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

[Boxer]

An Alford plea is a guilty plea, but without admitting guilty (no confession, no signed statement of guilt, etc). At least, that's what my research tells me. The Judge has to say that there was enough evidence to convict, but the defendant still maintains their innocence. So it's a "I'm going to plead guilty because I agree that the State has enough to convict me, but I didn't do it and I will maintain my innocence!"

It's considered a form of plea bargain in the Stanford University book The Triumph of Plea Bargaining: A History of Plea Bargaining In America by George Fisher, 2003.

I would really feel badly for the Gonçalves family and the other families. SG has been clear about wanting to know the evidence and what each side is going to say. I realize that some family members might not want to know.

This difference between plea and actual admission of guilt to the crime confuses me, I must say.

IMO.

Sounds right, plea wise he would basically be backing up into a crosswalk.

 

[10ofRods]

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.

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."

@10ofRods
IIUC the Crim Rule below allows the def't/defense, on MOTION, to get a copy of elec. or steno recording of GJ, but see sub sec. (c)(3) stating ct. "may place conditions on the use, dissemination or publication of the record of proceedings of the grand jury, and any violation of any condition by a party granted access to the record will constitute contempt of the order of the district judge."

IOW, GJ transcript does NOT become public, per my reading.
At least not pre-trial and not automatically.
Welcoming correction or clarification, esp'ly from our legal professionals.

_____________________________________________________
Idaho Criminal Rule 6.2. Transcript of Grand Jury Proceedings
(a) Reporting Grand Jury Proceedings. All proceedings of the grand jury, except deliberations, must be recorded, either stenographically or electronically.

(b) Record of Proceedings. The district judge or the presiding juror must designate someone to report or electronically record all of the proceedings of the grand jury, except its deliberations. That person must be sworn to correctly report all of the proceedings and not to divulge any of the information to any person except on order of the district judge. On taking the oath, the person must be permitted to attend all sessions, except deliberations, of the grand jury. On the conclusion of each matter presented to the grand jury, the court clerk must seal the record of the grand jury proceedings and the record must not be examined by any person or transcribed except on order of the district judge.

(c) Availability of Record of Grand Jury Proceedings. The district judge, by motion, must permit the following persons to listen to the record of the proceedings of the grand jury or to obtain a transcript of the proceedings in the same manner as a transcript of a preliminary hearing:
DVD (1) a prosecuting attorney,
(2) a person charged in an indictment or the attorney for the person charged, or
(3) a person charged with perjury because of the person's testimony before the grand jury.

The district judge may place conditions on the use, dissemination or publication of the record of proceedings of the grand jury, and any violation of any condition by a party granted access to the record will constitute contempt of the order of the district judge.

I.C.R. 6.2. Transcript of Grand Jury Proceedings | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

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.

 

[10ofRods]

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

<modsnip>

I wouldn't think that lawsuits would be about prevention of the murders, but about the competency of the investigations by the various LE agencies. If BK walks free at the end of the trial, the families are almost certainly going to question the process (currently hidden from them) by which the State went about pursuing its case, including the local investigations by LE (probably the best point of attack for a civil suit). <modsnip: referenced post was snipped>
IMO.

 

[MassGuy]

An Alford plea is a guilty plea, though. And it is a kind of deal, as the Judge and Prosecution have to agree. It saves the State a lot of money, would be one reason for the State to agree to it. And there's always the chance one juror will hold out on a guilty verdict.

The Defendant enters a guilty plea but refuses to admit guilt by offering any information or signing any statement that says they did it. That's the way I understand it.

Plea bargains can happen many ways. The Alford plea dates to 1963 and went all the way to the Supreme Court (murder case against a man named Alford). The only way to give the DP in most states is to have a trial, which was true in the Alford case. So, in order to avoid a trial, Alford plead guilty (to avoid the DP) but maintained he was innocent of murder. The Judge and Prosecution accepted this plea, then Alford appealed and said he was forced into the agreement by threat of death.

The SCOTUS disagreed with him and let the plea stand. He served his time. SCOTUS ruled that legal representation had been good and that Alford knew what he was doing when he entered the guilty plea. Alford died in prison.

IMO and with the help of wikipedia and a couple of websites on law.

Those pleas always fire me up, because the defendant doesn’t have to admit to any guilt. They are used in cases that are generally pretty tough, when the prosecution is concerned if they can meet the burden.

If that were to happen here, which I would be my life on it not happening, the outrage would be off the charts.

I predict a very long trial, and us saying at some point, “why the heck did this moron not plead guilty?”

Slam dunk forthcoming I think.

 

[SteveP]

An Alford plea is a guilty plea, though. And it is a kind of deal, as the Judge and Prosecution have to agree. It saves the State a lot of money, would be one reason for the State to agree to it. And there's always the chance one juror will hold out on a guilty verdict.

The Defendant enters a guilty plea but refuses to admit guilt by offering any information or signing any statement that says they did it. That's the way I understand it.

Plea bargains can happen many ways. The Alford plea dates to 1963 and went all the way to the Supreme Court (murder case against a man named Alford). The only way to give the DP in most states is to have a trial, which was true in the Alford case. So, in order to avoid a trial, Alford plead guilty (to avoid the DP) but maintained he was innocent of murder. The Judge and Prosecution accepted this plea, then Alford appealed and said he was forced into the agreement by threat of death.

The SCOTUS disagreed with him and let the plea stand. He served his time. SCOTUS ruled that legal representation had been good and that Alford knew what he was doing when he entered the guilty plea. Alford died in prison.

IMO and with the help of wikipedia and a couple of websites on law.

An Alford plea is a guilty plea, but it sometimes may even be a guilty plea to a lesser charge. Here in my area, Michael Peterson was convicted of murdering his wife, in a 2003 high-profile murder case that has been made into a movie, and featured on all of the tv crime shows. After serving 8 years in prison, his conviction was thrown out, and he was released, based on misinformation provided by an SBI blood spatter expert in his trial. Rather than go through another costly murder trial that may or may not have resulted in a conviction, without the key blood spatter evidence, Peterson submitted an Alford plea to a reduced charge of manslaughter, and was sentenced to time served and released.

There are many reasons why an Alford plea may be submitted and accepted, but I do not anticipate one in this case. I firmly believe that BK wants this trial to happen, and wants his extended time in the spotlight. In the end, I fully expect him to be convicted on all charges. JMO

Michael Peterson trial - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ilovewings]

I can't imagine that would be the case. I don't see why. Him not saying anything is the same as saying "not guilty."

A Constitutional right is not a stunt nor is it the silent treatment.

JMO.

His not saying anything is nothing more than something he is doing at the instruction of his defense counsel. There is a strategy to it. it really is quite simple. nothing more and nothing less.

 

[ilovewings]

An Alford plea is a guilty plea, but it sometimes may be a guilty plea to a lesser charge. Here in my area, Michael Peterson was convicted of murdering his wife, in a 2003 high-profile murder case that has been made into a movie, and featured on all of the tv crime shows. After serving 8 years in prison, his conviction was thrown out, and he was released, based on misinformation provided by an SBI blood spatter expert in his trial. Rather than go through another costly murder trial that may or may not have resulted in a conviction, without the key blood spatter evidence, Peterson submitted an Alford plea to a reduced charge of manslaughter, and was sentenced to time served and released.

There are many reasons why an Alford plea may be submitted and accepted, but I do not anticipate one in this case. I firmly believe that BK wants this trial to happen, and wants his extended time in the spotlight. JMO

Michael Peterson trial - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I am not understanding why so much time is spent on an Alford Plea. If such a thing were to occur, it would be way down the road. It is much too early to even entertain a discussion of an Alford Plea IMO.

 

[vls12345]

<modsnip: quoted post was snipped>

The article says though part of the purpose of the filing is "if something goes wrong, or was done improperly, then someone is held accountable for that." So I guess the claim is if Moscow LE made a mistake the city is responsible. And if a mistake comes to light and BK isn't convicted it would be because of the mistake? I guess I'm not seeing how the family has a legal stake in how Moscow LE did its job. Or how they have a legal stake in the outcome of the trial and would therefore deserve money if BK isn't convicted (guilty or not, I guess.)
JMO

I am wondering if this could this be a placeholder for the G & M families in case something related to the Brady/Giglio issues ends up derailing the case or lets BK off on a technicality? (Imo.)

Prosecutors disclose internal affairs investigation of officer involved in Idaho college murders case

The investigation was disclosed as "potential Brady/Giglio material," the court filings said.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[mickey2942]

Bryan Kohberger is a "really difficult client"—defense attorney

Kohberger, 28, the suspect in the stabbing deaths of four University of Idaho students, was arraigned in Moscow, Idaho, on May 22.

www.newsweek.com

Paving the way to new counsel. Which would stall defense, and string it out. Obfuscation of the system. Manipulation is all he can control right now, so he is doing it.

 

[10ofRods]

Those pleas always fire me up, because the defendant doesn’t have to admit to any guilt. They are used in cases that are generally pretty tough, when the prosecution is concerned if they can meet the burden.

If that were to happen here, which I would be my life on it not happening, the outrage would be off the charts.

I predict a very long trial, and us saying at some point, “why the heck did this moron not plead guilty?”

Slam dunk forthcoming I think.

I think you and I both feel that this is going to be a slam dunk. Grand Jury apparently agrees. Oh, the places that trial will go - when it occurs! Footprint and DNA alone would probably convict, but they have the phone data (and will have more by now), and the car sightings on various cameras around the neighborhood, that night. I'm not holding my breath about victim DNA in the car, but am hopeful. Of course, if they really do have Amazon records about a Ka-Bar knife purchase by BK, he's toast (esp. if the sheath itself can be traced directly to the Amazon purchase by Ka-Bar, which it likely can be).

His vitamin B-12 defense can only get him so far, when he's shown himself capable of doing grad work and planning a crime.

IMO.

 

[happyday]

A Constitutional right is not a stunt nor is it the silent treatment.

JMO.

I don’t think anyone is saying he shouldn’t have the right to stand silent. But in such a high profile case and because it’s a somewhat rare thing to say nothing, you are definitely going to get opinions about it. I think that’s a normal thing. I just can’t feel sorry for him at this point.

 

[Montecore1]

Bbm.
Unless he was a guest at a party at the house, it's going to be difficult to explain his dna there.
Trusting that the investigators have done their job, and that they 'have the goods' on BK.
Imo.

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.

 

[10ofRods]

I am wondering if this could this be a placeholder for the G & M families in case something related to the Brady/Giglio issues ends up derailing the case or lets BK off on a technicality? (Imo.)

Prosecutors disclose internal affairs investigation of officer involved in Idaho college murders case

The investigation was disclosed as "potential Brady/Giglio material," the court filings said.

www.cbsnews.com

That's a very good guess, IMO. Since the families can't know exactly what happened or what that whole thing means, they are protecting themselves. What a horrible twist of fate it would be, if the malfeasance inside the PD (which I personally think is unlikely to be affecting the case - but who knows?) results in a mistrial or an acquittal.

The families have the right to sue, if that happens, and would have a fairly good case, IMO. They have lost the companionship and support of their daughters and their son.

It's so frustrating that we don't know what that Brady/Giglio matter might be.

IMO.

 

[arielilane]

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

<modsnip>

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

<modsnip>

The article says though part of the purpose of the filing is "if something goes wrong, or was done improperly, then someone is held accountable for that." So I guess the claim is if Moscow LE made a mistake the city is responsible. And if a mistake comes to light and BK isn't convicted it would be because of the mistake? I guess I'm not seeing how the family has a legal stake in how Moscow LE did its job. Or how they have a legal stake in the outcome of the trial and would therefore deserve money if BK isn't convicted (guilty or not, I guess.)
JMO

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

 

[NCWatcher]

I am wondering if this could this be a placeholder for the G & M families in case something related to the Brady/Giglio issues ends up derailing the case or lets BK off on a technicality? (Imo.)

Prosecutors disclose internal affairs investigation of officer involved in Idaho college murders case

The investigation was disclosed as "potential Brady/Giglio material," the court filings said.

www.cbsnews.com

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

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Bbm.
Unless he was a guest at a party at the house, it's going to be difficult to explain his dna there.
Trusting that the investigators have done their job, and that they 'have the goods' on BK.
Imo.

His DNA wasn't at the house. It was on a sheath that belonged to the knife they think was the murder weapon. That distinction is important because (a) even if he was at a party at the house, it doesn't explain the DNA on the sheath and (b) he didn't need to be a party at the house (or be at the house the night of the murders) for his DNA to be on the sheath.

The DNA is the strongest evidence they have, IMO.

I'm not suggesting this happened with BK, but this is an article about how this type of DNA can end up places a suspect may not have been.

Framed By Your Own Cells: How DNA Evidence Imprisons The Innocent

Tiny amounts of touch-transferred DNA have placed people at locations they had never visited and implicated people for crimes they did not commit.

www.forbes.com

 

[arielilane]

Bryan Kohberger is a "really difficult client"—defense attorney

Kohberger, 28, the suspect in the stabbing deaths of four University of Idaho students, was arraigned in Moscow, Idaho, on May 22.

www.newsweek.com

Paving the way to new counsel. Which would stall defense, and string it out. Obfuscation of the system. Manipulation is all he can control right now, so he is doing it.

From the article: bbm

Bryan Kohberger, the suspect in the stabbing deaths of four University of Idaho students, is likely "a really difficult client," according to a defense attorney.


BK "is likely" ... and since the hearing yesterday, it's been bugging me if it was BK's decision to stand silent or BK's defense attorney's decision/instructions for him to? moo

 

[SteveP]

From the article: bbm

Bryan Kohberger, the suspect in the stabbing deaths of four University of Idaho students, is likely "a really difficult client," according to a defense attorney.


BK "is likely" ... and since the hearing yesterday, it's been bugging me if it was BK's decision to stand silent or BK's defense attorney's decision/instructions for him to? moo

I honestly find the opinion of "a defense attorney" who has absolutely no connection to this case at all, suggesting that BK is "likely a difficult client", no more valid than any of our many differing opinions here. JMO

 

[al66pine]

"Seemingly Competent Counsel"

.... BK has seemingly competent legal advice ... I would also assume that his lawyers have a good legal reason to suggest that route of action to him...

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

 

[wary]

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.

Edited to add link!

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 […]

www.barfieldlawfirm.net

MOO