4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #95

[Boxer]

Lying by omission? Absolutely not. They could be disbarred for that.

It is crystal clear that BK's attorneys really do believe he is innocent. Make no mistake about that.

I don't agree.
As I said MOO i dont believe defense attorneys seek establish the guilt or innocence of their client, they believe their client is actually the US Constitution, and their role is to defend individuals from violation of rights.
Its the responsibility of the state to prove otherwise than the individual is innocent.
And in BKs case they believe they can prevent a guilty verdict, <modsnip: NG does not equate to "innocent">

 

[jepop]

Yep, IMO the Defense will certainly go after any and all investigative and/or communication mistakes they can find in an attempt to show the prosecution did not do their job thoroughly or correctly.

I just finished bingeing the Netflix Docuseries on Scott Peterson (Murder of wife and unborn child). During trial, the defense came out of the gate attacking the prosecution's credibility. The prosecution had some rather disappointing days during that trial. In the end - Guilty, sentenced to Death (in a circumstantial evidence case). So, like others have said, it is expected (especially when there is no alibi).

Agree, par.for the course as far as defenses go. And BK's Defense is thorough and triple J is clearly alert and mindful to appellate matters. He has said a number of times, 'noone wants to do this a second time'; has allowed d motions re IGG, opening certain hearings, compelled le training records in early MTC etc.

Jmo A stranger murder is no easy thing to investigate and with inter agency assistance it appears to me that this was a highly complex and well organised investigation. And also kept under wraps to preserve integrity. Over 100 warrants and an investigative federal grand jury also used by fbi for 71 subpoenas ( source; open section of MTC hearing no 4 in June or July I forget):

So for starters I wouldn't think D would ultimately be successful if seeking to discredit on basis of tunnel vision for eg. With the resources used and the number of warrants and supeonas I'm pretty confident any other potential POIs were eliminated appropriately. Moo

 

[Boxer]

"Defense Strategies and Ethical Considerations​

It's your attorney's job to develop a defense strategy, not to judge you. Defense attorneys are ethically bound to zealously represent all clients, those whom they think will be justly found guilty as well as those whom they think are factually innocent. A vigorous defense is necessary to protect the innocent and to ensure that judges and citizens—and not the police—have the ultimate power to decide who is guilty of a crime.

In truth, the defense lawyer almost never really knows whether the defendant is guilty of a charged crime. Just because the defendant says he did it doesn't make it so. The defendant may be lying to take the rap for someone he wants to protect. Or the defendant might be guilty but of a different and lesser crime than the one being prosecuted by the district attorney. A defendant may have done the act in question but have a valid defense that would exonerate him. For these reasons, among others, defense lawyers often do not ask their clients if they committed the crime. Instead, the lawyer uses the facts to put on the best defense possible and leaves the question of guilt to the judge or jury.

What defense attorneys cannot do is lie to the judge or jury. For instance, a lawyer cannot specifically state that the defendant did not do something the lawyer knows the defendant did do. The lawyer also can't admit guilt against the client's wishes. Instead, the defense lawyer will focus their trial tactics and arguments on the government's failure to prove all the elements of the crime."

From NOLO.

Representing a Client the Lawyer Thinks Is Guilty

Does it matter if your lawyer thinks you committed the crime? It shouldn't.

www.nolo.com

So, I think AT is doing a good job.

 

[Betty P]

Lying by omission? Absolutely not. They could be disbarred for that.

It is crystal clear that BK's attorneys really do believe he is innocent. Make no mistake about that.

All I know is that they say they believe he’s innocent. JMO, it’s difficult to prove what a defense attorney believes at any point in time.

 

[Nila Aella]

Mark Geragos proclaimed Scott Peterson "Stone Cold Innocent" in court. Did he really believe it? Prior to him hiring him he espoused the opposite view as a paid talking head legal eagle. Maybe he changed his mind for money. The bottom line is that is doesn't matter what the lawyer believes as long as they do their job.

Maybe he changed his mind because of the evidence.
Interesting what MG says today regarding that case.
JMO

Lawyers can have beliefs and do their job.
IMO It matters that two attorneys said this in Court when addressing the Judge. Attorneys that have seen most (not all) of the evidence and have interacted with their client for almost two years.

Motion to challange the DP due by September 5.
Discovery Deadline for the State September 6.

Does a prosecutor's beliefs matter?

ABA
b) The prosecutor should not make a statement of fact or law, or offer evidence, that the prosecutor does not reasonably believe to be true, to a court, lawyer, witness, or third party, except for lawfully authorized investigative purposes. In addition, while seeking to accommodate legitimate confidentiality, safety or security concerns, a prosecutor should correct a prosecutor’s representation of material fact or law that the prosecutor reasonably believes is, or later learns was, false, and should disclose a material fact or facts when necessary to avoid assisting a fraudulent or criminal act or to avoid misleading a judge or factfinder.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwip_KfHtaGIAxV8GFkFHZshMJ4QFnoECBIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanbar.org%2Fgroups%2Fcriminal_justice%2Fstandards%2FProsecutionFunctionFourthEdition%2F&usg=AOvVaw1794H-J3LO9nqRj_YYkga7&opi=89978449

JMO
Edit: added "almost" to two years

 

[girlhasnoname]

To put it bluntly, AT could believe BK did this but puts that aside to concentrate strictly on the law. Period.

She is actually trying to show the jury there is not enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict him. Hey, he may be guilty but the prosecution cannot prove their case against him. The defense can show the prosecutions' evidence does not meet a reasonable doubt standard.

It is all about the prosecutors proving their case and AT does not think they can.

So yes, I believe someone on the large defense team including experts, could really believe BK did it but their job is to make the jury doubt the prosecution's evidence and witnessess.

2 Cents

I totally agree with your post on the letter of the law CC, but for the purpose of armchair detective discussion I was saying that she must know BK is guilty. She's seen all the evidence against him. I wonder what type of relationship they have as attorney/client?

Is he engaged and suggestive in his defense (you know he's the smartest guy in any room) with her, does she feel safe, comfortable around him? Just curious as to the real time dynamics between the 2 of them.

It is absolutely her job to provide BK with a vigorous and competent defense, and she does that well. I don't have to like it, but I do respect it as a critical part of our Judicial Process.

JMO

 

[Balthazar]

AT has to provide BK with a competent defense. That DOES NOT extend to her telling the judge in court that she believes BK is innocent. Nor does EM need to state the same thing. That they have taken this step is out of the ordinary and beyond the normal scope of a defending a client. The notion that lawyers are allowed to lie for their clients is a total and complete misconception. Professional ethics do not allow that. They have seen the evidence the prosecution has provided and have had their own investigator examine the situation. They are well educated attorneys who are used to dealing with various criminal clients, yet, they are convinced BK is innocent. This is an interesting situation, IMO.

 

[Cool Cats]

AT has to provide BK with a competent defense. That DOES NOT extend to her telling the judge in court that she believes BK is innocent. Nor does EM need to state the same thing. That they have taken this step is out of the ordinary and beyond the normal scope of a defending a client. The notion that lawyers are allowed to lie for their clients is a total and complete misconception. Professional ethics do not allow that. They have seen the evidence the prosecution has provided and have had their own investigator examine the situation. They are well educated attorneys who are used to dealing with various criminal clients, yet, they are convinced BK is innocent. This is an interesting situation, IMO.

If it is true that they personally believe he is innocent then I expect them to show some evidence at trial of possible other killers. And to explain at trial their client's DNA in the victim's bed on an object that holds large knives.

There would have to be a theory from her of what "really" happened because it wasn't BK.
Her opening statement will set the tone for this.

Usually when a defendant is adament they are not guilty they will ask their attorney for a bail hearing. Very odd that BK is totally innocent sitting in jail for someone else's homicides yet never tries to get bail.

Odd that AT pretty much acknowledged that this is BK's DNA when she thinks he is innocent. I haven't see any Motions accusing mishandling or incompetence against the Idaho State lab who profiled the DNA.

2 Cents

 

[LinasK]

AT has to provide BK with a competent defense. That DOES NOT extend to her telling the judge in court that she believes BK is innocent. Nor does EM need to state the same thing. That they have taken this step is out of the ordinary and beyond the normal scope of a defending a client. The notion that lawyers are allowed to lie for their clients is a total and complete misconception. Professional ethics do not allow that. They have seen the evidence the prosecution has provided and have had their own investigator examine the situation. They are well educated attorneys who are used to dealing with various criminal clients, yet, they are convinced BK is innocent. This is an interesting situation, IMO.

No, I disagree. Mark Geragos did the exact same thing with Scott Peterson. As long as they aren't manufacturing evidence or lying in court, they are free to express their opinions on his innocence/guilt however they feel. It's not abnormal. They are just doing their jobs.

 

[Cool Cats]

No, I disagree. Mark Geragos did the exact same thing with Scott Peterson. As long as they aren't manufacturing evidence or lying in court, they are free to express their opinions on his innocence/guilt however they feel. It's not abnormal. They are just doing their jobs.

People tend to believe authority figures who throw their weight around, such as AT.

Big authority figure DP attorney AT sees the evidence and so she knows everything and we should belive all her opinions. Her opinion is he is innocent....OK.

You are correct, a lawyer can express their opinon at a hearing that their client is innocent even if they do not think so. It is better for their client if they do this, it is better for BK. Shows a srtong defense behind him which he needs.

2 Cents

 

[Kemug]

And if a Defence Attorney says they believe in their client's innocence, although they don't, and subsequently the client is found Not Guilty? The client is released, and sooner or later re-offends? If I were that DA I think I might be unable to live with myself.

 

[Cool Cats]

And if a Defence Attorney says they believe in their client's innocence, although they don't, and subsequently the client is found Not Guilty? The client is released, and sooner or later re-offends? If I were that DA I think I might be unable to live with myself.

Right, it means the District Attorney with his team was unable to prove their case. But nothing to be ashamed about if they did everything they could but the judge kept ruling against them hurting their case.

If the prosecution did a lousy job, made mistakes with evidence, timing, did not investigate or subpoena critical witnesses, etc...

Then they would have a problem with themselves and the public. Someone would lose their job.

 

[GRT]

And if a Defence Attorney says they believe in their client's innocence, although they don't, and subsequently the client is found Not Guilty? The client is released, and sooner or later re-offends? If I were that DA I think I might be unable to live with myself.

JMOO, but I think they do that all the time. I've never heard a defense attorney say, "My client is guilty," but I've heard plenty of them say, " My client is innocent."

In the end, no matter what type of declarative statements the attorneys (or law enforcement, for that matter) make, it's up to the jury to decide guilt or innocence based on the facts presented at trial.

All MOO

 

[LinasK]

JMOO, but I think they do that all the time. I've never heard a defense attorney say, "My client is guilty," but I've heard plenty of them say, " My client is innocent."

In the end, no matter what type of declarative statements the attorneys (or law enforcement, for that matter) make, it's up to the jury to decide guilt or innocence based on the facts presented at trial.

All MOO

Exactly, and even if they say it in Opening Statements, Opening statements aren't evidence.

 

[Balthazar]

If it is true that they personally believe he is innocent then I expect them to show some evidence at trial of possible other killers. And to explain at trial their client's DNA in the victim's bed on an object that holds large knives.

The defense is not required to solve the case. IMO, the DNA is very explainable AND very weak evidence.

There would have to be a theory from her of what "really" happened because it wasn't BK.
Her opening statement will set the tone for this.

I expect something like that will occur.

Usually when a defendant is adament they are not guilty they will ask their attorney for a bail hearing. Very odd that BK is totally innocent sitting in jail for someone else's homicides yet never tries to get bail.

BK was arrested on a Fugitive from Justice warrant in Pennsylvania.

What we know about Bryan Kohberger, the man charged in the Idaho quadruple murders

Bryan Kohberger faces murder and burglary charges in the gruesome November murders of four college students.

www.cbsnews.com

Bail in Idaho is not an option for a Fugitive from Justice because of the seriousness of this crime which is punishable by death or life in prison.

Chapter 45 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

Odd that AT pretty much acknowledged that this is BK's DNA when she thinks he is innocent. I haven't see any Motions accusing mishandling or incompetence against the Idaho State lab who profiled the DNA.

2 Cents

IMO, motions are coming in regards to the DNA.

All JMO.

 

[Boxer]

The defense is not required to solve the case. IMO, the DNA is very explainable AND very weak evidence.

I expect something like that will occur.

BK was arrested on a Fugitive from Justice warrant in Pennsylvania.

What we know about Bryan Kohberger, the man charged in the Idaho quadruple murders

Bryan Kohberger faces murder and burglary charges in the gruesome November murders of four college students.

www.cbsnews.com

Bail in Idaho is not an option for a Fugitive from Justice because of the seriousness of this crime which is punishable by death or life in prison.

Chapter 45 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

IMO, motions are coming in regards to the DNA.

All JMO.

The DNA from Brian Kohberger's cheek is a match to the DNA found on the sheath at the scene.
That is extremely strong scientific evidence.
Any other discussion is legalism.

 

[ChatteringBirds]

DNA from Brian Kohberger's cheek is a match to the DNA found on the sheath at the scene.
That is extremely strong scientific evidence.

I agree with you, Boxer. The totality of evidence during the trial, including DNA (and digital), will be strong.

 

[Arkay]

IMO, the DNA is very explainable AND very weak evidence.

The DNA from Brian Kohberger's cheek is a match to the DNA found on the sheath at the scene.
That is extremely strong scientific evidence.
Any other discussion is legalism.

I would have to agree with @Boxer here.

I’m not sure how BK’s DNA appearing on such a vital spot as the sheath snap could be construed as weak evidence?

IMO it’s the smoking gun.

He touched that weapon in a crucial place, not like a random spot somewhere in the apartment as though he’d been a partygoer there.

A DNA match from BK’s cheek swab to the sheath snap is as much a match as if BK had licked that snap himself.

IMO.

 

[sunspun]

If an attorney is not allowed to lie to the court, then we're supposed to believe them if they say they believe their client is innocent. So if they believe their client is guilty, they can't say they think he's not, because that would be lying to the court. So in that case, some posters have said that the attorney would simply not say anything either way, to avoid lying to the court. That's how it's supposed to work in theory anyway, IIUC.

But in "real life", that wouldn't work, because then we would just know that if an attorney avoids stating whether they believe in their client's innocence or not, that means they believe the client is guilty.

An attorney who believes client is innocent can truthfully say to the court that they believe client is innocent. An attorney who believes client is guilty cannot say they believe client is innocent, because they can't lie. So they don't say what their belief is regarding their innocence or guilt. Therefore, I can safely assume that if an attorney has not told the court they know their client is innocent, that attorney thinks their client is guilty.

See, it just doesn't work that way in practice. If this were really true, an attorney who says nothing either way is the same as an attorney who claims their client is guilty. Which obviously defeats their purpose in keeping their mouth shut on the subject of their client's innocence or lack of it.

So imo, it's not true that if an attorney claims in court to believe their client is innocent, that is always true. I don't know how that fits with the claim that an attorney cannot lie to the court, but I assume they have some good lawyerly-sounding justification to work around that. Because if not, as I said, we'd all know what they think, just by them not saying anything. And that's not the way it works in reality.

 

[PinkParis2052]

If it is true that they personally believe he is innocent then I expect them to show some evidence at trial of possible other killers. And to explain at trial their client's DNA in the victim's bed on an object that holds large knives.

There would have to be a theory from her of what "really" happened because it wasn't BK.
Her opening statement will set the tone for this.

Usually when a defendant is adament they are not guilty they will ask their attorney for a bail hearing. Very odd that BK is totally innocent sitting in jail for someone else's homicides yet never tries to get bail.

Odd that AT pretty much acknowledged that this is BK's DNA when she thinks he is innocent. I haven't see any Motions accusing mishandling or incompetence against the Idaho State lab who profiled the DNA.

2 Cents

When did AT pretty much acknowledged that this is BK's DNA?

Anne started asking for discovery of the STR and SNP in May 2023, there was a hearing in Aug 2023 about why they needed discovery of the IGG information. In Oct 2023, the Judge agreed that they should get some discovery of the IGG but he needed an in-camera review. There was on hearing about the IGG on Nov 2, 2023, the judge set a Dec. 1, 2023 deadline, it was submitted by the state by the deadline and the judge in the review.

The defense team just were turned over some of the IGG information in Jan 11, 2024. On 2/1/2024, the defense team asked the judge for their three dna experts and their investigators to have access to the IGG information. On 2/29/2024, the judge agreed to let the three dna experts to have access to the IGG but not the investigators. On May 30, 2024, in a closed hearing for the 4th and 5th motion to compel discovery, the defense team and their three dna experts made agreements about why their investigators should have access to the IGG. On 6/7/2024, the judge filed a second amended order for disclosure of IGG information and the protective order to include the investigators for the defense team.