A decision released on Friday by the presiding judge, Steven Hippler, specified that the bifurcated defense counsel for defendant Bryan Kohberger will be barred from introducing evidence that the defendant is autistic in the forthcoming capital trial, unless Kohberger chooses to testify in his own defense.
Kohberger is facing four counts of first-degree murder concerning the deaths of Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin, who were killed at an off-campus residence in Moscow, Idaho, on November 13, 2022. Pleas of not guilty have been formally entered on his behalf.
The judge said he’d never seen any strange behavior from Kohberger during the hearings he’d presided over in the three quarters of year long trial, adding the defendant is diagnosed with the least impacting form of ASD and “by all accounts is highly-functioning.”
“Not once has the Court perceived Defendant to be acting in an odd or incongruent manner or otherwise demonstrating signs at counsel table that would warrant any explanation to the jury,” wrote Hippler.
His defense counsel petitioned the court to allow them to inform the jury during the initial trial opening statements of the nature of Kohberger's condition. They seek to illuminate, for the jury, the nature of the defendant's behavior that otherwise might be seen as strange or suspicious.
Autism spectrum disorder is classified as a neurological and developmental disorder that can profoundly affect a person's ability to interact and communicate with others. It also hampers a person's ability to learn. Behaviorally, a person with an autism spectrum disorder may respond in a way that seems unusual or unexpected. Though specific symptoms and their severity vary widely from person to person, autism is a disorder that colors nearly every aspect of a person's life.
Nonetheless, the motion was denied by Honorable Judge Steven Hippler on Friday. Unless the defendant chooses to take the stand, how he acts remains unimportant to the case.
Hippler said that intensifying the emphasis on the issue during opening statements and with expert testimony would make the already long trial even longer and likely confuse the jury.
It is a well-established principle that jury members are usually told to think only about the evidence brought out in court and to judge the worthiness of the witnesses who speak there, without letting any thoughts about the people who do not speak in court affect their judgments.
Hippler noted in a footnote that lawyers might ask potential jurors during the voir dire process if the defendant Kohberger's behavior at the defense table could affect their judgment.
The defense counsel for the defendant, Kohberger, has been told that he can no longer present expert testimony that Kohberger is not capable of committing the alleged crimes because he has a developmental coordination disorder.
Judge Hippler stated that none of the specialist witnesses picked by the defense have mentioned the assertion that Kohberger has that disorder. In fact, they have not even given a professional opinion about whether Kohberger has the kind of capacity that would allow him to commit the acts with which he is charged.
Additionally, the jury may hear about Kohberger's obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) during the defense's case-in-chief. Judge Hippler has signaled that he will defer ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony concerning Kohberger's OCD until trial. This is particularly so because the prosecution may make certain arguments that raise the issue of Kohberger's state of mind, especially related to claims by the police Kohberger destroying evidence right before law enforcement arrested him at his parents’ home in Pennsylvania.
“By way of example, he notes that just prior to his arrest, law enforcement saw him wearing gloves and handling baggies. Believing he was destroying evidence, law enforcement abbreviated its knock and announce procedure,” Hippler wrote. “If the State introduces this or similar evidence at trial, Defendant asserts that evidence of his OCD would be relevant rebuttal to offer another explanation for his behavior.”
If the defendant, Kohberger, is found guilty, the same jury will next decide whether to impose capital punishment.The defense will present evidence that Kohberger has a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and that should be considered in deciding how to punish Kohberger if the jury finds him guilty.
In addition, the defense has argued that Kohberger's autism diagnosis is a reason he should be disqualified from the death penalty. But the judge has not yet indicated which way he is leaning on that motion.
Title: Understanding Voir Dire: A Crucial Component of the Jury Selection Process
In the American legal system, especially in jury trials, the process called "voir dire" is of utmost importance. Derived from a French phrase that means "to speak the truth," voir dire is done for a very specific reason and carries with it much historical and legal weight. It is a process that, when performed properly, helps ensure that a jury is both fair and impartial—an essential component of any legal case.
The process of voir dire usually develops in this manner:
1. Juror questioning: A judge and the...
2. Cause Challenges: Lawyers may assert that a juror is not suitable for the case due to specific biases or conflicts of interest. If the judge finds sufficient reason, the juror is dismissed.
3. Peremptory Challenges: Each party is given a few peremptory challenges, which allows them to get rid of jurors they don't want without saying why. This is a
Significance:
Voir dire is more than just jury selection. It is a mechanism of justice. And it serves, in particular, to select a jury that can do its job—that is, a jury that can hear a case and render a verdict more or less on the basis of the evidence presented. All of this goes to the strength of the appearance and the reality of the judicial system.
Eddie Price
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voir_dire
https://witnessdirectory.com/signup.php
