Powers On Policing

“Closure” and “Finality” Ring Hollow with Victim’s Families

Bryan Kohberger’s lifesaving plea has been accepted and he now resides in the care and custody of the Idaho corrections system. Presumably, for the rest of his life. He was not asked, nor did he volunteer a statement with an explanation or motive for the attacks, nor did he disclose the whereabouts of the weapon(s) and/or other evidence, nor did he offer any apologies or comfort to the surviving family members. He only said he was guilty and the prosecutor and judge took him at his word. The prosecutor and the trial judge are on record saying this outcome will bring some form of finality for the victims’ families and allow them to begin to move forward with their lives. In this episode, we address the shortsightedness of imagining there is ever finality to a highly publicized case in either courts of law or the court of public opinion. Bill explains that while Kohberger promised to never appeal the decision, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled a short seven years ago that the 6th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to an appeal even where a defendant waived that right as part of his plea agreement. Ironically in that case, SCOTUS overruled the Idaho Supreme Court who had previously denied the defendant his right to appeal. Bill addresses several legal scenarios where an appeal(s) could still be possible, if not probable, for Kohberger.   We look ahead and discuss the increasing media intensity that has been present from the moment the four victims were discovered in their off-campus housing early on a Sunday morning. This was never a local story, but one that was featured on national and international news platforms from the gruesome beginning through Kohberger’s sentencing. Now that previously withheld information and documentation have been released and the people with direct and indirect involvement in the investigation and prosecution are free to speak to the media, the doors have opened wide to the legions of people who want to question, speculate, and opine about the entire process. Similarly, the “experts” are lining up to offer their presumptions and opinions. Books and magazine articles are being written, movies and documentaries are already in production, podcasts and blogs dedicated to True Crime and psycho killers are churning out new episodes daily.  There is no chance or hope for finality to this story, and honestly there never was! The devastating and lasting impact this will have on the families and the Moscow community will play out over the coming years.

To Live or Die? He was Given a Choice: His Victims Were Not

In Part 2 of the discussion, Bill addresses how Bryan Kohberger used the Idaho death penalty statute to his advantage and eluded a jury decision that could have resulted in his death by a firing squad. Idaho, like most states with a death penalty statute relies on a bi-furcated trial system where the juries are tasked with two distinctly different responsibilities; 1) Determine if the defendant is guilty of the criminal charges or not, and if guilty, 2) What is the appropriate punishment in that jurisdiction. In all but two states with a death penalty statute, the jury delivers the final decision on sentencing, not the trial judge nor a panel of judges. So, if a defendant chooses to waive their right to a jury trial and pleads guilty before a single justice, their maximum sentence is reduced to a life in prison. Bill discusses how Massachusetts negated their death penalty statute in 1984 when their Supreme Judicial Court ruled the law unconstitutional because the majority believed the option of life or death to be coercive in nature and could sway an innocent defendant from their right to a fair trial because of a legitimate fear that if found guilty by a jury, they could be put to death. We close the segment with a look at the federal laws regarding the death penalty, and highlight a few notorious cases.

4 Slaughtered in Idaho and Their Killer Pleas for Mercy

There is no crime as alarming as the report of vicious, unexplained homicide. Multiply that by four, and learn that the victims are all college students and their community is a small town where acts of violence are rare. Add that the victims were butchered with a knife and the killer is unknown, and remains at large.  Bring on the helicopters, cameras and bright lights that always come with intense national media attention. The subsequent intrusion, scrutiny, speculation and judgmental finger-pointing about the investigation, creates an unease and cynicism among the townspeople that makes for an explosive, distrustful environment. Listen in as Bill and Jordan discuss the investigation into the mass murder in Moscow Idaho, and the successful, “under the radar” investigation that resulted in the arrest of Bryan Kohberger six weeks later at his home in Pennsylvania.

Do I need a Search Warrant? Let’s talk about it!

The 4th Amendment protects people from “unreasonable searches” by government officials. All other searches require a search warrant. How does a judge determine what is reasonable and what is not, and when is a warrant required to search? In the 1967 decision of Katz vs the United States, SCOTUS developed a seemingly simple test: Does the person(s) have a “reasonable expectant right of privacy”? A simple test that is part objective and part subjective with many factors to be considered. In this episode Bill discusses the two-prong test and gives examples of several situations that police confront with some regularity. For example, Is the potential evidence in plain view? Is all of a person’s land protected or are their limits? Is it in a common area where others have a right to be present? When trash is bagged for disposal, is it reasonable for the owner to expect that they retain privacy rights all the way to the transfer station? Jordan and Bill end this episode by opening a wider discussion about the rules governing “Terry Stops” and pat frisks. Stay tuned!

Search and Seizure and the Rules that Govern the Process

In this episode, Bill and Jordan begin a thorough examination into the complex subject and nature of investigative searches and seizures.  The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents government officials from conducting “unreasonable searches and seizures”. Under general circumstances, the laws of each state require there be a warrant, approved and signed by a judge or clerk of court, before any search and/or seizure of a person or their property can be performed. In most prosecutions, searches and/or seizures that resulted in the gathering of critical pieces of evidence are a primary point of contention both in pre-trial hearings and during a criminal trial. In reviewing the pertinent circumstances that led to the recovery of evidence, the court first considers whether the defendant had an “expectant right of privacy” in the area that was searched? If it is determined they did, then the follow-up concern is whether there was a need for a search warrant, or could the prosecutor demonstrate that the search met an exception to the warrant requirement established through previously established caselaw?  Bill closes out the episode with an explanation of the Exclusionary Rule created by the Supreme Court in the case of Mapp vs Ohio (1961). This landmark decision effectively prevents any ill-gotten evidence from being presented to a jury at trial.