Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Murder In Moscow: Bryan Kohberger's Memo In Support Of Trifurcating The Proceedings (Part 1)

Transcript

Murder In Moscow: Bryan Kohberger's Memo In Support Of Trifurcating The Proceedings (Part 1) · 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 head back out to Moscow
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: and we're going to take a look at some of
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: the new court documents that have just recently hit the docket.
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: And the first document that we're going to look at
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: is the motion and memorandum in support of motion to
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: trifurcate the proceedings and apply rules of evidence during the
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: eligibility phase. And just quickly, here's a rundown what it
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: means to trifurcate the proceedings in a legal context. It
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: means to divide the case into three separate phases, each
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: focusing on a distinct issue. This is often done to
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: improve the efficiency and clarity of complex cases by addressing
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: one issue at a time. When the proceedings are trifurcated
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: and the rules of evidence are applied during the eligibility phase,
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: it means that 1. The three phases of the case
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: are the liability phase, determining whether the defendant is responsible
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: or guilty of the matter at hand. The eligibility phase
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: in cases like the death penalty or complex civil cases,
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: this phase determines whether the defendant is eligible for a
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: specific penalty or remedy. For example, in a capital punishment case,
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: the eligibility phase may decide whether the defendant qualifies for
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: the death penalty based on aggravating factors. And then you
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: have the penalty or damages phase, where if the defendant's
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: found eligible, the final phase determines the specific punishment or
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: the amount of damages to be awarded. Next, we have
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: applying the rules of evidence. During the eligibility phase, the
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: court strictly applies the rules of evidence, meaning that only
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: admissible evidence as defined by formal legal standards can be presented.
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: These rules are designed to ensure the fairness of the
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: proceedings and prevent irrelevant, unreliable, or overly prejudicial evidence from
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: influencing the decision. Trafficking the proceedings with evidence rules applied
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: during the eligibility phase ensures that the determination of eligibility
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: is such as for a specific sentence or legal remedy,
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: is made based on legally sound admissible evidence. Alright, so
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: now that we have a basic idea of what we're
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: going to be talking about, let's dive into this court
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: document and let's get ourselves caught up. Case number CR29-22-0002805
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: State of Idaho Plaintiff vs. Brian C. Koberger, the Defendant
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: comes now. Brian C. Koberger, through his attorneys of record,
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: and hereby submits the following motion and memorandum in support
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: of motion to trifurcate the proceedings and to apply the
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: rules of evidence during the eligibility phase. Proceeding with a
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: bifurcated trial in which non-statutory aggravation is presented without the
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: rules of evidence being applied will result in a violation
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: of Mr. Koberger's state and federal constitutional rights. including 5th, 6th, 8th,
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: as Article 1, Section 6, and 13 of the Idaho Constitution.
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: The Argument Idaho's death penalty scheme provides for two phases,
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: one where the culpability of the accused is determined, and then,
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: if they are found guilty, a sentencing phase, commonly called
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: the penalty phase. Problematically, at the death penalty phase, the
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: jury must actually make two determinations. These two determinations are 1.
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: Whether the defendant's eligible for the death penalty, and 2.
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: What is the appropriate punishment? Under Idaho Code Section 19-2515-3b,
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: a person is only eligible for the death penalty. The
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: jury finds, beyond a reasonable doubt, at least one statutory
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: aggravating circumstance. If the jury determines the defendant is eligible
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: for the death penalty, then it must decide if it
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: is the appropriate sentence. Where a statutory aggravator is found,
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: the defendant shall be sentenced to death unless mitigating circumstances
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: which may be presented or found to be sufficiently compelling
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: that the death penalty would be unjust. In order to
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: sentence a defendant to death, both findings, eligibility, and appropriateness
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: are required. The jury shall not direct imposition of a
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: sentence of death unless it unanimously finds at least one
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: statutory aggravating circumstance, and unanimously determines that the penalty of
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: death should be imposed. Combining these two distinct determinations into
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: one sentencing proceeding violates a defendant's state and federal constitutional rights.
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: This has become increasingly clearer in recent years, given the
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court's holdings in Apprendi v. New Jersey, Blakely v. Washington,
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: and Ring v. Arizona 536 U.S. 584 122 Supreme Court
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: 2422-153 L.E.D. 2nd Edition 556-2002, which made clear that any
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: factor that increases the permissible punishment must be found by
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Under Idaho's death penalty scheme,
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: there are very specific statutory aggravating factors that make a
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: defendant eligible for the death penalty. When determining eligibility, the
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: jury must consider each statutory aggravator alleged and return a
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: special verdict stating, 1. Whether that statutory aggravating circumstance has
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it's the state's burden
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: to present evidence supporting each alleged aggravator. The Idaho Supreme
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: Court has consistently held that the same facts cannot support
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: more than one aggravator because it presumes that the legislature
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: did not intend to duplicate aggravating circumstances. Even though the
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: state must present very specific independent evidence supporting each aggravator,
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: Idaho's death penalty scheme allows the state to present general
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: non-statutory aggravation evidence. Non-statutory aggravation evidence is aggravation that does
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: not support any statutory aggravator. This evidence can only be
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: considered by a jury when determining whether the death penalty
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: is the appropriate punishment, not when determining whether a statutory
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: aggravator exists. If the statutory aggravating circumstance has been proven
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury then determines whether all
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: mitigating circumstances, when weighed against the aggravating circumstance, are sufficiently
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: compelling that the death penalty would be unjust. The trial
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: in hall exemplifies the difficulties created by this scheme. On
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: the one hand, the legislature has indicated all relevant evidence
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: may come in at the penalty phase. On the other,
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: the legislature... at that time had indicated that propensity to
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: commit murder is to be shown by the evidence of
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: prior conduct or conduct in the commission of the crime
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: at hand. By permitting evidence relevant to aggravation but not
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: to a statutory aggravator, the legislature has created a scenario
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: where a jury's decision is necessarily confused. Donald M. Hauser
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: outlined the potential problems in a law review article in
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: which he analyzed the Federal Death Penalty Act, which, like Idaho's,
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: is also a bifurcated system, he writes, Receiving all of
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: the information in a unitary proceeding creates a problem because
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: the jury's determination of whether the defendant is eligible for
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: the death penalty may be influenced by irrelevant evidence. the
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: jury may find that the defendant eligible for the death
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: penalty based on evidence that, even if established beyond a
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: reasonable doubt, fails to satisfy the statutory requirements of death eligibility.
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: The end result is that the issue of eligibility is
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: punishment melt into a singular assessment. In this case, the
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: state has alleged five different statutory aggravators. Mr. Koberger anticipates
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: that the state, will attempt to introduce substantial evidence of
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: aggravation which is not related to any statutory aggravator, including
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: evidence about Mr. Kohlberger's past and evidence of Mr. Kohlberger's character.
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: The state will also seek to introduce non-statutory aggravation evidence
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: in the form of victim impact evidence. This non-statutory aggravation
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: should be presented during a separate sentencing proceeding after the
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: jury has considered the issue of eligibility based on the
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: statutory aggravators. Under this construction, there would be a culpability phase,
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: an eligibility phase, and a sentencing phase. Rather than just
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: two phases, culpability and penalty, the jury would only be
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: presented with non-statutory evidence during the sentencing phase and would
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: therefore only be able to use it in its determination
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: of whether a sentence of death is appropriate. The consideration
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: of non-statutory aggravation only for the purpose of determining whether
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: the death penalty is an appropriate punishment is what is
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: required by the statute. Trifurcating the proceeding is a way
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: of ensuring that jurors are able to comply with the
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: requirements of Idaho Code Section 19-2515 and consider the appropriate
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: aggravator at the correct time. Non-statutory aggravating evidence is any
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: evidence that is not directly related to proving one of
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: the alleged statutory aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. There
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: are many types of non-statutory aggravating evidence that the state
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: may choose to present, including victim impact evidence. At sentencing,
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: a quick glimpse of the victim's life may be given
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: in the form of testimony about the victim's life. However,
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: the quick glimpse has morphed into a full-length feature film
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: in some cases. See Sharon Turlington, Completely Unguided Discretion, admitting
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: non-statutory aggravating and non-statutory mitigating evidence in capital sentencing trials.
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: The expansion of the victim impact evidence in the form
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: of expanded victim testimony and video presentations for the jury
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: has furthered the need for trifurcation. When jurors are emotionally
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: overwhelmed by extensive victim impact evidence, they are likely to
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: use the evidence and their grief for the victims to
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: support statutory aggravators even though it's unrelated. In addition to
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: changes to the presentation victim impact evidence, changes in the
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: law in recent years have made trifurcation necessary and rendered
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: bifurcated death penalty schemes unconstitutional. Constitutionally, the bifurcated model became
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: especially problematic after the Supreme Court's holding in Ring v. Arizona.
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: In Ring, the court held that statutory aggravators are elements
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: of the offense of capital murder. ID at 609. Because
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: Arizona's enumerated aggravating factors operate as the functional equivalent of
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: an element of a greater offense, the Sixth Amendment requires
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: that they be found by a jury. Because statutory aggravators
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: are elements of the crime of capital murder, they must
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: be found by a jury. When statutory aggravators became elements,
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: new constitutional problems arose. Factors once considered simply sentencing factors
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: are now elements of the crime and the bifurcated trial
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: structure is raises serious constitutional concerns. Evidence that a court
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: would never admit at trial, such as victim impact statements, hearsay,
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: and character evidence, is unquestionably permissible at the sentencing phase. However,
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: during the jury's determination of a statutory aggravator, which is
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: an element of the crime the defendant is given, none
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: of the protections afforded The other element of the crime
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: the defendant is given none of the protections afforded the
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: other elements of the crime adjudicated in the guilt phase.
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: The eligibility phase is akin to a guilt phase in
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: that the state bears the burden of presenting evidence supporting
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: each statutory aggravator as it seeks to prove. Statutory aggravation
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: evidence should be treated the same way as other enhanced
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: evidence permitted under the Idaho statutes. For example, when the
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: state seeks to enhance a sentencing by alleging that a
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: firearm was used in the commission of a crime, it
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: presents evidence during the guilt phase in accordance with the
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: rules of evidence. Similarly, when the state seeks to enhance
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: a sentence by alleging the defendant is a perpetual law violator,
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: it must present evidence during the guilt phase in accordance
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: with the rules of evidence. All right, we're going to
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: wrap up right here with episode one. And in the
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: next episode, we're going to pick up right where we
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: left off. All of the information that goes with this
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box.