Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Murder In Moscow: Judge Hippler's Order On Bryan Kohberger's Capital Punishment Motions (Part 5)

Transcript

Murder In Moscow: Judge Hippler's Order On Bryan Kohberger's Capital Punishment Motions (Part 5) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: this episode, we're picking up where we left off with
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: Judge Hippler's order in regards to Brian Kolberger's motions to
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: have the death penalty removed. Two. Vesting charging discretion in
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: the prosecutor does not violate the Eighth Amendment. Defendant's corollary
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: argument is that the unbridled discretion vested in prosecutors to
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: seek the death penalty renders it an arbitrary and capricious
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: process in violation of the prohibition against cruel and unusual
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: punishment afforded by the Eighth Amendment. Defendant contends that to
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: comport with the constitutional mandates, prosecutor's decision to seek the
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: death penalty must be supported by a grand jury finding
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: a probable cause as to applicable statutory aggravators, and further,
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: that the mitigating factors do not outweigh a particular statutory aggravator.
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: In advancing this argument, defendant recognizes that the Idaho Supreme
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: Court held relatively recently that statutory aggravators are not considered
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: elements of the crime and therefore need not be included
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: in the indictment. Abdullah one fifty eight Idaho at seventy four. However,
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: he argues Abdullah is wrong and should be overruled. Specifically,
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: he asserts the Idaho Supreme Court failed to consider the
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: issue through the Eighth Amendment, I e. The importance of
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: the grand jury in protecting citizens against arbitrary acts by
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: the government, including the arbitrary application of the death penalty
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: by prosecutors. In Abdullah, the defendant argued that the state
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: was required by the Sixth Amendment and Article I, Section
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: eight of the Idaho Constitution to allege the aggravating circumstances
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: in the indictment. His argument was premised on a Ring
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: versus Arizona, where the U. S. Supreme Court held that
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: Arizona's statutory aggravating factors where the functional equivalent of an
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: element of a greater offense, and therefore the six Amendments
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: right to a jury trial requires that a jury not
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: the judge, find they exist at five point thirty six
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: US at six o'h nine. The Idaho Supreme Court rejected
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: his argument, pointing to its own prior case law that
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: issued by the overwhelming majority of states. The court held
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: that Ring did not and could not elevate statutory aggravating
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: circumstances into an element of a crime, and therefore they
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: need not be alleged in the indictment and subjected the
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: probable cause determination Abdullah one fifty eight at seventy three
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: and seventy four. Defendant believes that Abdullah does not comport
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: with an amendment jurisprudence because it permits unbridled prosecutorial discretion
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: on the charging end. However, the United States Supreme Court
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: jurisprudence is not on his side. In Greg, the Court
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: rejected the argument that such prosecutorial discretion presents a constitutional
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: violation for twenty eight at one ninety nine. Petitioner's argument
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: that the state prosecutor has unfettered authority to select those
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: persons whom he wishes to prosecute for a capital of
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: the FATS events does not indicate that system is unconstitutional,
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: As Justice White stated in his concurring opinion in Greg,
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: absent facts to the contrary, it cannot be assumed that
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: prosecutors will be motivated in their charging decisions by factors
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: other than the strength of their case and the likelihood
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: that a jury would impose the death penalty if it
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: convicts idea two twenty five Profit versus Florida for twenty
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: eight US two forty two, nineteen seventy six. In McCleskey,
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: the Court again recognized the propriety of allowing prosecutors to
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: exercise discretion in capital cases, noting the policy considerations behind
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: the prosecutor Traditionally wide discretion suggests the impropriety of our
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: requiring prosecutors to defend their decisions to seek death penalties.
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: Discretion in the criminal justice system offers substantial benefits to
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: the criminal defendant. The capacity of prosecutorial discretion to provide
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: individualized justice is firmly entrenched in America law. As we
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: have noted, a prosecutor can decline to charge, offer a
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: plea bargain, or decline to seek death sentence in any
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: particular case. Of course, the power to be lenient also
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: is the power to discriminate. But a capital punishment system
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: that did not allow for discretionary acts of leniency would
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: be totally alien to our notions of criminal justice. Moreover,
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: the Eighth Amendment is concerned with the arbitrary and capricious
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: infliction of punishment. Defendant's myopic focus on prosecutorial discretion in
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: deciding whether to pursue capital charges at the outset ignores
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: all the other safeguards built in the Idaho's Capital scheme
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: that serve to focus that discretion as the matter progresses
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: towards the imposition or not of punishment. These include the
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: requirement that the prosecutor alleged facts sufficient to allow a
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: jerry to find a capital crime was committed and one
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: requisite aggravator is present. See US versus Taylor six forty eight,
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: New Mexico, two thousand and eight. Rejecting sam argument with
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: regard to the Federal Death Penalty Act, which limits and
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: guides prosecutors discretion People versus. Stuart five twenty nineteen eighty eight,
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: prosecutor's discretion is not unconstitutionally unfettered, since he may only
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: pursue the death penalty if one or more statutory aggravators exist.
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: Other circumstances that reign in a prosecutor's discretion include factual nuances,
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: strength of evidence, and in particular, the broad discretion to
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: show leniency. These factors all ensure that prosecutorial discretion is
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: kept in check so that the ultimate decision by the
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: jury to impose death if the case reaches that point
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: is not arbitrary and capricious. In fact, Defendant is not
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: cited a single case striking down a capital scheme as
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: unconstitutional due to wide prosecutorial discretion in selecting whether to
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: pursue the death penalty. Consequently, there's no basis to question
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: the constitutionality of Abdullah, which is not only binding on
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: this course, but this is positive of Defendant's argument. Consequently,
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: the motion is denied. D Motion for order requiring State
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: to provide notice of non statutory aggravators and prove beyond
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: a reasonable doubt. In this motion, Defendant moves for an
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: order requiring the State to one provide notice of any
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: non statutory aggravating facts or circumstances it intends to prove
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: at the sentencing phase, and two provide any such non
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: statutory aggravating fact or circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt to
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: the unanimous satisfaction of the jury before any juror may
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: consider any aggravating fact or circumstance is a reason to
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: support the death penalty. The state concedes that by statute,
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: it must disclose to defendant all relevant evidence and aggravation
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: and mitigation that it intends to present at the special
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: sentencing proceeding I see Section nineteen twenty five to fifteen six.
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: The term all relevant evidence includes non statute aggravating evidence
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: Haull one sixty three Idaho seven ninety five through seven
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: ninety nine. However, the state argues that it need not
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: prove the non statutory aggravating evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: The state is correct. The sole issue to be determined
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: is whether Idaho's death penalty statute requires that the state
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: prove all non statutory aggravating evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: When an issue calls for statutory interpretation, the following principles apply.
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: The objective of statutory interpretation is to derive the intent
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: of the legislative body that adopted the act. Statutory interpretation
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: begins with the literal language of the statute. Provisions should
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: not be read in isolation, but must be interpreted in
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: the context of the entire document. The statute should not
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: be considered as a whole, and the words should be
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: given their plane, usual and ordinary meanings. It should be
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: noted that the Court must give effect to all the
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: words and provisions of the statute, so that none will
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: be void or redundant. When the statutory language is unambiguous,
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: the clearly expressed intent of the legislative body must be
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: given effect, and the court need not consider rules of
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: statutory construction. State versus Schultz, one fifty one Idaho eight
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: sixty three, twenty eleven one IC Section nineteen twenty five
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: to fifteen does not impose a reasonable doubt standard on
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: non statutory aggravating evidence. Applying the foregoing principles, the Court
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: finds that ICEE Section nineteen twenty five to fifteen does
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: not require the state to prove its non statutory aggravating
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant provisions of ICE
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: Section nineteen twenty five to fifteen are as follows. Where
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: a person is convicted of an offense which may be
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: punishable by death, a sentence of death shall not be
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: imposed unless a notice of intent to seek the death
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: penalty was filed and served as provided in Section eighteen
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: four thousand and four a Idaho Code, and B the
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: jury or court, if a jury is waived, finds beyond
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: a reasonable doubt that at least one statutory aggravating circumstance.
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: Where a statutory aggravating circumstance is found, the defendant shall
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: be sentenced to death unless mitigating circumstances which may be presented,
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: are found to be sufficiently compelling that the death penalty
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: would be unjust. The jury shall not direct imposition of
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: a sentence of death unless it unanimously finds at least
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: one statutory aggravating circumstance and unanimously determines that the death
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: penalty should be imposed, notwithstanding any court rule to the contrary.
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: When a defendant is adjudicated guilty of murder in the
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: first degree, whether by acceptance of a plead of guilty,
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: by verdict of a jury, or by decision of the
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: trial court sitting without a jury, no presentence investigation shall
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: be conducted, provided, however, that if a special sentence encyc
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: proceeding is not held, or if a special sentencing proceeding
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: is held but no statutory aggravating circumstance has been proven
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: beyond a reasonable doubt, the court may order that the
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: presentence investigation be conducted. If a person is adjudicated guilty
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: of murder in the first degree, whether by acceptance of
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: a plea of guilty, by a verdict of a jury,
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: or by decision of the trial court sitting without a jury,
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: and the notice of intent to seek the death penalty
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: was filed and served. As provided in Section eighteen for
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: zero zero four a Idaho Code, a special sentencing proceeding
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: shall be held promptly for the purpose of hearing all
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: relevant evidence and arguments of counsel and aggravation and mitigation
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: of the offense. At the special sentencing proceeding, the state
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: and the defendant shall be entitled to present all relevant
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: evidence in aggravation and mitigation. Disclosure of evidence to be
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: relied on in sentencing proceeding shall be made in accordance
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: with Idaho Criminal Rules sixteen. Evidence admitted at trials shall
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: be considered and need not be repeated at the sentencing hearing.
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: Upon the conclusion of evidence and arguments in mitigation and
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: aggravation with regard to each statutory aggravating circumstance alleged by
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: the state, the jury shall return special verdict stating whether
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: the statutory aggravating circumstance has been proven beyond the reasonable doubt,
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: And if the statutory aggravating circumstance has been proven beyond
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: the reasonable doubt, whether all mitigating circumstances, when weighed against
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: the aggravating circumstance, are sufficiently compelling that the death penalty
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: would be unjust. The following or statutory aggravating circumstances, at
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: least one of which must be found to exist beyond
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: the reasonable doubt before a sentence of death can be imposed.
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up right here, and
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: in the next episode, we're going to pick up with
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: IC Section nineteen Dash twenty five point fifteen. All of
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: in the description box.