BOISE, Idaho — Former Idaho lawmaker Aaron Von Ehlinger has filed a reply brief in the appeal against his conviction for raping a legislative intern in 2021.
- His legal team contends that his 6th Amendment rights were violated were violated during the trial.
- The case is awaiting a hearing date for oral arguments in front of the Idaho Supreme Court.
(The following is a transcription of the full broadcast story.)
In 2022, former Idaho lawmaker Aaron Von Ehlinger was convicted of raping a legislative intern in March of 2021. Soon after he was sentenced, he filed an appeal. After months of deadline extensions, his legal team filed a reply with the Idaho Supreme Court in late March. “In Idaho, a Supreme Court appeal consists of basically 3 written briefs, and then an oral argument before the court,” says Former Idaho Attorney General, David Leroy.
According to former Attorney General David Leroy, “one of the principal issues framed in the briefing is the question about hearsay—whether one person can talk about something they heard.” The latest appeal brief from his legal team contends that Von Ehlinger’s 6th Amendment right was violated during the 2022 trial.
Von Ehlinger wants a new trial, claiming he was convicted almost exclusively on the out-of-court statements of the non-testifying alleged victim, instead relayed by the forensic nurse who examined the victim after the incident. Ehlinger argues that the admission of those out-of-court statements violated his 6th Amendment right to confront his accuser and the right of the defense to cross-examine the witness.
Furthermore, Mr. Von Ehlinger freely admits that he had intimate consensual contact with the alleged victim. Von Ehlinger’s defense additionally argues that the prosecutor resorted to leading questions during testimony, continuing that the district court’s error in allowing that question to be answered was prejudicial. The court of appeal won't be revisiting evidence or re-hearing the case; they are only reassessing the actions of the lower court in the initial trial, and only after that hearing will be determined whether a new trial is granted.
The court's final decision could have greater implications beyond this case.“The Supreme Court decisions as a body constitute precedent, and they can either rely on that precedent to affirm something, they can explain that precedent to clarify something, or they can reverse that precedent to make new law,” says Leroy.
