ID - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 69

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Retaining an attorney, or having one appointed for a criminal matter, is VERY different than granting a Power of Attorney. Totally different things.
IANAL but even to me that does not sound like the right term for what has occurred. And terms/language matter very much, IMO, in terms of shaping public opinion. I am not pointing any finger at this parent, I have nothing but sympathy for her. If she used the term POA and that is incorrect then that is not her fault. Those around her with more understanding and knowledge should be supporting and helping her. MOO
 
Angela Palermo
@apalermotweets

Some important context: Anne Taylor is one of 13 public defenders in Idaho (and the only one in North Idaho) who are approved by the Public Defense Co

To be clear, prosecutors have not said whether they will seek the death penalty in this case.

The other 12 are, at minimum, a five and a half hour drive from Moscow. A drive that, might I add, involves narrow roads that wind through the mountains and can be quite dangerous in winter conditions.

Yes, they have to have someone qualified and approved to lead a death penalty case. And that assignment can’t wait until prosecutors have decided whether to seek the death penalty. This is a complex case and prosecutors have a lot of info to wade through before making that decision, so it’s best to have a qualified public defender just in case.
 
According to the previously cited source:

"Aside from Taylor, a dozen public defenders in Idaho are qualified to lead a capital case. But each of them resides well outside North Idaho.

Another 10 public defenders are qualified to act as co-counsel on a capital case, including two in North Idaho. One is Taylor’s chief deputy of litigation, Jay Logsdon, who is her co-counsel in the Kohberger case. The other is attorney Susie Jensen, the former Bonner County chief public defender. Gov. Brad Little appointed Jensen as a judge in Idaho’s 1st District in November.

Latah County public defender Deb McCormick previously represented Moscow gunman John Lee, who pleaded guilty in 2016 to three counts of murder in exchange for life in prison and to avoid the death penalty. But McCormick is not currently approved to lead or co-counsel a capital case, according to the list of eligible Idaho public defenders updated in December.

Kohberger and Taylor are scheduled to be back in Latah County Court for his preliminary hearing starting at 9 a.m. Pacific on June 26."
 
That would be very unusual. I'd like to hear more about this with some verified sources.

As an attorney, can you comment on how a public defender would cease to represent a client?

I would think there would be formal documentation and this poor woman claims to have learned this through social media.

In my opinion their should be proper procedures to follow but I’m also concerned she’s extremely vulnerable and being exploited by the media.
 
IMO the existence of the Banfield interview is more than enough to constitute a conflict of interest, and AT will be removed ASAP.

Because even if she did everything by the book (and not by a legal loophole where she didn't have to notify CK because she had POA to approve the switch), unbiased jurors who trust anything that comes out of her mouth become that much more scarce, in a case where they'll already be like looking for a needle in a haystack.
BBM: The interview itself doesn't constitute a COI, IMO, but I think I know what you mean? But to clarify do you mean the interview proves a current COI ? If this is the case, then I don't agree. The reason for that is that we don't really know if what the parent is saying is correct factually as to what has occurred.

I might agree, if COIs were decided in the public realm rather than based on legally substantiated fact, that the interview itself is creating (rather than constituting) a COI but that could well just be semantics. MOO

MOO
 
Last edited:
Cara Northington is facing the harsh reality that the person she trusted most has now dropped her case — to represent the accused killer of XK.

The court-appointed defense attorney for Kohberger previously represented Northington before switching to take his case, according to court records.

Anne Taylor, chief of the Kootenai County Public Defender’s Office, withdrew from Northington’s case Jan. 5, the same day Kohberger made his first court appearance in Moscow, Idaho. Since Taylor took over the public defender’s office in 2017, her office has defended Northington in four cases, the Idaho Statesman reported.

In the most recent case, drug charges were filed against Northington on Nov. 19, six days after XXXX were found dead inside an off-campus rental home.

just throwing this out there. Is it possible that Anne Taylor was told by someone higher up to make this switch?
 
IMO the existence of the Banfield interview is more than enough to constitute a conflict of interest, and AT will be removed ASAP.
Because even if she did everything by the book (and not by a legal loophole where she didn't have to notify CK because she had POA to approve the switch), unbiased jurors who trust anything that comes out of her mouth become that much more scarce, in a case where they'll already be like looking for a needle in a haystack.
snipped for focus. @sleuth.sloth
"... if she did everything by the book (and not by a legal loophole where she didn't have to notify CK because she had POA to approve the switch)..."

We're MISSING big pieces of the puzzle---the PoA language itself, who did what when, and more.
Is ^ post saying the PoA doc executed by XK's Mother explicitly permitted AT to "switch" meaning to withdraw from rep'ing client CN in that crim case?
And to begin rep'ing BCK in the murder of CN's daughter?
And that the PoA authorizes AT to do that without notifying CN?
And without AT seeking and receiving CN's consent?

If PoA doc explicitly permitted that, for atty to ignore ethical obligations re client engagement & client termination, & if that's what happened, well, cowabunga, dude.

If I misinterpreted post, pls clarify.
 
Last edited:
That would be very unusual. I'd like to hear more about this with some verified sources.
I think so to. JMO, but if AT had POA over this parent then I cannot imagine how, ever, the PDO and court would have appointed her as BK rep. MOO. And I see no evidence here, none, that AT would withhold this information from the PDOs.

The information here


states that AT withdrew from her rep of the relevant parent. I have no reason to disbelieve this information. I see no sources that say AT lies and is withholding information. In short I conclude right now that AT does not hold POA over the parent in question and that the parent in question and AB, in the interview, are mistaken in claiming this.

ETA: MOO
 
Last edited:
It is my understanding that a judge would have to sign off on an attorney's withdrawal from a case. So if this is what happened, then AT is not alone in this decision-making, but the judge is also accountable for the decision. IANAL, so perhaps an attorney might weigh in on this.
 
It would be great if the interview causes someone to see that she is struggling, that she is sad and vulnerable and steps in to genuinely assist her. If she found out through social media she clearly could use the help.
 
As an attorney, can you comment on how a public defender would cease to represent a client?

I would think there would be formal documentation and this poor woman claims to have learned this through social media.

In my opinion their should be proper procedures to follow but I’m also concerned she’s extremeIly vulnerable and being exploited by the media.
Thank you for expressing that so succinctly and clearly. I share your concerns.
 
BBM: The interview itself doesn't constitute a COI, IMO, but I think I know what you mean? But to clarify do you mean the interview proves a current COI ? If this is the case, then I don't agree. The reason for that is that we don't really know if what the parent is saying is correct factually as to what has occurred.

I might agree, if COIs were decided in the public realm rather than based on legally substantiated fact, that the interview itself is creating (rather than constituting) a COI but that could well just be semantics. MOO

MOO
I mean that if her former client didn't agree to it and thinks there's a conflict of interest then there is a conflict of interest.

I'm not an attorney.

But if one of my clients objected to me representing another client on the basis of conflict of interest, I think that the objection in itself is a conflict of interest. It's happened to me once before, and the minute concerns were raised I had someone else step in and take over to eliminate any possible conflict of interest.
 
I mean that if her former client didn't agree to it and thinks there's a conflict of interest then there is a conflict of interest.

I'm not an attorney.

But if one of my clients objected to me representing another client on the basis of conflict of interest, I think that the objection in itself is a conflict of interest. It's happened to me once before, and the minute concerns were raised I had someone else step in and take over to eliminate any possible conflict of interest.
Thank you for clarifying. As above, my view/opinion is that the content of the interview cannot be automatically taken as fact, so until that becomes clearer I'm refraining from speculation. I respect your right to speculate though.
 
snipped for focus. @sleuth.sloth
"... if she did everything by the book (and not by a legal loophole where she didn't have to notify CK because she had POA to approve the switch)..."

We're MISSING big pieces of the puzzle---the PoA language itself, who did what when, and more.
Is ^ post saying the PoA doc executed by XK's Mother explicitly permitted AT to "switch" meaning to withdraw from rep'ing client CN in that crim case?
And to begin rep'ing BCK in the murder of CN's daughter?
And that the PoA authorizes AT to do that without notifying CN?
And without AT seeking and receiving CN's consent?

If PoA doc explicitly permitted that, for atty to ignore ethical obligations re client engagement & client termination, & if that's what happened, well, cowabunga, dude.

If I misinterpreted post, pls clarify.
Don't know what POA said yet, of course. We are missing big pieces. But IF there was any such POA granted that gave a <modsnip - not victim friendly> grieving mother no rights to ethical representation, that's bad. No matter what here, this is messy, and AT shouldn't have taken it. In my strongly held opinion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is my understanding that a judge would have to sign off on an attorney's withdrawal from a case. So if this is what happened, then AT is not alone in this decision-making, but the judge is also accountable for the decision. IANAL, so perhaps an attorney might weigh in on this.
Yes, I would have thought, as she is court appointed, that this would be the case. Just MOO and IANAL.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
150
Guests online
483
Total visitors
633

Forum statistics

Threads
604,675
Messages
18,175,255
Members
232,798
Latest member
Crankymomma
Back
Top