Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Mega Edition: Judge Hippler's Order Memorializing The Limine Oral Rulings (8/12/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Judge Hippler's Order Memorializing The Limine Oral Rulings (8/12/26) · 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 going to get right back up to
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: Moscow and we're going to dive right back into those
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: court documents. This time, we're going to take a look
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: at the Order of memorializing oral rulings on motions in
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: Lemonae Case number CR zero one Dash twenty four DASH
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: thirty one sixty six five, State of Idaho, Plaintiff First
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: Brian C. Coberger, the defendant one introduction before the Court
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: are several motions in Lemonae filed by both defendant and
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: the State. Oral arguments on motions was held on April ninth,
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty five. On several motions, the Court rendered oral
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: rulings from the bench. This order serves to memorialize those
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: oral rulings, together with the findings of the Court made
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: during the hearing. Two standards. Evidence is relevant if it
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: has any tendency to make the existence of any fact
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: that is of consequence to the determination of the action
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: more probable or less probable than it would be without evidence.
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: Ire four one. All relevant evidence is admissible, except as
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: otherwise provided by these rules or by other rules applicable
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: to the Court of this state Iore four O two.
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: Although relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: of undue delay, waste the time, or needless presentation of
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: cumulative evidence Iore four O three. The question of whether
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: evidence is relevant is reviewed the NOVO, while the decision
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: to admit relevant evidence is reviewed. For an abusive discretion
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: state Verse Shuts one forty three Idaho, two thousand and six.
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: On discretionary matters, the trial court must one correctly perceive
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: the issue is one of discretion, two act within the
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: outer boundaries of its discretion, three act consistently with the
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it,
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: and four reach its decision by the exercise of rea reasoning.
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: Lundberg vers My Fun Life, one sixty three, Idaho, twenty eighteen.
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: Three Analysis Defendants mil one inflammatory evidence. Defendant moves under
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: Ire four three to prevent the state from his reducing
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: testimony and evidence that is exceptionally inflammatory, arguing that it's
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: irrelevant and or unfairly prejudicial. The Corps finds this motion premature.
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: As with any potentially prejudicial evidence, the court must first
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: consider whether it's relevant and material as to an issue
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: of fact under Ire four A one, before assessing whether
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: unfair prejudice stay Verse Win one, twenty one, Idaho, nineteen
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: ninety two. At this point, defendant is not identified what
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: specific evidence he wants to keep out or otherwise defined
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: exceptionally inflammatory. Issuing an order as requested by defendant would
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: lack any substance. It would simply require the state to
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: abide by evidence entry rules and prosecutorial responsibilities when presenting
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: its case. The court finds this unnecessary and therefore denies
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: the motion. However, this was a particularly horrific murder, and
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: there will be exceptionally graphic depictions of the victims and
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: the crime scene. Prior to seeking the admission of this evidence,
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: the state is required to provide copies to defendant. If
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: defendant believes the evidence is cumulative, unnecessary, or otherwise prejudicial,
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: he can seek to take the matter up outside of
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: the presence of the jury. B Defendants Mil Number three.
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: Use of the term murder defendant seeks to prohibit the
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: use of the words murder, murderer, murdered, murder, weapon, and
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: similar forms of the word murder as applied to defendant. Again,
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: defendant seeks an order requiring the state to abide by
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: the evidentiary rules, particularly the prohibition against argument outside of
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: closing this is unnecessary. The state acknowledges it would be
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: improper to or to defendant as the murderer other than
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: stating what the allegations are, and has no plans to
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: do so or otherwise illicit similar testimony from its witnesses. Thus,
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: the motion is denied as unnecessary see Defendants mil Number four.
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: Use of the term psychopath or sociopath. Defendant moves to
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: exclude any reference to the terms psychopath or a sociopath
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: at trial, arguing it is unfairly prejudicial under Ire four
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: o three and in proper opinion testimony under Ire seven
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: oh two. The state does not intend to use these
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: terms at trial. Indeed, the terms are irrelevant given the
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: lack of evidence defendant has been diagnosed with a personality
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: disorder or similar mental illness. Their use will also be
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: highly prejudicial. Thus, the state is not to use these
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: terms or their equivalents at the guilt phase of the trial. If, however,
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: the state believes the door has been opened to allow
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: the use of such terms, it shall raise the matter
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: in advance outside the presence of the jury. The motion
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: is granted. D states mil In proper death Penalty comments,
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: the state moves under Ire four one and four oh
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: three to preclude defense counsel from making what it calls
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: improper comments about the death penalty, specifically that the state
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: is attempting to kill the defendant, which defendant council is
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: stated in past hearings. Defendant stipulates to use phrasing that
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: comports with existing language and statute injury instruction. Again, the
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: court is unwilling to enter an order requiring defense counsel
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: to act professionally and comply with existing rules. As defense
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: counsel recognizes any such statements would be argumentive and improper,
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: the Court trust defense counsel will comport themselves accordingly. The
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: motion is denied as unnecessary. E Defendants mil unnoticed four
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: or four be evidence. Defendant moves in lemonae to exclude
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: any Ire four or four be evidence that has not
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: already been noticed by the State, which at this point
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: is only defendants pre homicide traffic stop. By way of
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: example of allegedly unnoticed four or four B evidence, Defendant
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: notes that the state intends to present evidence of defendant's
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: graduate paper regarding how to conduct a crime scene investigation
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: and does Amazon purchase records, both of which defendant contends
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: are subject to IRE four A four B. As an
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: initial matter, Defendant appears to misapprehend the scope of IRE
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: four O four B. The rule provides that evidence of
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: prove a person's character. In order to show that on
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: a particular occasion, the person acted in accordance with the
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: character Ire four O four B. One defendant takes a
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: position that other acts encompass any other acts of any
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: nature other than the crime at issue. The rule is
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: not so broad. Its purpose is to govern the use
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: of character evidence. It forbids the use of evidence to
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: show a defendant's criminal propensity State versus Johnson, one forty eight, Idaho,
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: twenty ten, citing State versus. Sheldon one forty five, Idaho
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: two twenty five, two thousand and eight, If the evidence
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: does not bear upon the defendant's character, it is not
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: subject to ire four O four B State verse Whittaker
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: one fifty two, Idaho, twenty twelve, citing State versus Norton
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: one fifty one, Idaho, twenty eleven. Defendant's Amazon purchases and
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: his graduate paper discussing proper crime scene investigation techniques do not,
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: standing alone, bear on his character or suggest he has
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: a propensity to commit crimes, including those charged Further, the
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: Court is unwilling at this point to preclude the State
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: from filing four O four B notice in the future
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: if it determines its evidence is encompassed by that rule.
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: There is still four months until trial begins, well within
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: the reasonably in advance of trial time frame required by
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: the rule. The state acknowledges its notice obligations under the
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: rule and intends to comply with the rule with regard
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: to any proposed ire four A four or BE evidence.
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: The timeliness of such future notice will be analyzed if
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: and when such notice is given and objections can be
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: advanced at the time. The motion is therefore denied. F
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: Defendants Mil Number ten improper expert testimony, Middleman Defendant Mil
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: Number eleven exclude IgG evidence and investigative genetic genealogy. Both
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: parties move to exclude evidence of law enforcements investigative genetic
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: genealogy testing in this case, but for entirely different reasons.
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: Given the parties agreement to not present any IgG evidence,
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: those reasons need not be discussed. Given the bottom line
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: agreement and the court grants the motion, the state is
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: indicated it will present evidence through Detective Brett Pain that
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: defendant's name was revealed to law enforcement through a tip.
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: To avoid issues at trial, the court advises the parties
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: to arrive at a mutually agreeable narrative about how the
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: tip came about. The parties are also directed to jointly
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: craft a jury instruction advisings to not concern themselves with
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: the source or nature of the tip. In essence, the
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: rule's reach is prior crimes, wrongful conduct, or other prior
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: acts of nature from which a jury could conclude the
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: person has a bad character and is therefore predisposed to
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: commit crimes that are charged. This conduct is commonly prescribed
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: by Idaho courts as prior bad acts Whittaker one, two, three,
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: ninety six. While the rule is not limited to bad acts,
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: it does not implicate acts that do not bear on
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: a defendant's poor character, even if that act is also
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: evidence of the defendant's motive, intent, or identity. Even if
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: this evidence could qualify as character evidence, which it does not.
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: Defendant has notice of the state's intent to rely on it.
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: If agreement cannot be reached, the parties are to submit
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: to the court their proposed narratives prior to trial, and
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: the court will decide how it will be presented. G
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: Defendants Mil Number thirteen condition as aggravat Defendant moves to
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: prevent the state from using defendants diagnosis of autism spectrum
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: disorder and the characteristics of his ASD and the characteristics
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: of his ASD as an aggravating factor at the penalty
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: phase of his trial. The state responds that it has
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: no plans to use such evidence as an aggravating factor
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: in light of Zendt for Stevens for sixty two US
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: nineteen eighty three, but it will argue against and robut
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: defendant's diagnosis to the extent he relies upon it as
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: a mitigating factor. Despite the state's concession, the Court's concerned
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: with the breath of Defendant's motion. He's not only seeking
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: to preclude the State from referencing his ASD diagnosis as
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: an aggravator, but any symptom of his ASD. Given the
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: broad nature of ASD symptoms, the court foresees an issue
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: potentially arising at trial whereby the State makes reference to
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: an action taken by defendant that defendant contends is a
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: symptom of his ASD. That evidence is not currently before
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: the court. Thus, at the point, the court will preclude
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: the State from arguing or presenting evidence of defendant's ASD
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: diagnosis as an aggravator, but it is not in a
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: position to rule on whether any particular evidence must be
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: excluded on grounds that it evidences a symptom of Defendant's ASD.
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: The motion is therefore granted in part only. All right,
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: we're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next episode,
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: in the description box. What's up everyone, and welcome back
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: to the program. In this episode, we're gonna pick up
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: where he left off with Judge Hipler's order memorializing his
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: rulings on the motions in lemon A h State's mil
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: Alternative Perpetrator evidence the state seeks in order prohibiting defendant
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: from offering alternate perpetrat or evidence without first making a
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: showing that such evidence is relevant and admissible. Under IRE
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: four one and IRE four O three, these rules govern
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: the standard of admissibility for alternate perpetrator evidence state versus
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: Mester one eight two thousand and nine. Mere inferences that
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: another person could have committed the crime will most likely
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: not be relevant, and if relevant, will still be subject
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: to the limitation provision of IRE four three. Defendant acknowledges
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: is burdened under Mester, but argues the state's motion is premature.
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: According to defendant, this case is full of alternate perpetrators
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: and he intends to produce offerers of proof as to
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: alternate perpetrators. While defendant is correct that such offers a
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: proof can be made at trial, this case is not
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: well suited to a waiting until the time of trial
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: to do so, particularly if defendant intends to submit multiple
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: offers of proof. Laying foundation for the admission of the
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: evidence will likely take significant amount of time. After all,
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: defendant cannot merely show another person could have committed the crime. Rather,
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: there must be evidence direct or circumstantial linking the third
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: person to the actual preparation of the crime time Clifford S.
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: Fishman and Anne Toomey Jones on Evidence, Section thirteen thirty eight,
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: fifty seventh edition, December twenty twenty four. Update. To avoid
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: undue delay at trial, defendant must present the offer of
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: proof no later than May fourteenth, twenty twenty five, so
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: the matter can be addressed at the pre trial conference.
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: The Court will reserve ruling on the motion one defendants
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: Mil fourteen Statistical Analysis. Defendant moves in leimonae to exclude
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: any misleading comments about the meaning of likelihood ratio for
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: DNA purposes. Specifically, defendant seeks to avoid attempts to define
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: likelihood ratio through a comparison to the world population. The
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: State agrees that this type of comparison is inappropriate. The
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: Court grants Defendant's motion in so far as it applies
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: to the question asked by the prosecutor at the grand
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: jury proceedings, which both sides agree was not proper. However,
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: the court will not dictate how the questions is to
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: be asked at trial. If to defendant believes there is
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: similar misrepresentation as to the likelihood ratio at trial, he
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: can object at that time. Jay defendants mil in conclusive data.
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: Defendant moves the limit expert testimony about the Idaho State
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: Police forensic lab statistical analysis of a swab taken from
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: the fingernail clippings of Madison Mogan, item Q thirteen dot one.
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: The testing revealed a likelihood ratio in the inconclusive range
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: as to whether defendant was potentially a contributor to the
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: DNA mixture. During her grand jury testimony, the lab analyst,
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: Jade Miller testified that inconclusive meant she was unable to
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: say one way or the other that defendant is included
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: in the mixture. Defendant argues this is misleading language in
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: that it allows for an inference that defendant might be included,
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: which he asserts is inaccurate. The state indicates it will
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: not offer the results of Q thirteen dot one as
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: inculpatory evidence, which defendant agrees, renders his motion. However, if
• 15:01
  Speaker 1: the state changes course with regard to the evidence, it
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: must first raise the matter with the court outside the
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: presence of the jury, so the anticipated testimony regarding the
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: meaning of inconclusive can be discussed at this time. However,
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: the motion is denied as moot k Defendants Mil Number
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: nine excluding Amazon click activity evidence. At trial, Defendant moves
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: to exclude any evidence of defendants Amazon perch history or
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: click activity on grounds that it's out of context, incomplete,
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: and unfairly prejudicial. This evidence will be presented by the
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: state through Shane Cox and Michael Douglass, who will testify
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: simply to what the documentary evidence state, all of which
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: was provided to defendant in discovery. The evidence is highly relevant.
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: A k Bar knife sheath was found lying next to
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: the body of one of the deceased victims, all of
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: whom were stabbed to death. Defendants DNA was found on
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: the knife sheath. Records from Amazon account registered to Defendant's
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: name and email showed the purchase of a Kbar knife
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: in sheath was made from the account approximately eight months
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: prior to the homicides. Click activity on the same account
• 16:11
  Speaker 1: shows the customer also viewed pages associated with Kbar style
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: knives at the time end. In the week following the purchase,
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: viewed pages associated with shipping progress of the knife and sheath.
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: The product was shipped to Brian Colberger at his family's
• 16:26
  Speaker 1: address in Pennsylvania after the homicides. Activity from the same
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: account showed the user navigated pages related to the deletion
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: of account activity a week later viewed pages associated with
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: kbar knife and sheath. This evidence establishes a significant connection
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: between defendant and a kbar knife and a sheath. In addition,
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: there's no basis under Ire four three to exclude the evidence,
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: particularly given how probative it is. Defendant argues its misleading
• 16:56
  Speaker 1: and prejudicial because it paints an incomplete picture of the
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: account activity. To this end, Defendant provides the declaration of
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: his expert, David Holl, the founder of a firm specializing
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: in inter alia, digital forensics and digital marketplace analytics. According
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: to mister Howell, far more information must be reviewed in
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: order to attribute specific activity to a specific person or
• 17:20
  Speaker 1: otherwise render an opinion about user behavior with forensic certainty,
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: including Amazon advertising logs, recommended algorithms, cross device history, retargeting behavior,
• 17:32
  Speaker 1: account personalization, and device ideas. Defendant is free to challenge
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: this evidence through cross examination and establish through mister Hall
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: why more information is needed to reach the conclusion that
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: defendant made the purchases or clicks. However, it's not a
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: basis for exclusion, there's nothing inherently unfairly prejudicial or misleading
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: about the evidence itself. It will be up to the
• 17:55
  Speaker 1: jury to consider all the evidence and decide whether defendant
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: was the clickeror Thus, this motion is denied. L State
• 18:04
  Speaker 1: mil AT and T timing advance records. The state moves
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: in Lemonae to prohibit the defense from making any reference
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: to the absence of AT and T timing advance records
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: related to defendant cell phone. The state intends it never
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: received such records from AT and T in response to
• 18:22
  Speaker 1: its subpoenas, and therefore any statements by defendant that the
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: records could have or should have been provided. Two Defendant
• 18:29
  Speaker 1: should not be allowed, as mischaracterizes the evidence, will mislead
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: the jury, waste time, and cause undue delay. In support,
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: the state provides certificates of authenticity AT and T for
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: each of the two warrants, stating that it did not
• 18:43
  Speaker 1: provide timing advance records four phone number five zero, nine,
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: five nine, two eight four or five eight because such
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: records were at the time only available if requested within
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: seven days of the specified time frame. Defendant, relying largely
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: on the affid david of a time expert Thirae is
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: adamant the state did receive the documents, which he argues
• 19:04
  Speaker 1: are exculpatory, and is hiding them. Defendant points out he
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: has a constitutional right to challenge evidence against him and
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: therefore must be allowed to explore the state's misrepresentation as
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: to the availability of the records. The six and fourteenth
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: Amendments guarantee a criminal defendant a meaningful opportunity to present
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: a complete defense Crane versus Kentucky for seventy six US
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: nineteen eighty six. This includes the right to confront and
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: effectively cross examined witnesses Davis versus. Alaska, nineteen seventy four. However,
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: these rights are not absolute state versus a Riza one
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: twenty four Idaho nineteen ninety three. The trial court may
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: reasonably limit cross examination that is harassing, confusing, repetitive, or
• 19:49
  Speaker 1: only marginally irrelevant. The confrontation clause guarantees an opportunity for
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: effective cross examination, not cross examination that is effective in
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: whatever way and to whatever extent defense might wish. Additionally,
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: a defendant has no right to present irrelevant evidence, and
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: even if evidence is relevant, it may be excluded in
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: certain cases. State verse Self one thirty nine, Idaho two
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: thousand and three. Applying these principles here, defendant will be
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: allowed to bardeer special Agent Balance outside the presence of
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: the jury, to ask whether he received defendants TA records
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: covering the early morning hours of November thirteenth, twenty twenty two,
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: and the months prior when defendant was believed to have
• 20:31
  Speaker 1: been in the area of eleven twenty two King Rhode. However,
• 20:35
  Speaker 1: if Agent Balance denies having received TA records, defendant may
• 20:39
  Speaker 1: not explore the matter further, either in border or before
• 20:42
  Speaker 1: the jury, given the absolute lack of factual basis supporting
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: his position that the State is hiding them. Thus, the
• 20:48
  Speaker 1: state's motion is granted, except as qualified regarding the very
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: brief or deer outside the presence of the jury. K
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: State's mil self authentic casetion of records and reliance on
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: ire Aight three six, Ato three eight, nine oh two
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: four eleven and ire Ato three twenty four. The State
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: moves in Lemonade to permit the admission of approximately sixty
• 21:14
  Speaker 1: exhibits pursuant to ire aight O three six eight and
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: Lore twenty four. The state represents that it will obtain
• 21:21
  Speaker 1: and submit certifications for the foregoing exhibits to render them
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: self authenticating under Ire nine oh two four and or eleven. However,
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: the State acknowledges Ire nine O two eleven contains a
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: notice requirement that has not been satisfied to this end.
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: The Court will require that after a proper notice is
• 21:40
  Speaker 1: given under Ire nine oh two eleven, the parties are
• 21:43
  Speaker 1: to meet and confer regarding self authentication and any objections
• 21:47
  Speaker 1: Defendant may have to specific exhibits prior to raising the
• 21:51
  Speaker 1: issue with the court. The Court's ruling on the motion
• 21:54
  Speaker 1: is reserved. All right, We're going to wrap up right
• 21:56
  Speaker 1: here and in the next episode dealing with the topic,
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: we're going to pick up where we left. All of
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
• 22:04
  Speaker 1: in the description box. What's up everyone, and welcome back
• 22:07
  Speaker 1: to the program. In this episode, we're going to pick
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: up where he left off with Judge Hibler's order memorializing
• 22:12
  Speaker 1: the motions in Leimonae l State's mil admissibility of demonstrative evidence.
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: The State seeks permission to use a not to scale
• 22:23
  Speaker 1: three D model of the eleven twenty two King Road
• 22:26
  Speaker 1: residents as a demonstrative exhibit. At trial contingent on the
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: State laying sufficient foundation to establish the basic accuracy of
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: the model and a demonstration that will be helpful to
• 22:37
  Speaker 1: explaining the testimony of the presenting witnesses. The State intends
• 22:41
  Speaker 1: the model will aid certain witnesses in describing their testimony.
• 22:45
  Speaker 1: Defendant objects, arguing the state's drawing of the model and
• 22:48
  Speaker 1: other related information was only recently disclosed in discovery in
• 22:52
  Speaker 1: a file Defendant describes as massive. Defendant claims that data
• 22:56
  Speaker 1: and model cannot reasonably be evaluated by its ex surpertin time.
• 23:01
  Speaker 1: Defendant disputes that the model is relevant, and even if
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: it was, claims it should be excluded under Ire four
• 23:07
  Speaker 1: three due to the danger it might not be accurate.
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: The trial court has discretion in allowing the admission of
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: demonstrative evidence. State versus Wigel, one sixty five Idaho forty two,
• 23:19
  Speaker 1: twenty nineteen. Citing Ire six eleven. Here, the court finds
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: the demonstrative exhibit is relevant assuming foundation can be laid,
• 23:28
  Speaker 1: because it will supplement the testimony of witnesses or assists
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: the jury in obtaining a better understanding of the facts
• 23:35
  Speaker 1: at issue. Masters versus Dewey, one oh nine, nineteen eighty five.
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: The homicides occurred in two bedrooms within a three story
• 23:43
  Speaker 1: home with a complicated layout. The suspect's ability to enter
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: the home, carrying out the stabbings, and exit the home
• 23:50
  Speaker 1: consistent with DM's observations will be a central point of
• 23:54
  Speaker 1: the trial, particularly given the defendant is challenging whether it
• 23:57
  Speaker 1: could be accomplished by one person with than the timeframe alleged.
• 24:02
  Speaker 1: The model will aid the testimony of lay witnesses and
• 24:04
  Speaker 1: experts alike in explaining the locations of victims, witnesses, and
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: other items of evidence, as well as understanding the suspects
• 24:12
  Speaker 1: potential or likely path to travel. Moreover, though it's not
• 24:16
  Speaker 1: the scale accuracy is not the standard governing relevant of
• 24:20
  Speaker 1: illustrative evidence. Rather, the illustrative evidence must only be relevant
• 24:25
  Speaker 1: to the witness testimony. State verse Stevens Idaho one forty six,
• 24:29
  Speaker 1: two thousand and eight, abrogated on other grounds by State
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: versus Garcia one sixty six, twenty twenty. So long as
• 24:35
  Speaker 1: the exhibit is not deceptive, it does not have to
• 24:38
  Speaker 1: be shown to be precisely accurate or consistent with the
• 24:41
  Speaker 1: testimony of other witnesses. State vers. Rotoba one twenty four,
• 24:45
  Speaker 1: Idaho nineteen ninety three diagram properly admitted, where not to scale,
• 24:50
  Speaker 1: and admittedly inconsistent with another witness's testimony. While defendants expert
• 24:56
  Speaker 1: mister Nodle contends that there is a risk that the
• 24:58
  Speaker 1: state's model could be misleading if it misrepresents the location
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: of a wall or a door, or an actual line
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: of sight, those are simply concerns. At this point, the
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: state intends to lay foundation to establish that the three
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: D model fairly depicts the residents, and if it fails
• 25:12
  Speaker 1: to do so, the model will not be allowed. Further,
• 25:15
  Speaker 1: defendant is free to cross examine the testifying witnesses and
• 25:19
  Speaker 1: to put on his own evidence, including experts. He may
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: also use his own demonstrative exhibits if proper foundation is laid. However,
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: the state is not going to be held to a
• 25:29
  Speaker 1: standard of precise accuracy in this regard. It will only
• 25:33
  Speaker 1: need to demonstrate accuracy to the point of avoiding deception.
• 25:37
  Speaker 1: In addition, there's no basis under Ire four three to
• 25:40
  Speaker 1: exclude the model. Defending contends that allowing the model is
• 25:43
  Speaker 1: prejudicial because it's built from data that was untimely disclosed
• 25:48
  Speaker 1: and which its expert has little time to analyze for accuracy.
• 25:52
  Speaker 1: While this might be a more compelling issue if the
• 25:53
  Speaker 1: state was seeking to introduce the model as substantative evidence
• 25:57
  Speaker 1: or seeking to have the model a company the jury
• 26:00
  Speaker 1: during deliberations, it is not. It's simply going to be
• 26:04
  Speaker 1: used as an educational device meant to aid in the
• 26:07
  Speaker 1: presentation of evidence, and will not go back with the
• 26:09
  Speaker 1: jury during deliberations. Moreover, as discussed, mister Nodles's concerns about
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: his time constraints are based on his impression that he
• 26:17
  Speaker 1: will have to analyze the underlying data to ensure the
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: model's proper scale, dimension and completeness. Again, accuracy is not
• 26:24
  Speaker 1: the standard. Mister Nodle need only assure himself the model
• 26:28
  Speaker 1: is not deceptive and there is sufficient time to do
• 26:31
  Speaker 1: this given the August trial date. To this end, the
• 26:34
  Speaker 1: state is to make the model available to defendant as
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: soon as it's completed and no later than the pre
• 26:39
  Speaker 1: trial conference. The motion is granted m state's mil alibi.
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: The state moves to preclude defendant from offering any evidence
• 26:47
  Speaker 1: in supportive in alibi rather than from defendant himself. The
• 26:51
  Speaker 1: basis for the state's motion is defendant's failure to comply
• 26:55
  Speaker 1: with the notice requirements governing alibi evidence pursuant IC nineteen
• 26:59
  Speaker 1: DATS nineteen one and ICR twelve dot one. If requested
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: by the state during discovery, a defendant intending to offer
• 27:07
  Speaker 1: an alibi must file a notice listing the specific place
• 27:11
  Speaker 1: or places at which the defendant claims to have been
• 27:14
  Speaker 1: at the time of the alleged defense, and the names
• 27:17
  Speaker 1: and addresses of witnesses upon whom he intends to rely
• 27:20
  Speaker 1: to establish such an alibi. The court has discretion to
• 27:24
  Speaker 1: exclude testimony of any undisclosed witnesses offered as to defendant's
• 27:28
  Speaker 1: absence from at the scene of the offense ICE nineteen
• 27:31
  Speaker 1: dash five, nineteen four. An alibi is a defense based
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: on the physical impossibility of a defendant's guilt by placing
• 27:39
  Speaker 1: the defendant in a location other than the scene of
• 27:42
  Speaker 1: the crime at the relevant time. Hence, in setting forth
• 27:45
  Speaker 1: the notice requirements for an alibi defense, ICE Section nineteen
• 27:49
  Speaker 1: five nineteen and ICR twelve one require a defendant to
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: profer evidence establishing where the defendant was at the time
• 27:56
  Speaker 1: of the alleged defense. Evidence only counts as alibi evidence
• 28:00
  Speaker 1: if it proves that the defendant could not have been
• 28:03
  Speaker 1: present at the scene of the offense at the time
• 28:05
  Speaker 1: that it was committed Lane, fred j d. And Lane
• 28:09
  Speaker 1: Goldstein Trial Techniques, Section four forty five, third Edition. If
• 28:15
  Speaker 1: any alibi fails to account for a defendant's whereabouts for
• 28:18
  Speaker 1: at least some period of time which the crime was
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: reasonably committed, it is not an alibi. Scackle Verse Corrections
• 28:26
  Speaker 1: one eighty eight Connecticut twenty eighteen, citing Williams versus State
• 28:30
  Speaker 1: one to eighty five Florida Appeals Court, twenty sixteen. A
• 28:34
  Speaker 1: partial alibi is no alibi at all. Us versus White
• 28:38
  Speaker 1: four forty three. Federal Rules of Evidence, seven Circuit two
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: thousand and six. The defendant was not entitled to an
• 28:45
  Speaker 1: alibi instruction when his witness did not account for his
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: whereabouts at the time of the offense. At this point,
• 28:51
  Speaker 1: defendant has only provided notice that he was out driving
• 28:54
  Speaker 1: in the early morning hours of November thirteenth, twenty twenty two,
• 28:58
  Speaker 1: throughout the area of South Polm west of Moscow, Idaho.
• 29:02
  Speaker 1: He intends to present this testimony by his expertsirae to
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: partially corroborate his alibi using CSLI data from defendant cell phone. However,
• 29:11
  Speaker 1: the alleged defense occurred approximately between four oh seven am
• 29:15
  Speaker 1: and four twenty am at most. Mister Ray can opine
• 29:18
  Speaker 1: to where defendant cell phone was up until two fifty
• 29:20
  Speaker 1: four am when it apparently turned off, and approximately for
• 29:24
  Speaker 1: forty eight am when it began reporting to a network.
• 29:27
  Speaker 1: Defendant has provided no evidence as to his location at
• 29:30
  Speaker 1: the time of the crime. In other words, he has
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: provided no alibi evidence as contemplated by the rules that said,
• 29:38
  Speaker 1: the court will not categorically preclude defendant at this point
• 29:41
  Speaker 1: from offering alibi evidence at trial State versus Warres One
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: sixty nine Idaho twenty twenty one. Whether to exclude late
• 29:49
  Speaker 1: disclosed alibi evidence requires weighing prejudice to the state against
• 29:53
  Speaker 1: the defendants right to a fair trial, and considering whether
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: less severe remedies are sufficient. There is still four once
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: until trial begins. If defendant does unearth alibi evidence, it
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: is his obligation to immediately make the state and the
• 30:07
  Speaker 1: Court aware of it. At that point, the court can
• 30:10
  Speaker 1: apply the war as standard. Excluding it at this time
• 30:13
  Speaker 1: is premature, and therefore the motion is denied, subject to
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: being re raised if defendant does disclose alibi evidence. However,
• 30:21
  Speaker 1: at this point, defendant is not provided an alibi, partial,
• 30:24
  Speaker 1: or otherwise n State's four O four B notice prior
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: traffic stop, the state moves under ire four O four
• 30:31
  Speaker 1: B for the emission of defendants August twenty first, twenty
• 30:34
  Speaker 1: twenty two, traffic stop in Moscow, Idaho, during which he
• 30:38
  Speaker 1: was stopped for speeding and issued a citation for failing
• 30:40
  Speaker 1: to wear a seatbelt. Specifically, the state seeks to admit
• 30:44
  Speaker 1: the officer's obv footage of the traffic stop as well
• 30:47
  Speaker 1: as the citation, arguing it is relevant to proving defendant's identity,
• 30:52
  Speaker 1: vehicle ownership and control, address, and phone number. Defendant objects,
• 30:56
  Speaker 1: pointing to Idaho Supreme Court case law stating that x
• 31:00
  Speaker 1: evidence of prior misconduct is relevant on the issue of
• 31:02
  Speaker 1: identity when the evidence demonstrates sufficiently similar as well as
• 31:07
  Speaker 1: distinctive characteristics or patterns between the prior misconduct and the
• 31:12
  Speaker 1: charge crime State versus Porter, Idaho, nineteen ninety seven. Confusingly,
• 31:16
  Speaker 1: defendant argues as prior traffic stop bears no resemblance to
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: the charge crimes, therefore cannot be relevant to identity. He
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: also argues its unfairly prejudicial and may confuse the issues.
• 31:28
  Speaker 1: Evidence of other crimes, wrong or acts may not be
• 31:31
  Speaker 1: admitted pursuant Ire four A four B when its probitive
• 31:35
  Speaker 1: value is entirely dependent upon its tendency to demonstrate the
• 31:39
  Speaker 1: defendant's propensity to engage in such behavior state Versalinis one
• 31:43
  Speaker 1: sixty four twenty eighteen. Such evidence may, however, be admissible
• 31:48
  Speaker 1: for other purposes, including to prove identity Ire four four
• 31:52
  Speaker 1: B two. To determine the admissibility of evidence under Rule
• 31:56
  Speaker 1: four four B, the court must find the evidence is
• 31:59
  Speaker 1: sufficiently asi established as fact and relevant as a matter
• 32:02
  Speaker 1: of law to a material and disputed issue other than
• 32:06
  Speaker 1: the character or criminal propensity. It must then conduct a
• 32:10
  Speaker 1: Rule four three analysis. The corps finds the evidence is
• 32:14
  Speaker 1: relevant to establish defendant's identity and link them to the
• 32:17
  Speaker 1: charge crimes. Indeed, the citation and OBV footage up to
• 32:21
  Speaker 1: the point that defendant provides his phone number served to
• 32:25
  Speaker 1: identify defendant by name, physical appearance, phone number, and address.
• 32:30
  Speaker 1: The evidence also establishes defendant as the registered owner and
• 32:33
  Speaker 1: driver of a vehicle and make a model of which
• 32:36
  Speaker 1: was thought to be used by the killer. Further, the
• 32:39
  Speaker 1: evidence places defendant in Moscow at night on one of
• 32:43
  Speaker 1: the dates of interest alleged by the state to be
• 32:45
  Speaker 1: relevant to planning the charge crime. All of these factors
• 32:49
  Speaker 1: played a role in the investigation of the crime. While
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: defendant sites to case law discussing identity under Ire four
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: or four b as requiring strong similarities between the bad
• 32:59
  Speaker 1: apps and the charge crime. This is in context of
• 33:03
  Speaker 1: establishing identity through a signature quality or MO Porter one
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: thirty at one thirty eight discussing how evidence of an
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: MO can provide the identity of a defendant as the
• 33:14
  Speaker 1: perpetrator of a crime charged. The state, however, is not
• 33:17
  Speaker 1: seeking to introduce the prior traffic stop to establish MO. Therefore,
• 33:22
  Speaker 1: Defendant's case law and argument is not well placed upon
• 33:27
  Speaker 1: weighing the IRI four h three factors. The only portion
• 33:30
  Speaker 1: of the OBV footage the Corps finds troubling is when
• 33:33
  Speaker 1: defendant inquires why the officer needs his phone number. This
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: inquiry could be perceived by jurors to be insolent given
• 33:39
  Speaker 1: its lack of relevance and potential for prejudice, the inquiry
• 33:43
  Speaker 1: shall be redacted. Other than this redaction, there is no
• 33:46
  Speaker 1: basis for further exclusion. Defendant's claims of unfair prejudice and
• 33:50
  Speaker 1: jury confusion lack merit. He first argues that there's no
• 33:53
  Speaker 1: nexus between the traffic stop and the charge crimes. Thus
• 33:57
  Speaker 1: the jury may consider it has propensity evidence or otherwise
• 34:00
  Speaker 1: be confused. However, as discussed, a nexus is not required
• 34:05
  Speaker 1: for the purpose advanced by the state. Moreover, unfair prejudice
• 34:09
  Speaker 1: arises only when the evidence has an undue tendency to
• 34:12
  Speaker 1: suggest a decision on an improper basis, and appeals to
• 34:15
  Speaker 1: the juris sympathies arouses their sense of horror, provokes their
• 34:19
  Speaker 1: instinct to punish, or otherwise causes a jury to base
• 34:22
  Speaker 1: its decision on something other than the established propositions. In
• 34:25
  Speaker 1: the case State vers. Russo one fifty seven, twenty fourteen,
• 34:30
  Speaker 1: a traffic stop, particularly one as minor as this, is
• 34:34
  Speaker 1: not the type of evidence that will compel a jury
• 34:36
  Speaker 1: to conclude defendant is guilty of murder because he violated
• 34:39
  Speaker 1: traffic laws. Further, the court will provide a limiting instruction.
• 34:44
  Speaker 1: Defendant also contends it is unfairly prejudicial because the obv
• 34:48
  Speaker 1: footage provides a clear shot of Defendant's vehicle, which may
• 34:51
  Speaker 1: lead the jury to believe it's the suspect vehicle captured
• 34:54
  Speaker 1: on surveillance videos at near the crime scene on November thirteenth,
• 34:58
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty two. However, this is precisely what makes the
• 35:01
  Speaker 1: evidence probative. It links defendant to the crime scene. While
• 35:05
  Speaker 1: this may be damaging to its defense, it is not
• 35:08
  Speaker 1: unfairly prejudicial when balanced against its strong relevance. Thus, the
• 35:12
  Speaker 1: motion is granted with the noted redactions. It is so ordered,
• 35:17
  Speaker 1: dated the seventeenth day of April twenty twenty five, and
• 35:20
  Speaker 1: signed by Judge Hipler. All of the information that goes
• 35:23
  Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.