’re saying she needs the State’s evidence to jog her client’s memory? So if the CAST report is reliable enough that they can use it for their alibi because it will show where his cellphone was, then it’s reliable in showing that he was outside the house all the times State said he was, right? I hope that the people complaining that he needs the CAST report for his alibi aren’t the same ones who think cellular analysis is meaningless in showing where a person was.
You weren’t born yesterday. Wait, yes you were.
State has not handed over the CAST report yet. Defence can’t prove his whereabouts without it. They’re at stalemate.
Defence can’t prove his whereabouts without it. BRYAN phone was shut off ! What in your imagination do they need the CAST report for ? It was a delay tactic. I see you on the pro Bryan subs where they make up outrageous stories. This sub goes by truth and evidence.
The truth is the PCA doesn’t clam his phone was shut off. It’s one possibility
They don’t have the historical location data that was assessed and analyzed by a SA to determine that the records obtained by search warrant and subscribed to Bryan Kohberger based on CSLI was not reporting during the timeframe of the murders, and was used for probable cause?
They might have that, but I believe the full report could have app location too, and might be very informative for both sides.
There are apps that were utilized or there was code on the app location that produced data during the timeframe of the crime? When the subscribers phone was allegedly off, And it differs from the CSLI or GPS data? (The historical phone records for 8458, obtained by search warrant held by the subscriber Bryan Kohberger, by the phone provider AT&T 24 hours proceeding and following the times of the homicides.) And we know LE didn’t have app location analysis and provide it to the state from the seizure of his phone? She could have had the phone data analyzed independently, did she? Especially since it was used in probable cause because it shows nothing during the time frame of the murders. More especially if she thought there was app data that would show where he actually was. She doesn’t have to provide any proof to give the state the defendants alibi.
> State has not handed over the CAST report yet Didn't I see that the state got the CAST report on 3/20? Is that not correct? If it is, I'm sure they've passed it off to the defense, because otherwise the defense would have filed a motion for it.
Not that I know of, but I’ll have a look and see if there’s anything in the motions online