Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Mega Edition: Judge John Judge And The Denial Of Kohberger's Motion to Dismiss (8/16/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Judge John Judge And The Denial Of Kohberger's Motion to Dismiss (8/16/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. After about
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: a week of no information coming out of Moscow, we've
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: had several different stories over the past couple of days
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: talking about what's going on. Yesterday we were talking about
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: the house and the new date that's been said for
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: the demolition of the house, and today we're getting information
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: that Judge Judge has denied Brian Colberger's request to dismiss
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: the indictment for inaccurate grand jury instructions. Now, when he
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: first made that accusation and we were talking about it,
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: I figured it would be doa And while it was
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: a valiant attempt by Ann Taylor and Brian Colberger's legal team,
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: I never thought that it would go anywhere. So what
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: we're going to do today is we're going to start
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: off by reading the order that was filed by Judge Judge,
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: and then from there we'll have a few articles and
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: some commentary to add. But first let's get started with
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: the new order that just hit the docket, case number
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: c R twenty nine DASH twenty two DASH twenty eight
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: oh five, Order denying motion to dismiss indictment for inaccurate
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: instructions to the Grand jury, State of Idaho Plaintiff versus
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: Brian C. Coberger, the defendant introduction. This decision addresses defendant's
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: motion to dismiss indictment for inaccurate instructions to the grand jury.
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: The question of law posed to the court is whether
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: the standard of proof for a grand jury to justify
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: an indictment is probable cause or beyond a reasonable doubt.
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: Based on history, case law, and Idaho criminal rules, specifically
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: Rule six through Rule six point eight of I dot
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: Se dot R, the standard of proof for a grand
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: jury to indict is probable cause. Therefore, the motion is denied.
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: Two sidural background. Defendant Brian C. Coburger filed on July
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: twenty fifth, twenty twenty three, a motion to dismiss indictment
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: on grounds of error in the grand jury instructions or
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: in the alternative remand for the preliminary hearing. The defense
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: argues that the grand jury's indictment was flawed because the
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: grand jury was instructed wrongfully, that the standard of proof
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: to justify an indictment was probable cause instead of the
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: higher standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Coburger's claim is
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: based on legislative history and interpretation of the Idaho Constitution
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: and statutes. The question of whether the standard of proof
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: to reach an indictment is probable cause or beyond the
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: reasonable doubt is one of law. Coberger's motion included briefing,
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: and the state filed an objection supported by brief and
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: Coburger provided a reply to the state's objection, also with
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: additional briefing. A hearing on the motion was held on
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: October twenty sixth of twenty twenty three. Coberger was represented
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: by Ann Taylor, Jay Logsden, and Alyssa Massith. The state
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: was represented by Bill Thompson, Ashley Jennings, Jeff Nye, and
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: Ingrid Beatty. This hearing was open to the public and
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: media cameras. At the conclusion of the argument, the court
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: informed Council with a brief explanation that the motion would
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: be denied and that this written opinion would follow. To
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: avoid confusion, it is important to know that on the
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: same day there was also a hearing on Coburger's seal
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: motion to dismiss the indictment based on other grand jury issues.
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: All council named above were involved in this hearing. Because
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: the argument centered on the grand jury secret procedures, this
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: hearing was closed to the public. Likewise, the written decision
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: will be separate from the decision and will be sealed.
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: The results, however, will be public. In order for the
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: Court to assess the arguments in both motions, the court
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: needed to have access to the grand jury procedures and
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: the evidence. To accommodate the need, the state submitted a
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: motion to take judicial notice of the grand jury record
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: without objection. The Court, as requested by the state, takes
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: judicial notice under Rule two one C two I dot
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: r dot E of the grand jury transcripts, the audio recording,
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: the exhibits, the jury instructions, and jury questionnaires. The state
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: has provided the same information to the defense analysis. A
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: reasonable reading of I dot CE Section nineteen Dash eleven
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: oh seven does not require a standard of proof beyond
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: a reasonable doubt, and Idaho case law and criminal rules
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: six top five clearly establish a standard of proof of
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: probable cause for a grand jury to find an indictment.
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: Coberger claims that the standard of proof for a grand
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: jury to return an indictment is beyond a reasonable doubt,
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: and because the grand jury in this case was instructed
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: that the standard of proof was probable cause, and found
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: there was probable cause to return an indictment. Coburger argues
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: that the indictment must be dismissed. The state disputes Coburger's
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: argument and asserts that probable cause for an indictment is
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: settled law in Idaho. There is no dispute that in
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: this case, the standard applied by the grand jury to
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: justify the indictment was probable cause. Coburger first relies on
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: Idaho Constitution and the planned language of the statute for
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: his argument. Article one, section eight of the Idaho Constitution,
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: in part states that no person shall be held to
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: answer for any felony or criminal offense of any grade,
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: unless on presentment of indictment of a grand jury, or
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: on information of the public prosecutor after a commitment by
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: a magistrate. This language obviously does not define the standard
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: of proof for the grand jury, but Cobert claims the
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: language of Idaho Codes section nineteen eleven h seven does.
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: Here is the entire statue the grand jury ought to
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: find an indictment when all the evidence before them, taken together,
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: if unexplained or uncontradicted, would in their judgment, warn't a
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: conviction by a jury trial Again, this statutory language does
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: not state that the standard of proof is beyond a
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: reasonable doubt, the legal standard of proof for a criminal
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: jury trial. However, Coleburger asserts that warrant a conviction means
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: that to find an indictment, a grand jury must find
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. First of all,
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: the word warrant carries many definitions. For example, of the
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: plain language of warrant means justification for an action grounds
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: the American Heritage Dictionary, thirteen sixty four, Second College Edition,
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: nineteen eighty five. Also other examples are consistent justification for
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: an action or a belief grounds, something that provides assurance
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: or confirmation, a guarantee or proof, to provide adequate grounds for,
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: or to justify synonym of justify, to demonstrate sufficient legal
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: reason for an action taken synonym of warrant the American
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, twenty fourteen, third edition,
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: nineteen ninety two. Black Law's Dictionary also defines warrant to
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: justify the conduct warrants a presumption of negligence warrant Black
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: Law's Dictionary, eleventh edition, twenty nineteen. These definitions have not
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: significantly changed for over one hundred years. Thus, the planned
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: language of the word warrant easily means that, after hearing
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: the evidence, a grand jury would, in their judgment, be
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: justified to send the accused to trial by a trial jury.
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: Colberger seems to miss this additional language of the statute
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: by a trial jury. The additional linelanguage provides the broader
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: context of a warrant a conviction by a trial jury,
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: not a grand jury. One definition of probable cause is
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: a reasonable ground for belief in the existence of facts,
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: warranting the proceeds complained of. This is precisely what the
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: grand juries are charged to determine. Black Laws Dictionary ten
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: eighty one, fifth Edition, nineteen seventy nine. The grand jury
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: is not a trial jury. Its function is to screen
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: whether or not there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial.
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: The grand jury is baked into our United States Constitution
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: Amendment five. No person shall be held to answer for
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless a presentment or
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: indictment of a grand jury, and our Idaho Constitution Article I,
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: Section eight see language above, and the procedures of the
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: grand jury have evolved over the years. In nineteen fifty six,
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: Justice Black in Costello versus the United States provides some
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: early history of the grand jury. The Fifth Amendment provides
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: that federal prosecutions for capital or otherwise infamous crimes must
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: be instituted by presentments or indictments of grand juries, but
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: neither the Fifth Amendment nor any other constitutional provision prescribes
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: the kind of evidence upon which grand juries must act.
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: The grand Jury is an English institution brought to this
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: country by the early colonists and incorporated in the Constitution
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: by the founders. The basic purpose of the English Grand
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: Jury was to provide a fair method for instituting criminal
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: proceedings against persons believed to have committed crimes. Grand jurors
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: were selected from the body of the people, and their
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: work was not hampered by rigid procedural or evidential rules.
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: In this country, as in England of Old, the grand
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: Jury has convened as a body of laymen, free from
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: technical rules, acting in secret, pledged to indict no one
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: because of prejudice, and to free no one because of
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: special favor. If indictments were to be held, open to
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: challenge on the ground that there was inadequate or incompetent
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: evidence before the grand jury, the resulting delay would be great. Indeed,
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: the result of such a rule would be that before
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: trial on the merits, a defendant could always insist on
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: a kind of preliminary trial to determine the competency and
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: adequacy of the evidence before the grand jury. This is
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: not required by the Fifth Amendment. An indictment returned by
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, like an information
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: drawn by the prosecutor, if valid on its face, is
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits.
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: The Fifth Amendment requires nothing more. In a trial on
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: the merits, defendants are entitled to a strict observance of
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: all the rules designed to bring about a fair verdict.
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: Defendants are not entitled, however, to a rule which would
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: result in interminable delay but add nothing to the assurance
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: of a fair trial. All right, we're gonna wrap up
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: with part one right here, and in the next episode
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: we're gonna pick up and finish it off in part two.
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode can
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box without the ones like it.
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. We're
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: gonna pick up right where we left off with Judge
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: Judge's order denying Brian Kolberger's request to dismiss the charges
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: against him. Costello versus United States, three point fifty US
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: three fifty nine, three sixty one, seventy six. Supreme Court
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: four oh six, four oh eight, one hundred L Dot
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: ed Dot three ninety seven, nineteen fifty six. The Costello
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: case is addressing federal law and grand jury procedures employed
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: by federal prosecutors since the birth of the Fifth Amendment,
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: and the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt is certainly
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: not applied in federal courts, but Hoburger's argument is based
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: on Idaho law, not federal Nevertheless, the language and practice
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: are similar. Coberger's brief seems to acknowledge he is reaching
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: for a higher than the probable cause standard, even though
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: the whole of modern jurisprudence on the issue is against it,
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: as well as at least one founding father of this state,
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: William H. Claggett, selected as the President of the Idaho
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: Constitution Convention in eighteen eighty nine, who stated that all
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: grand jury is entitled to do to say there is
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: probable cause is to believe the man is guilty. Motion
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: to dismiss indictment at six and ten. Even if there
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: is some ambiguity to Idaho Codes Section nineteen AASH eleven
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: oh seven, the case law in Idaho seems to be
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: settled on the standard of proof for a grand jury
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: to approve an indictment. While there is not an abundance
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: of early appellate cases directly addressing the standard of proof
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: for indictment, the available case is consistently references the standard
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: to be probable cause. In gasper versus District Court of
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: the Seventh Judicial District in in Four Canyon County, the
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: plaintiff the defendant in the lower court claimed that the
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: indictment should be dismissed on the grounds of various alleged
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: errors in the proceedings of the grand jury. The court
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: denied the claims as insufficient and not prejudicial to the plaintiff,
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: who had been charged with second degree murder related to
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: this case. The plaintiff, for some reason challenged the instructions
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: given to the grand jury, part of which stated you
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: were not compelled to go under a public trial and
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: open court before a trial jury unless you are satisfied
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence gasper versus District
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: Court of the Seventh Judicial District in in Four Canyon Counties,
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: seventy four Idaho three eighty eight, three ninety five, two
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: sixty four p. Dot two D. Six seventy nine, six
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: eighty three, nineteen fifty three, the Court recognized that the
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: charge to the grand jury had no bearing on the
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: plaintiff's complaints because the charge was to the plaintiff's advantage. However,
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: we observe that the charge complained of, though erroneous, is
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: more favorable to the accused before a grand jury than
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: would be charged embodying the statute. Citing Idaho Code Section
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: nineteen Dash eleven O seven, The language remains the same today.
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: The charge as given calls for a greater degree of
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: proof to justify an indictment that the statute requires. While
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: this may be dicta, it does acknowledge the Supreme Court's
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: view of the standard of proof for an indictment. A
• 14:40
  Speaker 1: more recent and more definite acknowledgement of the standard of
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: proof for an indictment is expressed in State versus Edmondson.
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: The Supreme Court states clearly the purpose of the grand jury,
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: including the standard of proof. The grand jury is an
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: accusing body and not a trial court. Its functions are
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: investigative and charging. The purpose of both a grand jury
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: preceding and a preliminary hearing is to determine probable cause
• 15:06
  Speaker 1: State versus Edmondson, one thirteen Idaho two thirty, two thirty
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: four seven forty three p Dot two d four fifty nine,
• 15:15
  Speaker 1: four sixty three, nineteen eighty seven. And again, the purpose
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: of a grand jury preceding is to determine whether sufficient
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: probable cause exists to bind the defendant over for trial.
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: The determination of a guilt and innocence is saved for
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: a later day as long as the grand jury is
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: received legally sufficient evidence which in and of itself supports
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: a finding of probable cause. It is not for an
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: appellate court to set aside the indictment id At. Two
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: thirty six and two thirty seven, seven forty three p
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: Dot two d At four sixty five and four sixty six,
• 15:52
  Speaker 1: and finally, without even considering the evidence used to find
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: probable cause. We note that the prosecutor directed the grand
• 15:59
  Speaker 1: jury that it should not indict unless all the elements
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: of an alleged crime are proven beyond the reasonable doubt.
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: This is a much higher standard than is required by
• 16:09
  Speaker 1: Idaho law Idaho at. Two thirty eight seven forty three
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: p Dot two, d At four sixty seven. In State
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: versus Martinez, the Supreme Court recognized that the law governing
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: grand jury indictments is rooted in the numerous statutes and rules,
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: including Idaho Code Section nineteen Dash eleven oh seven and
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: Idaho Code nineteen Dash eleven oh five and Idaho Criminal
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: Rules six F n h amended and rearranged in twenty
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: seventeen State versus Martinez one twenty five Idaho four forty
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: five four forty eight eight seventy two p Dot two
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: d seven zero eight seven eleven, nineteen ninety four. The
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: merging of the statutes in the rules suggests no conflict
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: between the statute and the rule. If there is probable
• 16:58
  Speaker 1: cause to believe an offense has been committed and the
• 17:00
  Speaker 1: accused committed it, the jury ought to find an indictment
• 17:04
  Speaker 1: id At. Four forty eight eight seventy two p Dot two,
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: d At seven eleven. In the following paragraph, the Court
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: stated it must determine whether, independent of any inadmissible evidence
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: the grand jury received legally sufficient evidence to support a
• 17:22
  Speaker 1: finding of probable cause. Id citing State versus Jones one
• 17:26
  Speaker 1: twenty five, Idaho, four seventy seven, eight seventy five, P
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: Dot two, D one twenty two, nineteen ninety four, overruled
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: on different grounds State versus Edmondson one thirteen, Idaho, two
• 17:39
  Speaker 1: thirty seven forty three, P Dot two, D four fifty nine,
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: nineteen eighty seven. The Court held that there was sufficient
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: independent evidence to support a finding of probable cause, and
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: therefore this Court will not set aside the indictment id
• 17:54
  Speaker 1: At four forty nine, eight seventy two, P Dot two,
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: d At seven twelve. The Court of Appeals mirrored the
• 18:01
  Speaker 1: Martinez case in merging Idaho Code Section nineteen eleven oh
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: seven with rule six dot six a I dot cr
• 18:10
  Speaker 1: with no conflict, that the standard of proof for a
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: grand jury indictment was probable cause. State Versus Marsalis one
• 18:17
  Speaker 1: fifty one, Idaho eight seventy two, eight seventy six two
• 18:22
  Speaker 1: sixty four, p Dot three d. Nineteen seventy nine, nineteen
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: eighty three. Court of Appeals, twenty eleven. The Marsalis Court
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: referred to the collection of statutes and rules that govern
• 18:34
  Speaker 1: Idaho grand jury proceedings, including language of I dot C
• 18:38
  Speaker 1: nineteen eleven oh seven and Rule six dot six A
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: I dot SED dot R, which is almost identical to
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: the language of current rules six dot five A I
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: dot s dot R. The court includes the language of
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: the rule, including a definition of probable cause. If it
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: appears to the grand jury, after evidence has been presented
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: to it that an offense has been committed and that
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: there is probable cause to believe that the accused committed it,
• 19:06
  Speaker 1: that jury ought to find an indictment. Probable cause exists
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: when the grand jury has before it such evidence as
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: would lead a reasonable person to believe that an offense
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: has been committed and that the accused party that's probably
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: committed the offense. In reviewing the propriety of the grand
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: jury proceeding, the appellate court first looks at whether, independent
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: of any inadmissible evidence, the grand jury received legally sufficient
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: evidence to support a finding of probable cause. The Martinez
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: Court and the rest of these relevant cases looked at
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: both statutes and the rules in determining the law for
• 19:44
  Speaker 1: a grand jury to justify to warrant an indictment. And
• 19:48
  Speaker 1: the standard of proof has been consistently probable cause for
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: at least three decades. This Court has also reviewed three
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: decisions from three separate district judges that address similar or
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: identical arguments from defendants claiming that the standard of proof
• 20:05
  Speaker 1: is beyond a reasonable doubt and not probable cause for
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: a grand jury, it'll warrant an indictment. State versus Pionekuteney
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: County Cr. Twenty eight Dash twenty two Dash eighty three
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: forty three, State versus. Rodriguez Canyon County Cr. Fourteen Dash
• 20:21
  Speaker 1: twenty Dash twenty two nine oh two, and State versus
• 20:25
  Speaker 1: Williams Kuteney County Cr. Twenty eight Dash twenty two Dash
• 20:29
  Speaker 1: eighteen three eighty seven. These decisions were attached as exhibits
• 20:33
  Speaker 1: to the State's objection to defend its motion to dismiss indictment.
• 20:37
  Speaker 1: Their results were the same as this one. The standard
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: of proof for a grand jury to find an indictment
• 20:44
  Speaker 1: is probable cause. The current rule for a grand jury
• 20:47
  Speaker 1: to find an indictment is Rule six dot five Idaho
• 20:51
  Speaker 1: Criminal Rules. If the grand jury finds, after evidence has
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: been presented to it, that an offense has been committed
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: and that there is probable cause to believe that the
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: accused committed it. That jury ought to find an indictment.
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: Probable cause exists when the grand jury had before it
• 21:07
  Speaker 1: evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe an
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: offense has been committed and that the accused party has
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: probably committed the offense. Any change of this settled law
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: would need to be addressed by the legislature or the
• 21:20
  Speaker 1: Idaho Supreme Court, not this court tmobile doo. If there
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: were any conflict or ambiguity related to Idaho Code Section
• 21:29
  Speaker 1: nineteen Dash eleven oh seven, then the standard of proof
• 21:32
  Speaker 1: set forth and rules six dot five I dot S
• 21:35
  Speaker 1: dot R would be considered procedural and therefore trump the statute.
• 21:40
  Speaker 1: Based on the case law and the criminal rules, there
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: should be no confusion or conflict between Idaho Code Section
• 21:46
  Speaker 1: nineteen Dash eleven oh seven and the grand jury rules. However,
• 21:51
  Speaker 1: if there were any ambiguity or conflict, whether statutory language
• 21:56
  Speaker 1: or evolution over one hundred years of history, there could
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: be fore over whether the standard of proof set in
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: the grand jury criminal rule is substantative or procedural. Coberger
• 22:07
  Speaker 1: argues that the standard of proof for an indictment is
• 22:10
  Speaker 1: substantiative and therefore trumps the rule. The state argues that
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: the standard for indictment is procedural and therefore trumps the statute.
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: These struggles have also long been resolved in Idaho law.
• 22:23
  Speaker 1: The Court is stated that where conflict exists between statutory
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: criminal provisions and the Idaho criminal rules and matter of procedure,
• 22:31
  Speaker 1: the rules will prevail. State versus Being one twenty one Idaho,
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: eight sixty two, eight sixty three, eight twenty eight p
• 22:39
  Speaker 1: Dot two D. Eight ninety one, nineteen ninety two. Citing
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: State versus Carrington, one away at Idaho, five thirty nine,
• 22:47
  Speaker 1: five forty one seven hundred, p Dot two D. Nine
• 22:50
  Speaker 1: forty two, nine forty four, nineteen eighty five. It is
• 22:55
  Speaker 1: well established that the Idaho Supreme Court is uniquely empowered
• 22:59
  Speaker 1: with certain and how powers. The Court has the inherent
• 23:02
  Speaker 1: power to make rules governing the procedure in all of
• 23:05
  Speaker 1: Idaho's courts. Talbot versus Aimes Construction one twenty seven Idaho,
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: six forty eight six fifty one nine oh four p
• 23:13
  Speaker 1: Dot two D five sixty five sixty three, nineteen ninety five,
• 23:18
  Speaker 1: Citing in SRBA case number three nine five seven six
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: one twenty eight Idaho two forty six, two fifty five,
• 23:27
  Speaker 1: nine twelve, p Dot two D six fourteen six, twenty three,
• 23:31
  Speaker 1: nineteen ninety five. State versus Bean, one, twenty one, Idaho
• 23:35
  Speaker 1: eight sixty two, eight sixty three, eight twenty eight, p
• 23:38
  Speaker 1: Dot two, d eight ninety one, eight ninety two, nineteen
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: ninety two. The inherent power of the Supreme Court to
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: make rules governing procedure in all the courts of Idaho
• 23:49
  Speaker 1: is hereby recognized and confirmed Idaho Code Section one Dash
• 23:54
  Speaker 1: two twelve. Accordingly, this Court has noted that if a
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: statutory provision that is procedural in nature is in conflict
• 24:02
  Speaker 1: with the Idaho Criminal Rules, the rules govern ceg. State
• 24:06
  Speaker 1: versus Abdullah, one fifty eight Idaho three eighty six for
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: eighty four three forty eight, p Dot three, D one
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: ninety nine, twenty fifteen. State versus. Johnson, one forty five
• 24:17
  Speaker 1: Idaho nine seventy nine, seventy four one eighty eight, p
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: Dot three, D nine twelve nine sixteen, two thousand and eight,
• 24:25
  Speaker 1: Beam one twenty one, Idaho at eight sixty three, eight
• 24:29
  Speaker 1: twenty eight, p Dot two d at eight ninety two.
• 24:33
  Speaker 1: State versus. Weigel, one sixty five Idaho. Four eighty two,
• 24:37
  Speaker 1: four eighty six for eighty seven, p Dot three, d.
• 24:40
  Speaker 1: Nine thirty nine, thirty four, twenty nineteen. The powers established
• 24:45
  Speaker 1: for the judiciary are not only inherent, but they are
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: also written in Article two of the Idaho Constitution to
• 24:52
  Speaker 1: protect them. Article two of the Idaho Constitution prohibits legislature
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: from usurping powers properly belonging to the Judicial Department. In
• 25:02
  Speaker 1: Ares SRBA Case number thirty nine, five seventy six one
• 25:07
  Speaker 1: twenty eight Idaho at. Two fifty five nine twelve, p
• 25:11
  Speaker 1: Dot two, d at six twenty three. The Idaho Constitution
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: further states the legislature shall have no power to deprive
• 25:18
  Speaker 1: the Judicial Department of any power or jurisdiction which rightly
• 25:23
  Speaker 1: pertains to it as a coordinate department of the government.
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: Idaho Constitution, Article five, Section thirteen, Idaho at. For. Eighty six,
• 25:33
  Speaker 1: forty seven four forty seven, p Dot three, d at
• 25:36
  Speaker 1: nine thirty four, and nine thirty five. When a statute
• 25:41
  Speaker 1: and a rule can be reasonably interpreted so that there
• 25:44
  Speaker 1: is no conflict between them, they should be so interpreted,
• 25:48
  Speaker 1: rather than interpreted in a way that results in a conflict.
• 25:51
  Speaker 1: When there is a conflict between statute and a criminal rule,
• 25:55
  Speaker 1: the court must determine whether the conflict is one of
• 25:58
  Speaker 1: procedure or one of subs If the conflict is procedural,
• 26:02
  Speaker 1: the criminal rule will prevail. State Versus Abdullah one fifty
• 26:06
  Speaker 1: eight Idaho three eighty six, four eighty three three forty
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: eight p dot three D one ninety eight twenty fifteen.
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: Citations and internal quotation marks omitted. As discussed above, the
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: case law does not find conflict between Idaho Code Section
• 26:23
  Speaker 1: nineteen Dash eleven oh seven and rules six dot five A, I,
• 26:28
  Speaker 1: dot S dot R. But even if there were some conflict,
• 26:31
  Speaker 1: the criminal rule would prevail because the standard of proof
• 26:34
  Speaker 1: in this context is procedural. The Beam case, quoting the
• 26:38
  Speaker 1: Currington case, draws a distinction between procedure and substance. Although
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: a clear line of demarcation cannot always be delineated between
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: what is substantive and what is procedural, the following general
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: guidelines provide a useful framework for analysis. Substantive law prescribes
• 26:58
  Speaker 1: norms for societal conduct and punishments for violation thereof. It
• 27:03
  Speaker 1: thus creates, defines, and regulates primary rights. In contrast, practice
• 27:08
  Speaker 1: and procedure pertain to the essentially mechanical operation of the
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: courts by which substantive laws, rights, and remedies are effectuated.
• 27:18
  Speaker 1: Beam one twenty one, Idaho. At. Eight sixty three, eight
• 27:22
  Speaker 1: sixty four, eight twenty eight p dot two d at
• 27:25
  Speaker 1: eight ninety two and eight ninety three. Italics and original
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: citations omitted. Abdullah one fifty eight, Idaho. At. Four eighty
• 27:33
  Speaker 1: three three forty eight p dot three d at ninety eight.
• 27:38
  Speaker 1: The procedures of the grand jury are defined in detail
• 27:41
  Speaker 1: in rule six through six dot eight I, dot C,
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: dot R, including the standard of proof to justify to
• 27:47
  Speaker 1: warrant an indictment. These are not primary rights. They are
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: procedures that pertain to the essentially mechanical operation of the
• 27:55
  Speaker 1: courts by which substantiative law rights and remedies are effectuated. Abdullah,
• 28:00
  Speaker 1: one fifty eight, Idaho. At. Forty eighty three, three eighty
• 28:04
  Speaker 1: four p dot three d at ninety eight. These are
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: procedures for the grand jury to effectively operate under the
• 28:11
  Speaker 1: law with some consistency and fairness. The judicial inherent powers
• 28:15
  Speaker 1: to establish rules of procedures are essential for a functioning judiciary,
• 28:20
  Speaker 1: and these powers are protected by the law conclusion. The
• 28:25
  Speaker 1: arguments from the defense for a beyond reasonable doubt standard
• 28:28
  Speaker 1: for the grand jury were historically interesting and creative, but
• 28:32
  Speaker 1: do not overturn Idaho Court's interpretation of the statute, the
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: case law, and the criminal Rules, specifically six through six
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: dot eight I dot C dot R that the standard
• 28:44
  Speaker 1: for the grand jury to indict is probable cause. Therefore,
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: the Court denies Coberger's motion to dismiss the indictment based
• 28:52
  Speaker 1: on his claim of inaccurate instructions to the grand jury
• 28:55
  Speaker 1: in order to warrant an indictment. This was dated December
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: fifteenth of twenty twenty three, and this was signed by
• 29:04
  Speaker 1: Judge Judge all Right, folks, that's gonna do it for
• 29:06
  Speaker 1: this one. All of the information that goes with this
• 29:09
  Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box T Mobile
• 29:13
  Speaker 1: five G Home Internet