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.

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.

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!