Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Judge Hippler's Order On Bryan Kohberger's Capital Punishment Motions (Part 2)

Transcript

Judge Hippler's Order On Bryan Kohberger's Capital Punishment Motions (Part 2) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: this episode, we're picking up where we left off with
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: Judge Hibler's ruling and memorandum on the death penalty imposed
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: on Brian Koberger three. Defendant has not demonstrated Idaho's capital
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: scheme is geographically arbitrary. Defendant additionally argues that Idaho's capital
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: scheme produces unequal application of the death penalty based on geography. Specifically,
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: he maintains that all first degree murders in Idaho fall
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: within one of the aggravating circumstances listed in IC Section
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: nineteen twenty five fifteen, thus giving prosecutors complete discretion to
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: determine whether to seek the death penalty. This, he argues,
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: gives rise to the county by county arbitrariness. That is,
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: whether you are chosen for the death penalty depends moron
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: where you committed the crime than how you committed the
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: crime Mountain Page A. To this end, he cites Professor
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: Covers study no. Being that between two thousand and two
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: and twenty nineteen there were roughly the same number of
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: death eligible cases in the three largest counties, Ada, Canyon,
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: and Cootney as in the remaining counties put together Cover
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: fifty seven Idaho l. Rev. At. Five, ninety three and
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: ninety five. This arbitrariness, according to defendant, deprives them of
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: equal protection under the law, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment,
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: and violates uniformity of justice afforded by Idaho Constitution Article five,
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: Sections two and twenty six. The defendant's argument fails for
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: three reasons. First, as discussed, the premise underlying defendant's argument
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: is misplaced. Although at least one of Idaho's enumerated statutory
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: aggravators could apply to nearly every first degree murder, that
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: is not the proper analysis in determining narrowness. The question
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: is whether individual aggravators narrow the class of death eligible
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: murderers Hall Once sixty three Idaho. Seven eighty eight. Second,
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: Defendant's geography based challenge was considered and rejected by the
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: Idaho Supreme Court in Hairston. There the defendant presented a
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: study showing that the imposition of death penalty was higher
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: in urban counties than in rural counties, and that financial
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: resources potentially played a role in a prosecutor's decision to
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: seek the death penalty. The defendant argued this rendered Idaho's
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: death penalty scheme arbitrary and capricious, but the Idaho Supreme
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: Court disagreed. Namely, the court noted that the study did
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: not collect or analyze the underlying data giving rise to
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: the cause of the discrepancy. While there were indications the
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: discrepancy was economically driven, this was insufficient to implicate a
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: constitutional concern. In so holding, the court noted that variance
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: in the implementation of state's capital scheme is constitutionally permissible
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: so long as it's based on legitimate objective factors such
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: as strength of evidence, the capable of law enforcement agencies,
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: and the judgment of the sentencing authority. Without empirical evidence
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: connecting the discrepancy to it impermissible factor, the court noted
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: it would not trigger constitutional concern. Defendant is not offered
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: the empirical evidence required by Harston. Professor Cover admittedly did
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: not collect or analyze the data that would provide the
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: reason for the county by county discrepancy in Idaho. She notes,
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: I did not systematically collect data on offense egregiousness, nor
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: did I catalog all possible aggravating and mitigating circumstances in
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: each case. As a result, I cannot report findings about
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: whether Idaho's system is arbitrary and capricious in the sense
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: that the distribution of death sentences across the universe of
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: death eligible cases can be explained not by the merits
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: or the case i e. The weight of the aggravating
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: and mitigation circumstances, but rather by an arbitrary factor such
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: as race, gender, or geography. Thus, her study fails to
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: support Defendant's argument for the same reasons the study in Harsteinfeld.
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: There is simply no basis to conclude that the discrepancy
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: she observed is caused by unbridled prosecutorial charging, discretion, or
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: any other constitutionally impermissible factor. Third, to establish an equal
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: protection violation, defendant must establish not only the existence of
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: purposeful discrimination, but that the decision makers in his case
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: i e. The Leayta County prosecutor acted with a discriminatory purpose.
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: The fact that the death penalty was sought against defendant
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: in Leyta County as opposed to Ada County or Accoutney
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: undermines any suggestion that defendant was discriminated against on the
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: basis of geography. Indeed, according to Professor Cover's study, not
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: a single notice of intent to seek the death penalty
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: was filed in Leyta County during the time period she studied. Defendant, however,
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: contends that McCleskey and, by extension, Hairston have been limited
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: by the subsequent case of Bush versus Gore, a voting
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: rights case in which the United States Supreme Court held
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: out of state's county cannot subject fundamental rights to differing
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: arbitrary standards, and that a formulation of uniform rules to
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: determine intent based on these reoccurring circumstances is practicable and
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: necessary five point thirty one US two thousand. Defendant argues
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: that under Bush, there is equal protection issues with disparities
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: and rights for citizens based on geography. This argument, however,
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: has been rejected by other courts that have considered challenges
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: to prosecutorial discretion over the death penalty. See Michael T. Morley,
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: Bush versus Gore as uniformity principle and equal protection to
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: write to vote to twenty nine, twenty twenty. Primarily, these
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: courts find that the principles of Bush do not apply
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: in the criminal context, given it's expressly limited holding. Other
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: courts have found that because their state. Capital schemes do
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: not give prosecutors on bridal discretion in pursuing the death penalty.
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: There is not the same risk of unequal treatment presented
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: in Bush c. Crow versus Terry, four twenty six supp
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: And D. Georgia, two thousand and five. For both of
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: these reasons, the Court likewise rejects the argument. In some
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: the Court finds that both arguments advance the defendant in
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: aid of his arbitrary in his motion are foreclosed by
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: binding precedent, and his efforts to distinguish such precedent fell.
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: The motion is denied. B motion to strike individual aggravators.
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: The state is identified for statutory aggravators in its notice
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: that it intends to rely upon in requesting the imposition
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: of death. In this case, One, at the time the
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: murder was committed, the defendant also committed another murder. Two,
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, manifesting exceptional depravity.
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: Three by the murder or circumstances surrounding its commission, the
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: defendant exhibited utter disregard for human life and for the
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: defendant by his conduct, whether such conduct was before, during,
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: or after the commission of the murder at hand has
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: exhibited a propensity to commit murder which will probably constitute
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: a continuing threat to society. Through four separate motions, Defendant
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: seeks to strike each of the foregoing aggravators for various reasons.
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: The Court finds none of the defendant's arguments to be prevailing.
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: One utter disregard aggravator. The utter disregard aggravator applies when,
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: by murder or circumstances surrounding its commission, the defendant exhibited
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: utter disregard for human life. I See nineteen twenty five,
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: fifteen nine F. In State Verse Osborne, the Idaho Supreme
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: Court applied to limiting construction to the aggravator, to wit,
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: the phrase is meant to be reflective of acts or
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: circumstances surrounding the crime which exhibit the highest and utmost
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: callous disregard for human life, i e. The cold blooded,
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: hityless slayer one O. Two Idaho four oh five four
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: nineteen six thirty one, p. Dot two D one eighty
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: seven two oh one, nineteen eighty one. In moving to
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: strike aggravator, defendant argues that Osborne's limiting construction or judicial gloss,
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: as he characterizes it, is unconstitutional as it violates a
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: separation of powers in Articles two and one of the
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: Idaho Constitution. He additionally argues that Idaho's criminal Jerry instruction
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: ic JI seventeen fourteen defining the utter disregard aggravator overlaps
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: with ic JI seventeen thirteen defining the heinous, atrocious, and
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: cruel aggravator described in ic Section nineteen twenty five fifteen
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: nine in E, and ignores the alleged legislatures intent that
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: the killing be done recklessly. Neither argument has merit a
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: Neither Verska nor the separation of powers doctrine precludes a
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: limiting construction. There's no dispute that Idaho's utter disregard aggravator
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: is narrowed by Osborne has consistently been upheld as constitutional,
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: including by the United States Supreme Court, where in a
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: ro vi verse creach it rejected a constitutional vagueness challenge. Specifically,
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: the Court found it necessary to decide whether the statutory
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: language itself passed a constitutional muster, concluding instead that Osborne
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: limiting construction adequately channel sentencing discretion as required by the
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Idea at four sixty five and
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: four seventy one. Analyzing the language of the limiting construction,
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: the Court noted that in ordinary usage, then the phrase
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: cold blooded pitiless slayer refers to a killer who kills
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: without feeling or sympathy idea at four seventy two. These terms,
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: the Court observed, described the defendant state of mind, not
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: his men's rea, but his attitude toward his conduct and
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: his victim. This is not a subjective matter, reason the
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: Court what a fact to be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. Likewise,
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: the Idaho Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the constitutionality of
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: the utter disregard aggravator with the Osborne limiting construction. It
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: most recently did so in twenty eighteen, wherein Hall it
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: declined to revisit whether the aggravator was unconstitutionally vague, noting
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: the issue had previously been properly resolved. Defendant, however, argues
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: that Osborne's limiting construction violates the separation of powers in
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: Articles II, Section one of the Idaho Constitution, specifically relying
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: on Veriska versus Saint Alphonsi's Regional Medical Center, Defendant argues
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: that the courts have no power to revise an unambiguous
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: statute in order to avoid absurdity because the wisdom, justice, policy,
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: or expediency of a statute or questions for the legislature alone. However,
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: as the State points out, Verska merely held that the
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: court does not have the authority to modify an unambiguous
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: statute off a lying it as written results in a
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: palpable absurdity. We have never revised or avoided in an
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: ambiguous statute on the grounds that it is patently absurd
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: or would produce absurd results when construed is written, and
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: we do not have the authority to do so. Irska
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: did not limit a court's ability to interpret ambiguous statutes
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: or inhibit a court from applying clarifying standards to constitutionally
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: vague statutes, particularly in the face of constitutional obligation to
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: tailor a statutory aggravator to avoid the arbitrary and capricious
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: infliction of the death penalty god Free, four forty six
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: US at four twenty eight. In fact, an Abdullah decided
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: after Verska, the Idaho Supreme Court rejected a similar separation
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: of powers argument with regard to the limiting construction for
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: both the utter disregard and HAC aggravators, holding that the
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: Court was within its constitutional authority to narrowly construe an
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: aggravating circumstance to avoid an unconstitutionally vague statute, and its
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: ability to do so is not constrained by the separation
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: of powers doctrine one fifty eight Idaho. At. Four sixty
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: four three forty eight, p. Dot three, d at seventy nine. Indeed,
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: despite Versco, the Court has continued to uphold Osborne limiting
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: construction for the utter disregard aggravator ceed Dunlap one fifty
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: five Idaho. Three seventy seven, three thirteen, p Dot three,
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: d at thirty three. Abdullah one fifty eight Idaho. Four
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: sixty three three forty eight p Dot three, d at
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: seventy eight. This binding precedent forecloses defendants argument. All right,
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: we're gonna wrap up right here and in the next
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: episode dealing with the topic, We're gonna pick up with
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: b I see Ji seventeen fourteen is consistent with case law.
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode can
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box