Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

John P. Luster

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Local Politics Image.jpg

Ballotpedia provides comprehensive election coverage of the 100 largest cities in America by population as well as mayoral, city council, and district attorney election coverage in state capitals outside of the 100 largest cities. This judge is outside of that coverage scope and does not receive scheduled updates.


BP-Initials-UPDATED.png
Ballotpedia does not currently cover this office or maintain this page. Please contact us with any updates.
John P. Luster

Silhouette Placeholder Image.png

Do you have a photo that could go here? Click here to submit it for this profile!


Idaho 1st Judicial District
Tenure
Present officeholder


John P. Luster is a senior judge for the First Judicial District of the Idaho District Courts.[1][2] He took senior status on May 1, 2013.[3]

2010 election

Luster was re-elected in 2010 after running unopposed.[4]

Ellington murder trial

On May 27, 2011, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a unanimous 32-page ruling that overturned Judge Luster's decision in the murder trial of Jonathan Ellington.[5]

In their decision, the justices alluded to prosecutorial misconduct and to the likelihood that an officer of the Idaho State Police had committed perjury during the original 2006 trial.[6]

In addition to concluding that the Kootenai County prosecutor Art Verharen engaged in misconduct during the trial, Justice Jones wrote that with respect to the testimony offered at the 2006 trial by Cpl. Fred Rice, an Idaho State Police officer, "It is impossible to believe there was any truth to the testimony of Cpl. Rice. It is abhorrent to this court, as it would be to any other court, that a man can be sentenced to twenty-five years for second-degree murder based primarily on the false testimony of a trooper of this state...It simply cannot be said that it was not probable that this new evidence that showed Cpl. Rice testified falsely, and likely intentionally, in the Ellington trial would have affected the jury’s determination of reasonable doubt, because it went straight to the heart of the defense’s main theory of the case."

The prosecutorial misconduct issue revolved around:

repeatedly reiterating the image of Mr. Ellington ‘running over’ Mr. Larsen’s ‘wife’ was wholly unnecessary. We are also troubled that the prosecutor seems to have completely ignored the court’s admonition to 'move on,' by immediately asking another inflammatory question. The court should not have to lecture the prosecutor in front of the jury in order to get its point across that the current line of questioning is inappropriate.[7]

[5]

See also

External links

Footnotes