GUILTY PLEA DEAL ACCEPTED - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #112

[LAborn]

I am actually amazed that BK didn't take the "Alford Plea" option, which would have been available to him. He wouldn't have had to plead "guilty" at all, just agree the government had enough evidence against him. With the death penalty, it was definitely an option for him.

Alford plea - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

My guess is he wants to take credit for it, he's a weirdo who admires serial killers.

 

[Tragg]

It depends what a person's ethics are. If I were a defense attorney there would definitely be people I wouldn't represent. Sorry, I'm an idealist. I think people who commit crimes should take responsibility and accept the punishment.

I like idealists, and I pray for you. In an ideal world there would be no crime, and no need for attorneys. In the real world, we must do the best we can.

 

[PunishThenForgive]

Dylan was at that hearing?

Yes. @Chloegirl posted this in the last thread:

Reporter Kayna Whitworth mentions in her podcast DM attending the plea deal hearing.

Here’s the podcast episode:

Bryan Kohberger pleads guilty

Podcast Episode · The King Road Killings: An Idaho Murder Mystery · 07/03/2025 · 17m

podcasts.apple.com

​

Kevin Fixler of the Idaho Statesman confirmed that Dylan attended the plea hearing in this episode of Courtroom Confidential:

 

[SandyQLS]

I think others have stated what the judge conveyed today. Anyone can "try" but the court isn't obligated to entertain it. He can try for an appeal, but he'll be shut down. The sentence states (will state on July 23rd) "no appeal". The court has no reason to entertain or reverse its decision. At least that's how I understand it.

Judge Hippler mentioned Garza vs. Idaho, which is a federal case that went to the Supreme Court re: 6th Amendment. My understanding is that Constitutional rights cannot be waived. A sideline of this odd case has been Hurwit (prosecution) and Massoth (defense), both of them are more known as federal attorneys. Is the defense strategy to file a federal appeal to the 9th Circuit, buying time and not caring about the ruling? If an appeal were denied at 9th, they can go Garza to the SCOTUS for more time. So my question is, would a defense notice of a federal appeal filed next week before sentencing 'kick the can down the road', halt the sentencing hearing until federal appeals are exhausted? Is this real?

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1945947080989516252

 

[MTW2011]

Judge Hippler mentioned Garza vs. Idaho, which is a federal case that went to the Supreme Court re: 6th Amendment. My understanding is that Constitutional rights cannot be waived. A sideline of this odd case has been Hurwit (prosecution) and Massoth (defense), both of them are more known as federal attorneys. Is the defense strategy to file a federal appeal to the 9th Circuit, buying time and not caring about the ruling? If an appeal were denied at 9th, they can go Garza to the SCOTUS for more time. So my question is, would a defense notice of a federal appeal filed next week before sentencing 'kick the can down the road', halt the sentencing hearing until federal appeals are exhausted? Is this real?

Taylor has had multiple previous cases go up on appeal with arguments similar to this. I too am curious.

Thompson has also had one of his DP cases go up on appeal and ultimately get resentenced to LWOP. It will be interesting to see what appeals may come, if they do, in the future…but gotta make sure he doesn’t try to withdraw his plea right before sentencing first. Very unlikely but not impossible JMOO

 

[INfisherman]

Judge Hippler mentioned Garza vs. Idaho, which is a federal case that went to the Supreme Court re: 6th Amendment. My understanding is that Constitutional rights cannot be waived. A sideline of this odd case has been Hurwit (prosecution) and Massoth (defense), both of them are more known as federal attorneys. Is the defense strategy to file a federal appeal to the 9th Circuit, buying time and not caring about the ruling? If an appeal were denied at 9th, they can go Garza to the SCOTUS for more time. So my question is, would a defense notice of a federal appeal filed next week before sentencing 'kick the can down the road', halt the sentencing hearing until federal appeals are exhausted? Is this real?

Not an attorney, so take this with a grain of salt.

Trial isn’t over until he’s sentenced, IIUC. An appeal would put the cart before the horse.

Garza wanted to appeal based on ineffective counsel yet due to the 2 plea agreements Garza signed having appeal waivers, his attorney refused to file for an appeal (in the given window for one to be filed). This waiving the right to appeal based on ineffective counsel was not specifically stated in the plea agreement, so the SCOTUS ruled in Garza’s favor. This does not mean BK will be granted an appeal. He can file appeals all he wants - whether any courts grant him one is a completely different story.

The burden for those small windows of opportunity for an appeal lies on BK & I doubt he has much of any ground to stand upon for an appeal to actually be granted. The prosecution or defense would have to really have messed something up for BK to have much of a chance at being granted an appeal.

MOO

 

[Seattle1]

The plea agreement is not effective until entered into the record at sentencing, and I agree it makes sense not to upset the apple cart here with unsealing docs, etc., before sentencing is complete.

As for BK's appellate grounds based on the US Constitution and his civil rights (i.e., Garza v Idaho), I recall Chris Watts attempted to explore an appeal on similar Constitutional grounds, and I don't think he got past filing the notice of intent. (Watts was reverting back to blaming his wife for the death of the children).

IMO, it would be the same with BK where his plea agreement hearing is on video, and the majority of the hearing was devoted to BK's competency, his understanding of the rights he was giving up, and his satisfaction with his legal counsel. Seriously, there is no SODDI. When the alternative would mean a criminal trial and the potential of death upon conviction, such a move makes no sense to me.

MOO

 

[Luna20]

So she can be on vacation somewhere when the ugly details come out.

She was the one who fought for public hearings during which she vomited up some gross misrepresentation. And she knew the relevant evidence when she did so, banked on the State holding their case for trial, underestimating Judge Hippler's command of the case, the courtroom and professional ethics.

It cannot be a good day to be Hippchecked in open court, drawing a penalty reminder--

You're an Officer of the Court...

That is a stern warning. IMO the same as, I see what you're about to do and strongly suggest you don't.

Smartly she didn't, but there's no way that didn't sting. Not a good performance review.

If BK is among the most hated men in America right now, the release of evidence isn't going to improve that.

The details are sure to make us ill. First ill, then angry, then ill and angry, and profoundly sad.

Heinous, depraved, indifferent...

It's that last word that might be most unsettling of all. Indifferent. He brutally murdered four young people, in the spring of their lives, in the safety of their bedrooms, to which he admitted without so much as a stutter. No remorse, no regret, no care, just indifferent. Unabashedly indifferent.

It's a kind of cold that I suspect can drop the temperature in a room.

The presence of evil.

JMO

Do you know if she has had any other high profile cases? Asking because she has been strange throughout. At times she acted like a giddy teenager and at other times she was defiant with Judge H. The week before the plea when she was aggressively attempting to suggest other suspects, seemed to be the last straw for JH.

Has it registered yet that she spent all of this time in close proximity with a murderer? She still has to get to the end of this as all attorneys do but she should not be smiling at him the way that she does. Show some respect for these grieving families.

Hmmm, maybe she wants to write a book about the case. I don’t know, I’m just trying to make sense of her behavior.

 

[NottaYutz]

I think he is on psychiatric meds and he is finally thinking straight for the first time in years. That does not mean that he has remorse. And the state may not have offered that option. JMOO

If he is on psychiatric meds, wouldn't his confession be tainted by that fact?

 

[Arkay]

Garza wanted to appeal based on ineffective counsel yet due to the 2 plea agreements Garza signed having appeal waivers, his attorney refused to file for an appeal (in the given window for one to be filed). This waiving the right to appeal based on ineffective counsel was not specifically stated in the plea agreement, so the SCOTUS ruled in Garza’s favor. This does not mean BK will be granted an appeal. He can file appeals all he wants - whether any courts grant him one is a completely different story.

IMO, it would be the same with BK where his plea agreement hearing is on video, and the majority of the hearing was devoted to BK's competency, his understanding of the rights he was giving up, and his satisfaction with his legal counsel. Seriously, there is no SODDI. When the alternative would mean a criminal trial and the potential of death upon conviction, such a move makes no sense to me.

This makes sense to me. It is on record, as we all witnessed, that Judge Hippler was very thorough in ascertaining that BK understood what he was doing when he pled guilty to all charges. Malice aforethought etc.

Equally clear when the judge inquired as to BK’s satisfaction with his representation.

Yet I do have concerns now. Surely AT is familiar with the Garza case as well, and I’m anxious now if this was some trick up her sleeve. If she had prepped Bryan somehow and told him that at sentencing she will state that he didn’t understand nor agree with pleading guilty and its ramifications.

Hopefully not, because the inference there would be that she was in fact ineffective as his counsel, and I doubt that she’d want to sabotage herself in that manner.

Just going by Brian Entin’s interview with the Idaho lawyer, I hope there is no Pandora’s Box waiting to be opened.

JMO

 

[Chloegirl]

If he is on psychiatric meds, wouldn't his confession be tainted by that fact?

I am not a psychiatrist, but I believe they help you be more in reality. So, I do not perceive them as altering your mental state for the worse (suppose that can happen) but for the better, treating the underlying imbalance. It has always been my impression they can keep you tethered to reality when you have serious psychiatric conditions. JMOO

 

[gremlin444]

So, FWIW..

If you are familiar with The Prosecutors' Podcast, you know that the hosts have both worked as both private practice and federal prosecutors. One of the hosts is now a federal appeal lawyer (and he's usually the ones writing social media posts on their acct):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1945975007747932170

They did check and said that it look like that in Idaho, BK would have 42 days to file an appeal.

 

[Lilibet]

If he is on psychiatric meds, wouldn't his confession be tainted by that fact?

Why do you think that?

 

[Seattle1]

Taylor is the only capital-qualified (death-penalty) defense attorney in North Idaho. In my experience, these attorneys are constitutional lawyers first because it's pretty much a given that the odds of an acquittal for a 'DP Defendant' are not good!

Here, these attorneys really believe in what they do: The Constitution, if it doesn't work for all of us, it doesn't work for any of us.

Taylor is a native of Idaho and worked both as a county prosecutor and a public defender. She has another capital-qualified case pending (Skylar Meade) that caused Judge Hippler to raise his brow after Taylor was seeking more time for BK's trial.... "At what point are you ready?" Hippler pressed. “You took on a new death penalty case since you came on to this case. Why would you do that if you were not having enough time on this case?”

Hippler was respectful of Taylor's response while also expressing his satisfaction with the intellectual exercise after an all-day hearing: “I enjoy dialoguing with you, counsel. I appreciate it,” he said. IMO, that seems to be the consensus from those working with Ann Taylor.

Lengthy story on Anne Taylor linked below:

Kohberger Trial​

The Public Defender​

‘It’s always a fight’: Anne Taylor’s path to defending Bryan Kohberger​

By Kevin Fixler
Updated July 17, 2025 11:31 AM



7/17/25

The work of a capital-qualified defense attorney isn’t for everyone. It’s often daunting, and requires 14-hour workdays, seven days a week, Roark said. But Taylor handled the intense pressure of Kohberger’s closely watched case, he said.

“She’s probably the perfect person for a very difficult job. She leaves no stone unturned and is not intimidated by anything, or anybody,” said Roark, who has known Taylor for nearly a decade. “She’s showing in this case a great work ethic and she will do everything she is legally, ethically, professionally compelled to do — and a little more after that.”

The U.S. Constitution’s Sixth Amendment guarantees everyone the right to an attorney during prosecution. It is the necessity of criminal defense lawyers to cast aside any judgment of their clients to ensure they are properly represented in a court of law, Palmer said.

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article310334370.html#storylink=cpy

 

[PunishThenForgive]

I think he is on psychiatric meds and he is finally thinking straight for the first time in years.

SBM

If he is on psychiatric meds, wouldn't his confession be tainted by that fact?

I am not a psychiatrist, but I believe they help you be more in reality. So, I do not perceive them as altering your mental state for the worse (suppose that can happen) but for the better, treating the underlying imbalance. It has always been my impression they can keep you tethered to reality when you have serious psychiatric conditions. JMOO

Lori Vallow Daybell could not be tried until she was deemed competent.

According to the Idaho Statesman article ‘Mentally unfit for trial.’ What’s it mean? How does Idaho restore defendants’ competency?:

Dr. Tanisha Keith, chief of psychology at State Hospital South stated:

When a defendant’s symptoms are significantly impacting their mood, thinking, speech, behavior, etc., to the point that they would be unable to demonstrate an ability to consult with their attorney, understand the legal proceedings and/or make rational decisions about their case, those symptoms would generally render the defendant not competent to proceed with their case at that time.

Defendants who are deemed incompetent to stand trial must undergo a process called “competency restoration” at a treatment facility.

Ross Edmunds, administrator for Idaho’s Division of Behavioral Health stated:

[T]here are typically two groups of defendants who undergo the competency restoration process: those with developmental disabilities and those with mental illnesses.

People with a mental illness can almost always be restored to competency when properly medicated.

So taking psych meds is OK, and may be what restored Vallow Daybell’s competency to stand trial.

 

[Warwick7]

 

[PunishThenForgive]

Judge Hippler mentioned Garza vs. Idaho, which is a federal case that went to the Supreme Court re: 6th Amendment. My understanding is that Constitutional rights cannot be waived. A sideline of this odd case has been Hurwit (prosecution) and Massoth (defense), both of them are more known as federal attorneys. Is the defense strategy to file a federal appeal to the 9th Circuit, buying time and not caring about the ruling?

SBM

Constitutional rights can be waived:

Waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right. Constitutional rights may ordinarily be waived [only] if it can be established by clear and convincing evidence that the waiver is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. A waiver of constitutional rights is voluntary if, under the totality of the circumstances, it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than coercion or improper inducement.

Source: The Waiver of Constitutional Rights

U.S. appellate courts have jurisdiction over cases that allege violations of federal constitutional rights, regardless of whether the alleged violations involve federal, state, or local governments. Thus, appeals based on constitutional grounds permit federal court review of state and local laws, practices, and court rulings, not just direct appeals of federal cases.

Source: Appellate Courts and Cases – Journalist’s Guide

IANAL, but I don’t think BK can file a federal appeal since you can’t violate a constitutional right of it was properly waived.

IMO

 

[cottonweaver]

The plea agreement is not effective until entered into the record at sentencing, and I agree it makes sense not to upset the apple cart here with unsealing docs, etc., before sentencing is complete.

As for BK's appellate grounds based on the US Constitution and his civil rights (i.e., Garza v Idaho), I recall Chris Watts attempted to explore an appeal on similar Constitutional grounds, and I don't think he got past filing the notice of intent. (Watts was reverting back to blaming his wife for the death of the children).

IMO, it would be the same with BK where his plea agreement hearing is on video, and the majority of the hearing was devoted to BK's competency, his understanding of the rights he was giving up, and his satisfaction with his legal counsel. Seriously, there is no SODDI. When the alternative would mean a criminal trial and the potential of death upon conviction, such a move makes no sense to me.

MOO

I doubt anybody believes that BK will actually get anywhere via an appeal loophole but as Websleuth member MTW commented yesterday - were all the families briefed fully on this, as basic Duty of Care? I'd hate to be any of them if they're feeling any more uncertainty after yesterday.

This was meant to be a step on the path of healing.
Multiple lawyers on TV sold this as bomb proof on the day of the plea hearing. The advantage of never hearing from BK ever again was sold as an advantage. He'd disappear into the bowels of a max security prison, voiceless and powerless. This was compensation for not having to face a trial. etc etc. I bought into that too!

Will BK now just create more pointless filings for the hell of it, to drag this out? Seems like that kind of guy

Anyway, onto the subject of no disclosure ' until the end of the appeal period'( Hippler) does anybody know when that ends? How long is a piece of string?

 

[PunishThenForgive]

The Prosecutors' Podcast: They said that in Idaho, BK would have 42 days to file an appeal.

Anyway, onto the subject of no disclosure ' until the end of the appeal period'( Hippler) does anybody know when that ends? How long is a piece of string?

This page supports the Prosecutor Podcast assertion that BK will have 42 days after sentencing to file an appeal:

Idaho Appellate Rule 14. Time for Filing Appeals

(Note: Rule 14 refers to Idaho Appellate Rule 12. Appeal by Permission)