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

[Helechawagirl]

Oh boy. I don't think this makes much sense or is a very good idea on their behalf.

I don’t know what to think about this. Are they trying to get someone to talk? JMO

 

[arielilane]

Why Did the Idaho Murders Suspect Stay Silent Instead of Entering a Plea?

An Idaho attorney explains the possible motivations behind staying silent at an arraignment, rather than entering a plea of guilty or not guilty

www.rollingstone.com

MAY 23, 2023

For one thing, it could indicate the two sides in the case are in talks working toward a plea deal that hasn’t been made public yet. “Sometimes you’re just involved in plea negotiations, and you don’t want to disrupt the momentum that you have in those discussions,” he says.

Another instance where Birch has seen standing silent used is when a defendant isn’t being cooperative with their attorney or the proceedings and refuses to speak. “I’ve seen clients that are just a little defiant or difficult,” he says. “So they’re not really cooperative, and sometimes that is why they just sit there quietly in the courtroom.” At Kohberger’s hearing, however, before the invitation to enter a plea, he answered the judge’s questions, speaking clearly into a microphone to confirm he understood the charges and maximum penalties he faced.

 

[PrairieWind]

I don’t know what to think about this. Are they trying to get someone to talk? JMO

It has the opposite effect. The city of Moscow and its police department, the Univ of Id and WSU now have to deal with the Goncalves and Mogen families as potential adversaries moving forward. The DA has certain disclosure requirements that are mandatory, but that is all. Those legal departments are not cooperating with those families moving forward.

 

[10ofRods]

Can you still get a "deal" from the DA if you don't plead guilty? I doubt it.

For me, the question isn't about a plea, it's about his admission of guilt. I would like him to have to admit guilt and spill the details, frankly. If he is going to go off on a LWOP quadruple murder conviction (to which he pleads guilty), I still want to know more about what happened.

I realize that my desires (and the various victim family's desires) are not actually part of Justice for the Idaho students.

I do think that the State is likely to indicate it is going for the DP, as a response to everything that has happened so far. Then the real bargaining begins. Pleading guilty to avoid a trial would effectively remove the DP from the table, as I understand it. Regardless of how the bargain is written, it seems to me that AT and her associate attorneys would regard it as in their client's best interest not to go in front of a firing squad.

They are using tactics suitable to that goal, IMO. It may also be that Kohberger wants to spare his own family a trial (including knowing all the details of what happened that night, at 1122 King Road). If he is wavering and trying to decide whether to plead guilty, it surely matters (at least to his attorneys) whether he dies for that decision. I wouldn't be surprised if he pleads guilty, avoids trial, and the DP is taken off the table. This will make some people very unhappy, but as we've saying here on WS, the goal of the Court is not to make bystanders or even victims' families happier. The goal is some kind of Justice. LWOP is an appropriate sentence, IMO.

At any rate, BK did not plead either guilty or not guilty, but will proceed to trial with a formal plea of Not Guilty entered in the record on his behalf. I agree with whoever said upthread that a firm "Not Guilty" would have helped his case (but perhaps it sounds ridiculous to BK, given the evidence they already have). What if Kohberger has some kind of reasoning that says it's always wrong to lie? But his attorneys are telling him he must enter a plea of Not Guilty??

JMO.

 

[PrairieWind]

Idaho college murders: 2 slain students' families reserve right to sue Moscow, documents say

The families of two of the victims in the University of Idaho killings have filed notice reserving their right to sue the city of Moscow, according to documents.

abcnews.go.com

Appreciate both of the posts... not sure what is happening behind the case, concerning the filings. I think we all know that the families aren't always kept informed. The recent article reminded me of what Brian Entin tweeted yesterday. It was surprising SG is working with the government to seek the death penalty. IMO, the death penalty would be "almost" a given. The article mentioned safeguard, so who knows what that really means and that is why I'd like to see where this goes.

The state has 60 days to decide if they will seek the death penalty.

All moo

https://twitter.com/BrianEntin

Steve Goncalves says they are working with members of the government in Idaho concerning seeking the death penalty in the Kohberger case. “You just can’t hunt babies down. That’s just too much.”

https://twitter.com/x/status/1660833379657367552

I think, and this is just my opinion from someone that is very pro capital punishment, the Defense is not concerned with a death penalty decision from the prosecutor. Other than for scheduling or budgeting reasons, I don't think they are calculating it into the defense. Ask yourself why. Why would they?

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

I am not in the families' shoes, but what on earth could Moscow government do to stop this crime from happening??

<modsnip>

Perhaps they or their attorney knows something we don't that they can't disclose. JMO.

 

[vls12345]

"Seemingly Competent Counsel"

snipped by me @vls12345

Three of the 33 of the Capital Counsel Roster of PDs in the state --- nearly 10 % of those qualified --- are working on his behalf. Personally not seeing Ineffective Assistance of Counsel as a major point of appeal down the road.

I don't mean to be a smart aleck** but it's not as if BK was assigned one atty who graduated last in class at Matchbook University School of Law, took the bar six times ("My Cousin Vinny"), and was just licensed.***

_______________________________________

* "Capital Counsel Roster
Approved by the Public Defense Commission as of April 14, 2023"

Capital Defending Attorney Qualifications and Roster

pdc.idaho.gov

** I often say "seemingly" in similar situations, where a reputation is unknown to me so don't think you intended to slight any of the three attys rep'ing BK.

*** Anyone curious about the vetting process might poke around a bit further at the ID. Public Defense Commission website.

Home

pdc.idaho.gov

You are correct that I was not trying to slight BK's attorneys.

I said seemingly competent because there is so much speculation re: the "standing silent". Perhaps BK insisted on that himself. Perhaps his attorneys strongly advised him to do so. We don't know the reasons or who, ultimately, was behind that decision. But I would assume that if his attorneys advised him to do so, they would have good reasons. And, since they seem to be competent (or even moreso than just that), I would assume they have very good reasons for advising him to do that, if it was indeed their advice.

MOO.

 

[al66pine]

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.

snipped by me @Cool Cats from your post:
"This arrogant killer gets away with never admitting guilt and never being found guilty."

If he is guilty (and ITS, but I'm not in the jury pool) then yes, it may be of some comfort to families for him to plead aloud in court, "Guilty."

But if BK is sentenced to LWOP and spends the rest of his life in prison (or receives DP, unlikely OR is executed, even more unlikely) is his failure to say that actually significant?

Hypo: If BK got a ten yr. or ridiculously short sentence, would hearing BK say, "Guilty, Your Honor" significantly comfort to the families? As much as LWOP?

And regardless of his plea and eventual outcome, as long as BK is serving time, he will be "telling everyone that he is innocent but admits the prosecution had alot of circumstantial evidence against him."

imo jmo
edited to add/clarify quote from post.

 

[jepop]

This is Texas law, not Idaho law, but it offers a strategic reason to “stand silent.” Scroll down the page. Evidently, it gives the defense a better chance to argue that the entire legal proceedings against the defendant were flawed.

MOO

Did you forget to add a link here? I'm interested in reading it if you did!

 

[maskedwoman]

I think the intent of my post is being misunderstood here. My post was responding to an OP and was not suggesting that a defendant be denied certain rights or any rights (!) based on how the other side may feel about it. It was to do with a hypothetical defense strategy and speculating re rationale behind the staying silent plea. Just saying...MOO

I understand and, to be honest, I didn't really connect your post to BeginnerSleuth's post. I was really thinking of a few other posts where people seemed to be very much against standing silent being an option based on their view of how it would make the families feel.

 

[TamanthaLynn]

Since the DNA was found on a small portable object that was carried into the house, it does not put him in the house that night, nor at a previous party or any other time. Anyone could have carried that sheath into that residence at some point.

IF his DNA would have been on a door knob, a wall or any type of permanent object attached to the house that would indeed place him inside 1122 King Rd at some point...but the sheath does not.

Well, taking it a step further, all DNA is circumstantial evidence. His DNA on those other objects would not mean that it got there at the time of the murders. Luckily, they have his car and cell phone in the same area during the time of the murders. One can reasonably surmise that a sheath with his DNA making it into the home came from him dropping it there.

 

[vls12345]

You could be right. I'm not a lawyer but I still am not seeing the legal standing of the families as criminal cases are not brought on behalf of families (no matter how much we talk about the families being victims-- cases are brought on behalf of society not to avenge the families specifically.) First though, I'm not sure how one could ever legally establish BK did it but he was let off on a "technicality." I mean, I know people think that in certain cases, but how can it be established as objective truth? In an appeal, if a new trial is granted, the results of the first trial are nullified so it can't be done that way.

But say BK does get off, is found NG, why is that a result for which the families deserve compensation? Maybe if that happened he didn't do it! Would the families deserve compensation for trying the "wrong" person?

I understand the legal concept of "wrongful death" and that families may collect money, usually from the perpetrator (but the parents of Gabby Petito are trying to collect for wrongful death from the City of Moab in one of their lawsuits.) But this sounds like it would be compensation not for the deaths, but for failure to convict. I'm not getting it. Going after BK for wrongful death might make sense (whether he's convicted or not depending on the actual evidence) but wouldn't yield lots of money.
JMO

My theory is that BK did do it but what if the case gets tossed because LE had someone compromised (the Brady/Giglio issue, whatever it is)? Then perhaps the families want to be able to sue LE because it would be an administrative/internal issue to LE that causes the case to not move forward or would let BK walk on an appeal.

Just speculating and MOO.

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1660989202878824449

 

[PrairieWind]

Can you still get a "deal" from the DA if you don't plead guilty? I doubt it.

I'd say that 95% of plea deals from a DA come after a not guilty plea. why do you doubt it?

 

[wary]

Did you forget to add a link here? I'm interested in reading it if you did!

Thank you! Last paragraph or so.

Arraignment - Barfield Law Firm

Once criminal charges are filed, you’ll make a court appearance known as an “arraignment.” If you are incarcerated, this will usually occur within 72 hours of

www.barfieldlawfirm.net

 

[wary]

I'd say that 95% of plea deals from a DA come after a not guilty plea. why do you doubt it?

I agree, but I think the idea was that, no matter what the first plea was, the eventual plea deal involves a plea of guilty.

MOO

 

[jepop]

snipped by me @Cool Cats from your post:
"This arrogant killer gets away with never admitting guilt and never being found guilty."

If he is guilty (and ITS, but I'm not in the jury pool) then yes, it may be of some comfort to families for him to plead aloud in court, "Guilty."

But if BK is sentenced to LWOP and spends the rest of his life in prison (or receives DP, unlikely OR is executed, even more unlikely) is his failure to say that actually significant?

Hypo: If BK got a ten yr. or ridiculously short sentence, would hearing BK say, "Guilty, Your Honor" significantly comfort to the families? As much as LWOP?

And regardless of his plea and eventual outcome, as long as BK is serving time, he will be "telling everyone that he is innocent but admits the prosecution had alot of circumstantial evidence against him."

imo jmo
edited to add/clarify quote from post.

The Alford plea is a bit weirder than all those scenarios though which is what the OP was referring to IMO. A defendant could theoretically plea Alford prior to trial, have it accepted by the court and get LWOP. In that scenario not only does the defendant get to say for the rest of his life in prison "I never did it" (as expected as you point out) but the system also somehow, officially concedes that he never admitted his guilt and recognise's and accepts his stance re non-guilt, even though he has been found guilty as per evidence that would have made a jury convict had trial gone ahead. Others up thread have described it better than me. It does my head in quite frankly. MOO

 

[jepop]

I understand and, to be honest, I didn't really connect your post to BeginnerSleuth's post. I was really thinking of a few other posts where people seemed to be very much against standing silent being an option based on their view of how it would make the families feel.

No problem, I understand too. Thanks for taking the time to respond and clear it up.

 

[Montecore1]

Luckily, they have his car and cell phone in the same area during the time of the murders. One can reasonably surmise that a sheath with his DNA making it into the home came from him dropping it there.

Well actually they have "A" white Elantra in the area, the same one that they changed the year of only after finding out BCK's was a 2015.

As far as the cell tower data, that bit of "evidence" (or lack of) has been discussed ad nauseam in MSM and on this site showing numerous problems with attempting to prove he was actually "close to the residence" at those times...

 

[PrairieWind]

Reminds me of the Melville story of Bartleby the Scrivener. "I prefer not to." I wonder if that same stance characterizes this defendant. I do wonder what Kohberger has actually shared with his attorney beyond, "I didn't do it" and "I would prefer not to."


I'm thinking that AT will use the GJ documents in future court filings and, possibly, at trial. I understand there's a gag order, but gag orders can't cover the various motions that could be filed (as AT spells out in the last document - about extending the time to file motions based on the GJ documents).

It's interesting that (2) says OR and I do not know if that's an inclusive "or" or an exclusive "or." I would assume that BK is entitled to the documents. I would also assume that all pre-trial motions will be open to journalists, although we do not know that yet. If in fact, this entire process up until trial is going to be under seal, I do then understand SG's concerns. It seems weird to me, when I thought the press and the public has a right to know about most things that take place in a courtroom.

I am certain the Judge will not allow the dissemination of those documents directly to the public (perhaps even after trial) but must allow public use of the documents (entering into the public record facts from the documents) for the Defense to properly defend their client. I can imagine a whole host of motions flying after AT sees the evidence and the witnesses for the GJ (including attempts to impeach witnesses prior to trial).

Would Judge Judge make all of that behind closed doors? And then seal his rulings? Possible, I guess.

IMO.

I think you have totally misunderstood the gag order still. The court process is open to the public. The public was there yesterday at the arraignment and well advised, the docket is public. Hearings are public. Certain people are not permitted to makes disclosures of protected information. That is all. Grand Jury testimony is almost never made public. It MUST be released to the Defense. If people testify to the GJ under oath and then try to testify differently in Trial, that will be mentioned. It happens not infrequently.