Cleveland For Congress
Cleveland For Congress

Idaho Dispatch

Your Local Media Ally

Update on Von Ehlinger’s Supreme Court Appeal of Rape Conviction

By • October 11, 2023

Idaho Dispatch brought you new information on the Aaron von Ehlinger case two days ago. We now have another update.

As you will recall, von Ehlinger had appealed his rape conviction to the Idaho Supreme Court in July. Idaho Deputy Attorney General Kenneth K. Jorgensen filed motions for extensions of the State’s response in August and September. The response brief was due October 4.

Idaho Dispatch has now been able to access the most current court documents which show Jorgensen has filed a Motion for Third Extension of Time for Filing Respondent’s Brief. The explanation is similar to the reasoning used in the Second Extension of Time shown in our previous article. Jorgensen told the court,

“An extension of time is requested inasmuch as the Office of the Attorney General, owing to the large volume of criminal appeals, has been unable to process all briefs and other filings within the established time limits, and would be unable to adequately research the issues involved in the case if an extension of time were not granted. During the past 28 days, in addition to working on the brief due in the present case, I have filed and/or been involved in the research and writing of briefs and other pleadings in State v. Spencer, #49894, State v. Chavez, #49953, State v. Radue, #49945, State v. Fueller, #50052, State v. Myler, #50228, State v. Haddox, #49741, State v. Crofts, #50535, State v. Peterson, #50361, State v. Callahan, #50664, State v. Grist, ##50370/50371, State v. Guerrero, #50180, State v. Pratt, #50192, State v. Tucker, #50571, State v. Dalton, #50146, State v. Rudolph, #50271, State v. Freeman, #50567, State v. Whitaker, #50449, State v. Lacy, #49798, State v. Millar, #50377, State v. Robinson, ##50324/50325/50326/50327, State v. Robinson, #50385, and a Reply brief in Support of Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Idaho v. Dorff, No. 22-1226; I prepared for and presented oral argument in State v. Hoover, #49955, before the Idaho Court of Appeals, on September 14; and, I have reviewed and edited the work product of other attorneys and paralegals in the Appellate Unit. I also presented at a legal training in San Francisco, California, on September 12 and 13, 2023.”


This motion for extension has been granted by Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice G. Richard Bevan. Idaho’s brief in response to the appeal is now due November 1.

Amazon Outlet

4 thoughts on “Update on Von Ehlinger’s Supreme Court Appeal of Rape Conviction

  1. Raul!? Look at what your deputy is doing! Are you okay with this? Don’t you guys make an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution?!
    Isn’t it specifically enumerated in both the State and US Constitutions the right to confront your accuser? What evidence was there of rape? Was it sufficient to meet the elements? Something funny is going on with these juries in Ada County. It’s not good that our capital is there.
    Just another month in prison for a man falsely accused and falsely convicted of rape, it’s not happening to you so what does it matter?

    1. I think the entire affair should be examined…it looks like a set-up, it smells like a set-up, it feels like a set-up…
      Particularly when we see that Priscilla Giddings suffered a lawsuit from this very set-up which likely cost her the election.

      Same kind of thing we saw with Janice.

      Look at the accusers in those lawsuits and you may discover the real motive and the connections that make the use of our courts as election meddling/fixing components that indeed work to steal and change elections… Idahoans should take note. Americans should take note.

  2. It takes months to have any kind of proceeding set at any level in Idaho courts. Having been convicted doesn’t give you more rights than anyone else in any part of the judicial system. Garth seems a bit hungry this morning, attacking someone he considers an ally and feeding on his own. Do you not remember, the AG has said that his office is a political office, not a law firm. I’m pretty certain our AG doesn’t see any more political fodder coming from this case. Maybe he’s allowing an employee to actually do their job without fear of being fired.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *