Court Summaries: September 11 – 15, 2023, and more documents from September 8

The lawyers want cameras removed from the courtroom, and the judge GOES OFF on the media (not really).

I am changing the title of this series to Court Summaries so that I can stop beating myself up for not having it done on the weekend, although that will still be my goal.

From now on, I will only summarize the main documents instead of everything.

Scheduled Hearings

Friday, September 22: [Edit: Rescheduled for October 26, 9:30am and 1:00pm, respectively.]

1. 10:30am PST: (Closed to the public and media) The court will hear Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment on Grounds of Biased Grand Jury, Inadmissible Evidence, Lack of Sufficient Evidence, and Prosecutorial Misconduct in Withholding Exculpatory Evidence

   • Notes: While we know little about the first motion because the documents are sealed and the hearing will be closed, we will still learn the court’s ruling when it happens.

2. 1:00pm PST: (Open to the public and media) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment on Grounds of Error in Grand Jury instructions or in the Alternative Remand for Preliminary Hearing

   • Notes: This hearing regards Logsdon’s motion that the burden of proof for a grand jury should be beyond a reasonable doubt. We can look forward to an entertaining back-and-forth between Bill Thompson, Judge², and Jay Logsdon.

Removal of Cameras from the Courtroom

Court Filings

The courthouse staff must have realized just before the start of the September 13 hearing that they forgot to upload some documents, because documents pertaining to the hearing dated September 8 were uploaded on September 13.

09/08/2023 Intervenors Opposition to Motion to Remove Cameras from Courtroom

The media coalition, represented by Wendy Olson, challenges the defense’s argument that cameras should be removed from the courtroom. The media argue that present-day cameras are much smaller than they were at the time of Estes v. State of Texas, and therefore will not cause obtrusiveness in the courtroom.

Moreover, the media coalition argues that the cameras have not focused exclusively on Kohberger since the court’s instruction, and the media cannot control the actions of people who manipulate the photos on social media.

Finally, the coalition argues that removal of cameras from the courtroom would have negative effects including a greater presence of the media in person, a less accurate portrayal of the judicial process, and lack of accessibility to community and family members.

09/08/2023 Declaration of Boone in Support of Opposition to Motion to Remove Cameras from the Courtroom

Rebecca Boone, the supervisory correspondent for Idaho for The Associated Press, writes a declaration in support of the media coalition’s opposition.

09/08/2023 Declaration of Wong in Support of Opposition to Motion to Remove Cameras from the Courtroom

Grace Wong, the Senior Director of Courtroom Coverage for Court TV, outlines Court TV’s coverage of other cases that resulted in both convictions and acquittals.

09/08/2023 Declaration of Olson in Support of Opposition to Motion to Remove Cameras from the Courtroom

An exhibit containing an article from The Idaho Statesman.

09/12/2023 Reply to Intervenors’ Opposition to Motion

The defense argues that the media just want to make money while claiming altruistic motives.

September 13 Hearing

The judge seemed concerned about the social media coverage of this case and wants to avoid a circus-like atmosphere. Jay Logdson proposed a C-SPAN setup with a stationary camera in the back that does not zoom in on the defendant. The judge seemed amenable to this arrangement but stated that he needed to think about the issue more before issuing a ruling.

My prediction: The judge will allow a stationary camera in the back with a warning that the camera can be removed at any time. I think that the judge will feel comfortable removing the camera in the future if the situation continues along its current trajectory.

Court Filings

The following documents pertain to the Motion to Dismiss the Indictment on Grounds of Biased Grand Jury, Inadmissible Evidence, Lack of Sufficient Evidence, and Prosecutorial Misconduct in Withholding Exculpatory Evidence pursuant to I.C.R. 6.3(c) and I.C.A.R. 32.

09/14/2023 Motion to Temporarily Seal

The state requests a temporary seal on their response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment.

09/14/2023 Motion to Temporarily Seal

The state requests a temporary seal on the exhibits attached to its response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment.

09/14/2023 Stipulated Motion for Closed Hearing

The state and defense agree to a closed hearing to address the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment.

My Suspicion

I have a suspicion about an issue that the defense may have raised under seal.

I.C.R. 6.3(c), the criminal rule that the defense asserts was violated, reads as follows (emphasis mine):

Every member of the grand jury must keep secret whatever was said or done in the grand jury proceedings and the vote of each grand juror on a matter before them; but a grand juror may be required by the district judge to disclose matters occurring before the grand jury which may constitute grounds for dismissal of an indictment or grounds for a challenge to a juror or the array of jurors. No other person present in a grand jury proceeding may disclose to any other person what was said or done in the proceeding, except by order of any court for good cause shown.

In Howard Blum’s The Eyes of a Killer: Part V—I read this article when I subscribed to Air Mail for one month, but I discontinued my subscription and now cannot quote the article—Blum quotes someone with knowledge of the grand jury proceedings as saying that the testimony of one of the surviving roommates, known as DM in the probable cause affidavit, left more questions than answers. Blum quotes the anonymous person directly.

This is the only information from the grand jury proceedings that has leaked out. The defense likely referenced Blum’s article in their sealed filing as evidence that I.C.R. 6.3(c) was violated.

The question remains, then, who the source was for Blum’s article. I highly doubt that prosecutor Bill Thompson was willing to speak to the media anonymously, especially to cast aspersions on one of the state’s witnesses. The source might be one of the grand jurors.

That said, if someone with knowledge of the grand jury proceedings was indeed a source for Blum, it is unlikely that this offense is substantial enough to overturn the indictment.