Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Mega Edition: Kohberger And The Drawn Out Battle Over His Cover Story (9/25/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Kohberger And The Drawn Out Battle Over His Cover Story (9/25/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. There's
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: a lot of action going on behind the scenes right
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: now in the Brian Koberger trial as both sides are
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: filing a flurry of court documents. Previously, we talked about
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: Brian Koberger and his team attempting to get the whole
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: ass indictment thrown out. And they say the basis of
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: that is that the grand jury wasn't instructed properly throughout
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: the whole proceeding to get an indictment against Brian Koberger. Now,
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: we know that the prosecution thinks that's a bunch of BS.
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: And now the prosecution has filed their own court document
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: demanding that the court compel Brian Koberger and his team
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: to give them the alibi. So let's dive into this
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: article and let's see what CNN has for us. Headline,
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: prosecutors in Brian Koberger case request court compel information on
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: potential alibi. This article was authored by Taylor Romine. prosecutors
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: in the case of Brian Kohlberger, the man accused of
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: killing four University of Idaho students in the fall, have
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: filed a motion asking a judge to compel his defense
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: team to share information about his potential alibi. The state's
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: filing on Thursday came days after attorneys for Kohlberger suggested
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: he was not at the location where the crimes took place.
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: So did anyone think that Koberger was going to make
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: those kinds of statements or his legal team was going
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: to make those kinds of filings without the prosecution responding
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: and responding forcefully? There's no way that the prosecution is
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: going to sit around and say to themselves, hey, you
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: know what? We'll just wait until we go to trial
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: and then he can give us the alibi then. Zero
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: chance that we're going to sit back and accept that.
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: So they're asking the judge, Judge Judge, to compel Brian
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: Kohlberger's legal team to tell them about the alibi. Kohlberger
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: faces four counts of first degree murder in the November
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: 13 deaths of 21-year-old Kaylee Gonsalves and Madison Mogan and
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: 20-year-old Zanna Kernodle and Ethan Chapin, who were fatally stabbed
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: in their off-campus home in Moscow, Idaho. A not guilty
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: plea has been entered on his behalf and his trial
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: is set for October. And I really just don't see
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: how this trial kicks off in October. I know I
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: said that in the last episode and many episodes previously,
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: but there's just so much going on here that I
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: have a hard time believing that Kohlberger's team is going
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: to be prepared. And I don't say that as a
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: knock on Kohlberger's team. I'm just saying in general, with
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: the massive amount of information that they got for Discovery,
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: It wouldn't matter if you had the greatest lawyer of
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: all time. I don't care if you dig up Johnny Cochran.
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: It's not going to matter. You're going to need more
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: time to prepare and get all of your information ready
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: to go. We're not talking about a petty theft case here.
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: We're talking about capital punishment. A man's life is on
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: the line. So you know that his lawyers are going
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: to do whatever they can to make sure that they're
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: in a position to be successful. And to do that,
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: my guess is they're going to need a lot more time.
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: Prosecutors requested in their motion that the defense provide information
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: on the specific place or places where Kohlberger claims to
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: have been during the time of the crimes, as well
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: as the names and addresses of all witnesses they plan
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: to use to establish an alibi. And of course, Kohlberger's
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: team said That information is not available and they might
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: just wait until cross-examination to give up an alibi. And
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: I thought from the beginning that was ridiculous. I highly
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: doubt that the judge is going to just sit back
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: and let them play games like this. The judge already
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: had a deadline with the court for them to provide
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: an alibi. They missed that deadline. Oh, well, we might
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: have something for you come trial time, yada, yada, yada,
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: save it. If I was Kohlberger and I had an alibi,
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: boy oh boy, everybody would know. You think I have
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: a big mouth now? Let somebody accuse me of a
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: crime that I'm innocent of. Me, my beard, and this
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: big fat ass Italian mouth would be on every single
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: mountaintop yelling about how innocent I am. Have we seen
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: any of that from Kohlberger? Have we seen any of
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: that from any of these clowns? Of course not. And then,
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: of course, you'll have the people out there that say, well,
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: that would be stupid. Your lawyer would tell you not
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: to do that. Well, I don't care what my lawyer
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: would tell me at that point. I'm the one that's
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: getting the death penalty here and you're sitting around dicking off. Sorry, buddy.
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: I'm letting everybody know I'm innocent. And here's the alibi
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: that proves it. It is important to note that the
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: scheduled October 2nd, 2023 jury trial is barely more than
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: two months away, the court filing says. If the defense
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: intends to rely on alibi, it is essential that they
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: be required to provide prompt notice so the state can
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: fulfill its obligations under Idaho Code section 19-519-2 to investigate
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: and respond to the notice of alibi. Any further delays
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: will substantially prejudice the state's rights. And remember, the state
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: has rights too. I know we always talk about the
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: rights of the defendant, But there are certain things that
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: have to happen from the defendant to make sure that
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: they're in compliance with the Idaho criminal rules. And that's
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: basically what the prosecution is saying here. Look, you guys
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: aren't complying. You're not following the rules. And we want
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: the alibi information. And we want it now. Prosecutors also
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: requested the defense be required to provide the information within
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: 10 days of a potential court order, according to the motion.
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: Evidence corroborating Mr. Koberger being at a location other than
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: the King Road address will be disclosed pursuant to discovery
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: and evidentiary rules as well as statutory requirements. Defense attorney
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: Ann Taylor wrote in a court document filed on Monday.
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: So Ann Taylor is saying, look, you'll get it when
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: I want to give it to you. That's basically what
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: she's saying here. And we've seen it from both sides.
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: We've seen the prosecution saying, slow walk some of the
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: discovery items, there's no doubt about it. And now that
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: the defense can return the favor, you know that's what
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: they're going to do. And this is something I said
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: at the very beginning of this. Expect a lot of
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: back and forth between both sides. This is going to
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: be a contentious process. And both sides are going to
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: try and get the best situation for the outcome that
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: they're looking for. And it's going to be up to
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: Judge Judge to navigate through all of this and make
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: sure that the proceedings are fair for everybody involved. It
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: is anticipated this evidence may be offered by the way
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: of cross-examination of witnesses produced by the state as well
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: as calling expert witnesses, the filing stated. And what expert
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: witnesses could they call? Well, they could call experts that
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: go against what the state's experts have to say about
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: the cell phone data and the cell phone towers. But
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: besides that, I don't know how you're going to find
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: an expert witness that can tell us that Kohlberger wasn't
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: at the King Road residence unless you're going to get, oh,
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: I don't know, Professor X. Kohlberger stands firm on his
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: constitutional right to silence as well as to testify on
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: his own behalf, his lawyers said. Now, if Kohlberger is
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: going to take the stand, I'm going to go up
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: to Idaho and I'm going to be there in person
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: for that. Because let me tell you what, you want
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: to talk about an absolute shitshow? That's gonna be it.
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: You thought Alec Murdoch looked bad on the stand? Put
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: this knucklehead up there and let's see the prosecution absolutely
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: savage this dude. There's no way that they're gonna put
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: this guy on the stand. You know when you were
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: growing up and you had that friend that always talked
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: shit like he was tough? But then, whenever his situation
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: popped up, dude was the first one to run? That's
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: kind of what the prosecution's like here. They're talking a
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: big game, but when it's time to throw down, let's
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: see how quick they are to put Brian Kohlberger up
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: on that stand. The students' killings rattled the small Idaho
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: college town of Moscow and have been the focus of
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: a lengthy conversation. Kohlberger, a graduate student from nearby Washington
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: State University, was arrested seven weeks later at his parents'
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: house in Pennsylvania. Defense files additional motions. Attorneys representing Koberger
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: filed two additional motions this week. One requests a stay
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: of the proceedings, claiming prosecutors failed to comply fully with
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: the Title II of the Idaho Code, which governs requirements
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: of convening trial juries for grand juries. A sworn affidavit
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: filed under seal in conjunction with the motion outlines the
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: specifics of the allegations according to the motion but attorneys
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: cite selection of jurors and jury questionnaires as issues of concern. Well,
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: I'll tell you this much. We dealt with something similar
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: with Ghislaine Maxwell, with Scotty David, juror number 50, and
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: Maxwell's whole last sentence was upheld. So if they think
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: they're going to be able to utilize this as a
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: tool in their favor, I think they're mistaken. Further, other
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: irregularity exists within the grand jury process, and further investigation
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: is necessary to determine the impact, if any, in the
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: convening of this grand jury, the motion says. Another motion
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: filed at the same time on Tuesday seeks to dismiss
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: the indictment against Koberger, arguing the grand jury was misled
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: as to the standard of proof required required for an indictment.
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: And again, look, that's a very, very charged statement to make.
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: And of course, the judge is going to look at
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: all of it and see what's what. Now, I have
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: no comment, really, because I haven't seen the documents. I
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: don't know what went on in the grand jury because
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: there's no transparency in the grand jury. So I have
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: no idea. So this is something where we're going to
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: have to see what's what. Defense attorneys argue that the
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: Idaho state constitution sets the standard of proof for a
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: grand jury at beyond a reasonable doubt. But the grand
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: jury in the case against Koberger was given the lower
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: standard required for an archaic process called presentment, which requires
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: a preliminary hearing. In turn, failing to properly instruct the
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: grand jury is grounds for a dismissal of the indictment,
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: the defense argues. And look, I'm not a legal scholar,
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: but if this is the case and the prosecution misled
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: the jury, then it's certainly something that the judge is
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: going to have to take a good, hard, long look at.
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: Because remember, it's all about the integrity of the conviction
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: at this point. Nothing else matters. Idaho's criminal procedure law
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: defines a presentment as a formal statement by the grand
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: jury indicating to the court a crime has been committed,
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: and there are reasonable grounds that the person named in
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: the presentment committed the crime. In comparison, an indictment under
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: Idaho law is a written accusation presented by the grand
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: jury charging a person with a public offense. Koberger's attorneys
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: argue the indictment should either be dismissed or be treated
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: as a presentment and have a preliminary hearing. They acknowledged
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: in the motion that the defense recognizes the whole of
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: modern jurisprudence on this issue is against it. Due to
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: a wide range in gag order, prosecutors, defense lawyers and
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: attorneys for victims, families and witnesses are prohibited from saying
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: anything publicly aside from what is already in the public record.
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: And even though the gag order has been pared back some,
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: it is still a gag order, a non-dissemination order, and
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: it does prevent any of these parties who are taking
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: part in these proceedings from talking about what's going on
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: in the public. And that's to protect, once again, the
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: integrity of the overall trial. The judge doesn't want there
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: to be any BS talking about how, you know, the
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: media had something to do with the conviction, blah, blah, blah.
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: So they have this gag order dropped over the case
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: to try and prevent that. But fortunately, we have a
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: little bit of a window into what's going on anyway.
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: And that window is the court documents. And I know
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: that they're not the funnest thing that we do here
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: on the podcast. But for those of you who are
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: following this case, it's very important to know what's going
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: on behind the scenes, what's going on with those filings.
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: Because if you understand what's going on behind the scenes, well,
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: you're going to have a better grasp overall of the case.
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: So that's why we're going to continue navigating through those
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: court documents as they hit the docket. And speaking of
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: court documents, you can expect some coming your way later
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: on today and tomorrow. As for this episode, well, that's
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: a wrap. All of the information that goes with this
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box. What's up
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: everyone and welcome back to the program. There's a lot
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: of action going on behind the scenes right now in
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: the Brian Koberger trial as both sides are filing a
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: flurry of court documents. Previously, we talked about Brian Koberger
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: and his team attempting to get the whole ass indictment
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: thrown out. And they say the basis of that is
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: that the grand jury wasn't instructed properly throughout the whole
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: proceeding to get an indictment against Brian Koberger. Now, we
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: know that the prosecution thinks that's a bunch of B.S.,
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: And now the prosecution has filed their own court document
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: demanding that the court compel Brian Koberger and his team
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: to give them the alibi. So let's dive into this
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: article and let's see what CNN has for us. Headline,
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: prosecutors in Brian Koberger case request court compel information on
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: potential alibi. This article was authored by Taylor Romine. Prosecutors
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: in the case of Brian Kohlberger, the man accused of
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: killing four University of Idaho students in the fall, have
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: filed a motion asking a judge to compel his defense
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: team to share information about his potential alibi. The state's
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: filing on Thursday came days after attorneys for Kohlberger suggested
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: he was not at the location where the crimes took place.
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: So did anyone think that Koberger was going to make
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: those kinds of statements or his legal team was going
• 15:01
  Speaker 1: to make those kinds of filings without the prosecution responding
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: and responding forcefully? There's no way that the prosecution is
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: going to sit around and say to themselves, hey, you
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: know what? We'll just wait until we go to trial
• 15:15
  Speaker 1: and then he can give us the alibi then. Zero
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: chance that we're going to sit back and accept that.
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: So they're asking the judge, Judge Judge, to compel Brian
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: Kohlberger's legal team to tell them about the alibi. Kohlberger
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: faces four counts of first degree murder in the November
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: 13 deaths of 21-year-old Kaylee Gonsalves and Madison Mogan and
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: 20-year-old Zanna Kernodle and Ethan Chapin, who were fatally stabbed
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: in their off-campus home in Moscow, Idaho. A not guilty
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: plea has been entered on his behalf and his trial
• 15:49
  Speaker 1: is set for October. And I really just don't see
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: how this trial kicks off in October. I know I
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: said that in the last episode and many episodes previously,
• 15:59
  Speaker 1: but there's just so much going on here that I
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: have a hard time believing that Kohlberger's team is going
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: to be prepared. And I don't say that as a
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: knock on Kohlberger's team. I'm just saying in general, with
• 16:11
  Speaker 1: the massive amount of information that they got for Discovery,
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: It wouldn't matter if you had the greatest lawyer of
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: all time. I don't care if you dig up Johnny Cochran.
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: It's not going to matter. You're going to need more
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: time to prepare and get all of your information ready
• 16:26
  Speaker 1: to go. We're not talking about a petty theft case here.
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: We're talking about capital punishment. A man's life is on
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: the line. So you know that his lawyers are going
• 16:36
  Speaker 1: to do whatever they can to make sure that they're
• 16:39
  Speaker 1: in a position to be successful. And to do that,
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: my guess is they're going to need a lot more time.
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: Prosecutors requested in their motion that the defense provide information
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: on the specific place or places where Kohlberger claims to
• 16:56
  Speaker 1: have been during the time of the crimes, as well
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: as the names and addresses of all witnesses they plan
• 17:02
  Speaker 1: to use to establish an alibi. And of course, Kohlberger's
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: team said That information is not available, and they might
• 17:10
  Speaker 1: just wait until cross-examination to give up an alibi. And
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: I thought from the beginning that was ridiculous. I highly
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: doubt that the judge is going to just sit back
• 17:22
  Speaker 1: and let them play games like this. The judge already
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: had a deadline with the court for them to provide
• 17:28
  Speaker 1: an alibi. They missed that deadline. Oh, well, we might
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: have something for you come trial time, yada, yada, yada,
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: save it. If I was Kohlberger and I had an alibi,
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: boy oh boy, everybody would know. You think I have
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: a big mouth now? Let somebody accuse me of a
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: crime that I'm innocent of. Me, my beard, and this
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: big fat ass Italian mouth would be on every single
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: mountaintop yelling about how innocent I am. Have we seen
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: any of that from Kohlberger? Have we seen any of
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: that from any of these clowns? Of course not. And then,
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: of course, you'll have the people out there that say, well,
• 18:01
  Speaker 1: that would be stupid. Your lawyer would tell you not
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: to do that. Well, I don't care what my lawyer
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: would tell me at that point. I'm the one that's
• 18:08
  Speaker 1: getting the death penalty here and you're sitting around dicking off. Sorry, buddy.
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: I'm letting everybody know I'm innocent. And here's the alibi
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: that proves it. It is important to note that the
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: scheduled October 2nd, 2023 jury trial is barely more than
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: two months away, the court filing says. If the defense
• 18:29
  Speaker 1: intends to rely on alibi, it is essential that they
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: be required to provide prompt notice so the state can
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: fulfill its obligations under Idaho Code section 19-519-2 to investigate
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: and respond to the notice of alibi. Any further delays
• 18:48
  Speaker 1: will substantially prejudice the state's rights. And remember, the state
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: has rights too. I know we always talk about the
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: rights of the defendant, But there are certain things that
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: have to happen from the defendant to make sure that
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: they're in compliance with the Idaho criminal rules. And that's
• 19:06
  Speaker 1: basically what the prosecution is saying here. Look, you guys
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: aren't complying. You're not following the rules. And we want
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: the alibi information and we want it now. Prosecutors also
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: requested the defense be required to provide the information within
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: 10 days of a potential court order, according to the motion.
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: Evidence corroborating Mr. Koberger being at a location other than
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: the King Road address will be disclosed pursuant to discovery
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: and evidentiary rules as well as statutory requirements. Defense attorney
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: Ann Taylor wrote in a court document filed on Monday.
• 19:44
  Speaker 1: So Ann Taylor is saying, look, you'll get it when
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: I want to give it to you. That's basically what
• 19:49
  Speaker 1: she's saying. here. And we've seen it from both sides.
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: We've seen the prosecution slow walk some of the discovery items.
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: There's no doubt about it. And now that the defense
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: can return the favor, you know, that's what they're going
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: to do. And this is something I said at the
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: very beginning of this. expect a lot of back and
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: forth between both sides. This is going to be a
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: contentious process and both sides are going to try and
• 20:15
  Speaker 1: get the best situation for the outcome that they're looking for.
• 20:21
  Speaker 1: And it's going to be up to judge judge to
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: navigate through all of this and make sure that the
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: proceedings are fair for everybody involved. It is anticipated this
• 20:31
  Speaker 1: evidence may be offered by the way of cross-examination of
• 20:35
  Speaker 1: witnesses involved produced by the state as well as calling
• 20:39
  Speaker 1: expert witnesses, the filing stated. And what expert witnesses could
• 20:43
  Speaker 1: they call? Well, they could call experts that go against
• 20:47
  Speaker 1: what the state's experts have to say about the cell
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: phone data and the cell phone towers. But besides that,
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: I don't know how you're going to find an expert
• 20:55
  Speaker 1: witness that can tell us that Kohlberger wasn't at the
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: King Road residence unless you're going to get, oh, I
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: don't know, Professor X. Kohlberger stands firm on his constitutional
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: right to silence as well as to testify on his
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: own behalf, his lawyer said. Now, if Kohlberger is going
• 21:12
  Speaker 1: to take the stand, I'm going to go up to
• 21:14
  Speaker 1: Idaho and I'm going to be there in person for that.
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: Because let me tell you what, you want to talk
• 21:19
  Speaker 1: about an absolute shit show? That's going to be it.
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: You thought Alec Murdoch looked bad on the stand. Put
• 21:24
  Speaker 1: this knucklehead up there and let's see the prosecution absolutely
• 21:28
  Speaker 1: savage this dude. There's no way that they're going to
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: put this guy on the stand. You know when you
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: were growing up and you had that friend that always
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: talked shit like he was tough, but then whenever his
• 21:39
  Speaker 1: situation popped up, dude was the first one to run?
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: That's kind of what the prosecution's like here. They're talking
• 21:45
  Speaker 1: a big game, but when it's time to throw down,
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: let's see how quick they are to put Brian Koberger
• 21:51
  Speaker 1: up on that stand. The students' killings rattled the small
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: Idaho college town of Moscow, and have been the focus
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: of a lengthy conversation. Kohlberger, a graduate student from nearby
• 22:03
  Speaker 1: Washington State University, was arrested seven weeks later at his
• 22:07
  Speaker 1: parents' house in Pennsylvania. Defense files additional motions. Attorneys representing
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: Kohlberger filed two additional motions this week. One requests a
• 22:18
  Speaker 1: stay of the proceedings claiming prosecutors failed to comply fully
• 22:23
  Speaker 1: with the Title II of the Idaho Code, which governs
• 22:26
  Speaker 1: requirements of convening trial juries for grand juries. A sworn
• 22:31
  Speaker 1: affidavit filed under seal in conjunction with the motion outlines
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: the specifics of the allegations according to the motion, but
• 22:40
  Speaker 1: attorneys cite selection of jurors and jury questionnaires as issues
• 22:45
  Speaker 1: of concern. Well, I'll tell you this much. We dealt
• 22:48
  Speaker 1: with something similar with Ghislaine Maxwell, with Scotty David, juror
• 22:52
  Speaker 1: number 50, and Maxwell's whole last sentence was upheld. So
• 22:56
  Speaker 1: if they think they're going to be able to utilize
• 22:59
  Speaker 1: this as a tool in their favor, I think they're mistaken. Further,
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: other irregularity exists within the grand jury process, and further
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: investigation is necessary to determine the impact, if any, in
• 23:12
  Speaker 1: the convening of this grand jury, the motion says. Another
• 23:16
  Speaker 1: motion filed. at the same time on Tuesday, seeks to
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: dismiss the indictment against Koberger, arguing the grand jury was
• 23:24
  Speaker 1: misled as to the standard of proof required for an indictment.
• 23:29
  Speaker 1: And again, look, that's a very, very charged statement to make.
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: And of course, the judge is going to look at
• 23:35
  Speaker 1: all of it and see what's what. Now, I have
• 23:38
  Speaker 1: no comment, really, because I haven't seen the documents. I
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: don't know what went on in the grand jury because
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: there's no transparency in the grand jury. So I have
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: no idea. So this is something where we're going to
• 23:51
  Speaker 1: have to see what's what. Defense attorneys argue that the
• 23:54
  Speaker 1: Idaho state constitution sets the standard of proof for a
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: grand jury at beyond a reasonable doubt. But the grand
• 24:02
  Speaker 1: jury in the case against Koberger was given the lower
• 24:05
  Speaker 1: standard required for an archaic process called presentment, which requires
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: a preliminary hearing. In turn, failing to properly instruct the
• 24:14
  Speaker 1: grand jury is grounds for a dismissal of the indictment,
• 24:18
  Speaker 1: the defense argues. And look, I'm not a legal scholar,
• 24:22
  Speaker 1: but if this is the case and the prosecution misled
• 24:26
  Speaker 1: the jury, then it's certainly something that the judge is
• 24:29
  Speaker 1: going to have to take a good, hard, long look at.
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: Because remember, it's all about the integrity of the conviction
• 24:36
  Speaker 1: at this point. Nothing else matters. Idaho's criminal procedure law
• 24:42
  Speaker 1: defines a presentment as a formal statement by the grand
• 24:45
  Speaker 1: jury indicating to the court a crime has been committed,
• 24:49
  Speaker 1: and there are reasonable grounds that the person named in
• 24:52
  Speaker 1: the presentment committed the crime. In comparison, an indictment under
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: Idaho law is a written accusation presented by the grand
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: jury charging a person with a public offense. Koberger's attorneys
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: argue the indictment should either be dismissed or be treated
• 25:10
  Speaker 1: as a presentment and have a preliminary hearing. They acknowledged
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: in the motion that the defense recognizes the whole of
• 25:18
  Speaker 1: modern jurisprudence on this issue is against it. Due to
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: a wide range in gag order, prosecutors, defense lawyers and
• 25:26
  Speaker 1: attorneys for victims, families and witnesses are prohibited from saying
• 25:30
  Speaker 1: anything publicly aside from what is already in the public record.
• 25:35
  Speaker 1: And even though the gag order has been pared back some,
• 25:38
  Speaker 1: it is still a gag order, a non-dissemination order, and
• 25:41
  Speaker 1: it does prevent any of these parties who are taking
• 25:45
  Speaker 1: part in these proceedings from talking about what's going on
• 25:49
  Speaker 1: in the public. And that's to protect, once again, the
• 25:53
  Speaker 1: integrity of the overall trial. The judge doesn't want there
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: to be any BS talking about how, you know, the
• 25:59
  Speaker 1: media had something to do with the conviction, blah, blah, blah.
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: So they have this gag order dropped over the case
• 26:06
  Speaker 1: to try and prevent that. But fortunately, we have a
• 26:09
  Speaker 1: little bit of a window into what's going on anyway.
• 26:13
  Speaker 1: And that window is the court documents. And I know
• 26:15
  Speaker 1: that they're not the funnest thing that we do here
• 26:18
  Speaker 1: on the podcast. But for those of you who are
• 26:20
  Speaker 1: following this case, it's very important to know what's going
• 26:24
  Speaker 1: on behind the scenes, what's going on with those filings.
• 26:27
  Speaker 1: Because if you understand what's going on behind the scenes, well,
• 26:30
  Speaker 1: you're going to have a better grasp overall of the case.
• 26:33
  Speaker 1: So that's why we're going to continue navigating through those
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: court documents as they hit the docket. And speaking of
• 26:39
  Speaker 1: court documents, you can expect some coming your way later
• 26:43
  Speaker 1: on today and tomorrow. As for this episode, well, that's
• 26:47
  Speaker 1: a wrap. All of the information that goes with this
• 26:50
  Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box. What's up
• 26:54
  Speaker 1: everyone and welcome back to the program. This episode we're
• 26:58
  Speaker 1: going to dive right back into those court documents up
• 27:01
  Speaker 1: in Idaho. And this time we're going to take a
• 27:03
  Speaker 1: look at Brian Kohlberger's alibi. Case number CR29-22-2805. Objection to
• 27:14
  Speaker 1: the state's motion to compel motive of defense of alibi or, alternatively,
• 27:20
  Speaker 1: to bar certain evidence. State of Idaho Plaintiff vs. Brian C. Koberger,
• 27:27
  Speaker 1: the defendant. Comes now. Brian C. Koberger, by and through
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: his attorney of record, Ann C. Taylor, public defender, and
• 27:35
  Speaker 1: hereby and objects to the state's motion to compel motive
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: of defense of alibi or alternatively to bar certain evidence.
• 27:45
  Speaker 1: Idaho Code 19-519 and ICR 12.1 require an alibi disclosure
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: of a specific location with a specific location and witness
• 27:57
  Speaker 1: to so testify. By statutory definition, Mr. Kohlberger may remain
• 28:03
  Speaker 1: silent yet testify that he was not at 1122 King Road,
• 28:08
  Speaker 1: November 13th, 2022. However, in an abundance of caution and
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: recognizing the court has authority to exclude witnesses, Mr. Kohlberger
• 28:18
  Speaker 1: has indicated he anticipates corroborating witnesses. When determining whether to
• 28:24
  Speaker 1: exclude evidence due to the late disclosure or non-disclosure, the
• 28:29
  Speaker 1: trial court must weigh the prejudice to the state against
• 28:32
  Speaker 1: the defendant's right to a fair trial. Albert 138, Idaho,
• 28:37
  Speaker 1: at 287, 62, page 3D, at 211. It is error
• 28:44
  Speaker 1: for a trial court to exclude a witness based solely
• 28:47
  Speaker 1: on late disclosures without analyzing whether the state would suffer
• 28:51
  Speaker 1: prejudice from the late disclosure. State v. Lamphere, 130, Idaho, 630, 634, 945, P. 2D, 1, 5, 1997.
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: In addition to weighing the competing interests at stake, the
• 29:08
  Speaker 1: trial court should consider whether less severe remedies would be
• 29:12
  Speaker 1: sufficient for the untimely disclosure or non-disclosure, such as a
• 29:18
  Speaker 1: short continuance, a mistrial, or sanctions against defense counsel, before
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: excluding a defense witness. State v. Thomas, 133, Idaho, 800-803-992,
• 29:26
  Speaker 1: page 2D, 795-798. Court of Appeals, 1999. The trial court
• 29:39
  Speaker 1: has an obligation. to fashion a sanction which will impress
• 29:42
  Speaker 1: counsel with the importance of responding to discovery requests and
• 29:46
  Speaker 1: yet will not prejudice the defense of the case state
• 29:50
  Speaker 1: verse stradley 127 idaho 203 211 899 p. 2d 416 424 1995. However,
• 30:02
  Speaker 1: when the defendant's discovery violation was willful and designed to
• 30:06
  Speaker 1: facilitate the presentation of fabricated testimony or to impede the
• 30:11
  Speaker 1: state's ability to conduct effective cross-examination or to present rebuttal evidence,
• 30:18
  Speaker 1: exclusion may be a proper remedy, notwithstanding the availability of
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: other sanctions that would prevent prejudice to the state. Taylor
• 30:26
  Speaker 1: 484 U.S. at 414 N415, 108, Supreme Court, 646, Albert, 138, Idaho,
• 30:31
  Speaker 1: at 287, 62, Page. 3D, at 211, State v. Juarez, 169, Idaho, 274, 277, 494, P. 3D, 822, 825,
• 30:34
  Speaker 1: The Court of Appeals, 2021. Mr. Kohlberger has long had
• 30:58
  Speaker 1: a habit of going for drives alone. Often he would
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: go for drives at night. He did so late on
• 31:04
  Speaker 1: November 12th and into November 13th, 2022. Mr. Kohlberger is
• 31:10
  Speaker 1: not claiming to be at a specific location at a
• 31:13
  Speaker 1: specific time. At this time, there is not a specific
• 31:16
  Speaker 1: witness to say precisely where Mr. Kohlberger was at each
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: moment of the hours between late night, November 12th, 2022
• 31:23
  Speaker 1: and and early morning November 13, 2022. He was out
• 31:29
  Speaker 1: driving during the late night and early morning hours of
• 31:33
  Speaker 1: November 12 and 13, 2022. Counsel for Mr. Kohlberger is
• 31:38
  Speaker 1: aware that case law broadens the definition of alibi with
• 31:42
  Speaker 1: the statutory requirement of a specific location to more broadly
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: include disclosure of information that tends to state the person
• 31:51
  Speaker 1: claiming alibi was at a place other than then the
• 31:54
  Speaker 1: location of an offense. Mr. Kohlberger has complied to the
• 31:59
  Speaker 1: extent possible at this time. Corroboration of Brian Kohlberger not
• 32:04
  Speaker 1: being at 1122 King Road may be brought out through
• 32:07
  Speaker 1: cross-examination of the state's witnesses. At this time, Mr. Kohlberger
• 32:13
  Speaker 1: cannot be more specific about the possible witnesses and exactly
• 32:17
  Speaker 1: what they will say. The defense has been hampered by
• 32:20
  Speaker 1: the state's own choices. The state chose the secret grand jury,
• 32:24
  Speaker 1: rather than the planned preliminary hearing. Had the state moved
• 32:28
  Speaker 1: forward with the prelim hearing, the defense would have had
• 32:31
  Speaker 1: the opportunity to develop testimony through cross-examination and witness presentation. Instead,
• 32:38
  Speaker 1: the defense has only received, on July 27, 2023, a
• 32:43
  Speaker 1: copy of testimony the state chose to elicit. Review of
• 32:47
  Speaker 1: such is underway. The defense had to obtain investigative materials
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: from the state's investigative counterparts, the FBI, through an order
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: compelling the state to provide such materials. The state made
• 33:01
  Speaker 1: draft disclosures just two weeks ago. The sufficiency of these
• 33:05
  Speaker 1: disclosures is currently being analyzed. Corroboration of Brian Kohlberger not
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: being at 1122 King may be brought out through expert
• 33:14
  Speaker 1: witness presentation. That analysis is underway. The defense has been
• 33:20
  Speaker 1: diligently working to analyze relevant discovery materials and conduct its
• 33:25
  Speaker 1: own investigation. Notably, the defense had to obtain a court
• 33:29
  Speaker 1: order to receive relevant discovery materials. That delay hampers the
• 33:34
  Speaker 1: defense investigation. The right to offer the testimony of witnesses
• 33:39
  Speaker 1: and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain
• 33:43
  Speaker 1: terms the right to present a defense. the right to
• 33:46
  Speaker 1: present the defendant's version of the facts as well as
• 33:49
  Speaker 1: the prosecution's to the jury so it may decide where
• 33:53
  Speaker 1: the truth lies. Just as an accused has the right
• 33:57
  Speaker 1: to confront the prosecution's witnesses for the purpose of challenging
• 34:01
  Speaker 1: their testimony, he has the right to present his own
• 34:04
  Speaker 1: witnesses to establish a defense. This right is a fundamental
• 34:08
  Speaker 1: element of due process law. Washington v. Texas states, 388 U.S. 14, 1987,
• 34:13
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court, 1920, 1923, 18L. ED. 2D, 1019, 1967. Taylor v. Illinois,
• 34:16
  Speaker 1: 484 U.S., 400, 409, 108, Supreme Court, 646, 653, 98L. ED. 2D, 798, 1998.
• 34:43
  Speaker 1: The defense acknowledges a vast amount of discovery has been provided.
• 34:48
  Speaker 1: Discovery is received on a nearly weekly basis. The defense
• 34:52
  Speaker 1: reviews and acts on the discovery as quickly as possible,
• 34:56
  Speaker 1: including making appropriate supplemental requests for discovery. The state's motion
• 35:01
  Speaker 1: is an attempt to force the defense to open its
• 35:04
  Speaker 1: work product files and let the state peek inside. The
• 35:08
  Speaker 1: defense has stated all that can firmly be stated at
• 35:11
  Speaker 1: this time. This is not trial by ambush for the defense.
• 35:15
  Speaker 1: This is the defense requesting information as quickly as possible,
• 35:20
  Speaker 1: yet in some instances face the delay of requesting a
• 35:23
  Speaker 1: court order to obtain information. The state continually uses those
• 35:28
  Speaker 1: opportunities to attempt to force a waiver of speedy trial.
• 35:33
  Speaker 1: That is a decision left to Mr. Kohlberger and Mr.
• 35:37
  Speaker 1: Kohlberger alone. Mr. Kohlberger was out driving alone. Corroborating evidence
• 35:43
  Speaker 1: may come from cross-examination of state's witnesses. Corroborating evidence may
• 35:48
  Speaker 1: come from presentation of defense experts. Mr. Kohlberger is aware
• 35:53
  Speaker 1: of and will comply with a continuing duty to disclose information.
• 35:59
  Speaker 1: The court may exempt Mr. Kohlberger from further inquiry. Mr.
• 36:03
  Speaker 1: Kohlberger requests such an exception at this time. Continued inquiry
• 36:08
  Speaker 1: at this juncture delves into his case, investigation, as well
• 36:12
  Speaker 1: as protected work product. In support of an exemption, Mr.
• 36:16
  Speaker 1: Kohlberger is prepared to provide further detail in an ex
• 36:19
  Speaker 1: parte hearing with the court. Dated this second day of
• 36:23
  Speaker 1: August 2023 and signed by Ann Taylor. And the next
• 36:28
  Speaker 1: document we have is the notice of hearing that's dealing
• 36:32
  Speaker 1: with this. Case number CR29-22-2805. Notice of hearing. State of
• 36:40
  Speaker 1: Idaho plaintiff versus Brian C. Koberger, the defendant. To Brian C. Koberger,
• 36:46
  Speaker 1: defendant and counsel, Ann Taylor. On August 18th, 2023, at
• 36:51
  Speaker 1: 1030 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard,
• 36:55
  Speaker 1: the undersigned will call on for hearing. State's motion for
• 37:00
  Speaker 1: protective order filed on June 16th 2023. State's motion to
• 37:05
  Speaker 1: reconsider order staying time for a speedy trial filed on
• 37:08
  Speaker 1: July 17th, 2023. State's motion for scheduling order filed on
• 37:13
  Speaker 1: July 17th, 2023. State's motion to compel notice of defense
• 37:19
  Speaker 1: alibi or alternatively to bar certain evidence filed on July 27th, 2023.
• 37:26
  Speaker 1: And this document was signed by William Thompson. All right, folks,
• 37:30
  Speaker 1: that's going to do it for this one. All of
• 37:32
  Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
• 37:35
  Speaker 1: in the description box.