Podcasts about idaho supreme court

The Idaho State Supreme Court will hear three cases in the Manwaring Center in Special Events room 387. The first case starts at 8:45 a.m. The cases will be followed by a Q&A session at 12:30 p.m.

She's been convicted three times. In two states. By three different juries. She's serving seven life sentences. And Lori Vallow Daybell is still trying to find a way out.Her Idaho appeal is now fully briefed and sitting before the state Supreme Court. Five constitutional claims. A fifty-nine-page prosecution response. And a reply brief that tries to repackage the same arguments the state already dismantled. The defense says the court took her lawyer, violated her rights while she was incompetent, let in prejudicial evidence, and denied her a speedy trial. The state says her lawyer had an irreconcilable conflict because he also represented her co-conspirator husband — who paid for the attorney — and that she caused most of the delays herself through competency evaluations and a venue change she requested.Meanwhile, Arizona told its own story. Lori represented herself in two conspiracy trials and lost both. She was convicted of conspiring to kill her ex-husband Charles Vallow and of conspiring to kill Brandon Boudreaux. One jury came back in three hours. The other in thirty minutes. She called no witnesses in either trial. The sentencing judge said her manipulation was unparalleled in his career and told her she'd eventually fade into obscurity.Every appeal claim follows the same playbook — reframe her own decisions as the system's failure. It's the same logic that turned her children into zombies, her husband into a dark spirit, and murder into a religious mission. The audience changed from a circle of believers to the Idaho Supreme Court. The performance hasn't changed at all. Three juries saw through it. The justices will too.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#LoriVallowDaybell #TrueCrimeToday #ChadDaybell #JJVallow #TyleeRyan #DoomsdayMom #Appeal #IdahoSupremeCourt #MurderTrial #TrueCrime

Lori Vallow Daybell murdered her children. A jury confirmed it. And now she wants the Idaho Supreme Court to give her a do-over.Her appellate attorney filed five constitutional claims — her chosen attorney was improperly removed, she was denied counsel during a critical hearing, the court acted while she was incompetent, Arizona evidence prejudiced the jury, and her speedy trial rights were violated. The state fired back with a fifty-nine-page rebuttal that leaves nothing standing. Her lawyer had a real conflict — he simultaneously represented her co-conspirator husband, who paid for the representation. Her competency stays consumed 353 days. She requested the venue change that added months. And the Arizona evidence the defense calls prejudicial? Three separate juries have now confirmed it was accurate.But the most damning evidence against this appeal didn't come from any brief. It came from Arizona. Lori represented herself in two conspiracy trials and lost both. She compared conspiracy to Judas in her opening statement and was told she was arguing, not presenting. She confronted the judge and was removed from the courtroom. She presented no evidence, called no witnesses, and maintained her innocence through sentencing — where the judge told her she'd shown blatant disregard for humanity and should never be released.The appeal follows the same pattern as the crimes. Every choice reframed as someone else's failure. Every consequence treated as persecution. At her Idaho sentencing, she said Jesus Christ knows no one was murdered in this case. At her Arizona sentencing, she said if she were accountable, she'd acknowledge it. Seven life sentences later, the performance continues. The justices will see through it.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#LoriVallow #DoomsdayMom #JJVallow #TyleeRyan #ChadDaybell #TammyDaybell #IdahoAppeal #TrueCrime #HiddenKillers #MurderConviction

The appeal is fully briefed. The Idaho Supreme Court has the case. And every single argument Lori Vallow Daybell's team has raised collapses under the facts.Her appellate attorney Craig Durham filed five constitutional claims — removal of her chosen attorney Mark Means, denial of counsel during a disqualification hearing, due process violations during her incompetency, improper admission of Arizona 404(b) evidence, and speedy trial violations. Deputy Attorney General Jeff Nye responded with fifty-nine pages that dismantle each claim methodically. Means had a documented conflict — he represented both Lori and Chad, who paid for the representation and claimed Means as his attorney in a recorded jail call. The competency evaluations consumed 353 days. The venue change she requested required massive logistical coordination. And the Arizona evidence the defense calls prejudicial has now been validated by three separate guilty verdicts.What makes this appeal impossible to take seriously goes beyond the briefing. While the Idaho appeal was pending, Lori went to Arizona and represented herself in two conspiracy trials. She was convicted of conspiring to kill Charles Vallow and conspiring to kill Brandon Boudreaux. She compared conspiracy to Judas in her opening. She was escorted out of her own courtroom. She called no witnesses and presented no evidence in either trial. The Boudreaux jury deliberated for thirty minutes. Judge Beresky told her at sentencing that her manipulation was unparalleled and that she would fade into obscurity.She now has seven life sentences across two states. She told the Idaho court that Jesus Christ knows no one was murdered. She told the Arizona court that if she were accountable, she'd say so. The appeal is the same pattern — every choice reframed as persecution, every consequence as injustice. The justices have everything they need.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#LoriVallowDaybell #ChadDaybell #DaybellCase #JJVallow #TyleeRyan #TammyDaybell #IdahoSupremeCourt #Appeal #DoomsdayMom #CultMom

Lori Vallow Daybell is now asking the Idaho Supreme Court to overturn her murder convictions, arguing that her constitutional rights were violated during the case. In this video, we break down the appeal, the legal arguments behind it, and what this could mean moving forward. Her attorneys argue that the court violated her right to a speedy trial, improperly removed her chosen counsel, and made key legal decisions while her competency was still being evaluated. After one of the most infamous true crime cases in recent history, this appeal could become a major new chapter. Subscribe for more true crime updates, legal breakdowns, and courtroom coverage.

On the morning of May 5th, 1979, four residents of Estevan, Saskatchewan boarded a small Cessna bound for Boise, Idaho on what was supposed to be a day trip. By that afternoon, the plane was down in a remote canyon in the Salmon River Mountains, two of the four passengers were dead, and two badly injured survivors were completely alone. No gear. No supplies. No rescue coming. What Donna Johnson and Brent Dyer did over the next nineteen days to stay alive is one of the most remarkable — and least known — survival stories in North American history. This episode does not look away from any of it. Timestamps: 01:07 Crash Begins In Idaho 03:15 Meet The Passengers 05:28 Weather Route Decision 07:12 Impact And Injuries 10:51 Losses And Isolation 12:18 Search Misses Them 12:58 Cold Hunger And Journaling 15:25 Unthinkable Choice 18:25 Decision To Walk Out 21:53 Nineteen Day Escape 23:24 Rescue And Home News 24:30 Puppy And Lawsuit Fallout 27:01 Faith Legacy And Closing Listen AD FREE: Support our podcast at patreaon: http://patreon.com/TheCruxTrueSurvivalPodcast Email us! thecruxsurvival@gmail.com Instagram https://www.instagram.com/thecruxpodcast/ Get schooled by Julie in outdoor wilderness medicine! https://www.headwatersfieldmedicine.com/   REFERENCES Johnson v. Pischke, 108 Idaho 397, 700 P.2d 19 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1985) Gzowski, Peter. The Sacrament. Atheneum Books, 1980. "We Had to Eat Him and We Did." Maclean's, June 11, 1979. Timson, Judith. "Survival on Faith and Human Flesh." Maclean's, October 6, 1980. "Father's Protective Instinct Led to Miracle in Idaho Mountains." Regina Leader-Post, May 26, 1979. "Pair Walk Away from Crash Site." Lawrence Journal-World, May 26, 1979. "Air Crash Survivor Recounts Ordeal." Brandon Sun, June 1, 1979. Penn, Alix and Carmella Lowkis. "ICE Part II — The Crash of the Skyhawk." Casting Lots: A Survival Cannibalism Podcast, December 2020. Emilson, K. When Memories Remain, 3rd ed. Perpetual Books, 2018. "Brent Dyer Survived a Plane Crash — Extraordinary Lives." YouTube, DoxNM, 2017. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Idaho Supreme Court heard arguments last Friday on the Parental Choice Tax Credit, a policy that lawmakers passed last year allowing parents to write off up to $5,000 in private education expenses on their state taxes. Producer Logan Finney sat down after the hearing with Chris Cargill, president of the Mountain States Policy Center, to get his take on the court challenge.

Lori Vallow Daybell murdered her two children. A jury said so. Now she's arguing that her constitutional rights were violated and she deserves a new trial. Prosecutors in Idaho just filed a 59-page response that tears every single claim apart. Her attorney had an impossible conflict of interest — representing both Lori and Chad Daybell simultaneously while Chad paid the bills. She was found incompetent twice, accounting for nearly a year of delays she's now complaining about. The Arizona evidence she wanted excluded? It proved the entire pattern: Chad declares someone has a "dark spirit," Alex Cox kills them, and Lori collects the insurance money. That's not prejudicial — that's the blueprint. We go through each of her five claims and show you exactly why this appeal has no foundation. Seven-year-old JJ was found with a plastic bag taped over his head, his wrists and ankles bound. Sixteen-year-old Tylee was burned and dismembered. Their mother spent those months in Hawaii, collecting their Social Security checks and marrying Chad Daybell. And now, from a prison cell, she's still playing the victim. The Idaho Supreme Court hasn't scheduled oral arguments yet. But based on the state's devastating response, this appeal is going nowhere.#LoriVallow #ChadDaybell #TrueCrime #HiddenKillers #CultMom #JJVallow #TyleeRyan #IdahoSupremeCourt #Appeal #JusticeJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISDOES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

Lori Vallow Daybell wants a new trial. Prosecutors just explained why she'll never get one. The Idaho Attorney General's office filed a 59-page brief this week responding to the "Cult Mom's" appeal, and it's a comprehensive takedown of all five constitutional claims. Her attorney conflict argument? Mark Means represented both Lori and Chad Daybell at the same time — co-conspirators in a capital murder case. Chad paid for the representation. The court had no choice but to disqualify him. Her speedy trial claim? She was found incompetent twice, resulting in 353 days of delays. She requested the venue change. You don't get to cause delays and then complain about them. The Arizona evidence showing the "dark spirit" pattern was properly admitted because it proved intent, plan, and modus operandi. Charles Vallow was declared "dark" and killed. Brandon Boudreaux was declared "dark" and shot at. Tammy Daybell was declared "dark" and died. JJ and Tylee were declared "dark" — and their bodies were found buried in Chad's backyard. Seven-year-old JJ was suffocated with a plastic bag taped over his head. Tylee's remains were burned. Lori spent those months collecting their Social Security in Hawaii. The Idaho Supreme Court will hear this appeal eventually. But the state's response makes clear: there's no constitutional violation here. Just a convicted murderer looking for an exit.#LoriVallowDaybell #Appeal #IdahoSupremeCourt #TrueCrime #ChadDaybell #JJVallow #TyleeRyan #CultMom #DoomsdayMom #CourtUpdateJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISDOES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

In this episode, we continue breaking down the State of Idaho's response to Lori Vallow Daybell's appeal, picking up deep into the brief as the State dismantles claims of constitutional violations.The State argues that Lori Vallow failed all three prongs of the fundamental error test — including claims that her Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated and that her due process rights were ignored while she was deemed incompetent.We walk through why the court says Mark Means had the opportunity to respond but chose not to, why this was not a structural error, and why any alleged error would be considered harmless under existing case law.The episode also dives into the key issue of competency, explaining why hearings held in Chad Daybell's separate criminal case did not violate Lori Vallow's rights — including her right not to be prosecuted while incompetent or her right to be physically present.This section of the appeal gives rare insight into what was happening behind the scenes while much of the case was under seal — and why the State is confident none of these arguments will impact her Idaho conviction.ALL MERCH 10% off with code Sherlock10 at checkout  - NEW STYLES Donate: (Thank you for your support! Couldn't do what I love without all y'all) PayPal - paypal.com/paypalme/prettyliesandalibisVenmo - @prettyliesalibisBuy Me A Coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/prettyliesrCash App- PrettyliesandalibisAll links: https://linktr.ee/prettyliesandalibisMerch: prettyliesandalibis.myshopify.comPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/PrettyLiesAndAlibis(Weekly lives and private message board)00:00 – Intro & Where We Left OffRecap of the series and picking back up in the State's response to Lori Vallow's appeal00:55 – Mark Means & Alleged Right-to-Counsel ViolationState argues Means had the opportunity to respond but chose not to02:17 – Fundamental Error Test: “Error Plainly Exists”Explanation of the second prong of the Perry test and why the State says Vallow fails it04:18 – Misuse of Bodenbach ComparisonWhy the Idaho Supreme Court's Bodenbach ruling does not apply here06:34 – Harmless Error vs Structural ErrorState argues this was not a complete deprivation of counsel08:52 – Hearings Focused on Chad Daybell, Not Lori VallowWhy Means' limited role did not violate Vallow's Sixth Amendment rights10:01 – No Showing of PrejudiceState explains why Vallow's arguments are speculative and unsupported11:19 – New Argument: Due Process & CompetencyWhether Vallow's rights were violated while she was deemed incompetent13:04 – Right Not to Be Prosecuted While IncompetentIdaho law on suspension of proceedings and why it didn't apply here16:37 – Separate Criminal Case ExplainedWhy hearings in Chad Daybell's case did not violate Vallow's rights18:55 – Balancing Competing Constitutional RightsCourt's duty to protect conflict-free counsel and fairness of proceedings21:10 – Mark Means' Actions During IncompetencyWhy the court acted quickly to disqualify Means22:33 – Court Left Door Open After Restoration to CompetencyOpportunity Vallow had to revisit issues later24:01 – Right to Be Present at HearingsWhy due process does not require presence in another defendant's case26:24 – Why Vallow's Presence Would Not Have Changed AnythingCompetency, waiver issues, and harmless error analysis29:39 – Failure to Show Error Plainly Exists (Again)State argues tactical decisions undermine Vallow's claims33:03 – Harmless Error Analysis AppliesWhy prejudice cannot be presumed36:14 – Wrapping Up & What's NextPreview of the next episode and appeal timeline going forwardBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.

Part 2 breaking down the state's response to Lori Daybell's appeal motion:The State of Idaho is asking the Idaho Supreme Court to uphold Lori Vallow Daybell's murder convictions and life sentence without parole. Prosecutors argue the trial court acted correctly in all respects and that Vallow's constitutional claims fail.The State says Vallow's original attorney was properly disqualified due to a serious conflict of interest after representing both Vallow and Chad Daybell during the alleged conspiracy. Because Vallow was incompetent at the time, prosecutors argue she could not legally waive that conflict, and the court was right to reject any waiver given the severity of the case.The brief also rejects claims that Vallow's rights were violated when hearings occurred during her incompetency, defends the admission of prior-acts evidence from Arizona to show motive and conspiracy, and argues trial delays were justified and did not violate speedy trial rights. The State asks the court to affirm the convictions .All links: https://linktr.ee/prettyliesandalibisDonate: (Thank you for your support! Couldn't do what I love without all y'all) PayPal - paypal.com/paypalme/prettyliesandalibisVenmo - @prettyliesalibisBuy Me A Coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/prettyliesrCash App- PrettyliesandalibisMerch: prettyliesandalibis.myshopify.com  - 10% off with code Sherlock10Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/PrettyLiesAndAlibis(Weekly lives and private message board)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdf

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdf

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdf

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdf

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdf

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Is Nahom really the strongest evidence for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon? In this episode, we take a deep dive into noe of the most cited archaeological “proofs” of the Book of Mormon -the discovery of altars inscribed with the letters NHM in Yemen.John Dehlin and attorney and former clerk from the Idaho Supreme Court, Kolby Reddish examine what the text of the Book of Mormon actually says about Nahom, where it's supposed to be located, and whether the archaeological evidence matches up. Along the way, we look at how apologists, scholars, and critics have each interpreted this find -and what it really says about the historicity of the Book of Mormon.We also examine whether or not Joseph Smith could have known about Nahom (or Nehem) from maps or Biblical references, and how issues like confirmation bias and faith-based reasoning play into the debate.This conversation aims to be evidence-based, thoughtful, and respectful -seeking understanding amid polarization in the Mormon and ex-Mormon communities.___________________YouTubeAt Mormon Stories we explore, celebrate, and challenge Mormon culture through in-depth stories told by members and former members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as well as scholars, authors, LDS apologists, and other professionals.  Our overall mission is to: 1. Facilitate informed consent amongst LDS Church members, investigators, and non-members regarding Mormon history, doctrine, and theology2. Support Mormons (and members of other high-demand religions) who are experiencing a religious faith crisis3. Promote healing, growth and community for those who choose to leave the LDS Church or other high demand religions

Is Nahom really the strongest evidence for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon? In this episode, we take a deep dive into one of the most cited archaeological “proofs” of the Book of Mormon -the discovery of altars inscribed with the letters NHM in Yemen.John Dehlin and attorney and former clerk from the Idaho Supreme Court, Kolby Reddish examine what the text of the Book of Mormon actually says about Nahom, where it's supposed to be located, and whether the archaeological evidence matches up. Along the way, we look at how apologists, scholars, and critics have each interpreted this find -and what it really says about the historicity of the Book of Mormon.We also examine whether or not Joseph Smith could have known about Nahom (or Nehem) from maps or Biblical references, and how issues like confirmation bias and faith-based reasoning play into the debate.This conversation aims to be evidence-based, thoughtful, and respectful -seeking understanding amid polarization in the Mormon and ex-Mormon communities.Show NotesYouTubeMormon Stories Thanks Our Generous Donors!Help us continue to deliver quality content by becoming a donor today:One-time or recurring donation through DonorboxSupport us on PatreonPayPalVenmoOur Platforms:YouTubePatreonSpotifyApple PodcastsContact us:MormonStories@gmail.comPO Box 171085, Salt Lake City, UT 84117Social Media:Insta: @mormstoriesTikTok: @mormonstoriespodcastJoin the Discord

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Idaho Supreme Court has granted a change of venue for Bryan Kohberger's trial, moving it from Latah County to Ada County. This decision was made after Kohberger's defense raised concerns over finding an impartial jury in the original county due to the high-profile nature of the case. Kohberger is accused of the brutal murders of four University of Idaho students in November 2022, a crime that has garnered significant media attention and community impact.In addition to the venue change, the Idaho courts have assigned District Judge Steven Hippler from the Fourth Judicial District to oversee the case moving forward. Kohberger, who has been in custody since his arrest, will be transferred to the Ada County Jail as the trial preparations continue. This move aims to ensure a fair trial by reducing local bias that could influence the outcome. The upcoming proceedings are expected to be closely watched as the legal process advances in a new jurisdiction.(commercial at 8:45)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bryan Kohberger judge announces new location for Idaho murders trial | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Gag orders, also known as prior restraint orders, are restrictions on speech or the press that are imposed by the government or the courts. The constitutionality of gag orders depends on the specific circumstances of each case and the specific restrictions imposed.In general, the First Amendment of the US Constitution protects freedom of speech and of the press, and restrictions on speech are subject to strict scrutiny by the courts.However, under certain circumstances, the government may impose restrictions on speech in order to protect important interests, such as national security, the integrity of the judicial process, or the privacy rights of individuals.In such cases, the courts will balance the government's interests against the First Amendment rights of the speaker or the press. If the restrictions are deemed to be narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means of achieving the government's interest, they may be upheld as constitutional. However, if the restrictions are overly broad or unnecessarily restrictive, they may be struck down as unconstitutional.In this episode we get the decision from the supreme court who has ruled that the gag order will stay in place.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho murders: Court denies request to lift gag order in case of Bryan Kohberger, man accused of killing 4 college students - CBS NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Idaho's strict abortion bans have made national headlines, and now a citizen-led initiative is fighting back. Idahoans United for Women & Families Executive Director Melanie Folwell joins host Lindsay Van Allen to explain what the campaign is doing to bring reproductive rights to the ballot, why the Idaho Supreme Court just sided with them, and how they're trying to make up lost time in gathering signatures.  Want some more Boise news? Head over to our Hey Boise newsletter where you'll get a cheatsheet to the city every weekday morning. Interested in advertising with City Cast Boise? Find more info HERE. Reach us at boise@citycast.fm. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

​In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the defense filed a motion to strike the death penalty, citing Kohberger's diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) as a mitigating factor. The State opposed this motion, arguing that under both U.S. Supreme Court and Idaho Supreme Court precedents, only intellectual disability—not ASD—precludes the imposition of the death penalty. The State emphasized that Kohberger's ASD diagnosis does not equate to intellectual disability, as he has been assessed with a high IQ and no accompanying intellectual impairments. Furthermore, the State contended that there is no national consensus or legislative action recognizing ASD as a condition warranting exemption from capital punishment. Therefore, they assert that Kohberger's ASD diagnosis does not diminish his culpability or the applicability of the death penalty in this case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-Motion-Strike-Death-Penalty-Re-Autism-Spectrum-Disorder.pdf

​In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the defense filed a motion to strike the death penalty, citing Kohberger's diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) as a mitigating factor. The State opposed this motion, arguing that under both U.S. Supreme Court and Idaho Supreme Court precedents, only intellectual disability—not ASD—precludes the imposition of the death penalty. The State emphasized that Kohberger's ASD diagnosis does not equate to intellectual disability, as he has been assessed with a high IQ and no accompanying intellectual impairments. Furthermore, the State contended that there is no national consensus or legislative action recognizing ASD as a condition warranting exemption from capital punishment. Therefore, they assert that Kohberger's ASD diagnosis does not diminish his culpability or the applicability of the death penalty in this case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-Motion-Strike-Death-Penalty-Re-Autism-Spectrum-Disorder.pdf