Cleveland For Congress
Cleveland For Congress

Idaho Dispatch

Your Local Media Ally

Von Ehlinger’s Appeal in ISC Awaiting Response by Idaho, AG’s Office Continues Delays and Extensions

By • October 8, 2023

Aaron von Ehlinger’s appeal regarding the conviction of raping a Legislative intern is awaiting a response brief due from Idaho Deputy Attorney General Kenneth Jorgensen. Jorgensen has been granted two extensions by the court, and now possibly a third delay.

Idaho Dispatch has covered this story in depth. You can read the history here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. In July 2023 we covered the appeal filed by von Ehlinger in the Idaho Supreme Court. You can find that story here.

As noted by von Ehlinger’s attorney Eric Fredericksen in the appeal, the arguments for vacating the conviction are,

I. The District Court Committed Fundamental Error By Allowing The FACES Nurse To Offer Testimonial Statements Allegedly Made By J.V. At Trial In Violation Of The Confrontation Clause Of The Sixth Amendment To The United States Constitution

Ms. Wardle’s Testimony Violated Aaron’s Unwaived Right To Cross-Examine Testimonial Evidence Under The Sixth Amendment Of The United States Constitution

The District Court’s Clear Error Was Not Harmless, Because The Record Shows That It Actually Affected The Outcome Of The Proceedings

II. The District Court Erred In Overruling Defense Counsel’s Objection To The State’s Leading Question On Whether A Forcible Rape Occurred

III.
The State Failed To Offer Admissible Evidence To Prove The Crime Of Rape Beyond A Reasonable Doubt

071223+Appellants+Brief+_+State+v+Von+Ehlinger+_+D_231006_140557

The attorney representing the State of Idaho is Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General. Jorgensen filed the State’s first extension request on August 9, 2023. The motion was granted, pushing the due date for the State’s brief to September 6, 2023. Jorgensen explained in his motion,

“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.”

080923_UNCONTESTED_MOTION_FOR_EXTENSION_OF_TIME_231006_133248

Jorgensen filed his second Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Respondent’s Brief on September 6, 2023. In the second extension request, he detailed the cases that have kept him from preparing for the von Ehlinger appeal, as well as his oversight of other attorneys and paralegals in the Attorney General’s office, a conference he spoke at, and also a vacation he took.

“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, I have filed and/or been involved in the research and writing of briefs and other pleadings in State v. Best, #50051, State v. Soliz, #49848, State v. Fueller, #50052, State v. Chavez, #49953, State v. Spencer, #49894, State v. Berryman, #50226, State v. Garrett, #50545, State v. Scott, ##50443/50444, State v. Van Rossum, ##50414/50415/50416, State v. Schultz, #50349, State v. Iacono, #50221, State v. Hill, #50299, State v. Leighton, #50304, State v. Waynewood, #50305, State v. Zamora, #50194, State v. Henneman, #50429, State v. Leonard, #50411, State v. Haddox, #49741, State v. Crofts, #50535, State v. Balderas, ##50101/50102, State v. Smith, #49845, 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. Reyes, #49681, before the Idaho Court of Appeals, on August 22; I attended and presented at the 2023 IPAA Summer Conference, August 9 – 11; and, I have reviewed and edited the work product of other attorneys and paralegals in the Appellate Unit. I was also out of the office August 28 – September 1, 2023, on scheduled vacation.”

090623-UNCONTESTED-MOTION-FOR-SECOND-EXTENSION_231006_133140

The deadline for the second granted extension in this case was October 4, 2023. As of Friday, October 6, 2023, no additional documents were available from the court clerk. It is unclear at this time if a response brief has in fact been submitted by Jorgensen on behalf of the State of Idaho, or whether a third motion for extension has been filed. We will update this story if additional information can be obtained.

Of possible interest or relevance in this case, Eric Fredericksen, von Ehlinger’s attorney, was appointed to the position of State Public Defender in an office newly created by Brad Little through tax relief legislation, the Office of the State Public Defender. Idaho Dispatch published Little’s press release here on September 20, 2023. The documents available to date, including the most recent on September 6, 2023, still list Fredericksen under his previous title, State Appellate Public Defender.

 

Feature photo courtesy of Boise State Public Radio

Amazon Outlet


Tags: Aaron von Ehlinger, Appeal, Deputy Attorney General, Eric Fredericksen, Idaho Supreme Court, Kenneth Jorgensen, Legislative Intern, Rape

4 thoughts on “Von Ehlinger’s Appeal in ISC Awaiting Response by Idaho, AG’s Office Continues Delays and Extensions

  1. The trial was bogus and the sixth amendment was obviously violated.
    The delays I believe are just to hold him in prison longer because they know the Supreme Court will have a hard time ruling in favor of the state, as much as they may want to. They may not be ready to so obviously reveal to the people that we aren’t a constitutional republic anymore.
    He did not rape Jasmine Vega. There was no force about it. I understand she ran out of the courtroom during trial to avoid being confronted for cross examination by the defense and the court allowed it to go on. Wicked Bananas!!!

  2. Well, the IDOC says he’s not in custody, so Nevermind about trying to hold him longer if that is so. Still this shouldn’t be delayed.

  3. There is a legitimate argument to be made here that it is Scott Bedke that should be on trial here, not this guy.

Leave a Reply

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