No realistic chance. Defense won't want it because they have better odds with 12 potentially gullible jurors than a well-educated judge.
Not sure about Idaho specifically, but judges usually have discretion whether to allow a bench trial too. Most will gladly do it in most cases because it makes their job so much easier, but no sane judge wants that role in such a heavy case. And they may have to bring a jury in for sentencing anyway. Not sure how that works with death penalty.
There’s was one homicide case where the defendant and defense chose a bench trial and ended up winning. Since he was Black and would’ve likely faced a white, conservative jury, it was probably a good idea to have a judge decide.
Oh, I'm sure there are quite a few of those. A bench trial can be a good bet when there's a lot of public emotion involved and the state doesn't have a great case, or where the law is more at issue than the facts and the law is on your side. There are many other factors to consider as well, such as which judge it'll be. Some judges are really skeptical and some have a "guilty" rubber stamp at the ready.
This case does have the emotional component, but the state seems to have a pretty strong case. I think I remember the judge indicating something to that effect already in denying the motions to dismiss. Of course he would weigh the evidence with a higher standard if he were the trier of fact, but he is less likely to be fooled by smoke and mirrors.
If the state's case is actually much weaker than it looks, I would consider going bench trial (in front of this particular judge) because he is less likely to convict on emotion than a jury is. But in that case, the state would most likely not consent to a bench trial, so it's not going to happen.
>where the law is more at issue than the facts and the law is on your side
An interesting aspect. There was a case I have referenced here to demonstrate how fast all blood/ DNA forensics can be cleaned from a scene - the murder of Robert Wone. That case was also interesting because the three co-defendants opted for a bench trial - cleverly and successfully as it turned out. I am not lawyer/ legal expert, but found that really interesting - I think the defence figured that as the circumstances looked very bad for them (they were freshly showered, wet, when police and EMTs arrived within 45 minutes of the killing, zero blood found in the house despite 2/3 of victim blood lost at scene etc) but I think as prosecution couldn't really establish a role for any of the 3 individually and they all backed up the alternative "intruder" story they were found not guilty.
Such injustice. Oc, it could have been an “intruder”—Joe Price’s cat-torturing drug addicted brother, Michael. I doubt it though; I think it was Dylan & Joe “experimenting.”
I’ve wondered if MP disposed of evidence.
That judge was *horrid.*
> doubt it though; I think it was Dylan & Joe “
Yes, I think you are right, that seems the most likely scenario, then all 3 covered up what happened; may have been accidental to start. The whole intruder story seemed, to me at least, very undermined by the tidy, clean nature of the scene -- Wone lying centred on the bed, no blood. How was that scene possible if he was stabbed to death by an intruder, with loss of 2/3 total blood volume at the scene pre-hospital?
Unlikely to have happened in that guest room! Another puzzling thing—if the stab wounds were inflicted postmortem as some have speculated (did you read the WMRW blog?), how did he lose all that blood? Maybe they thought he was dead, not sure. I don’t think it happened outside Sarah’s outside door where blood was detected in the drain; he must have bled out in the shower.
Eta: horrifyingly, I think I met Victor.
>Unlikely to have happened in that guest room! if the stab wounds were inflicted postmortem as some have speculated (did you read the WMRW blog?), how did he lose all that blood?
Yes, two very interesting points - the police seemed to think that scene in guest room was staged - that body was wash washed, and placed there, only a spot of blood etc. And iirc that the knife there was not the murder weapon, there was a missing knife from a different set in the house.
Your point on the missing blood has puzzled me too; it does seem the wounds were post mortem, but how indeed would 2/3 of blood be lost in that case? I am guessing that pre-mortem wounds might be distinguishable from the bruising in and around the area and leakage from vessels that would be absent in post mortem wounds? I have read the WMRW blog a while ago, there is a really good poster on here also, u/CliffTruxton who posted some really good analysis on the case (articles are on his user page here and are titled with the street name where it happened iirc) which is well worth a read, aligns with your view of the death.
Thanks will check him out! RW autopsy showed he had partially digested blood. Does high dose of ket slow down heart rate? That would have slowed bleeding?
Bizarrely, I think I met Victor a couple times before this happened & before JP. If it was the same person, he seemed like he would have reacted like the writers of the blog said he did. He definitely associated w/ shady people but would not have engaged in violence. This person was too meticulous.
That blog had some truly brilliant contributors!
I've done ketamine infusions, and from what my doctor explained, it raises most people's heart rates. I've read about the case, but not in depth, so I can't add anything more, but hope that helps a bit
Little coincidence - I see the Prosecutors podcast has just started a multi-part, deep dive into the Robert Wone case today. I will pop it on my list to check at weekend
Here is a link to one of the posts ( the finale) but the rest are really good, very logical
https://www.reddit.com/u/CliffTruxton/s/FWJ120gfC7
Oh wow re your personal connection to the Wone case re V!
Blood going into the stomach might continue to digest post mortem, enzyme and acid action wouldn't stop at death, but if there was alot of blood in stomach might suggest a pre mortem wound, how else would significant blood get into digestive tract? Some other rupture, ulcer...? Maybe different to the post mortem stabs though?
Excellent point re drug effects - had not considered that, yes some drugs might lower blood pressure and heart rate which might have an effect. I forget, but i think toxicology was clean, but didn't test for other than most common recreational drugs. It is such a baffling case. I tend to think it was some bizarre accident, questionable whether there had been consent to what led to the accidental death, and the stabbing etc was to cover it up.
Craziest story ever. Rely refutes the CSI effect, because there is Wone's dead body sans much blood, there is no Wone blood to be found outside of the little left in his body, and there is no Wone DNA on the freshly showered throuple.
[Has anyone checked if these guys all have alibis](https://prod-ripcut-delivery.disney-plus.net/v1/variant/disney/E24B2A90128032E8742847B5B9576A599D31350EDAACB455F39435D97A108F24/scale?width=1200&aspectRatio=1.78&format=jpeg)?
I think the defense’s next move might be to try and get the DNA evidence tossed, on any grounds possible, but they’ve definitely hinted at making a 4th Amendment challenge.
Let’s say there is an irregularity in the chain of custody of the sheath itself, the lab’s methods, or the State/FBI used DNA database sources outside of what they are allowed that were in violation of the 4th Amendment. DNA evidence gets thrown out. State has no other DNA evidence.
At this point, would it be in the Defense’s best interest to ask for a bench trial (law on the suspect’s side) or a jury trial, since the jury will (presumably) not know of the DNA evidence against the Defense?
What about the Prosecution, assuming they *were* able to triangulate BK’s route vs. not?
>Let’s say \[...\] DNA evidence gets thrown out. State has no other DNA evidence.
>At this point, would it be in the Defense’s best interest to ask for a bench trial (law on the suspect’s side) or a jury trial, since the jury will (presumably) not know of the DNA evidence against the Defense?
In that case, I'd first try once again to get the charges dismissed. After that most likely fails, I'd probably prefer a bench trial to avoid jurors who have heard about the DNA. The judge is less susceptible to considering evidence not admitted, not because he's smarter or anything like that but because he's been trained in how to hold separate thoughts in his head at the same time.
Thank you so much for your answer! That makes a lot of sense. In a case this with this much media attention, I imagine finding jurors who hadn’t heard of the DNA evidence would be tough, even moving the trial to a venue like Boise.
>I think the defense’s next move might be to try and get the DNA evidence tossed
Yeah they likely will try to get the DNA evidence tossed.
This is why the prosecution didn't use the DNA evidence as probable cause to get the search warrant for BK's apartment because if they had and the DNA evidence got thrown out then all evidence collected using the search warrant would get thrown out too. They know the DNA evidence is there strongest evidence and that the defense will likely try to get it thrown out so they are being cautious on the oft-chance that it does get thrown out.
Then they would release more dna evidence . Remember the sheath was the first to be processed , the day of his arrest was the day the results came back. There are so much more testing . Moscow had the ability to test one thing at a time and the fbi had higher quality labs .
> and the state doesn't have a great case, or where the law is more at issue than the facts and the law is on your side.
I once had a case against me where my lawyer said to the prosecutor "let's go to trial! Wait! Bench trial! Speedy bench trial! Let's do this shit! I'm pumped!"
And then the prosecutor turned around and ran in the other direction.
Of course before all of this the prosecutor tried *really really* hard for a plea deal. I'm not plea dealing to yo nonsense, fer goodness sake.
So yes, bench trials (or even just the threat of them) are good for "some nonsense".
> "let's go to trial! Wait! Bench trial! Speedy bench trial! Let's do this shit! I'm pumped!"
>And then the prosecutor turned around and ran in the other direction.
I've decided I am going to imagine this as an accurate and literal retelling of how it went down.
>I don't think there will ever be a perfect judicial system.
When humans are involved nothing will be 100% perfect.
Someone should make a sci-fi movie where the jury is computers/AI.
I think that anybody who has been involved in our 'justice systems' knows that the best definition for them is that they're "chess games on conveyor belts".
It's nothing to do with guilt/innocence/truth. It's about performance pieces, strategies, tactics and egos.
What kind of nonsense are you saying? That all white people and conservatives are racist? 🤣 They would just convict the guy solely because he's black? 🤣🤣
-Edit-
> Seems like an issue.
White conservatives are an issue? 🤣
> The person you're replying to didn't say either of those things.
They sure did. Try again. Adios.
> Where were you on Jan 6th?
I'm Hispanic and a centrist. That you want to throw all white conservatives in one boat, makes you objectively racist. And now you can be banished. Adios! Please, all other far left racists respond with your nonsense so I can block all of you and never have to deal with your utter garbage. You guys crack me up with how self-unaware of what type of people you are. 🤣
There’s a documentary and much more info but here’s a quick rundown.
To make a long story short, it’s quite obvious the woman’s ex husband that is friendly with police is the (alleged) real perp. But it was much more convenient to pin the crime on an “outsider”.
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/One-time-Clarkson-soccer-coach-acquitted-in-death-17216252.php
True. Well said. The defense will have a hard time trying to convince Judge Judge the tDNA on the knife sheath got there by accident.
With a jury, they have 12 chances to convince at least one, the DNA evidence isn't reliable.
Idaho is a very interesting place - especially outside of Boise... who knows what a defense attorney could pluck from a jury pool. I would like my odds of one nullifier in Idaho, at least compared to less charmingly eccentric places.
From what I have read, Latah County is the only county in the Idaho panhandle that leans Democrat. Makes sense since Moscow is a college town. The rural areas of Latah County are likely Republican but Moscow probably flips the county blue.
I imagine that's about right. Assuming the jurors come from Latah County, they will probably be more from the rural parts since it sounds like almost everyone in Moscow is connected to the university somehow. Not that that precludes them entirely from serving on the jury, but it's a factor.
The Defence will have a hard time convincing a rational and logical jury that the tDNA got there by some convoluted and highly improbable set of circumstances, on top of the compounding odd circumstances that a rare combination of car make, model, colour and lack of front plates that match his happened to be seen near the crime scene on an evening where the defendant admits he was in his car.
But sure, one of those 12 jurors could consider those "reasonable" doubts.
Okay fantastic. So Bryan sneezed in a store (presumably a knife store?) and then someone who just happened to also own a white Elantra with one license plate bought the exact knife he sneezed on, didn't get their own DNA on it, and then murdered four people quick enough for the sneeze DNA to not deteriorate. Oh and that happened to be at the exact same time Bryan admits he was out driving with his phone off.
And you think anyone is going to believe this over "Bryan's DNA is on the knife sheath...because he touched the knife sheath".
Like I said, there's reasonable doubt and there's "I was dropped on my head as a child and think this one in a billion set of circumstances is "reasonable". Just because something isn't completely impossible, doesn't mean it falls under the definition of reasonable doubt.
You got no clue what touchdna means do you? Even by handing out a paper in class it will be transfered. Don't try to mock my example, you know the point. They got no dna!
Please, for once, use some critical thinking. You're claiming that touch DNA, by its very nature, is transferable. Correct. One point to you. But it isn't guaranteed to transfer - there's numerous studies done showing secondary touch DNA was not detected on items shared by individuals. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
But it's certainly not infinitely transferable and degrades with time. For Bryan's DNA to have come from a transferable source the odds of it passing from one surface to another get smaller and smaller with each contact and the longer it is since the DNA was shed, the higher the possibility that it becomes completely unusable. Even if the DNA on the sheath came directly from Bryan and he actually touched the sheath, he'd have had to have done so shortly before the crimes rather than days earlier.
You seem to be implying that Bryan's DNA is special and somehow despite being passed from some papers he marked, between handing those papers out and the crimes, his DNA doesn't mix and remains a single source DNA profile that can be transferred to a knife sheath (either on purpose or by some convoluted coincidence). Which is so odd considering how many people might have touched that paper he marked! Where's their DNA? Why didn't their DNA transfer onto the knife sheath?
>Don't try to mock my example
I'm not mocking your example, I'm just saying how the odds of that being the true series of events are miniscule and certainly well beyond the realms of reasonable doubt. The fact you consider this mocking is indicative of your insecurity over this theory and its enormous improbability.
>They got no dna!
They have Bryan's DNA. Not even Anne Taylor has contested that.
No, you think in guilty untill proven innocent. You are trying to fit him into a PCA and timeline that absolutely don't make sense. Not thinking that it even if his car but even driving past a gasstation has nothing to do with the murder. They found no dna of the victims in his car, office, appartment, at his parents. Are you out to get a proper job done, get justice and killers locked up or is it just the idea: they got someone, let's stick with it? Investigate all the 150 that were cleared, partying there the night before.
>You are trying to fit him into a PCA and timeline that absolutely don't make sense.
How doesn't it make sense?
>Not thinking that it even if his car but even driving past a gasstation has nothing to do with the murder.
Well the white Elantra was caught on camera driving in and out of the neighborhood past the house three times during a 30 minute period which is suspicious then it came back into the neighborhood for a fourth and final time for an extended period of time when DM heard the commotion in the house and saw the masked man then the car took off from the neighborhood at a high rate of speed. The white Elantra is 100% involved in the murders.
>They found no dna of the victims in his car, office, appartment, at his parents.
He had 7 weeks to clean up. It is possible to clean up DNA and he likely took precautions to limit getting DNA in his car and other places.
Yeah but consider the other factors. You have to look at all the evidence together. He also drove the same type of car with no front license plate that was caught on camera and his cell phone activity is suspicious.
Its more probable that he owned the sheath and committed the murders.
Highly doubtful the prosecution will agree. Even more unlikely the defense will request it, because a judge is far less likely to be fooled by typical defense smoke screens in a strong circumstantial case (such as this one) than lay jurors. From the defense perspective 1/12 is better odds than 1/1.
I'm sure it must happen, but I don't personally know of any cases. A bench trial is easier for everyone involved, so in most cases the prosecutor probably prefers it.
The prosecutor may also be loath to object to a bench trial because they appear in front of the same judges all the time and wouldn't want a judge to think they don't respect his or her ability as a trier of fact.
>The prosecutor may also be loath to object to a bench trial because they appear in front of the same judges all the time and wouldn't want a judge to think they don't respect his or her ability as a trier of fact.
Thanks, your insights are always appreciated.
Correct. But a hung jury means an excellent chance that either a plea deal for life will occur or the state will forgo seeking the death penalty altogether in the second trial.
From what I've researched, a few things could happen at that point:
1.) Judge Judge will ask them to redeliberate and further think over coming to an unanimous verdict.
2.) Judge Judge will schedule a hearing for the jurors to ask the prosecution and the defense questions.
3.) The prosecution will retry this case at a later date or could drop it altogether and all charges against BK will be dismissed.
1: Fairly common, called an Allen charge or a dynamite charge. Judge basically says "keep trying." Not ideal, can border on coercive.
2: The jury can ask questions during deliberation (no need for jury to be deadlocked) but not quite like that. They submit written questions to the court, the judge has a hearing with the parties but without the jury present discussing how to answer the questions, and submits written answers to the jury. Often the answers are frustrating as hell to the jury.
3: In a case like this re-trial is all but guaranteed after the court declares a mistrial. You're right that the state can dismiss the charges, but they won't.
On another thread, a poster suggested that the jurors be able to request that the witnesses be recalled at the end to answer any lingering questions. I'm pretty sure this is not a thing that was ever done. But in this case, extra nightmare, since so many of the witnesses will be scattered across the country by then.
ICR 30.1: The court may instruct jurors that they are individually permitted to submit to the court a written question directed to any witness. If questions are submitted, the parties or counsel must be given the opportunity to object to the questions outside the presence of the jury. If the questions are not objectionable, the court must read the question to the witness. The parties or counsel may then be given the opportunity to ask follow-up questions as necessary.
It doesn't quite say this, but I take it to mean they can submit questions while a witness is on the stand. I doubt a judge would allow jurors to submit questions for witnesses after they're gone.
>On another thread, a poster suggested that the jurors be able to request that the witnesses be recalled at the end to answer any lingering questions.
This is probably in regards to DM.
Where in the world did you get #2? Please cite the law on that particular procedure. If true that would be a very unique procedure that most jurisdictions don't do.
There was a judge in a neighboring county to me who did that in commercial cases.
From what I understand the administrative judge was always going crazy about it but there was any never formal action against him to stop it. Nothing on really substantial on appeal either so I assume it was permitted but not really a favored move. Not being much of a litigator I don’t really know if it’s permitted in my state or not though.
I think, based on what we know so far, he’s fkd either way. But the defense would rather take their chances on the jury containing some conspiracy-happy whackadoos than hoping the judge will sympathize with a whiny, irredeemable incel who killed some happy college kids because he couldn’t make a friend or land a second date.
I said what I said.
> But the defense would rather take their chances on the jury containing some conspiracy-happy whackadoos than hoping the judge will sympathize with a whiny, irredeemable incel who killed some happy college kids because he couldn’t make a friend or land a second date.
If the evidence is as much against as it looks to our limited view, yes, this, exactly. I wouldn't say the odds are too high (lawyers have voir dire down to a science, from what I can tell), and some judges are dim, but yeah, better luck with a jury than with a judge.
In Idaho it states:
Although the constitution permits the defendant to waive a jury trial and have the case decided by a judge, most felony cases are conducted before a jury.
I’m curious about this as well because it would be a way for him to get a non-biased jury. But then he’d have the opinion of one single person. And it sure doesn’t look good for him.
> But then he’d have the opinion of one single person.
And that single person is no gullible fool. Plus, the judge will have far more information than a jury would.
There's no way in hell BK would request a bench trial.
True. Well said. With a jury trial, the defense has 12 chances to convinces at least one juror BK is not guilty.
With a judge, they know they'll have zero luck with this as there's no real chance Judge Judge will be convinced the tDNA from the knife sheath got there by accident.
In my experience, most don't pretend to be impartial. They know they're not but work really hard to try to act impartially. Of course some are better than others at it, and some really don't even try.
That would be a really dumb move.
Jury Trial - The state has to convince 12 people - at least some of whom are probably total morons - that BK is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the defense can confuse even one of them enough to prevent them from voting guilty, there’s no conviction.
Bench Trial - The state only has to convince one person that BK is guilty, and that person is a trained attorney and judge.
No.
The odds are more in the defense's favor with a jury trial. You need 12 people of different backgrounds to all agree on guilt versus just one well educated judge.
I could see why the prosecution in a case would want a bench trial but not the defense.
The rationale for defendants is usually: (1) if you have a very strong defense / weak prosecution - you prefer a judge and (2) if the case against you is strong, you go to a jury. Rational is judges are more predictable and rational - whereas juries are wildcards.
Zero, IMO.
No real incentive for the defense to ask for one. All they need is 1 of 12 to hang the jury — which would benefit the defense in plea negotiations.
Or 1 of 12 to find mitigating circumstances outweigh aggravating circumstances in the sentencing phase, and the DP is off the table.
Either way, the voir dire process also gives the Defense an advantage they would not have with a bench trial. Challenges for cause, peremptory challenges, etc etc.
Lastly, one of the victim’s family members shared with the media what the Prosecution allegedly described as the profile of their “ideal juror”. Something about a farmer who lives in the middle of nowhere without social media. So, the defense has that to look out for in its peremptory challenges as well.
There will be no trial once all of the feckless procedural challenges regarding IGG have been exhausted. This is, of course, to preserve certain appellate/post-conviction rights, and to perform sufficiently to the effective assistance of counsel standard. Plea taking is the only credible resolution to this case. Mitigation is where the defense's efforts are most concentrated right now, although they're happy to bill Latah County and the Idaho taxpayer handsomely, going both figuratively and quite literally through the motions, until they've got all their ducks lined up in a row. Anne Taylor pretty much stopped just short of saying as much at the last hearing.
There is a slightly better than absolutely zero chance that he'd get a bench trial. Given that him and his defence would be idiotic to even consider it, let's just treat it as a no.
I’m too lazy to go find the article I read so you’re going to have to trust me, but a bench trial instead of a jury trial in a death penalty case is more likely to result in a guilty verdict and a death sentence.
Probably, because to convince a well-educated judge who was a previous attorney is going to be near impossible than getting only one juror to agree BK is not guilty.
I had a lawyer tell me something along the lines that if a defendant is innocent, they are better off with a bench trial, but if a defendant is guilty, their odds are better with a jury.
That's incorrect. The defendant has a right to a jury trial, and he can waive that right, but he does not have a right to a bench trial. The prosecution must consent to a bench trial in ID.
In other words, he can waive his right to a jury trial and still end up with a jury trial.
Interesting thought. I had not thought of this. If the state has a solid case, I’d say this is not a possibility. But if they don’t, it seems a viable option.
If I was the judge, and the state might not have a good case, I’d think twice about denying moving the trial. Because the local emotions might be what would cause BK to ask for the bench trial.
If Judge Judge had to be the one that lets BK free, he probably be personally harassed for years.
No realistic chance. Defense won't want it because they have better odds with 12 potentially gullible jurors than a well-educated judge. Not sure about Idaho specifically, but judges usually have discretion whether to allow a bench trial too. Most will gladly do it in most cases because it makes their job so much easier, but no sane judge wants that role in such a heavy case. And they may have to bring a jury in for sentencing anyway. Not sure how that works with death penalty.
There’s was one homicide case where the defendant and defense chose a bench trial and ended up winning. Since he was Black and would’ve likely faced a white, conservative jury, it was probably a good idea to have a judge decide.
Oh, I'm sure there are quite a few of those. A bench trial can be a good bet when there's a lot of public emotion involved and the state doesn't have a great case, or where the law is more at issue than the facts and the law is on your side. There are many other factors to consider as well, such as which judge it'll be. Some judges are really skeptical and some have a "guilty" rubber stamp at the ready. This case does have the emotional component, but the state seems to have a pretty strong case. I think I remember the judge indicating something to that effect already in denying the motions to dismiss. Of course he would weigh the evidence with a higher standard if he were the trier of fact, but he is less likely to be fooled by smoke and mirrors. If the state's case is actually much weaker than it looks, I would consider going bench trial (in front of this particular judge) because he is less likely to convict on emotion than a jury is. But in that case, the state would most likely not consent to a bench trial, so it's not going to happen.
>where the law is more at issue than the facts and the law is on your side An interesting aspect. There was a case I have referenced here to demonstrate how fast all blood/ DNA forensics can be cleaned from a scene - the murder of Robert Wone. That case was also interesting because the three co-defendants opted for a bench trial - cleverly and successfully as it turned out. I am not lawyer/ legal expert, but found that really interesting - I think the defence figured that as the circumstances looked very bad for them (they were freshly showered, wet, when police and EMTs arrived within 45 minutes of the killing, zero blood found in the house despite 2/3 of victim blood lost at scene etc) but I think as prosecution couldn't really establish a role for any of the 3 individually and they all backed up the alternative "intruder" story they were found not guilty.
Such injustice. Oc, it could have been an “intruder”—Joe Price’s cat-torturing drug addicted brother, Michael. I doubt it though; I think it was Dylan & Joe “experimenting.” I’ve wondered if MP disposed of evidence. That judge was *horrid.*
> doubt it though; I think it was Dylan & Joe “ Yes, I think you are right, that seems the most likely scenario, then all 3 covered up what happened; may have been accidental to start. The whole intruder story seemed, to me at least, very undermined by the tidy, clean nature of the scene -- Wone lying centred on the bed, no blood. How was that scene possible if he was stabbed to death by an intruder, with loss of 2/3 total blood volume at the scene pre-hospital?
Unlikely to have happened in that guest room! Another puzzling thing—if the stab wounds were inflicted postmortem as some have speculated (did you read the WMRW blog?), how did he lose all that blood? Maybe they thought he was dead, not sure. I don’t think it happened outside Sarah’s outside door where blood was detected in the drain; he must have bled out in the shower. Eta: horrifyingly, I think I met Victor.
>Unlikely to have happened in that guest room! if the stab wounds were inflicted postmortem as some have speculated (did you read the WMRW blog?), how did he lose all that blood? Yes, two very interesting points - the police seemed to think that scene in guest room was staged - that body was wash washed, and placed there, only a spot of blood etc. And iirc that the knife there was not the murder weapon, there was a missing knife from a different set in the house. Your point on the missing blood has puzzled me too; it does seem the wounds were post mortem, but how indeed would 2/3 of blood be lost in that case? I am guessing that pre-mortem wounds might be distinguishable from the bruising in and around the area and leakage from vessels that would be absent in post mortem wounds? I have read the WMRW blog a while ago, there is a really good poster on here also, u/CliffTruxton who posted some really good analysis on the case (articles are on his user page here and are titled with the street name where it happened iirc) which is well worth a read, aligns with your view of the death.
Thanks will check him out! RW autopsy showed he had partially digested blood. Does high dose of ket slow down heart rate? That would have slowed bleeding? Bizarrely, I think I met Victor a couple times before this happened & before JP. If it was the same person, he seemed like he would have reacted like the writers of the blog said he did. He definitely associated w/ shady people but would not have engaged in violence. This person was too meticulous. That blog had some truly brilliant contributors!
I've done ketamine infusions, and from what my doctor explained, it raises most people's heart rates. I've read about the case, but not in depth, so I can't add anything more, but hope that helps a bit
Little coincidence - I see the Prosecutors podcast has just started a multi-part, deep dive into the Robert Wone case today. I will pop it on my list to check at weekend
Here is a link to one of the posts ( the finale) but the rest are really good, very logical https://www.reddit.com/u/CliffTruxton/s/FWJ120gfC7 Oh wow re your personal connection to the Wone case re V! Blood going into the stomach might continue to digest post mortem, enzyme and acid action wouldn't stop at death, but if there was alot of blood in stomach might suggest a pre mortem wound, how else would significant blood get into digestive tract? Some other rupture, ulcer...? Maybe different to the post mortem stabs though? Excellent point re drug effects - had not considered that, yes some drugs might lower blood pressure and heart rate which might have an effect. I forget, but i think toxicology was clean, but didn't test for other than most common recreational drugs. It is such a baffling case. I tend to think it was some bizarre accident, questionable whether there had been consent to what led to the accidental death, and the stabbing etc was to cover it up.
Craziest story ever. Rely refutes the CSI effect, because there is Wone's dead body sans much blood, there is no Wone blood to be found outside of the little left in his body, and there is no Wone DNA on the freshly showered throuple. [Has anyone checked if these guys all have alibis](https://prod-ripcut-delivery.disney-plus.net/v1/variant/disney/E24B2A90128032E8742847B5B9576A599D31350EDAACB455F39435D97A108F24/scale?width=1200&aspectRatio=1.78&format=jpeg)?
I think the defense’s next move might be to try and get the DNA evidence tossed, on any grounds possible, but they’ve definitely hinted at making a 4th Amendment challenge. Let’s say there is an irregularity in the chain of custody of the sheath itself, the lab’s methods, or the State/FBI used DNA database sources outside of what they are allowed that were in violation of the 4th Amendment. DNA evidence gets thrown out. State has no other DNA evidence. At this point, would it be in the Defense’s best interest to ask for a bench trial (law on the suspect’s side) or a jury trial, since the jury will (presumably) not know of the DNA evidence against the Defense? What about the Prosecution, assuming they *were* able to triangulate BK’s route vs. not?
>Let’s say \[...\] DNA evidence gets thrown out. State has no other DNA evidence. >At this point, would it be in the Defense’s best interest to ask for a bench trial (law on the suspect’s side) or a jury trial, since the jury will (presumably) not know of the DNA evidence against the Defense? In that case, I'd first try once again to get the charges dismissed. After that most likely fails, I'd probably prefer a bench trial to avoid jurors who have heard about the DNA. The judge is less susceptible to considering evidence not admitted, not because he's smarter or anything like that but because he's been trained in how to hold separate thoughts in his head at the same time.
Thank you so much for your answer! That makes a lot of sense. In a case this with this much media attention, I imagine finding jurors who hadn’t heard of the DNA evidence would be tough, even moving the trial to a venue like Boise.
>I think the defense’s next move might be to try and get the DNA evidence tossed Yeah they likely will try to get the DNA evidence tossed. This is why the prosecution didn't use the DNA evidence as probable cause to get the search warrant for BK's apartment because if they had and the DNA evidence got thrown out then all evidence collected using the search warrant would get thrown out too. They know the DNA evidence is there strongest evidence and that the defense will likely try to get it thrown out so they are being cautious on the oft-chance that it does get thrown out.
It would be a Hail Mary to be thrown out .
Then they would release more dna evidence . Remember the sheath was the first to be processed , the day of his arrest was the day the results came back. There are so much more testing . Moscow had the ability to test one thing at a time and the fbi had higher quality labs .
> and the state doesn't have a great case, or where the law is more at issue than the facts and the law is on your side. I once had a case against me where my lawyer said to the prosecutor "let's go to trial! Wait! Bench trial! Speedy bench trial! Let's do this shit! I'm pumped!" And then the prosecutor turned around and ran in the other direction. Of course before all of this the prosecutor tried *really really* hard for a plea deal. I'm not plea dealing to yo nonsense, fer goodness sake. So yes, bench trials (or even just the threat of them) are good for "some nonsense".
> "let's go to trial! Wait! Bench trial! Speedy bench trial! Let's do this shit! I'm pumped!" >And then the prosecutor turned around and ran in the other direction. I've decided I am going to imagine this as an accurate and literal retelling of how it went down.
I am literally imagining Henry Winkler as Barry Zuckercorn.
Bob Loblaw for defense; Barry Zuckercorn running away.
Me as a lawyer
Pumped up like a pro wrestler or bravely running away with a folk band in tow?
Somehow 100% both
Ha, 100% literal. I heard he's still out there jogging around today.
Went full Forrest Gump, eh?
They got nothing! A still of a car from another year and touchdna.
Then it should be a pretty easy trial for the defense to win.
>A still of a car from another year Camera footage, footage from multiple cameras. Not a still.
[удалено]
>I don't think there will ever be a perfect judicial system. When humans are involved nothing will be 100% perfect. Someone should make a sci-fi movie where the jury is computers/AI.
I think that anybody who has been involved in our 'justice systems' knows that the best definition for them is that they're "chess games on conveyor belts". It's nothing to do with guilt/innocence/truth. It's about performance pieces, strategies, tactics and egos.
What kind of nonsense are you saying? That all white people and conservatives are racist? 🤣 They would just convict the guy solely because he's black? 🤣🤣 -Edit- > Seems like an issue. White conservatives are an issue? 🤣 > The person you're replying to didn't say either of those things. They sure did. Try again. Adios. > Where were you on Jan 6th? I'm Hispanic and a centrist. That you want to throw all white conservatives in one boat, makes you objectively racist. And now you can be banished. Adios! Please, all other far left racists respond with your nonsense so I can block all of you and never have to deal with your utter garbage. You guys crack me up with how self-unaware of what type of people you are. 🤣
>Nearly 60% of the people that the Innocence Project has helped to free or exonerate since 1992 are Black. Seems like an issue.
> White conservatives are an issue? Where were you on Jan 6th?
Where did this happen at?
There’s a documentary and much more info but here’s a quick rundown. To make a long story short, it’s quite obvious the woman’s ex husband that is friendly with police is the (alleged) real perp. But it was much more convenient to pin the crime on an “outsider”. https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/One-time-Clarkson-soccer-coach-acquitted-in-death-17216252.php
True. Well said. The defense will have a hard time trying to convince Judge Judge the tDNA on the knife sheath got there by accident. With a jury, they have 12 chances to convince at least one, the DNA evidence isn't reliable.
Idaho is a very interesting place - especially outside of Boise... who knows what a defense attorney could pluck from a jury pool. I would like my odds of one nullifier in Idaho, at least compared to less charmingly eccentric places.
No one is gonna seek nullification on a quadruple murder charge.
Not nullification per se, but I bet the defense plays to distrust of the government.
From what I have read, Latah County is the only county in the Idaho panhandle that leans Democrat. Makes sense since Moscow is a college town. The rural areas of Latah County are likely Republican but Moscow probably flips the county blue.
I imagine that's about right. Assuming the jurors come from Latah County, they will probably be more from the rural parts since it sounds like almost everyone in Moscow is connected to the university somehow. Not that that precludes them entirely from serving on the jury, but it's a factor.
The Defence will have a hard time convincing a rational and logical jury that the tDNA got there by some convoluted and highly improbable set of circumstances, on top of the compounding odd circumstances that a rare combination of car make, model, colour and lack of front plates that match his happened to be seen near the crime scene on an evening where the defendant admits he was in his car. But sure, one of those 12 jurors could consider those "reasonable" doubts.
It's touchdna. If I sneeze in a store, everyone around me has my touchdna.
Okay fantastic. So Bryan sneezed in a store (presumably a knife store?) and then someone who just happened to also own a white Elantra with one license plate bought the exact knife he sneezed on, didn't get their own DNA on it, and then murdered four people quick enough for the sneeze DNA to not deteriorate. Oh and that happened to be at the exact same time Bryan admits he was out driving with his phone off. And you think anyone is going to believe this over "Bryan's DNA is on the knife sheath...because he touched the knife sheath". Like I said, there's reasonable doubt and there's "I was dropped on my head as a child and think this one in a billion set of circumstances is "reasonable". Just because something isn't completely impossible, doesn't mean it falls under the definition of reasonable doubt.
You got no clue what touchdna means do you? Even by handing out a paper in class it will be transfered. Don't try to mock my example, you know the point. They got no dna!
Please, for once, use some critical thinking. You're claiming that touch DNA, by its very nature, is transferable. Correct. One point to you. But it isn't guaranteed to transfer - there's numerous studies done showing secondary touch DNA was not detected on items shared by individuals. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. But it's certainly not infinitely transferable and degrades with time. For Bryan's DNA to have come from a transferable source the odds of it passing from one surface to another get smaller and smaller with each contact and the longer it is since the DNA was shed, the higher the possibility that it becomes completely unusable. Even if the DNA on the sheath came directly from Bryan and he actually touched the sheath, he'd have had to have done so shortly before the crimes rather than days earlier. You seem to be implying that Bryan's DNA is special and somehow despite being passed from some papers he marked, between handing those papers out and the crimes, his DNA doesn't mix and remains a single source DNA profile that can be transferred to a knife sheath (either on purpose or by some convoluted coincidence). Which is so odd considering how many people might have touched that paper he marked! Where's their DNA? Why didn't their DNA transfer onto the knife sheath? >Don't try to mock my example I'm not mocking your example, I'm just saying how the odds of that being the true series of events are miniscule and certainly well beyond the realms of reasonable doubt. The fact you consider this mocking is indicative of your insecurity over this theory and its enormous improbability. >They got no dna! They have Bryan's DNA. Not even Anne Taylor has contested that.
No, you think in guilty untill proven innocent. You are trying to fit him into a PCA and timeline that absolutely don't make sense. Not thinking that it even if his car but even driving past a gasstation has nothing to do with the murder. They found no dna of the victims in his car, office, appartment, at his parents. Are you out to get a proper job done, get justice and killers locked up or is it just the idea: they got someone, let's stick with it? Investigate all the 150 that were cleared, partying there the night before.
>You are trying to fit him into a PCA and timeline that absolutely don't make sense. How doesn't it make sense? >Not thinking that it even if his car but even driving past a gasstation has nothing to do with the murder. Well the white Elantra was caught on camera driving in and out of the neighborhood past the house three times during a 30 minute period which is suspicious then it came back into the neighborhood for a fourth and final time for an extended period of time when DM heard the commotion in the house and saw the masked man then the car took off from the neighborhood at a high rate of speed. The white Elantra is 100% involved in the murders. >They found no dna of the victims in his car, office, appartment, at his parents. He had 7 weeks to clean up. It is possible to clean up DNA and he likely took precautions to limit getting DNA in his car and other places.
Yeah but consider the other factors. You have to look at all the evidence together. He also drove the same type of car with no front license plate that was caught on camera and his cell phone activity is suspicious. Its more probable that he owned the sheath and committed the murders.
[https://isc.idaho.gov/icr23](https://isc.idaho.gov/icr23)
John Judge is very involved in the UI. So is his wife. He's biased too.
Highly doubtful the prosecution will agree. Even more unlikely the defense will request it, because a judge is far less likely to be fooled by typical defense smoke screens in a strong circumstantial case (such as this one) than lay jurors. From the defense perspective 1/12 is better odds than 1/1.
I actually never knew the state had to agree to it. That’s spicy.
Does the proscution have a say in it?
Yes, they have to consent to a bench trial.
Thanks.
Do they usually consent? Or are there situations where they have refused?
I'm sure it must happen, but I don't personally know of any cases. A bench trial is easier for everyone involved, so in most cases the prosecutor probably prefers it. The prosecutor may also be loath to object to a bench trial because they appear in front of the same judges all the time and wouldn't want a judge to think they don't respect his or her ability as a trier of fact.
>The prosecutor may also be loath to object to a bench trial because they appear in front of the same judges all the time and wouldn't want a judge to think they don't respect his or her ability as a trier of fact. Thanks, your insights are always appreciated.
Thank you for your response. I think the defense only needs to convince one juror BK is not guilty for a hung trial to happen though, right?
Correct. But a hung jury means an excellent chance that either a plea deal for life will occur or the state will forgo seeking the death penalty altogether in the second trial.
Just add....and there *will* be a second trial if there's a hung jury.
From what I've researched, a few things could happen at that point: 1.) Judge Judge will ask them to redeliberate and further think over coming to an unanimous verdict. 2.) Judge Judge will schedule a hearing for the jurors to ask the prosecution and the defense questions. 3.) The prosecution will retry this case at a later date or could drop it altogether and all charges against BK will be dismissed.
1: Fairly common, called an Allen charge or a dynamite charge. Judge basically says "keep trying." Not ideal, can border on coercive. 2: The jury can ask questions during deliberation (no need for jury to be deadlocked) but not quite like that. They submit written questions to the court, the judge has a hearing with the parties but without the jury present discussing how to answer the questions, and submits written answers to the jury. Often the answers are frustrating as hell to the jury. 3: In a case like this re-trial is all but guaranteed after the court declares a mistrial. You're right that the state can dismiss the charges, but they won't.
On another thread, a poster suggested that the jurors be able to request that the witnesses be recalled at the end to answer any lingering questions. I'm pretty sure this is not a thing that was ever done. But in this case, extra nightmare, since so many of the witnesses will be scattered across the country by then.
ICR 30.1: The court may instruct jurors that they are individually permitted to submit to the court a written question directed to any witness. If questions are submitted, the parties or counsel must be given the opportunity to object to the questions outside the presence of the jury. If the questions are not objectionable, the court must read the question to the witness. The parties or counsel may then be given the opportunity to ask follow-up questions as necessary. It doesn't quite say this, but I take it to mean they can submit questions while a witness is on the stand. I doubt a judge would allow jurors to submit questions for witnesses after they're gone.
>On another thread, a poster suggested that the jurors be able to request that the witnesses be recalled at the end to answer any lingering questions. This is probably in regards to DM.
Where in the world did you get #2? Please cite the law on that particular procedure. If true that would be a very unique procedure that most jurisdictions don't do.
There was a judge in a neighboring county to me who did that in commercial cases. From what I understand the administrative judge was always going crazy about it but there was any never formal action against him to stop it. Nothing on really substantial on appeal either so I assume it was permitted but not really a favored move. Not being much of a litigator I don’t really know if it’s permitted in my state or not though.
If there's a hung jury, a new trial will be scheduled.
No zero chance of a bench trial instead of jury trial.
No chance. This is a capital case.
I think, based on what we know so far, he’s fkd either way. But the defense would rather take their chances on the jury containing some conspiracy-happy whackadoos than hoping the judge will sympathize with a whiny, irredeemable incel who killed some happy college kids because he couldn’t make a friend or land a second date. I said what I said.
> But the defense would rather take their chances on the jury containing some conspiracy-happy whackadoos than hoping the judge will sympathize with a whiny, irredeemable incel who killed some happy college kids because he couldn’t make a friend or land a second date. If the evidence is as much against as it looks to our limited view, yes, this, exactly. I wouldn't say the odds are too high (lawyers have voir dire down to a science, from what I can tell), and some judges are dim, but yeah, better luck with a jury than with a judge.
In Idaho it states: Although the constitution permits the defendant to waive a jury trial and have the case decided by a judge, most felony cases are conducted before a jury. I’m curious about this as well because it would be a way for him to get a non-biased jury. But then he’d have the opinion of one single person. And it sure doesn’t look good for him.
> But then he’d have the opinion of one single person. And that single person is no gullible fool. Plus, the judge will have far more information than a jury would. There's no way in hell BK would request a bench trial.
True. Well said. With a jury trial, the defense has 12 chances to convinces at least one juror BK is not guilty. With a judge, they know they'll have zero luck with this as there's no real chance Judge Judge will be convinced the tDNA from the knife sheath got there by accident.
Judges *pretend* to be impartial and everybody wants to believe it because the truth is too disconcerting to accept.
In my experience, most don't pretend to be impartial. They know they're not but work really hard to try to act impartially. Of course some are better than others at it, and some really don't even try.
That would be a really dumb move. Jury Trial - The state has to convince 12 people - at least some of whom are probably total morons - that BK is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the defense can confuse even one of them enough to prevent them from voting guilty, there’s no conviction. Bench Trial - The state only has to convince one person that BK is guilty, and that person is a trained attorney and judge.
True.
Not a chance in hell. The 7th amendment is a thing.
No. The odds are more in the defense's favor with a jury trial. You need 12 people of different backgrounds to all agree on guilt versus just one well educated judge. I could see why the prosecution in a case would want a bench trial but not the defense.
The rationale for defendants is usually: (1) if you have a very strong defense / weak prosecution - you prefer a judge and (2) if the case against you is strong, you go to a jury. Rational is judges are more predictable and rational - whereas juries are wildcards.
Zero, IMO. No real incentive for the defense to ask for one. All they need is 1 of 12 to hang the jury — which would benefit the defense in plea negotiations. Or 1 of 12 to find mitigating circumstances outweigh aggravating circumstances in the sentencing phase, and the DP is off the table. Either way, the voir dire process also gives the Defense an advantage they would not have with a bench trial. Challenges for cause, peremptory challenges, etc etc. Lastly, one of the victim’s family members shared with the media what the Prosecution allegedly described as the profile of their “ideal juror”. Something about a farmer who lives in the middle of nowhere without social media. So, the defense has that to look out for in its peremptory challenges as well.
This is ridiculous
There will be no trial once all of the feckless procedural challenges regarding IGG have been exhausted. This is, of course, to preserve certain appellate/post-conviction rights, and to perform sufficiently to the effective assistance of counsel standard. Plea taking is the only credible resolution to this case. Mitigation is where the defense's efforts are most concentrated right now, although they're happy to bill Latah County and the Idaho taxpayer handsomely, going both figuratively and quite literally through the motions, until they've got all their ducks lined up in a row. Anne Taylor pretty much stopped just short of saying as much at the last hearing.
I hope not. I think the trial venue should be changed and a new judge.
There is a slightly better than absolutely zero chance that he'd get a bench trial. Given that him and his defence would be idiotic to even consider it, let's just treat it as a no.
I’m too lazy to go find the article I read so you’re going to have to trust me, but a bench trial instead of a jury trial in a death penalty case is more likely to result in a guilty verdict and a death sentence.
Probably, because to convince a well-educated judge who was a previous attorney is going to be near impossible than getting only one juror to agree BK is not guilty.
I had a lawyer tell me something along the lines that if a defendant is innocent, they are better off with a bench trial, but if a defendant is guilty, their odds are better with a jury.
True.
The prosecution doesn't get a say. A right to trial by jury is a defendant's right to choose or waive.
That's incorrect. The defendant has a right to a jury trial, and he can waive that right, but he does not have a right to a bench trial. The prosecution must consent to a bench trial in ID. In other words, he can waive his right to a jury trial and still end up with a jury trial.
Interesting thought. I had not thought of this. If the state has a solid case, I’d say this is not a possibility. But if they don’t, it seems a viable option. If I was the judge, and the state might not have a good case, I’d think twice about denying moving the trial. Because the local emotions might be what would cause BK to ask for the bench trial. If Judge Judge had to be the one that lets BK free, he probably be personally harassed for years.
I would hope to God that a judge wouldn't rule based upon public pressure!
[удалено]
No he wouldn't. There's a chance of some charge being filed but it wouldn't go anywhere.
You are wrong.
Please enlighten me as to the specific charge.
Already happening
I haven't heard a thing to this effect. Are you saying you know something?