|
REPORT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IN REPLY
|
|
Message Subject
|
Idaho 4 Murders!!!!Bryan Kohberger arrested!!Waived right to speedy trial!
|
|
Poster Handle
|
Anonymous Coward |
|
Post Content
|
...
Oh boy...all the people that keep saying the pca is just an inkling of all the evidence le has are about to get real silent about all this.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 84361361 A lot of discovery is still in working mode It’s a gray area on if they have an informant and or co-defendant based on their response, should be interesting Here are all the responses to BCK discovery requests [ link to coi.isc.idaho.gov (secure)] . The prosecutor was answering all of the defense attorney's questions based on the Idaho Law for Mandatory Disclosure of Evidence and Material by the Prosecution, one of the mandatory questions by law in Idaho is regarding co-defendant and the prosecution must answer with a yes or no and include that with all the other requests they have to answer by law. The prosecutor does not get to not disclose, they must answer every question under Idaho law. The prosecutor can't just not reply is what I'm saying, they have to reply regardless if it is a yes or no. They have to submit everything mandatory by law with a response of yes or no. If there was a co-defendant there would be charges, and publicly available. As I stated this is a working discovery, more will follow as information comes in 2. Any written or recorded statements of a co-defendant; and the substance of any relevant oral statement made by a co-defendant whether before or after arrest in response to interrogation by any person known by the co-defendant to be a peace officer or agent of the prosecuting attorney, have been or will be disclosed or otherwise made available. See Exhibit “A” 10. To the extent that information exists regarding an informant who is not going to be produced as a witness, including recordings or written statements of an informant or that identify an informant, such information is not subject to disclosure and the State asserts informant privilege under I.C.R. 16(g)(2), and prays for appropriate protective orders pursuant to I.C.R. 16(1) as necessary.11. The State objects to requests by the Defendant for anything not otherwise addressed above on the grounds that such requests are outside the scope of !.C.R. 16 and/or are not subject to disclosure under ICR 16(g) (work product and informants). 12. Wherever this Response indicates that certain evidence or materials have been or will be disclosed or otherwise made available, such indication should not be construed as confirmation that such evidence or materials exist, but simply as an indication that if such evidence or materials exist, they have been or will be disclosed or made available to the Defendant. [ link to coi.isc.idaho.gov (secure)] As the law clearly states, you the right to face your accuser. If an informant has witnessed something it would be fully disclosed, no getting around it, they will have to publicly testify. If an informant gave fake news to the police or the police are using fake news under the guise of an informant, there is no protection from prosecution. Either way it will be revealed, so there is no protection. I will say if there was an informant they would of been listed on court documents by initials already, and there is nothing of the sort. There are no secrets in a public court, no getting around it, if you're involved then you're involved, everyone has the right to face their accuser and the prosecutor can't hide behind a fake "sources say", that's what the fake news does.
|
|
|
Please verify you're human:
|
|
|
Reason for copyright violation:
|
