Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Mega Edition: Bryan Kohberger And The Fight To Stay The Proceedings (8/24/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Bryan Kohberger And The Fight To Stay The Proceedings (8/24/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: this episode, we're gonna dive right back into those core
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: documents and we're gonna see what has hit the docket
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: in the last couple of days, including the order to
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: stay time for a speedy trial. So let's dive into
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: these court documents and let's get cracking. The first one
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: we have is the order for the County to pay
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: expense of transcribing grand jury transcript, Case number c R
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: twenty nine Dash twenty two Dash twenty eight oh five,
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: State of Idaho Plaintiff versus Brian C. Coberger. The defendant defendant,
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: Bryan C. Colberger, was previously found to be indigent pursuantoi
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: dot Se Section nineteen Dash eight fifty two and nineteen
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: Dash eight fifty four. On June twenty eighth, twenty twenty three,
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: this court, based on a stipulation from the parties, entered
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: an order for preparation and release of transcript and record
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: of grand jury proceedings with conditions. The transcript is scheduled
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: to be completed on July twenty first, twenty twenty one. Therefore,
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: based on the defendants inability to pay and the party
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: Stipulation for preparation of the transcript for the defendant's review.
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: It is ordered that leta County pay the expense associated
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: with transcribing the grand jury transcript once the transcript is completed.
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: This document was signed by Judge Judge and it was
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: dated on July seventh of twenty twenty three. The next
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: document we have is the Amended Stipulation for Preparation and
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: Release of Transcript and Record of Grand Jury Proceedings with conditions.
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: Case number c R twenty nine DASH twenty two DASH
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: twenty eight oh five, State of Idaho Plaintiff versus Brian
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: Christopher Coberger, the defendant. Now the above name parties buy
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: and through their undersigned attorneys of record, and hereby stipulate
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: to the Court entering orders pursuing to Idaho Criminal Rules
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: six dot two C and six dot three C as follows.
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: A for the preparation of a transcript of the grand
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: jury proceedings herein except deliberations as contemplated by Idaho Criminal
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: Rule six dot two B. For permission for the State
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: and Defense to obtain a copy of said transcript and record,
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: including the items listed on the attached exhibit A, which
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: is submitted under seal to protect confidential grand jury information,
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: copies of the exhibits and copies of the questionnaires for
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: the jurors, with the understanding that the same will remain confidential.
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: The Honorable J. Gaskill, Senior District Judge, presiding over grand
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: jury proceedings, having already issued on May sixteenth, twenty twenty three,
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: order releasing records and proceedings pursuing to Idaho Criminal Rule
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: six three C. The parties further stipulate that the records
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: and proceedings of the grand jury may also be shared
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: by the Defense Council with its investigators and retained experts,
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: with the provision that those individuals shall not be allowed
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: to further disclose any of the grand jury materials. Select
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: portions of the grand jury record and transcript may be
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: shared with any witnesses who testified at the grand jury proceedings,
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: but for each witness only that part of the redacted
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: version of the transcript that contains his or her own testimony.
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: In order to protect identities of the impaneled grand jurs,
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: the disclosed record and transcript are to be redacted prior
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: to being shared, so as to remove any reference to
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: grand juror's individual names. This was signed by William Thompson
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: and by Ann Taylor. The next document we have is
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: the Order Staying Time for a speed Trial case number
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: c R twenty nine DASH twenty two DASH twenty eight
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: oh five. Order Staying Time for a Speedy Trial, State
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: of Idaho, Plaintiff vers Brian C. Coberger, the defendant. On
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: June thirteenth, twenty twenty three, Defendant Brian C. Coburger filed
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: a motion to state proceedings pursuingto Idaho Code section two
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: to thirteen one. On June fifteenth, twenty twenty three, the
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: state filed and objection to defendant's request. On June twenty third,
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, defendant filed first worn statement of facts
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: in support of motion to stay proceedings. Idaho Code Section
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: two two thirteen one reads within seven days after having
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: the moving party to s discovered or by the exercise
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: of diligence, could have discovered the grounds thereof, and in
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: any event, before the trial jury is sworn to try
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: the case, a party may move to stay the proceedings and,
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: in a criminal case, to quash the indictment or for
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: other appropriate relief. On the ground of substantial failure to
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: comply with this chapter in selecting the grand or trial jury.
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: The statute goes on to state that if the court
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: determines that, in selecting either a grand jury or a
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: trial jury, there has been a substantial failure to comply
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: with this chapter, the court shall stay the proceedings pending
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: the selection of the jury in conformity with this chapter, quation,
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: an indictment, or grant other appropriate relief Idaho Code Section
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: two Dash two thirteen two. Before a court can reach
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: its decision, the moving party must first present a sworn
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: statement of facts that, if true, would constitute substantial failure
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: to comply with the procedures for selecting a grand jury.
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: From there, the party is entitled to present evidence to
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: support its claim. Only after the presentation of evidence and
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: the finding that there was a substantial failure to comply
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: was the procedure for selecting a grand jury. Can a
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: court stay the proceedings pending the selection of the jury
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: in conformity with this chapter, quution, indictment, or grant other
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: appropriate relief. At this juncture, Colburger's motion to stay the
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: proceedings is premature. Colburger has not yet had the opportunity
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: to review the grand jury records, transcript and recordings. Once
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: those materials are reviewed, Coburger may renew his motion to
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: stay proceedings pursue into Idaho Code section two Dash two
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: thirteen if he finds facts that support a claim that
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: there was a substantial failure to comply with the procedures
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: for selecting a grand jury. Thus, Coburger's motion to stay
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: proceedings pursuant to Idaho Code section two Dash two thirteen
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: is denied without prejudice. Nevertheless, the Court recognizes that Coburger
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: has the right to review the grand jury materials to
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: determine if there are grounds for challenging the grand jury
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: selection process. This is a complicated, unusual case, and it
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: is taken some time by no fault of either party
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: to prepare the grand jury materials Coburger is entitled to.
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: While the clerk's record and recordings were provided to Coburger
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: on June sixth, twenty twenty three, the transcript of the
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: proceedings will not be completed until July twenty first, twenty
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: twenty three. It will then take the defense time to
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: review all the material and determine if they wish to
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: renew their motion to stay proceedings pursuant to Idaho Code
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: Section two Dash two thirteen by this Court also recognizes
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: Coburger's statutory and constitutional right to a speedy trial. Pursuing
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: to Idaho Codes Section nineteen Dashed thirty five oh one,
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: The Court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown,
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: must order the indictment to be dismissed if a defendant
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: whose trial has not been postponed upon his application is
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: not brought to trial within six months from the date
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: that the defendant was arraigned before the court in which
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: the indictment is found. The decision whether to waive speedy
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: trial is an important decision that should not be rushed
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: and warrants strong consideration by both Council and client. At
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: this juncture, Coburger has not waived his right to speedy trial,
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: and the jury trial is scheduled to commence October two,
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty three. Thus, precious time is ticking given these
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: two important rights, the right to review and potential challenge
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: the grand jury and the right to a speedy trial.
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: This Court finds that Coburger has agreed that there is
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: good cause to stay the running of the speedy trial
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: clock for a set period of time. The stay will
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: run from July sixth, twenty twenty three, until August eleventh,
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty three. This thirty seven day stay is limited
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: only to the running of speedy trial and does not
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: stay any other portion of the case or the party's
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: ability to continue discovery motion practice, or Coberger's obligation to
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: provide the state with an alibi by July twenty fourth,
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, as previously agreed to by the parties.
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: This time will allow the defense to obtain all the
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: grand jury materials. It is entitled to review the materials
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: without waiving speedy trial, and then decide if they wish
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: to pursue a stay. Pursuant to Idaho Code Section two
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: Dash two thirteen, this stay means that the state must
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: bring Colburger to trial within six months and thirty seven
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: days from the date of Coberger's arraignment, which was May
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: twenty second, twenty twenty three. Coberger and his council agreed
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: on the record on July sixth, twenty twenty three, to
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: the terms of this stay, and have agreed that Coburger
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: cannot later argue that his right to his speedy trial
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: was violated if he has brought to trial within six
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: months in thirty seven days of May twenty second, twenty
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: twenty three. At the same time, the court is specifically
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: recognizing that Coburger has not waived his right to his
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: speedy trial by agreeing to this stay. At this time,
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: the trial is set to begin October second, twenty twenty three,
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: and will not be moved out, but maybe in the
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: future if either party decides the extra thirty seven days
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: are necessary to prepare for trial. Dated this seventh day
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: of June twenty twenty three, and this was signed by
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: Judge Judge. All Right, folks, that's gonna do it for
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: the latest dump, and this brings us pretty much up
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: to date. We have an amended version of this order,
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: and I'm gonna add that bad boy to the catalog tomorrow,
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: and if any other documents hit the docket today or overnight,
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: I'll make sure we get those bad boys added to
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: the catalog as well. All Right, folks, that's gonna do
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: it for this one. All of the information that goes
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: with the episode can be found in the description box spie.
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back? To the program. Brian
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: Koberger and his legal team attempted to get us stay
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: in the proceedings, and they tried to do that by
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: filing a motion for a stay well Judge. Judge has
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: denied that motion, and that order hit the docket yesterday.
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: So today we're gonna go through that order, and then
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: we have a short article discussing that order. So let's
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: dive into the order first and then we'll take a
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: look at the article. Case numbers CR twenty nine, DASH
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: twenty two DASH twenty eight oh five. Order denying Defendant's
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: motion to stay proceedings and withdrawing order staying time for
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: a speedy trial. State of Idaho Plaintiff versus Brian C. Coburger,
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: the defendant. On June thirteenth, twenty twenty three, Defendant Brian C.
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: Coburger filed a motion to stay proceedings pursue it to
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: Idaho Code Section two to thirteen. On July seventh, twenty
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: twenty three, this Court issued an order staying time for
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: a speedy trial. In that order, the Court denied Coburger's
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: motion to stay proceedings, finding that it was premature. However,
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: the Court with the agreement of Coburger and his counsel
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: stayed the running of the speedy trial clock for a
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: period of thirty seven days to allow the defense team
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: time to obtain and review the grand jury records to
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: determine if they wanted to renew the motion to stay proceedings.
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: On July seventeenth, twenty twenty three, the state filed a
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: motion to reconsider order staying time for speedy trial. Coburger
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: filed a second motion to state proceedings pursuant to Idaho
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: Code Section two Dash two thirteen one on July twenty fifth,
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty three. The basis for Coberger's motion to stay
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: was that the court issued in order. That order required
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: forty five potential jurors to be brought in the grand
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: jury panel appearing for service numbered only thirty two. Coburger
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: also alleged inconsistencies in the jury questionnaire forms and issues
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: with how two potential jurors answered questions on the form.
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: On August eleventh, twenty twenty three, the state filed an
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: objection to the defendant's request. Oral argument on both the
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: state's motion to reconsider and Coburger's second motion to state
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: proceedings was heard on August eighteenth of twenty twenty three.
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: Coberger was present and represented by his attorneys and C. Taylor,
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: Jay Logsden, and ALYSSA. Massof the State was represented by
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: William W. Thompson Junior, Ashley S. Jennings, Jeff Nye, and
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: Ingrid Beatty. For the reasons articulated on the record, the
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: Court denied Coburger's second motion to stay proceedings and granted
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: the state's motion to reconsider order staying time for speedy
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: trial and rescinded the order staying time for a speedy trial.
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: This order follows the Court's decision on the record. Colberger's
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: motion is based on the language in Idaho Codes Section
• 14:40
  Speaker 1: two Dash two thirteen that reads, within seven days after
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: the moving party discovered or by the exercise of diligence
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: could have discovered the grounds. Therefore, in any event before
• 14:52
  Speaker 1: the trial jerry is sworn to try the case. A
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: party may move to stay the proceedings and, in a
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: criminal case took wash the indictment or for other appropriate
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: relief on the grounds of substantial failure to comply with
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: this chapter in selecting the grand or trial jury. Idaho
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: Code section two Dash two thirteen, number one. The statute
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: goes on to state that if the court determines that,
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: in selecting either a grand jury or a trial jury,
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: there has been a substantial failure to comply with this chapter,
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: the court shall stay the proceedings pending the selection of
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: the jury in conformity with this chapter, quastion an indictment,
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: or grant other appropriate relief Idaho Code Section two dash
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: to thirteen two. Before a court can reach its decision,
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: the moving party must first present a sworn statement of
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: facts that, if true, would constitute a substantial failure to
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: comply with the procedures for selecting a grand jury. From there,
• 15:55
  Speaker 1: the party is entitled to present evidence to support its claim.
• 15:59
  Speaker 1: Only after the presentation of evidence and the finding that
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: there was a substantial failure to comply with the procedures
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: for selecting a grand jury, can a court stay the
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: proceedings pending the selection of the jury in conformity with
• 16:14
  Speaker 1: this chapter, quastioned indictment, or grant other appropriate relief as
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: articulated on the record, The issues raised in Coburger's second
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: motion to stay proceedings do not constitute a substantial failure
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: to comply with the procedures for selecting a grand jury.
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: The issues raised either fall outside the purview of Idaho
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: Code Title II, Chapter two, Jury Selection in Service, or
• 16:39
  Speaker 1: are typical problems seen routinely in selecting juries, i e.
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: Individuals called for jury duty failing to appear, thereby reducing
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: the number of potential jurors in the jury pool. Additionally,
• 16:53
  Speaker 1: because Coburger had the opportunity to review the grand jury
• 16:56
  Speaker 1: materials and renew his motion to stay proceedings, the court
• 17:00
  Speaker 1: having denied that motion, and there being no request to
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: extend the time for speedy trial under the thirty seven
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: days stay previously ordered, it is ordered that the order
• 17:10
  Speaker 1: staying time for speedy trial entered on July seventh, twenty
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: twenty three, is withdrawn, so ordered this fifth day of
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: October twenty twenty three. And this was signed by Judge
• 17:22
  Speaker 1: Judge all Right. Now moving on to our article. This
• 17:26
  Speaker 1: article is from KHQ dot com and the headline Judge
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: denies Brian Coberger's request to delay case and this article
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: was authored by Emily Frint. Idaho District Judge John Judge
• 17:42
  Speaker 1: denied a motion to pause the case of Brian Coberger.
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: And if you notice after this was denied. That's when
• 17:50
  Speaker 1: they really went in hard to waive their right to
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: a speedy trial. And remember this move was all about
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: trying to gain some more time for them to work
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: on the defense. But what they they were trying to
• 18:00
  Speaker 1: do is gain that time without waiving their right to
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: a speedy trial. But instead of just waving their right,
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: they attempted to attack the process and say that the
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: deck was stacked against Brian Coberger during the grand jury
• 18:13
  Speaker 1: proceedings and looking at the ruling, it's obvious that Judge
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: Judge wasn't buying what they were selling. Court documents show
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: that the request was denied because it was too premature.
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: The Coburger and his counsel agreed that pausing the case
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: would allow his defense enough time to review grand jury records.
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: Then his team will decide if they want to file
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: another motion to put the trial on hold. Not gonna happen,
• 18:39
  Speaker 1: It's not gonna work, and all of this is just
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: to try and sow some seeds of doubt with potential
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: jurors and considering the gag order, the only way they
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: can do that is to file this stuff in court documents.
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: On July seventeenth, the state filed a motion to reconsider
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: order staying time for speedy trial. On July twenty fifth,
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: Coburger filed a second motion arguing only thirty two jurors
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: appeared in court when forty five should have been present.
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: Colberger also claims there were inconsistencies in the juror questionnaire
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: forms and issues with questions that were answered by two
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: potential jurors, and all of this is nothing more than
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: a drowning man looking for something to grab onto. But
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: at some point Brian Koeberger and his legal team are
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: gonna have to face the facts that they're at the
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: base of Mount Everest and they have no shoes on,
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: and they're gonna have to climb to the top. The
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: court denied the request and said the issues raised in
• 19:37
  Speaker 1: Coburger's second motion to state proceedings do not constitute substantial
• 19:42
  Speaker 1: failure to comply with the procedures for selecting a grand jury.
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: So basically, what Judge judges saying there is get stuffed.
• 19:49
  Speaker 1: What you're saying is BS. It doesn't fit the terms
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: or the parameters needed for us to move in that direction.
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: So your motion has been denied. Expect that to be
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: the case pretty much the whole way through. They're gonna
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: throw a lot of spaghetti at the wall hoping some
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: of it sticks. And that's their job. Their job is
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: to get their client off right, and they know that
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: the evidence presented doesn't give them the best pathway to
• 20:15
  Speaker 1: do that. So how do we do this? How do
• 20:18
  Speaker 1: we get our client off and hopefully get them away
• 20:21
  Speaker 1: from the hangman's noose. Well, the best way to do
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: that is to attack the process, So that's what they're doing.
• 20:29
  Speaker 1: Coberger's defense team has thirty seven days to obtain and
• 20:32
  Speaker 1: review the grand jury records, then they can determine if
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: they want to renew the motion to stay proceedings. Coberger
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: is accused of murdering for University of Idaho students Madison Mogan,
• 20:44
  Speaker 1: Kaylee Gonsalves, Ethan Chapin, and Xana Kernodle in November of
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty two. So this has always been a ploy.
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: The whole entire move by them to try and get
• 20:55
  Speaker 1: a stay in this case was nothing more than them
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: trying to buy time. They knew that their not gonna
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: be able to push this ball across the goal line
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: and convince Judge Judge that the grand jury acted in properly.
• 21:07
  Speaker 1: They knew they weren't gonna be able to do that.
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: But what they were trying to do is muddy the
• 21:12
  Speaker 1: waters a little bit. What they were trying to do
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: is maneuver a little bit more so they had even
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: more time. All right, well, we'll put in this motion
• 21:20
  Speaker 1: and then after he denies it, then we'll wave our
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: right to a speedy trial, thus gaining extra days. And
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: it's a shrewd move on Brian Colberger's lawyer's part, no
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: doubt about it. But I don't think that all the
• 21:32
  Speaker 1: time in the world would help them because cometrial time,
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: the evidence is gonna be what the evidence is going
• 21:38
  Speaker 1: to be, and so far that evidence is stacked a
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: mile high against Brian Coburger. All Right, everybody that's gonna
• 21:46
  Speaker 1: do it for this one. If you'd like to contact me,
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: you can do that at Bobby Kapouchi at ProtonMail dot com.
• 21:52
  Speaker 1: That's bo bb Y c apu Cci at proton mail
• 21:56
  Speaker 1: dot com. All of the information that goes with this
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
• 22:04
  Speaker 1: and welcome back to the program. In this episode, we're
• 22:07
  Speaker 1: gonna dive right back into those core documents and see
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: where things currently stand in the trial of Brian Coohberger.
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: And today we're going to be looking at the objection
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: to the defendant second motion to stay proceedings. So let's
• 22:25
  Speaker 1: get started. Case number c R twenty nine Dash twenty
• 22:29
  Speaker 1: two Dash twenty eight h five. Objection to defendant's second
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: motion to stay proceedings, State of Idaho Plaintiff versus Brian C. Coberger.
• 22:40
  Speaker 1: The defendant comes now the State of Idaho buy and
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: through the Layta County Prosecuting Attorney, and objects to the
• 22:48
  Speaker 1: defendants second motion to stay proceedings. Because the defendant has
• 22:53
  Speaker 1: not factually asserted a substantial failure to comply with the
• 22:58
  Speaker 1: Uniform Jerry Selection and Service Act, his motion should be
• 23:01
  Speaker 1: denied introduction before ever reviewing any of the grand jury
• 23:06
  Speaker 1: materials to determine whether a violation of Idaho's Uniform Jury
• 23:11
  Speaker 1: Selection and Service Act had actually occurred. The defendant was
• 23:15
  Speaker 1: determined to obtain a stay in his case, and so
• 23:19
  Speaker 1: he filed his first motion to stay under Idaho Code
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: two Dash two thirteen. Defendant's motion to stay June thirteenth,
• 23:27
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, without knowing whether he had any basis
• 23:31
  Speaker 1: in law or fact to make such a request. The
• 23:35
  Speaker 1: defendant asked this court to grind the litigation in this
• 23:39
  Speaker 1: matter to a halt because he intended to contest the
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: indictment defense motion to stay Page two, and desired to
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: discover the grounds upon which the file emotion to dismiss
• 23:52
  Speaker 1: related to how the grand jury was selected Idaho at
• 23:57
  Speaker 1: two Dash three. The Court declined to grant relief under
• 24:01
  Speaker 1: that subsection and instead issued a limited stay, ordering that
• 24:05
  Speaker 1: speedy trial be told for a period of thirty seven days.
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: Order staying time for speedy Trial July seventh, twenty twenty three.
• 24:14
  Speaker 1: The state has moved to reconsider that order and argument
• 24:18
  Speaker 1: is set for August eighteenth, twenty twenty three. Having now
• 24:22
  Speaker 1: reviewed the grand jury materials provided since his initial motion,
• 24:26
  Speaker 1: the defendant has delivered on his promised strategy. He seeks
• 24:31
  Speaker 1: a stay to buy more time to challenge the indictment
• 24:34
  Speaker 1: in this case. In support of his second motion to stay,
• 24:37
  Speaker 1: the defendants submitted the affidavid of Ann Taylor, filed under seal.
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: Through that affidavid, the defendant argues for a stay, relying
• 24:47
  Speaker 1: solely on Idaho Code Section two Dash two zero eight
• 24:51
  Speaker 1: and two Dash two thirteen. This motion, like the last,
• 24:55
  Speaker 1: should be denied. Argument A Defendants at allegations regarding jury
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: bias and statements of the Court during the jury selection
• 25:05
  Speaker 1: process do not fall within the scope of the Uniform
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: Jury Selection and Service Act. The Uniform Jury Selection and
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: Service Act is concerned with the procedural mechanisms put in
• 25:18
  Speaker 1: place by the Court in selecting grand juries and trial juries. Specifically,
• 25:26
  Speaker 1: the purpose of the Act is to ensure that all
• 25:28
  Speaker 1: persons selected for jury service be selected at random from
• 25:32
  Speaker 1: a fair cross section of the population of the area
• 25:36
  Speaker 1: served by the Court, and that all qualified citizens have
• 25:40
  Speaker 1: the opportunity, in accordance with this Act, to be considered
• 25:44
  Speaker 1: for jury service in this state, and an obligation to
• 25:48
  Speaker 1: serve as jurors when summoned for that purpose. Idaho Codes
• 25:52
  Speaker 1: Section two Dash two zero two. To that end, the
• 25:55
  Speaker 1: Act prohibits discrimination against jurors on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,
• 26:02
  Speaker 1: national origin, or economic status. Idaho Code Section two Dash
• 26:07
  Speaker 1: two O three, emphasis added establishes the process for appointment
• 26:13
  Speaker 1: of a jury commissioner and the process of reimbursing the
• 26:17
  Speaker 1: jury commissioner for travel and other expenses. Idaho Code Section
• 26:22
  Speaker 1: two Dash two O five establishes the procedure by which
• 26:26
  Speaker 1: jury lists are compiled and maintained. Idaho Code Section two
• 26:31
  Speaker 1: Dash two six sets forth a procedure by which the
• 26:34
  Speaker 1: courts must update those jury lists. Idaho Code Section two
• 26:39
  Speaker 1: Dash two O seven establishes the procedure for the courts
• 26:43
  Speaker 1: to issue juror questionnaires and summons is Idaho Code Section
• 26:48
  Speaker 1: two Dash two eight, and sets forth other processes and
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: procedures to ensure that grand and trial juries are fairly
• 26:56
  Speaker 1: selected from a reasonable cross section of the community. The
• 27:01
  Speaker 1: Act does not addressed, nor does it provide a remedy
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: for individual jurorbias or statements made by the court during
• 27:08
  Speaker 1: the selection process. Thus, to the extent that the defendant's
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: concerns are based on such allegations see Affidavid of Van
• 27:16
  Speaker 1: Taylor at one and two, such issues fall outside the
• 27:20
  Speaker 1: scope of the Act and cannot form a basis for
• 27:22
  Speaker 1: this stay. The defendant seeks b Defendant's allegations regarding the
• 27:28
  Speaker 1: exclusion of clerical information on some of the questionnaires do
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: not fall within the scope of the Act. Defendant asserts
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: that the court issued questionnaires constitute a failure of mechanism
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: in drawing a grand jury pool. In support of this argument,
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: defendant asserts that some of the questionnaires did not include
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: certain numerical information at the top of the page Taylor
• 27:52
  Speaker 1: affid David four. However, the information referenced by the defendant
• 27:57
  Speaker 1: is not required by the Act I Code section two
• 28:01
  Speaker 1: Dash two eight. Further, this information is not even included
• 28:05
  Speaker 1: in the model promulgated by the Idaho Supreme Court see
• 28:10
  Speaker 1: Idaho Court Administrative Rule sixty two C Appendix A, available
• 28:16
  Speaker 1: at the Idaho dot gov Rules website model juror qualification
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: questionnaire form that does not include the information referenced by
• 28:25
  Speaker 1: the defendant. Thus, this issue also falls totally outside the
• 28:29
  Speaker 1: scope of the Act. See defendant suggestion that the court
• 28:34
  Speaker 1: should maintain separate qualified juralists for grand juries and trial
• 28:38
  Speaker 1: juries misreads the plain language of Idaho Code section two
• 28:43
  Speaker 1: dash to zero eight. Through miss Taylor's Affidavid. Defendant argues
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: that Idaho Code Section two dash to zero eight states
• 28:51
  Speaker 1: that individuals must be randomly drawn from a county jury list,
• 28:56
  Speaker 1: and that the jury commissioner shall draw a requisite number
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: of qualified juries for one or more panels or for
• 29:04
  Speaker 1: a grand jury. Taylor's affid David emphasis in original. Thus,
• 29:09
  Speaker 1: the defense asserts the panel was improperly brought in as
• 29:13
  Speaker 1: a grand jury. Later, the defense again points out that
• 29:17
  Speaker 1: the language of the statutes used the words or between
• 29:21
  Speaker 1: jury panel and grand jury panel. Emphasis in original. This
• 29:26
  Speaker 1: is a misreading of the plain language of the statute.
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: Idaho Code Section two Dash two zero eight one provides
• 29:34
  Speaker 1: that the court or any other state or a county
• 29:37
  Speaker 1: official having authority to conduct a trial or hearing with
• 29:41
  Speaker 1: a jury within the county may direct the jury Commissioner
• 29:45
  Speaker 1: to draw an assign to that court or official the
• 29:49
  Speaker 1: number of qualified jurors deemed necessary for one or more
• 29:52
  Speaker 1: grand jury panels, or as required by law for a
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: grand jury. Upon receipt of the direction, and in a
• 30:01
  Speaker 1: manner prescribed by the Court, the jury commission shall publicly draw,
• 30:05
  Speaker 1: at random, by use of a manual, mechanical, or automated system,
• 30:11
  Speaker 1: from the county jury list, the number of prospective jurors specified.
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: Idaho Code Section two Dash two zero eight emphasis added Plainly.
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: The word or appears because the requisite number of jurors
• 30:27
  Speaker 1: for a misdemeanor, felony or civil trial jury is not
• 30:30
  Speaker 1: always the same as the requisite number for a grand jury.
• 30:34
  Speaker 1: Nothing in the Act requires that court maintains separate lists
• 30:38
  Speaker 1: for grand or trial juries. The Court should decline to
• 30:42
  Speaker 1: entertain this misreading of the Act. D as to the
• 30:48
  Speaker 1: remainder of Defendant's allegations, he has not alleged a substantial
• 30:52
  Speaker 1: failure to comply with the Act, even if the defendant
• 30:56
  Speaker 1: can factually establish that a violation occurred, to has not
• 31:00
  Speaker 1: met his burden of demonstrating a substantial failure to comply
• 31:05
  Speaker 1: with the Act. Even if defendant can factually establish that
• 31:09
  Speaker 1: a violation occurred, Defendant has not met his burden of
• 31:13
  Speaker 1: demonstrating a substantial failure to comply with the Act see
• 31:18
  Speaker 1: Idaho Code Section two Dash two thirteen, Part one. Instead,
• 31:22
  Speaker 1: defendant asks the Court to enter a stay in this case,
• 31:26
  Speaker 1: raising allegations of technical violations without ever explaining how any
• 31:32
  Speaker 1: reached the substantial standard set forth in the statute, apparently
• 31:36
  Speaker 1: inviting the court to apply a strict liability standard Taylor Affid. David,
• 31:42
  Speaker 1: Part five. But the Act does not sweep so broadly.
• 31:46
  Speaker 1: Only a substantial failure to comply can trigger a stay
• 31:51
  Speaker 1: upon motion filed under sub section one. This section containing
• 31:56
  Speaker 1: a sworn statement of facts, which if true would constitute
• 31:59
  Speaker 1: a subbstantial failure to comply with this chapter. The moving
• 32:04
  Speaker 1: party is entitled to present in support of the motion
• 32:08
  Speaker 1: the testimony of the jury commissioner or the clerk, any
• 32:12
  Speaker 1: relevant records in papers not public or otherwise available used
• 32:17
  Speaker 1: by the jury commissioner or the clerk, and that any
• 32:20
  Speaker 1: other relevant evidence. In the court determines that in selecting
• 32:25
  Speaker 1: either a grand jury or a trial jury, there has
• 32:28
  Speaker 1: been a substantial failure to comply with this chapter, the
• 32:32
  Speaker 1: Court shall stay the proceedings pending the selection of the
• 32:35
  Speaker 1: jury in conformity with this chapter qution, indictment, or grant
• 32:40
  Speaker 1: other appropriate relief. Thus, to obtain a stay, defendant cannot
• 32:46
  Speaker 1: merely allege that a violation occurred. The defendant must allege
• 32:50
  Speaker 1: that a substantial violation occurred. Setting aside the claims of
• 32:54
  Speaker 1: jury bias and missing numerical information on the questionnaire forms
• 32:59
  Speaker 1: that fall wholly outside the scope of the Act, the
• 33:03
  Speaker 1: Court has before it three issues related to the questionnaires. First,
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: that one of the grand jurors marked the box indicating
• 33:10
  Speaker 1: that they do not comprehend English. Second, that one of
• 33:14
  Speaker 1: the grand jurors disclosed that they were a prior criminal defendant,
• 33:18
  Speaker 1: and third that one of the grand jurors did not
• 33:20
  Speaker 1: mark whether they were a prior criminal defendant and did
• 33:24
  Speaker 1: not sign and affirm the truth of responses. The court
• 33:28
  Speaker 1: should dismiss out of hand the arguments related to prior
• 33:31
  Speaker 1: criminal history because being a prior criminal defendant does not
• 33:35
  Speaker 1: preclude someone from sitting on a grand jury see Idaho
• 33:39
  Speaker 1: Code section two Dash two zero eight. Instead, only those
• 33:43
  Speaker 1: with a felony criminal conviction are disqualified from serving on
• 33:47
  Speaker 1: a grand jury see Idaho Code section two Dash two nine,
• 33:51
  Speaker 1: Part two B. Thus, this allegation falls outside the scope
• 33:56
  Speaker 1: of the Act altogether. The final two allegations can the
• 34:00
  Speaker 1: duty of the courts to follow up when a juror
• 34:03
  Speaker 1: is not qualified to serve or when a questionnaire is
• 34:07
  Speaker 1: not fully completed see Idaho Code section two Dash two
• 34:10
  Speaker 1: zero nine. The Administrative District Judge or Administrative District Judges designee,
• 34:16
  Speaker 1: upon request or on its own initiative, shall determine, on
• 34:19
  Speaker 1: the basis of information provided on the qualification questionnaire whether
• 34:24
  Speaker 1: a jur is qualified, and see section two two Dash
• 34:28
  Speaker 1: two zero eight, Part three. If it appears that there
• 34:31
  Speaker 1: is an omission, the clerk or the jury Commissioner shall
• 34:35
  Speaker 1: again send the form with instructions to make the necessary addition.
• 34:41
  Speaker 1: Defendant alleges that one of the grand jurors submitted an
• 34:44
  Speaker 1: incomplete questionnaire and suggests that this somehow violated the Act.
• 34:49
  Speaker 1: But the submission of an incomplete form is not a
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: violation of the Act, and in fact, the Act contemplates
• 34:56
  Speaker 1: that incomplete forms will be submitted, in which case the
• 35:00
  Speaker 1: statute requires only that the Jury Commissioner again send the
• 35:04
  Speaker 1: form with instructions to the prospective juror to make the
• 35:08
  Speaker 1: necessary addition, clarification or correction, and to return the form
• 35:13
  Speaker 1: to the Jury commission within ten days after its second
• 35:16
  Speaker 1: mailing Idaho Code section two Dash two zero eight. Notably,
• 35:21
  Speaker 1: the statute requires no additional follow up after the jury
• 35:25
  Speaker 1: commissioner simply sends out the form a second time. That
• 35:29
  Speaker 1: means that there are two problems with the defendant's incomplete
• 35:33
  Speaker 1: form theory. First, just as with the check box allegation above,
• 35:37
  Speaker 1: the defense affid David does not even allege that the
• 35:40
  Speaker 1: jury commissioner failed to follow this process in response to
• 35:44
  Speaker 1: the incomplete questionnaires, and thus defendant is not entitled to
• 35:48
  Speaker 1: a stay. See Idaho Code section two Dash two thirteen,
• 35:53
  Speaker 1: Part two, requiring for a stay of the sworn statement
• 35:56
  Speaker 1: of facts, which, if true, would constitute a substantial failure
• 36:00
  Speaker 1: to comply with this chapter. Second, even if that allegation
• 36:05
  Speaker 1: had been made, the jury commissioner's mere failure to conduct
• 36:08
  Speaker 1: the ministral task of sending the questionnaire out a second
• 36:13
  Speaker 1: time cannot accurately be described as a substantial failure to
• 36:18
  Speaker 1: comply with the statute. As to the allegation that a
• 36:21
  Speaker 1: grand jur checked the box indicating that he or she
• 36:24
  Speaker 1: did not comprehend the English language, it is entirely accurate
• 36:28
  Speaker 1: that an individual who actually cannot comprehend the English language
• 36:32
  Speaker 1: is not qualified to sit on a grand jury. See
• 36:35
  Speaker 1: Idaho Code Section two Dash two zero nine one a
• 36:40
  Speaker 1: setting forth the requirement that jurors read, speak, and understand
• 36:44
  Speaker 1: the English language, and the Act provides a process by
• 36:47
  Speaker 1: which the Court may determine the qualification of grand jurors,
• 36:51
  Speaker 1: either upon request or upon its own initiative. Idaho Code
• 36:56
  Speaker 1: Section two Dash to zero nine, Part one. That this
• 37:00
  Speaker 1: grand juror was presumably able to otherwise complete the questionnaire
• 37:05
  Speaker 1: form entirely in English, and to participate in the grand
• 37:08
  Speaker 1: jury proceedings demonstrates that the individual merely check the wrong
• 37:12
  Speaker 1: box of a lengthy form. More importantly, however, the defense
• 37:17
  Speaker 1: does not even allege that the Administrative District Court judge
• 37:21
  Speaker 1: or designee failed to follow up on this particular questionnaire
• 37:26
  Speaker 1: Idaho Code Section two Dash two zero nine two B. Thus,
• 37:30
  Speaker 1: the defendant has not alleged any violation of the Act,
• 37:33
  Speaker 1: let alone a substantial one conclusion, most of the allegations
• 37:38
  Speaker 1: submitted by the defendant fall entirely outside of the Uniform
• 37:42
  Speaker 1: Jury Selection and Service Act. The few that remain do
• 37:46
  Speaker 1: not factually allege a substantial failure to comply with the Act.
• 37:50
  Speaker 1: The Court should decline to indulge the defendant's already stated
• 37:54
  Speaker 1: intention to buy more time to engage in various litigation strategies.
• 38:00
  Speaker 1: This motion, like his last, should be denied, respectfully. Submitted
• 38:05
  Speaker 1: this eleventh day of August twenty twenty three, signed by
• 38:09
  Speaker 1: William Thompson and Ingrid Beatty. All Right, folks, that's going
• 38:13
  Speaker 1: to do it for this one. All of the information
• 38:15
  Speaker 1: that goes with this episode can be found in the
• 38:18
  Speaker 1: description box.