Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Murder In Moscow: Judge Hippler's Order On Bryan Kohberger's Capital Punishment Motions (Part 1)

Transcript

Murder In Moscow: Judge Hippler's Order On Bryan Kohberger's Capital Punishment Motions (Part 1) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. Over
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: the past few days, we've been talking about Brian Colberger
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: a little bit, and we've been going over some of
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: the motions that his teammate to try and get the
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: death penalty removed. Well, in this episode, we're going to
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: begin taking a look at the memorandum decision and order
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: on the death penalty motions filed by the judge. So
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: let's dive into this memorandum decision and see what Judge
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: Hippler had to say. Case number CR zero one DASH
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: twenty four DASH three one sixty sixty five State of
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: Idaho Plaintiff first Brian C. Coberger, the defendant introduction. Defendant
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: is charged with one count of burglary and four accounts
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: of murder in the first degree in connection with the
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: deaths of four University of Idaho students. The state has
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: filed a notice of intent to seek death penalty pursuant
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: to Idaho Code Section eighteen for zero zero four afore
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: or the Court are twelve motions filed by defendant challenging
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment scheme, collectively death penalty motions.
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: A hearing on the motions was held on November seventh,
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, following which the Court took matters under advisement.
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: The Court concludes relief and defendants favor is not warranted
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: on any of the motions two standards. The constitutionality of
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: Idaho's capital punishment scheme is a question of law State
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: versus Abdullah, one fifty eight, Idaho three eighty six four
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: to fifty, twenty fifteen. When a party challenges a statute
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: on constitutional grounds that bears the burden of establishing that
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: the statute is unconstitutional and must overcome a strong presumption
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: of validity State versus Manzaners, one fifty two Idaho four
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: ten four eighteen, twenty twelve. Further, when considering these challenges,
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: courts are obligated to seek an interpretation of a statute
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: that upholds its constitutionality. The interpretation of a treaty is
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: a question of law, as are matters of statutory interpretation
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: Pocatello versus State, two thousand and eight, State versus Hall,
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: twenty eighteen. Whether there is an infringement on a defendant's right.
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: The speedy trial presents a mixed question of law. In fact,
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: State versus Clark one thirty five, Idaho, two thousand. A
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: review in court will defer to a trial court's findings
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: of fact if supported by substantial and competent evidence, and
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: will exercise free review of the trial court's conclusions of law.
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: A motion to trifur kate capital proceedings is a matter
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: of discretion United States versus Bolden A Circuit, two thousand
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: and eight. See also Armand versus Opportunity Management Company, one
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: fifty five, Idaho, twenty thirteen. Whether to order separate trials
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: for any claims or issues is discretionary. Consequently, a trial
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: court must one correctly perceive the issues as one of discretion,
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: two act within the outer boundaries of its discretion, three
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: act consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: choices available to it, and four reach its decision by
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: the exercise of reason. State versus Gueta, one sixty nine, Idaho,
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty one. Three analysis a motion to strike State's
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: notice on grounds of arbitrariness. Defendant moves to strike the
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: State's notice on grounds at Idaho's capital sentencing scheme fails
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: to narrow the class of first degree murders who are
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: death eligible defendants, thus permitting an arbitrary and capricious selection
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: of defendants for death. He further argues Idaho's scheme is
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: unconstitutional due to geographic disparities as to who is selected
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: for the death penalty. These infirmities, according to Defendant, violate
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: his Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment his
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. The
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: Idaho constitutionis corollary provisions, as well as the right to
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: uniformity of justice provided by Article five, Section two, and
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: twenty six of the Idaho Constitution. In support of his argument,
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: Defendant relies in large part on a study conducted and
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: published in a law review article by Professor Eliza Cover
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: of the University of Idaho College of Law. In response,
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: the state contends that both arguments are foreclosed by binding precedent.
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: If further argues that Professor Covers article should be afforded
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: little if any weight, given foundational issues and lack of
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: relevance one constitutional requirements of a capital punishment scheme. In
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: imposing capital punishment, Idaho has a constitutional responsibility under the
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: eighth and fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution to tailor
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: and apply its law in a manner that avoids the
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: arbitrary and capricious infliction of the death penalty Godfrey versus Georgia,
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: nineteen eighty. To accomplish this, Idaho's capital sentencing scheme must
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: provide a meaningful basis for distinguishing the few cases in
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: which the penalty is imposed from the many cases in
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: which it is not, quoting greg versus Georgia four twenty
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: eight US nineteen seventy six. Constitutional review of a state's
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: capital punishment scheme addresses two separate aspects of the decision
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: making process, the eligibility decision and the selection decision Talapia
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: versus California, five twelve, nineteen ninety four. States must comply
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: with the requirements of both for their respective schemes to
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: be constitutional. Kansas versus Marsh five forty eight, two thousand
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: and six a eligibility standards. The eligibility decision imposes a
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: narrowing requirement on a state capital scheme. To pass constitutional muster,
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: a capital sentencing scheme must genuinely narrow the class of
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: persons eligible for the death penalty and must reasonably justify
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: the imposition of a more severe sentence on the defendant
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: compared to others found guilty of murder low in Fiel
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: verse Phelps for eighty four US nineteen eighty eight, quoting
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: xand verse Stevens for sixty two, nineteen eighty three. State
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: legislatures can satisfy the narrowing function in one of two ways,
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: one by narrowing the definition of capital offense, or two
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: by more broadly defining capital offenses and providing for narrowing
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: by jury findings of aggravating circumstances at the penalty phase
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: Idea two forty six see Zanut for sixty two. Statutory
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: aggravating circumstances play a constitutionally necessary function at the stage
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: of legislative definition. They circumscribe the class of persons eligible
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: for the death penalty. For states that have attempted to
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: satisfy the narrowing requirement through the enactment of statutory aggravators,
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: the United States Supreme Court requires the Trier effect must
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: convict the defendant of murder and find one aggravating circumstance
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: or its equivalent at either the guilt or penalty phase.
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: The aggravating circumstance must meet two requirements. First, the circumstance
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: may not apply to every defendant convicted of murder. It
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: must apply only to a subclass of defendants convicted of murder. Second,
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: the aggravating circumstance may not be unconstitutionally vague Tilapia five twelve,
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: US at nine seventy two. That said, if a particular
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: statutory aggravator is vague, state courts are permitted to further
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: define the aggravator through a limiting construction so as to
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: allow the state to meet its constitutional obligation to provide
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: some guidance to the sentencer and avoid the arbitrary and
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: capricious infliction of death a Ravi versus Creach, five oh
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: seven US four sixty three, four seventy three, nineteen ninety three,
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: quoting Walton versus Arizona, four ninety seven, nineteen ninety B.
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: Selection standards. The selection decision aspect of capital sentencing determines
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: whether a death eligible defendant should actually receive the death
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: penalty Tilapia, five point twelve that nine seventy two. This
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: phase requires individualized sentencing and must be expansive enough to
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: accommodate relevant mitigating evidence so as to assure the assessment
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: of the defendant's culpability. What is important at the selection
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: stage is an individualized determination on the basis of the
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: character of the individual and the circumstances of the crime.
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: That requirement is met when a jury can consider relevant
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: mitigating evidence of the character and record of the defendant
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: and circumstances of the crime. Two. Idaho Supreme Court is
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: found Idaho's capital scheme to be constitutionally narrow. Idaho has
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: opted to satisfy the constitutionality imposed eligibility requirements through the
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: adoption of statutory aggravators in addition to statutorily carving out
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: a class of murders ie first degree, to which the
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: death penalty team may apply. Under Idaho law, first degree
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: murder is a potential capital crime if such person killed,
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: intended a killing, or acted with reckless indifference to human life,
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: irrespective of whether such person directly committed the acts that
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: cause death. IC nineteen dashed two five one five. If
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: an individual falls into this category, at least one of
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: the eleven statutorily enumerated aggravating circumstances, several of which are
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: subject to limiting constructions, must be found beyond a reasonable
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: doubt for the individual to be death eligible id at
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: Section nineteen two five one five at nine. Defendant contends
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: Idaho's scheme has so many aggravating circumstances so broadly construed
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: that the aggravator is accomplished no narrowing and create a
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: greater risk of arbitrary death sentences. However, the Idaho Supreme
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: Court is determined that Idaho's approach accomplishes the narrowing function
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: in the eligibility phase is required by the US Constitution.
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: Hall one sixty three, Idaho. At. Seven, eighty eight, citing
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: State verse would one thirty two Idaho. Eighty eight, one
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: oh two nine sixty seven, p. Two d seven oh two,
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: nineteen ninety six, Noting that while a particular aggravator may
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: apply to many murders, the court concluded no one aggravator
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: applies to every first degree murder, which is all the
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: narrowing required by Tilapia. Consequently, defendants argument is foreclosed by Hall. Moreover,
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: in challenging Idaho's scheme, Defendant and properly focuses on the
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: statutory aggravating factors in the aggregate rather than individuality. This
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: approach was rejected by the Idaho Supreme Court in state
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: versus Harriston, one thirty three Idaho, nineteen ninety nine. They're
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: The defendant argued that the combination of all statutory aggravators
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: applied equally to all first degree murder defendants, and therefore
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: did not provide a meaningful distinction between those deserving of
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: the death penalty and those who were not. Id At
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: Fible eight p. Dot two d At eleven eighty two,
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: the Court found no legal basis for considering the aggregate
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: effect of Idahose aggravators, noting that each aggravator must be
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: considered individually, citing a Ravi five h seven US at
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: four seventy. Narrowing in the eligibility phase of capital proceedings
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: focuses on whether the sentencer is required to find at
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: least one aggravating fact beyond the murder itself. Because the
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: defendant felt to challenge any one particular aggravating circumstance, the
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: court refuses to find Idaho's capital scheme arbitrary and capricious.
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: Defendant contends, however, that Harriston did not reach the question
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: of whether Idaho's statutory scheme as the whole failed the
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: narrowing function. Rather, he contends the Court's ruling was on
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: whether a court could still determine who deserved death, not
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: on whether the statle jigatory structure had failed the narrowing function.
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: Defendant points out that at the time of Hairston, judges,
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: not juries, could still determine whether to impose the death penalty. Thus,
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: defendant posits that whether idahosts statutory scheme as a whole
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: has provided sufficient narrowing to prevent juries from arbitrarily imposing
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: death is a matter of first impression. Defendant's attempt to
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: distinguish Hairston is misplaced. The court squarely held that there
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: was no basis to consider whether the aggravators collectively performed
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: the narrowing Rather, the relevant question was whether the applicable
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: aggravator individually performed the narrowing idea at fibleweight p Dot
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: two d at eleven eighty two. Defendant has provided no
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: basis for why analysis should be different when a jury
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: rather than a judge makes the determination. Indeed, in Telapia,
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: which was decided post ring, the United States Supreme Court
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: reiterated that the narrowing analysis focuses on the individual aggravator.
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: Tilapia five twelve US at nine seventy two, noting the
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: Trier effect must find one aggravating circumstance, and the aggravating
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: circumstance must apply only to a subclass of defendants and
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: may not be unconstitutionally vague. Consequently, defendants narrowing argument is
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: further foreclosed by Harriston, which is binding on this Court. Additionally,
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: the Eighth Amendments narrowing analysis is typically confined to the
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: eligibility phase. The narrowing effect of the selection phase and
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: mandatory appellet review that focuses on who ultimately receives the
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: death penalty cannot be ignored. See Adalgo three ninety p.
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: Dot three d at seven ninety two, noting that a
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: narrowing challenge to Arizona's capital scheme cannot focus solely on
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: the statutory aggravating circumstances because the selection phase and mandatory
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: appellet review provide further narrowing. For a death penalty scheme
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: to be constitutional, both the eligibility phase and selection phase
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: mustntin safeguards to ensure that the process is neutral and
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: principled so as to guard against bias or caprice in
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: the sentencing decision. Idaho selection phase requires the jury weigh
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: all the mitigating circumstances against each applicable aggravating circumstance and
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: determine whether the imposition of the death penalty would be
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: unjust I see section nineteen Dash two five one five
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: eight A. The jury must unanimously agree that the death
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: penalty is warranted. If the death penalty has imposed, the
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: sentence is then reviewed by the Idaho Supreme Court to
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: determine one whether the sentence of death was imposed under
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor,
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: and two whether the evidence supports the jury or judge's
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: findings of statutory aggravating circumstances. Thus, importantly, eligible defendants are
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: further narrowed through these phases, which defendants arguments does not consider.
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: All right, we're going to wrap up right here, and
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: in the next episode we're gonna pick up with three.
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: Defendant has not demonstrated Idaho's capital scheme is geographically arbitrary.
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode can
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box.