4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, 2022 #80

[jepop]

IANAL, but I am nearly 100% sure that is not the case.

Many defendants change their pleas before they are convicted or acquitted, frequently in collaboration with the prosecution. It would be barbaric to deny them that right.

Perhaps @PrairieWind would like to put this Alford plea discussion to bed. IMO, it is a side track produced by us in this thread.

Thank you! I'm pursuing this line only because it was said by a poster that standing silent at arraignment was the only way an Alford plea could be entered later down the track (and I am not sure but I think what was meant in this case was the notion of alford plea being proffered prior to trial). So if the defendant plead NG then an Alford plea would be off the table in the future but prior to trial. The poster said that this was a way for an Alford plea to stay on the table - and that the standing silent stance was therefore to be interpreted as a strategic position in terms of keeping all options open. MOO

As I was reading these posts it seemed to me that what was being implied was that if an Alford plea was to be proffered by the Defense as an option, it might occur prior to trial or as a way to avoid trial. Now what I want to know is that is this possible and if so how would that work exactly? And given the circumstances of this case is that even a likely route the defense would even attempt? And if they do attempt it how would the prosecution react? I too would like to stop thinking and speculating about Alford plea possibilities, mostly because it seems like something of an injustice to think that the defense might proffer such before a trial. And if it was to be considered by the court/judge with the prosecution's agreement, even if found to be unfounded that would also delay trial for some time. Hoping I am making some sense here. Perhaps, and it's likely, I am looking at this incorrectly as I really don't have knowledge but am just applying basic logic from my sparse reading! MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Yup!

What you said happened. Right away it was all over the media how BK put all this energy into his vocal replies in court to the judge's questions - then contrasted to that - it seemed odd for him to stay silent on his "not guilty" plea.

So yes, had he said "not guilty" out loud, it would have been mocked and torn to shreds no matter how he said it.

He couldn't even walk to his seat without being accused of staring at women in the gallery. As it is, it is a feeding frenzy over his staying silent, letting the judge put in his plea.

His quick smile to his attorney has turned into a middle finger to the families, his beating a hasty retreat instead of shooting the breeze with his attorney means he is going to fire his counsel. I have never seen anything reaching this level before.

2 Cents

I think this happens every time in high profile cases. People get emotionally invested and see and interpret things differently.

MOO

 

[jepop]

I forget how we got to talking about Alford pleas. I don't think such a plea is relevant at this time (and I think it would serve no purpose unless a deal were struck with the prosecution).

A YT defense lawyer who was hosting the video of the hearing said that by "standing silent", a defendant avoids having his inflection judged by potential jurors when he says the words "Not Guilty". I was reminded how famous (and famously mocked) O.J. Simpson's "100% NOT GUILTY!" was 30 years ago...

Thank you, my earlier reply probably supercedes this one! My main point is that is it correct or incorrect that standing silent is the only way that the defense could attempt to proffer/negotiate (or however such a plea is attempted) an Alford Plea prior to trial? Or the other way of saying it, does a stated NG plea at arraignment shut down the Alford option for the defense to attempt prior to trial? It seems a simple question but I can't find any answers through my friend google and haven't seen any here on the thread yet. I've read several interesting MSM interviews etc with experienced attorneys offering their interpretations on the choice to stand silent and the Alford option hasn't been mentioned by any AFAIK. Apologies for my pedanticism. I'm about ready to let this one go, I promise...MOO

 

[jepop]

Yes, I know. And my reply is that once a defendant pleads guilty--in most cases, barring some extraordinary habeas corpus issue--there is no chance of and no purpose to an Alford plea.

So all or nearly all who resort to Alford pleas have previously pleaded Not Guilty. (Sorry to keep resorting to the West Memphis 3 as my example, but that's the most recent Alford case I know: all three of the defendants had pleaded Not Guilty, but had been found guilty by juries. When it became clear that much or most of the evidence against them was bogus, they were offered the Alford pleas so the prosecution and judge could save face.)

We at WS have caught "Alford fever"! It's like a new variation of Covid! LOL

Thank you for all your fantastic knowledge on this Alford bizzo. It is so very much appreciated. I don't mean to sidetrack the main discussion, my questions relate directly to the standing silent stance taken by defendant. So.. hoping you might be able to help me with this one...Have you come across any cases where defense proffered/attemped Alford pleas prior to trial? That is, in a situation where they considered the evidence to be presented so overwhelming that a conviction would be expected so attempted the plea to try and mitigate punishment, whilst meanwhile the defendant refused to acknowledge responsibility or guilt, unlike other plea bargaining arrangments where defendant pleads guilty. MOO

 

[Helechawagirl]

I think Judge Judge made solid points re the 1st and 6th Amendments, so I would lean his direction even more than I could have before. It is, as the judge said, a balancing act, and without the gag order, there is no possible balance imo. I loved what he said today.

I haven’t watched that yet.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

I can only imagine the comments if he'd been chatting her up. Or if he'd been looking at her with puppy eyes. Or if he'd stared too intently. Or if he'd looked at her and then away. Or if he'd looked like he wasn't scared. Or if he'd looked like he was scared. Or if he'd leaned in. Or if he'd leaned away. Or if...

Anyway, I think you get the point. There was nothing he could have done that would have been okay, and he'd have been judged regardless, and while you're exactly right that this should not be what justice is about, I do wonder sometimes...

All IMO.

How so? What do you wonder? TIA

 

[GoBuckeyes]

Thank you! I'm pursuing this line only because it was said by a poster that standing silent at arraignment was the only way an Alford plea could be entered later down the track (and I am not sure but I think what was meant in this case was the notion of alford plea being proffered prior to trial). So if the defendant plead NG then an Alford plea would be off the table in the future but prior to trial. The poster said that this was a way for an Alford plea to stay on the table - and that the standing silent stance was therefore to be interpreted as a strategic position in terms of keeping all options open. MOO

As I was reading these posts it seemed to me that what was being implied was that if an Alford plea was to be proffered by the Defense as an option, it might occur prior to trial or as a way to avoid trial. Now what I want to know is that is this possible and if so how would that work exactly? And given the circumstances of this case is that even a likely route the defense would even attempt? And if they do attempt it how would the prosecution react? I too would like to stop thinking and speculating about Alford plea possibilities, mostly because it seems like something of an injustice to think that the defense might proffer such before a trial. And if it was to be considered by the court/judge with the prosecution's agreement, even if found to be unfounded that would also delay trial for some time. Hoping I am making some sense here. Perhaps, and it's likely, I am looking at this incorrectly as I really don't have knowledge but am just applying basic logic from my sparse reading! MOO

I'm almost certain (someone help me out here) that any Alford plea is reached only when the prosecution is willing to accept that plea. I don't think the defense can make that proffer without the prosecution signing off on it first. moo

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Have family made any statements lately of support or other thoughts? TIA

IIRC, not since the initial statement after his arrest, offering condolences to the victims' families and saying they stand by their son and brother.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

IIRC, not since the initial statement after his arrest, offering condolences to the victims' families and saying they stand by their son and brother.

Thank you for the information. It must be horrible for them, too. If he's guilty, I can't imagine trying to come to terms with that realization, as a family.

 

[schooling]

ITA. LE has much more evidence than we know about, imo.

Prosecutor: More than 20,000 pieces of evidence given to Kohberger attorneys

Prosecutors said that they have given Bryan Kohberger's defense team thousands of files, including more than 50 terabytes of data.

www.courttv.com

Prosecutors filed a response to the motion ahead of a scheduled May 22 hearing on the issue, saying that as of May 4, the Latah County Prosecutor’s Office had provided approximately:

• 10,000 pages of reports and other written materials
• 10,200 photographs
• 9,200 tips
• 51 terabytes of audio/visual media and digital materials

That 51 terabytes is likely filled with videos from the canvassing they did early on.

 

[arielilane]

State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger​

Latah County CR29-22-2805
Case Summary (Updated 05/22/23)

• 05/19/2023 Order Regarding Notice of Hearing Zoom Information (Redacted)
• 05/19/2023 Second Amended Notice of Hearing Criminal
• 05/19/2023 Second Amended Notice of Hearing Criminal
• 05/19/2023 Second Amended Order Vacating Hearing
• 05/19/2023 Motion Requesting Release Of Grand Jury Materials Under Qualified Protective Order
• 05/19/2023 Motion to Enlarge Time to File Pretrial Motions
• 05/19/2023 Motion To Make Available the Record of All Proceedings of the Grand Jury
• 05/19/2023 Order to Enlarge Time to File Pretrial Motions

Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I grew up with the law. Generations of it. And I know this sounds corny, but I believe it is a noble profession, built on ideals that are bigger than one person or one case, and I believe the law should level the playing field and be fairly applied. The law allows us - if we let it - to rise above our petty emotions, personal feelings, irrational bias, unreasonable prejudice, illogical arguments, dangerous passions, blind hate, etc. Without that tempering, justice is just a feral desire, chanting for blood. And isn't that the same thing the person who slaughtered four people must have been acting on, their twisted psyche chanting for blood because of petty emotions, personal feelings, irrational bias, unreasonable prejudice, illogical arguments, dangerous passions, blind hate, etc.?

As you so much more succinctly said, Dr. S, there's a reason these rights are protected for the innocent and the guilty, and regardless of which BK is, I want the law to be nobly upheld and leave us with no doubt once justice is served.

edited to remove a wandering *

I love how you've worded this. I agree 100%.

 

[DizzyB]

Standing silent was different for me, but I didn’t question it. BK’s attorney is capable and I think she is running the show. BK’s affect always strikes me. Flat. Staring. Forced mannerisms on cue. I am reminded of the LE stop on his drive when the officer asked where he was headed. His answer was for Thai food. He wasn’t wrong, I think he totally didn’t understand the question. Context clues.

Him being a vegan and a killer of humans is such a strange thing. The vegans that I know are staunchly supportive of all living things. Being a vegetarian is hard enough, but being a vegan is such a strong commitment. In my opinion it is more than just choosing a healthy lifestyle.

 

[jepop]

They could not change to an Alford plea if BK's team pled not guilty. If they plead not guilty, the only plea they can change to is guilty. Basically the strategy to stand silent is to leave all options open in terms of pleas. Since the defense does not yet know if this is a death penalty case, they are simply leaving all options on the table until they find out. This gives them the choice of Alford plea, Not Guilty plea or Guilty plea. Defendants usually enter an Alford guilty plea if they want to avoid a possible worse sentence were they to lose the case against them at trial. It affords defendants the ability to accept a plea bargain, while maintaining innocence.

None of this is emotional.

RBBM: I would so appreciate seeing links or some kind of definative legal statute or whatever that speaks to this assertion. MOO

 

[SLouTh]

This is interesting IMO,

Idaho is one of four states that do not provide explicitly for insanity pleas, but defendants in the state can introduce testimony at trial to show that, as a result of mental illness, they are not guilty of certain elements of a crime, like the “malice aforethought” that must be proved in order for a jury to convict a defendant of murder.

Idaho Murder Suspect Declines to Enter Plea (Published 2023)

Bryan Kohberger, the former Ph.D. student accused of killing four University of Idaho students, appeared in court Monday after being indicted on murder charges.

www.nytimes.com

 

[jepop]

JMO - I think that he went with the "standing silent" plea because I think the defense is hoping to work out a plea bargain with the prosecution to spare his life. I think they will argue that by not pleading "not guilty" Bryan hasn't subjected the victim's families to additional pain and suffering.

I read you post earlier and thought, ah that is an interesting angle. However with more thought, I'm not sure because staying silent may infact have subjected the victim's families to additional pain and suffering as opposed to stating emphatically NG or, ofcourse, pleading guilty right there and then and taking responsibility. The victims may well have taken offense at his silence. So if that is the reason behind such a tactic, IMO it carries substantial risk for defense going forward if they later wish to negotiate a guilty plea bargain later on. MOO

 

[maskedwoman]

I believe she said competency.

Competency and an Insanity Defense are 2 different things.

The person quoted was with the Ada County Idaho Prosecutor Office for over 30 years.

Special Crimes Unit Chief Jean Fisher retires after nearly 33 years of service

“Nothing felt quite as meaningful to me as those cases did,” said Jean. “I learned how important it was to treat every case with as much empathy, respect and dignity as I possibly could.”

adacounty.id.gov

Excellent point. I believe AT can legally raise that issue at any point, but he certainly hasn't shown any signs in the courtroom of being unable to participate in his defense.

 

[maskedwoman]

Just my point of view but I don't think an Alford plea would be justice for the families in this Case.

If BK is guilty then he needs to go to trial and be found guilty or plead guilty and get the DP dropped (if the prosecution files a DP Case)

To let BK plead Alford means he gets to spend the rest of his life telling everyone that he is innocent but admits the prosecution had alot of circumstantial evidence against him, enough to likely find him guilty in a trial.

Boils down to:

This arrogant killer gets away with never admitting guilt and never being found guilty.

I agree that Alford would be insufficient for a crime of this magnitude. My understanding is that the judge could reject an Alford plea. I wouldn't be surprised if that happened. MOO, if they bargain with him, I think the offer will be for a guilty plea with allocution, and they take DP off the table. Stay turned for me to be totally wrong. LOL

 

[jepop]

[…]
The refusal to enter a plea at this point is unlikely to have a significant impact on the case, said Eve Brensike Primus, a law professor at the University of Michigan and an expert in criminal procedure.
Ms. Primus said that lawyers may recommend that course when they expect to argue that their client is not competent to stand trial or is not guilty by reason of insanity.
Idaho is one of four states that do not provide explicitly for insanity pleas, but defendants in the state can introduce testimony at trial to show that, as a result of mental illness, they are not guilty of certain elements of a crime, like the “malice aforethought” that must be proved in order for a jury to convict a defendant of murder.
Another possible explanation, Ms. Primus said, is that Mr. Kohberger did not want to tell the court he was not guilty. In that situation, his lawyer might decide on standing silent, allowing Mr. Kohberger to avoid pleading out loud, while still moving the case forward as if he had pleaded not guilty.
“Practically, there is no difference in effect,” Ms. Primus said. “But if there are mental health issues, there might be reasons why you might not want your client to speak in court.”
[…]

Idaho Murder Suspect Declines to Enter Plea (Published 2023)

Bryan Kohberger, the former Ph.D. student accused of killing four University of Idaho students, appeared in court Monday after being indicted on murder charges.

www.nytimes.com

I found this statement interesting, from the article published by the New York Times in your post.

As hypothesised/speculated by Eve Brensike Primus, a law professor at the University of Michigan and an expert in criminal procedure.

"Another possible explanation, Ms. Primus said, is that Mr. Kohberger did not want to tell the court he was not guilty. In that situation, his lawyer might decide on standing silent, allowing Mr. Kohberger to avoid pleading out loud, while still moving the case forward as if he had pleaded not guilty."

It's just interesting that the prof adds this as a possible reason, that the defendant simply may have not wanted to tell the court he was not guilty. Seems like she is suggesting that if a defendant perhaps says something like "I'd rather not", that his counsel could simply respect that and proffer his standing silent plea accordingly. Because for all practical purposes it makes no difference whatsoever? I realise this is just one of several explanations offered by the prof. It stood out to me because it ties in with some ideas I was thinking through earlier with another poster: re standing silent position could have initially come from the defendant for his own reasons rather than advice by counsel. Speculation and MOO.

 

[NuttMegg]

I found this statement interesting, from the article published by the New York Times in your post.

As hypothesised/speculated by Eve Brensike Primus, a law professor at the University of Michigan and an expert in criminal procedure.

"Another possible explanation, Ms. Primus said, is that Mr. Kohberger did not want to tell the court he was not guilty. In that situation, his lawyer might decide on standing silent, allowing Mr. Kohberger to avoid pleading out loud, while still moving the case forward as if he had pleaded not guilty."

It's just interesting that the prof adds this as a possible reason, that the defendant simply may have not wanted to tell the court he was not guilty. Seems like she is suggesting that if a defendant perhaps says something like "I'd rather not", that his counsel could simply respect that and proffer his standing silent plea accordingly. Because for all practical purposes it makes no difference whatsoever? I realise this is just one of several explanations offered by the prof. It stood out to me because it ties in with some ideas I was thinking through earlier with another poster: re standing silent position could have initially come from the defendant for his own reasons rather than advice by counsel. Speculation and MOO.

BBM: thats what I have thought from the beginning, and still do thru all the brickbats. But I go a step further, in that imo it was a stunt to exert power, attract attention, similar to "politely" asking the cop if next time he should back out thru an intersection.

The wide variety of opinions from all the 10 or so internet lawyers I've heard since, leads me to believe there was no particular strategy involved, and when presented by his lawyer with his various options, he innately went for "thumb his nose at the victims", because that's who he is. Even defense lawyer Scott Reisch could not come up with any justification for that stand silent bit.


Imo