Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Mega Edition: Prosecutors Ask to Examine Kohberger's Mental State (10/3/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Prosecutors Ask to Examine Kohberger's Mental State (10/3/26) · Beyond The Horizon

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. Brian
0:04
Speaker 1: Kohlberger and his defense team have thrown everything they possibly
0:08
Speaker 1: can imagine at the prosecution in hopes of trying to
0:12
Speaker 1: get the death penalty thrown out, only to find Judge
0:15
Speaker 1: Hippler standing in their way every single time they bring
0:18
Speaker 1: a new motion. And unfortunately for Brian Kohlberger, that has
0:21
Speaker 1: not changed recently with the new orders that have hit
0:24
Speaker 1: the docket denying Brian Koberger and his team and their
0:28
Speaker 1: emotions to get this death penalty tossed. So today we're
0:32
Speaker 1: going to talk about that a little bit more. And
0:33
Speaker 1: to do that, we have an article from Fox News. Headline,
0:37
Speaker 1: Idaho judge slams Brian Koberger's hollow attempt to dodge death
0:41
Speaker 1: penalty and latest blow to the defense. This article was
0:44
Speaker 1: authored by Adam Sabes. A judge in Idaho denied a
0:48
Speaker 1: motion from Brian Koberger's defense team asking to remove the
0:51
Speaker 1: death penalty as a potential punishment if he's found guilty.
0:56
Speaker 1: Kohlberger is charged with first-degree murder in the deaths of
0:58
Speaker 1: four students in the University of Idaho, including Kaylee Gonsalves,
1:02
Speaker 1: Zanna Kernodle, Madison Mogan, and Ethan Chapin. The former student
1:07
Speaker 1: at the University of Washington was also charged with one
1:10
Speaker 1: felony count of burglary. During a hearing on April 9th,
1:14
Speaker 1: Kohlberger's defense team presented the motion to strike the death penalty,
1:18
Speaker 1: arguing that discovery produced by prosecutors has both been voluminous
1:23
Speaker 1: and unorganized. Kohlberger argued this meant he was unable to
1:27
Speaker 1: meaningfully review and investigate the evidence in preparation for trial,
1:31
Speaker 1: which is currently scheduled to begin in August. I mean,
1:34
Speaker 1: we're going on what, three, four years now? Stop with
1:38
Speaker 1: the whole I'm not prepared. Now look, everybody deserves a
1:42
Speaker 1: chance to defend themselves, even people that we might find condemnable.
1:47
Speaker 1: But at some point, the party has to get started.
1:51
Speaker 1: And my advice is, if you don't want to deal
1:53
Speaker 1: with a massive discovery, don't murder four people in their beds.
1:58
Speaker 1: Because if you do, well, you can expect that the
2:00
Speaker 1: process is not going to be favorable to you and
2:03
Speaker 1: that you're going to have to, at some point, stand
2:05
Speaker 1: before the wagon and take responsibility for what you allegedly did.
2:11
Speaker 1: I mean, if you flip the script and look at Diddy,
2:13
Speaker 1: look at how quickly his trial has come, as opposed
2:16
Speaker 1: to Brian Kohlberger's. Now, of course, two different things. We're
2:18
Speaker 1: talking about capital punishment here. and Diddy obviously were not.
2:22
Speaker 1: But still, Kohlberger's team has done nothing but gum up
2:26
Speaker 1: the works the whole entire time, and frankly, the state
2:28
Speaker 1: of Idaho has been more than fair when it comes
2:31
Speaker 1: to Brian Kohlberger. Judge Stephen Hippler wrote in his order
2:35
Speaker 1: on Tuesday that Kohlberger complaints about the amount of discovery
2:38
Speaker 1: produced ring hollow. Kohlberger has been receiving discovery in the
2:42
Speaker 1: same manner for over two years, Hippler wrote. Kohlberger has
2:46
Speaker 1: not sought additional resources to hire additional staff to review discovery,
2:50
Speaker 1: or obtain litigation document control software to help organize and
2:54
Speaker 1: sort the evidence. His lead counsel insisted that she will
2:57
Speaker 1: be allowed to take on a second high-profile capital case,
3:01
Speaker 1: despite the voluminous discovery in this case. So yeah, that's
3:05
Speaker 1: not good. You're going to say that you can't get
3:08
Speaker 1: things ready, but at the same time you're taking on
3:10
Speaker 1: another capital case? Sorry, but the judge isn't going to
3:13
Speaker 1: just acquiesce to your demands. This isn't about what's best
3:17
Speaker 1: for you. It's about what's best for the state of
3:19
Speaker 1: Idaho and the victims and their families. Hipler also wrote
3:23
Speaker 1: that Koberger's lawyer, Ann Taylor, indicated that her practice is
3:27
Speaker 1: to personally review all the discovery herself rather than rely
3:31
Speaker 1: on associates and staff to review materials to cut through
3:34
Speaker 1: the less relevant information and point to what materials need
3:38
Speaker 1: review by lead counsel. I don't have beef with that, honestly.
3:41
Speaker 1: I want my lawyer looking at everything. I don't want
3:45
Speaker 1: some hired intern to do it I don't want a
3:47
Speaker 1: paralegal to do it. I want my lawyer to do it.
3:50
Speaker 1: So I get that for sure. But at some point,
3:53
Speaker 1: there's only so much you can do. And when you're
3:55
Speaker 1: talking about a massive case like this, the time is now.
4:00
Speaker 1: These actions are not indicative of an overburdened defense team,
4:03
Speaker 1: Hitler wrote of the motion. Addressing one of the arguments
4:06
Speaker 1: from Kohlberger's team, the prosecutors larded its production with entirely
4:12
Speaker 1: irrelevant documents, Hitler said. There's no proof of that occurring.
4:16
Speaker 1: And of course, Brian Kohlberger fans are going to say, oh, well,
4:19
Speaker 1: the judge is against him. The judge isn't Brian Kohlberger's friend.
4:22
Speaker 1: He's looking to convict him. No, the judge is just
4:25
Speaker 1: doing his job. That's all. Pretty simple. Timeline of November 13th, 2022.
4:31
Speaker 1: 4 a.m., suspect arrives at the house. Between 4 and 4.17,
4:35
Speaker 1: time of murders. 4.19, roommate calls. Three victims. No one answers. 4.22
4:40
Speaker 1: to 4.24, surviving roommate text each other. From inside the house. 427.
4:47
Speaker 1: Roommate calls victims again. No one answers. 432. Roommate texts Gonsalves,
4:53
Speaker 1: please answer. 1023. Surviving roommate texts victims. No one answers. 1139.
4:58
Speaker 1: Roommate calls her father. 12pm. 911 call placed from roommate's phone.
5:03
Speaker 1: Hippler's decision comes less than a week after he denied
5:06
Speaker 1: a different motion to remove the death penalty. Koberger's defense
5:10
Speaker 1: team previously argued... that the defendant's autism diagnosis should preclude
5:15
Speaker 1: him from the death penalty. And we all know how
5:17
Speaker 1: that worked out. Imagine trying to say your autism should
5:21
Speaker 1: preclude you from the death penalty. Now look, if Brian
5:24
Speaker 1: Kohlberger was somebody who, you know, was non-functioning or something
5:27
Speaker 1: like that, be a different story. This dude has a,
5:31
Speaker 1: you know, college degree, PhD candidate. So if he's capable
5:35
Speaker 1: of doing all of that, then don't tell me that
5:37
Speaker 1: the autism played a part in these alleged crimes. because
5:40
Speaker 1: I'm not buying that for a second. Alright, moving on
5:44
Speaker 1: to our second article of the day, this one from KXLY.com,
5:48
Speaker 1: and the headline, Prosecutors Want to Do Their Own Evaluation
5:51
Speaker 1: of Brian Koberger's Mental Health. This article was authored by
5:55
Speaker 1: Melissa Luck. Prosecutors who are putting Brian Koberger on trial
6:00
Speaker 1: for the murder of four University of Idaho students want
6:04
Speaker 1: to evaluate his mental health, but want to keep secret
6:07
Speaker 1: the tests and other information for Koberger's privacy. That's the
6:11
Speaker 1: right way to do it. Look, as the public, we're
6:13
Speaker 1: not all privy to that. And some things have to
6:16
Speaker 1: be kept, you know, in confidence. But I think it's
6:19
Speaker 1: a good idea for the state to have their own
6:21
Speaker 1: experts take a look at Kohlberger and see if everybody
6:24
Speaker 1: can get on the same page. And that might be
6:27
Speaker 1: helpful even, right? What if the state finds something that
6:30
Speaker 1: his experts missed? So I think it's a pretty good
6:33
Speaker 1: idea to have the state get a look at Brian
6:36
Speaker 1: Kohlberger as far as an evaluation of his mental state.
6:40
Speaker 1: Kohlberger faces the death penalty if convicted of killing Madison Mogan,
6:44
Speaker 1: Kaylee Gonsalves, Ethan Chapin, and Zanna Kernodel. The defense team
6:49
Speaker 1: says Kohlberger has recently been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder,
6:53
Speaker 1: but a judge ruled that diagnosis is not enough to
6:56
Speaker 1: remove the death penalty as a possible punishment. Prosecutors asked
7:00
Speaker 1: the judge to seal their motion to examine Kohlberger. And again,
7:04
Speaker 1: there's going to be people that aren't cool with that.
7:06
Speaker 1: They're going to want to see everything, and I understand
7:08
Speaker 1: that too. Look, I'm all for transparency, but I'm also
7:12
Speaker 1: for everybody getting a fair shake, even people that I
7:15
Speaker 1: might think or might be leaning towards them being guilty.
7:18
Speaker 1: And that certainly includes Brian Koberger. I've said it a
7:21
Speaker 1: million times. I have no axe to grind with this dude.
7:26
Speaker 1: And the prosecution better have their shit together, and they
7:28
Speaker 1: better be on point if they're going to try and
7:31
Speaker 1: put somebody to death. And so far, as far as
7:35
Speaker 1: I can tell, they most certainly have been. So this
7:39
Speaker 1: isn't one of those cases like we see over in
7:42
Speaker 1: Indiana with Richard Allen. Not in the least. And all
7:46
Speaker 1: these content creators out here that are pitching that shit,
7:49
Speaker 1: they're just trying to drive engagement. And frankly, my guess
7:53
Speaker 1: is the vast majority of these people pumping bullshit don't
7:56
Speaker 1: even believe it. They just know that there's an audience
7:58
Speaker 1: for it and they know that their sponsor for the
8:01
Speaker 1: ED pills or whatever the fuck they're pitching is going
8:04
Speaker 1: to give them some money if they get engagement. So
8:06
Speaker 1: they'll say whatever. But the facts don't bear out any
8:09
Speaker 1: of the bullshit. And that's why we go through these
8:11
Speaker 1: court documents. That way all of you get it right
8:14
Speaker 1: from the source. You don't need a third party to
8:16
Speaker 1: tell you. The court documents have all the information we need.
8:23
Speaker 1: Prosecutors wrote that the filing reveals mental health information about
8:27
Speaker 1: Koberger including psychological, psychiatric, and neurological information and diagnoses of
8:33
Speaker 1: the defendant. The filing also reveals the nature of mental
8:37
Speaker 1: conditions already conducted and the type of examinations and testing
8:40
Speaker 1: the state seeks to perform. Prosecutors wrote, some of which
8:44
Speaker 1: is personality testing to which the defendant objects. Yeah, I
8:48
Speaker 1: don't think he really is in a position to object.
8:51
Speaker 1: And I think that moving forward with the trial, the
8:53
Speaker 1: judge can obviously demand that he does it. He can
8:56
Speaker 1: order that Brian Kohlberger engages in this testing. And considering
9:01
Speaker 1: what we've seen from Hipler throughout this whole thing, I
9:03
Speaker 1: wouldn't be shocked to see him order this. I think
9:06
Speaker 1: it's a good idea. I think that Brian Kohlberger would
9:10
Speaker 1: be helped here, right? Because it gives him another professional
9:14
Speaker 1: to take a look at what's going on mentally. And
9:17
Speaker 1: maybe later on down the road, if something's found and
9:20
Speaker 1: he's convicted, he can use that as part of his appeal.
9:24
Speaker 1: So I think that Brian Kohlberger would be better served
9:27
Speaker 1: if he went under this other examination and got another opinion,
9:31
Speaker 1: a second opinion or third opinion, whatever it might be.
9:35
Speaker 1: The filing indicates the prosecution would use information gleaned from
9:40
Speaker 1: the exam in the death penalty phase, which is conducted
9:43
Speaker 1: if Kohlberger is convicted. Prosecutors in defense are due back
9:47
Speaker 1: in court in Boise in mid-May. The trial is scheduled
9:50
Speaker 1: to begin in August. So there's still a lot going
9:53
Speaker 1: on here. And we still don't have anywhere near enough
9:56
Speaker 1: information to know which way the wind is really blowing.
9:59
Speaker 1: but we're starting to get there and the more court
10:02
Speaker 1: documents that hit the docket the better serve we're going
10:05
Speaker 1: to be moving forward and obviously we still have a
10:07
Speaker 1: few months here before we get to the trial but
10:10
Speaker 1: things are in motion and there's a lot of decisions
10:13
Speaker 1: that are being made now that are going to loom
10:15
Speaker 1: large later on when this trial starts So like usual,
10:19
Speaker 1: we'll continue to follow along with all the twists and
10:21
Speaker 1: turns as we continue to follow along with the state
10:24
Speaker 1: of Idaho and the capital murder case brought against Brian Kohlberger.
10:29
Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode can
10:32
Speaker 1: be found in the description box. What's up everyone and
10:35
Speaker 1: welcome back to the program. In this episode, we have
10:39
Speaker 1: a relatively short article to get to, one that's talking
10:42
Speaker 1: about the DNA and how the DNA could have led
10:45
Speaker 1: to Brian Kohlberger. However, this is a man with no
10:49
Speaker 1: criminal history, a man that was not in CODIS. So
10:52
Speaker 1: how did the DNA lead the police to him? Obviously,
10:56
Speaker 1: a lot goes into that. They have their investigation that
11:00
Speaker 1: tips them off that this might be the man they're
11:02
Speaker 1: looking for. And then from there, everything moves. They'll have
11:06
Speaker 1: a surveillance team put on them. They'll start following them
11:09
Speaker 1: and they'll try and collect his DNA one way or
11:11
Speaker 1: the other to get a match, especially if it doesn't
11:14
Speaker 1: hit inside of CODIS. And if you have no criminal history, obviously,
11:19
Speaker 1: you're not going to pop inside of that database. And
11:22
Speaker 1: Brian Koberger not having a criminal history certainly worked to
11:26
Speaker 1: his advantage, at least in the beginning. But eventually, the
11:32
Speaker 1: jig was up and Brian Koberger is now sitting behind
11:36
Speaker 1: bars and waiting to be extradited to Idaho. So let's
11:41
Speaker 1: get into this quick article here. And let's talk about
11:44
Speaker 1: the DNA a little bit more with retired FBI agent
11:49
Speaker 1: John McVeigh. This article was published on WPBF.com. Headline, Idaho
11:57
Speaker 1: murder suspect Brian Koberger has no criminal history and no
12:02
Speaker 1: car registered in his own name. Retired FBI agent says
12:06
Speaker 1: Koberger would not have been in the National DNA fingerprint database.
12:12
Speaker 1: This article was authored by Terry Parker. Definitely was critical.
12:17
Speaker 1: Not may have been. Definitely was critical. especially if he
12:35
Speaker 1: was found in possession of that vehicle, right? Very critical
12:38
Speaker 1: that he has the vehicle that was seen on the
12:40
Speaker 1: tape and obviously circumstantial until they can hammer the point home.
12:45
Speaker 1: But it gives them at least the basis for this
12:48
Speaker 1: investigation and probable cause. Remember, that's important. You have to
12:52
Speaker 1: have probable cause before you can make an arrest. Friday,
12:57
Speaker 1: Moscow police chief James Fry confirmed a white Hyundai Elantra
13:00
Speaker 1: was seized in Pennsylvania, where the FBI and state police
13:03
Speaker 1: SWAT teams arrested Koberger early Friday morning. And they came
13:08
Speaker 1: in at like 3 a.m. And that's how they do it.
13:10
Speaker 1: If they're going to raid your house, you better believe
13:12
Speaker 1: they're going to try and come in while you're sleeping.
13:15
Speaker 1: Retired Special Agent John McVeigh told investigative reporter Terry Parker
13:20
Speaker 1: that Koberger does not have a vehicle registered in his
13:23
Speaker 1: name and no criminal history, meaning while police were running
13:26
Speaker 1: DNA and fingerprint checks from the crime scene on the
13:29
Speaker 1: national database, Koberger would not have shown up as a match.
13:34
Speaker 1: And this is certainly how it goes. If you don't
13:36
Speaker 1: have a criminal history and you don't have a profile
13:39
Speaker 1: that's already been built in the system, well, there's no
13:41
Speaker 1: way for them to match that. So what they do
13:44
Speaker 1: is they hold on to that DNA that they collect.
13:46
Speaker 1: And then if they get a suspect, obviously try and
13:49
Speaker 1: match that DNA that was found at the crime scene
13:51
Speaker 1: to the suspect themselves. In this case, that's what they did.
13:57
Speaker 1: They would have found no criminal history, nothing in the database.
14:00
Speaker 1: And so if they linked him by some other means,
14:03
Speaker 1: then they would have probably set up surveillance on him,
14:06
Speaker 1: said McVeigh. And my guess is that they did. Once
14:09
Speaker 1: they had an idea of who he was and who
14:11
Speaker 1: they were looking for and had an idea where he
14:14
Speaker 1: was at, the surveillance would come very quickly. And usually
14:18
Speaker 1: it's the FBI that's doing something like that in this instance.
14:22
Speaker 1: And when we say surveillance, we're talking about the same
14:24
Speaker 1: guys who are working against terrorists and the mafia. And
14:28
Speaker 1: these guys and gals are the best at what they do.
14:33
Speaker 1: You could be walking around, go to a Taco Bell,
14:36
Speaker 1: get a drink, throw that drink in the trash, and
14:38
Speaker 1: they're going to come get that cup out of that
14:40
Speaker 1: trash to get your DNA from that cup. And that's
14:44
Speaker 1: what they do. They'll follow you around and try and
14:47
Speaker 1: collect DNA, try and build a profile on what you're
14:49
Speaker 1: up to, and you'll be none the wiser. And my
14:52
Speaker 1: guess is they also had a phone tap going for
14:54
Speaker 1: them as well. Possibly the Bureau would have done that
14:59
Speaker 1: for them, set up surveillance, and you wait until, you know,
15:01
Speaker 1: he spits on the ground, he drops the tissue, he's
15:04
Speaker 1: at a deli, and he takes a glass, something like that,
15:07
Speaker 1: said McVeigh, who said agents then would have to compare
15:10
Speaker 1: the DNA on the discarded item to the DNA at
15:14
Speaker 1: the crime scene. And we know there was a ton
15:16
Speaker 1: of that. According to the authorities, it was a messy
15:18
Speaker 1: crime scene, and a lot of DNA was at this
15:21
Speaker 1: crime scene. Now, what we don't know is how much
15:24
Speaker 1: of it, if any, was the killer's. But what we
15:28
Speaker 1: can read between the lines here is that they did
15:31
Speaker 1: find his DNA and they were able to match it
15:34
Speaker 1: to the crime scene. But what led them to zero
15:38
Speaker 1: in on Koberger? The critical tip police seemed to have
15:42
Speaker 1: was that white Elantra. They didn't say how much they
15:45
Speaker 1: knew about it or where it was spotted. But on
15:48
Speaker 1: December 7th, police put out a public plea for information
15:51
Speaker 1: about that car, and thousands of tips poured in about
15:55
Speaker 1: the Elantra. You would think that this guy, Kohlberger, would
15:59
Speaker 1: be hip to the fact that he's not going to
16:01
Speaker 1: be able to get away with this if he owns
16:03
Speaker 1: this car. Then you say to yourself, did he really
16:06
Speaker 1: want to get away with it, or was he looking
16:08
Speaker 1: for the notoriety that a lot of these serial killers
16:10
Speaker 1: look for when they're committing these murders? Maybe the vehicle
16:14
Speaker 1: wasn't seen that night of the murders, but maybe it
16:17
Speaker 1: was seen numerous other nights where somebody has a ring
16:20
Speaker 1: camera And they're like, well, wait a minute. This car
16:23
Speaker 1: doesn't belong on the street. But for five nights in
16:26
Speaker 1: a row, it's been sitting here. You know, nobody gets
16:28
Speaker 1: out of it or something like that. So is it
16:31
Speaker 1: a possibility? Yes. That he picked them for a reason,
16:34
Speaker 1: said McVeigh. And that's really the question that we all
16:37
Speaker 1: have still, right? At least me, especially. I want to
16:40
Speaker 1: know what the motivation was. I want to know why
16:43
Speaker 1: he chose them. And I want to know what his
16:45
Speaker 1: behavior was up to this point. Was he sitting out
16:48
Speaker 1: there staking it out? How did he choose them? All
16:51
Speaker 1: of that stuff, I hope, is going to come out
16:54
Speaker 1: later on down the line. McVeigh said, because of the
16:59
Speaker 1: violent nature of the stabbings, the killer could have been
17:02
Speaker 1: seeking revenge or had a vendetta against one of the victims.
17:06
Speaker 1: And I guess that could be the case, but what
17:09
Speaker 1: could it possibly be? It really doesn't seem like these people...
17:13
Speaker 1: who were murdered, meaning Kaylee, Ethan, Madison, and Zanna, would
17:17
Speaker 1: share the same social group as this guy. So how
17:20
Speaker 1: would they even run into him ever? How would they
17:22
Speaker 1: know him? Or he could have targeted the house itself
17:27
Speaker 1: because he knew it was easy to get in and
17:29
Speaker 1: out of and close to the highway for a quick getaway.
17:32
Speaker 1: And that's possible as well. You see, all of these scenarios,
17:35
Speaker 1: they're all on the table still. We just don't know.
17:38
Speaker 1: And until we find out, until we have an official
17:41
Speaker 1: report about what went down, what his motivations were, it's
17:45
Speaker 1: going to be a lot of speculation still. Koberger was
17:49
Speaker 1: a PhD student with the Department of Criminal Justice and
17:52
Speaker 1: Criminology at Washington State University and lives on campus in Pullman,
17:57
Speaker 1: just eight miles from the off-campus home in Moscow where
18:00
Speaker 1: the four students were stabbed to death last month. It's
18:05
Speaker 1: odd that he was getting a doctorate in criminal justice,
18:07
Speaker 1: noted McVeigh. Mostly, people who go into law enforcement don't
18:11
Speaker 1: do that. Well, that's an understatement, huh? But unless he
18:15
Speaker 1: had this kind of motivation and these thoughts for a
18:17
Speaker 1: very long time, and he thought that going to these
18:20
Speaker 1: classes would aid him in getting away with it or
18:22
Speaker 1: planning out the murders better, we just don't know. But
18:26
Speaker 1: one thing I will tell you is this. If you're
18:28
Speaker 1: crazy enough to murder four people while they're sleeping in
18:31
Speaker 1: their beds, I don't put anything by you. You're literally
18:34
Speaker 1: capable of anything, in my opinion. Kohlberger's parents live in
18:40
Speaker 1: a gated neighborhood in his hometown of Albrightville, Pennsylvania. His
18:45
Speaker 1: parents and sisters did not answer their phones when called.
18:48
Speaker 1: Kohlberger will appear in court on Tuesday for extradition proceedings
18:53
Speaker 1: and details on what led to his arrest will be
18:55
Speaker 1: unsealed once he is brought back to Idaho to face charges.
18:59
Speaker 1: Now that's going to be very interesting. It's going to
19:02
Speaker 1: be very interesting to see what the probable cause was,
19:05
Speaker 1: what the arrest affidavit has to say, and all of
19:07
Speaker 1: the other court paperwork that has to be submitted when
19:10
Speaker 1: you have somebody like this who's facing charges. Now, that
19:14
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that they're not going to seal it. We
19:16
Speaker 1: saw down in Delphi a lot of sealing, a lot
19:21
Speaker 1: of redactions, and that was to protect the integrity of
19:24
Speaker 1: the case. So with as adamant as they have been
19:29
Speaker 1: about protecting the integrity of the case here, I wouldn't
19:32
Speaker 1: be shocked to see them try and have some sealing
19:34
Speaker 1: and some redactions to the documents that are released to
19:38
Speaker 1: the public. Now, do I know that's going to happen
19:41
Speaker 1: for sure? I don't. But we have seen it happen before,
19:44
Speaker 1: and there is precedent for that if you're trying to
19:47
Speaker 1: keep the case a little bit more secretive until you
19:50
Speaker 1: you're ready to really unleash and let the prosecution go wild.
19:54
Speaker 1: So it's going to be interesting to see what happens
19:56
Speaker 1: here as far as that goes. and if they're going
19:59
Speaker 1: to be transparent with the arrest affidavit, or if we're
20:02
Speaker 1: going to have some seals. So we'll keep our eye
20:05
Speaker 1: on it, obviously. And as this new information unfolds, as
20:09
Speaker 1: this story evolves, we'll be here every step of the way,
20:12
Speaker 1: like we have been from the beginning, waiting on the
20:15
Speaker 1: train of justice to come slamming down the tracks. All right, folks,
20:20
Speaker 1: that's going to do it for this one. If you'd
20:22
Speaker 1: like to contact me, you can do that at BobbyCapucci
20:25
Speaker 1: at ProtonMail.com. That's B-O-B-B-Y-C-A-P-U-C-C-I at ProtonMail.com. You can also find
20:33
Speaker 1: me on Twitter at B-O-B-B-Y underscore C-A-P-U-C-C-I. The link that
20:39
Speaker 1: I discussed can be found in the description box. Home health, baby, baby.
20:44
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone? And welcome back to the program. In
20:48
Speaker 1: this episode, we're going to dive right back into the
20:50
Speaker 1: court documents. And this time, we're looking at the objection
20:54
Speaker 1: by Brian Kohlberger to appeal, amend, and or clarify the
21:00
Speaker 1: non-dissemination order. And this is the argument that Brian Kohlberger's
21:04
Speaker 1: team is making as to why the non-dissemination order should
21:08
Speaker 1: stay in place. So, let's get to it. Case number CR29-22.
21:15
Speaker 1: Dash zero zero zero two eight zero five. The state
21:19
Speaker 1: of Idaho plaintiff versus Brian C. Koberger, the defendant. Comes now.
21:26
Speaker 1: Brian C. Koberger, by and through their attorney, J. Weston Lodgson,
21:30
Speaker 1: chief deputy of litigation, and hereby objects to the motion
21:34
Speaker 1: to appeal, amend and or clarify the non-dissemination order filed
21:39
Speaker 1: by Shannon Gray as counsel for the Gonsalves family. This
21:43
Speaker 1: objection is made on the grounds that the non-dissemination order
21:47
Speaker 1: properly requires Mr. Gray to abide by the clear requirement
21:52
Speaker 1: of the ethical rules of this state. And remember, they're
21:56
Speaker 1: having their hearing on May 22nd. So they're going to
21:59
Speaker 1: get this hammered out or at least get the discussion going.
22:04
Speaker 1: Argument Section 1 The court's order is not volitive of Mr.
22:10
Speaker 1: Gray's First Amendment rights. In his memorandum of support of
22:14
Speaker 1: motion for appeal and or clarification of amended non-dissemination order,
22:19
Speaker 1: hereafter memorandum, Mr. Gray contends that because his clients, the
22:24
Speaker 1: Gonsalves family, are classified as non-party citizens, application of the
22:30
Speaker 1: court's non-dissemination order to him constitutes a prior restraint on
22:35
Speaker 1: his right to free speech under the First Amendment. In
22:39
Speaker 1: support of this position, Mr. Gray cites the fair trial
22:42
Speaker 1: and public disclosure provision of the ABA Standard for Criminal Justice,
22:47
Speaker 1: IRPC 3.6, as well as the precedent established under Shepard v. Maxwell,
22:53
Speaker 1: 384 U.S. 333, 1966, Nebraska Press Association v. Stewart, 427 U.S. 539, 1976,
22:56
Speaker 1: and Gentile v. the State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S.
23:09
Speaker 1: 1030 1991. The issue at hand may be summarized as follows,
23:14
Speaker 1: whether application of a non-dissemination order to an attorney representing
23:19
Speaker 1: the family of an alleged murder victim constitutes an intolerable
23:23
Speaker 1: prior restraint on speech. The First Amendment prohibits laws abridging
23:29
Speaker 1: the freedom of speech, while the Six guarantees to the
23:32
Speaker 1: criminal defendant the right to a speedy and public trial
23:35
Speaker 1: by an impartial jury. Occasionally in conflict, where protected pretrial
23:40
Speaker 1: expression threatens the impartiality of the jury, the United States
23:44
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has determined certain parties' First Amendment rights may
23:49
Speaker 1: be limited when exercise of those rights would result in
23:52
Speaker 1: prejudice to the defendant, noting, with their life at stake,
23:56
Speaker 1: it is not requiring too much that the defendant be
24:00
Speaker 1: tried in an atmosphere undisturbed by so huge a wave
24:04
Speaker 1: of public passion. Shepard, 384 U.S. at 351, quoting Irvin v. Dowd,
24:07
Speaker 1: 266 U.S. 717, 728, and 1961, as a means of
24:08
Speaker 1: reducing the appearance of prejudicial material and to protect the
24:12
Speaker 1: jury from outside influence. A trial court, may prescribe extrajudicial
24:27
Speaker 1: statements by any lawyer, party, witness, or court official, and
24:31
Speaker 1: may also promulgate a regulation with respect to dissemination of
24:36
Speaker 1: information of information about the case. Shepard 384 U.S. at 358-62.
24:45
Speaker 1: In either case, the cure lies in those remedial measures
24:48
Speaker 1: that will prevent the prejudice at its inception. ID 384 U.S.
24:54
Speaker 1: at 363. One such measure is at issue here. As
24:59
Speaker 1: in Stewart, this court is presented with a confrontation between
25:03
Speaker 1: prior restraint imposed to protect one vital constitutional guarantee and
25:08
Speaker 1: the explicit command of another that the freedom to speak
25:12
Speaker 1: shall not be abridged. Stewart, 427 U.S. at 570. Unlike
25:15
Speaker 1: in Stewart, however, The regulation at issue is as to
25:22
Speaker 1: an attorney who may be subjected to greater limitations than
25:26
Speaker 1: could be imposed on the press, as the Supreme Court
25:29
Speaker 1: noted in Shepard. The court must take such steps by
25:33
Speaker 1: rule and regulation that will protect their processes from prejudicial
25:38
Speaker 1: outside interferences. Neither prosecutors. counsels for defense, the accused, witnesses,
25:45
Speaker 1: court staff, nor enforcement officers coming under the jurisdiction of
25:49
Speaker 1: the court should be permitted to frustrate its function. Collaboration
25:53
Speaker 1: between counsel and the press as to information affecting the
25:57
Speaker 1: fairness of a criminal trial is not only subject to regulation,
26:01
Speaker 1: but is highly censorable and worthy of disciplinary action. Shepard 384, U.S. 363.
26:10
Speaker 1: This holding was expressly upheld in genteel, wherein the Supreme
26:15
Speaker 1: Court found the speech of lawyers representing clients in pending
26:19
Speaker 1: cases may be regulated under a less demanding standard than
26:23
Speaker 1: that established for regulation of the press in Stewart and
26:28
Speaker 1: the cases which preceded it. Lawyers representing clients in pending
26:32
Speaker 1: cases are key participants in the criminal justice system and
26:36
Speaker 1: the state may demand some adherence to the precepts of
26:39
Speaker 1: that system in regulating their speech as well as their conduct.
26:44
Speaker 1: Gentile 501 U.S. at 1074. In an attempt to exclude
26:49
Speaker 1: himself from these holdings, Mr. Gray argues that because his
26:53
Speaker 1: clients are not parties to the case and therefore are
26:56
Speaker 1: not subject to the order, see Memorandum page 3, 6
27:00
Speaker 1: and 8, he too is due an equal measure of
27:03
Speaker 1: deference and exclusion. The weight of authority is contrary to
27:06
Speaker 1: his position. In Idaho State Bar v. TAP 129 Idaho
27:12
Speaker 1: 414 925 P. 2D 1113 1996, the Idaho Supreme Court made
27:20
Speaker 1: it clear that courts must strike a reasonable balance between
27:24
Speaker 1: the right of free speech and the state's legitimate interest
27:28
Speaker 1: in preserving the integrity of its judicial system. TAP 129
27:32
Speaker 1: Idaho 414 at 417-925-P.2D at 1116. In reaching this conclusion,
27:41
Speaker 1: the TAP court relied upon the genteel decision, which, in
27:45
Speaker 1: the court's words, balanced the state's interest in assuring fair
27:48
Speaker 1: trials against the free speech interests of attorneys. Thus, a
27:53
Speaker 1: case associated, speaker's status as a lawyer's, alters the degree
27:58
Speaker 1: to which their speech is protected. This lawyer versus non-lawyer
28:02
Speaker 1: distinction is recognized broadly elsewhere, even in cases where the
28:07
Speaker 1: speaker attorney claims not to be involved with the case
28:10
Speaker 1: in question. Good, 821 F. 3D, 553 Fifth Circuit, 2016. The
28:19
Speaker 1: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether an attorney who
28:22
Speaker 1: routinely communicated with and occasionally passed notes to the defense
28:26
Speaker 1: could be sanctioned for violation of of a non-dissemination order
28:30
Speaker 1: and the Louisiana criminal trial publicity rule because he was
28:34
Speaker 1: not a lawyer associated with the defense or trial participants.
28:39
Speaker 1: Application to whom, Good argued, the local rule was limited.
28:44
Speaker 1: Good 821 F. 3D at 557. Rejecting Good's argument, the court
28:50
Speaker 1: relied upon Gentile's own language that because associated lawyers have
28:54
Speaker 1: special access to information and Through discovery and client communications,
28:59
Speaker 1: their extrajudicial statements pose a threat to the fairness of
29:03
Speaker 1: a pending proceeding since lawyer's statements are likely to be
29:07
Speaker 1: received as especially authoritative. Similar holdings have been reached across
29:17
Speaker 1: the circuit courts. See Mezabal v. Allen, 411F. 3D. 712, 6th Circuit, 2005. Morrissey, 168. F. 3D, 134.
29:27
Speaker 1: Fourth Circuit, 1999. Berner vs. Del Honte, 129. F. 3D, 20.
29:30
Speaker 1: First Circuit. U.S. vs. Cutler, 58. Further, the 11th and
29:53
Speaker 1: 2nd Circuits have interpreted the heavy presumption against constitutionality described
29:58
Speaker 1: in Stewart as being unique to prior restraints directed to
30:02
Speaker 1: the press and suggested the Supreme Court's shepherd holding as
30:07
Speaker 1: suggesting a restrictive order limiting extrajudicial commentary of trial participants
30:13
Speaker 1: as an alternative to a prior restraint on the media.
30:17
Speaker 1: The News Journal Corp. v. Foxman, 939 F. 2F, 1499, 1512-13,
30:24
Speaker 1: 11th Circuit, 1991. See also ZAL 968 F. 2D at 928.
30:33
Speaker 1: Lawyers representing clients in pending cases may be regulated under
30:37
Speaker 1: a less demanding standard than that established for regulation of
30:41
Speaker 1: the press. quoting Gentile at 501, U.S. at 1074. As
30:47
Speaker 1: in good, Mr. Gray has special access to information via
30:51
Speaker 1: his clients. Dissemination of information forbidden by the court's order
30:55
Speaker 1: would be deemed authoritative as a result of this access
30:59
Speaker 1: and Mr. Gray's status as an attorney, and therefore would
31:03
Speaker 1: endanger the jury's impartiality. The court's exemption of Mr. Gray's
31:08
Speaker 1: client's from its order effectively answers Mr. Gray's First Amendment concerns,
31:13
Speaker 1: while its continued application to him accounts for his apparent
31:17
Speaker 1: authority and special access to the facts. Section 2. IRPC 3.6
31:24
Speaker 1: is not fashionably vague nor vague as applied to Mr.
31:27
Speaker 1: Gray's circumstances. Mr. Gray then argues that even if the
31:32
Speaker 1: court may order him not to disseminate information to the press,
31:36
Speaker 1: because the court's order mirrors the language of of IRPC 3.6
31:41
Speaker 1: it is vague on its face and as applied to
31:44
Speaker 1: his circumstances first IRPC 3.6 in no way is vague
31:49
Speaker 1: on its face Mr. Gray's argument on this point is
31:53
Speaker 1: premised on a faulty understanding and misreading of the genteel
31:57
Speaker 1: holding and genteel the Supreme Court expressly stated we are
32:01
Speaker 1: not called upon to determine the constitutionality of ABA model
32:06
Speaker 1: rule 3.6 1981 but only Rule 117 as it has
32:12
Speaker 1: been interpreted and applied by the state of Nevada. Gentile
32:16
Speaker 1: 501 U.S. at 1036. Moreover, the Supreme Court held nothing
32:22
Speaker 1: inherent in Nevada's formulation of the trial publicity rule fails
32:27
Speaker 1: First Amendment review. But as this case demonstrates, Rule 117
32:32
Speaker 1: has not been interpreted in conformance with those principles by
32:36
Speaker 1: the Nevada Supreme Court. Gray's assertion that Gentile's court held
32:41
Speaker 1: that the wording of Rules 3.6 and 3.8 was unconstitutionally
32:45
Speaker 1: vague is simply wrong, because Gentile only found that the
32:50
Speaker 1: rule was unconstitutional as applied. That decision does not mandate
32:55
Speaker 1: a similar finding when evaluating IRPC 3.6. To the contrary,
33:00
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court's expressed finding that nothing inherent In Nevada's rule,
33:05
Speaker 1: failed First Amendment review indicates that the same conclusion is
33:09
Speaker 1: appropriate with regard to IRPC 3.6, which, as Mr. Gray
33:15
Speaker 1: himself states, is similar in wording to ABA Rule 3.6. Mr.
33:20
Speaker 1: Gray's argument that IRPC 3.6 is unconstitutionally vague as applied
33:26
Speaker 1: to his own circumstances is also faulty. In Gentile, the
33:31
Speaker 1: Supreme Court found that one central point must dominate the
33:35
Speaker 1: court as applied vagueness analysis. This case involves political speech.
33:40
Speaker 1: At issue here is the constitutionality of a ban on
33:44
Speaker 1: political speech, critical of the government and its officials. Gentile
33:50
Speaker 1: 501 U.S. at 1034. Well, it is true that Mr.
33:53
Speaker 1: Gray and the Gonsalves family have criticized the police in
33:57
Speaker 1: this matter in the past, Since Mr. Koberger's arrest, their
34:01
Speaker 1: statements have been focused on him. CEG King 5, father
34:06
Speaker 1: of Idaho murder victim, says Koberger was overwhelmed in court. Additionally,
34:12
Speaker 1: at issue in Gentile was the confusion created by the
34:15
Speaker 1: Safe Harbor exception for statements by the defense about their defense. Mr.
34:22
Speaker 1: Gray has essentially agreed his client is not a real
34:25
Speaker 1: party to this action and has nothing similar to a
34:27
Speaker 1: defendant's interest in sharing their defense with the press. Thus,
34:32
Speaker 1: the vagueness found in Gentile's in opposite to his concerns.
34:37
Speaker 1: Section 3. As an attorney, Mr. Gray cannot claim vicarious
34:41
Speaker 1: exemption from the rules of professional conduct and is therefore
34:45
Speaker 1: bound by IRPC 3.6. Finally, Mr. Gray asserts that he
34:51
Speaker 1: is allowed to relay to the media any of the opinions, views,
34:55
Speaker 1: or statements of those family members regarding any any part
34:59
Speaker 1: of the case, regardless of the rules of professional conduct,
35:03
Speaker 1: because it would place an undue burden on the victim's
35:06
Speaker 1: families if the attorney whom they retained to represent their
35:10
Speaker 1: interests was prohibited from serving as their spokesperson to the
35:15
Speaker 1: media and other parties in transmitting the victim's family's thoughts
35:19
Speaker 1: and opinions. His assertion of vicarious exemption from the rules
35:24
Speaker 1: of professional conduct is plainly baseless. You made this happen.
35:29
Speaker 1: Besides being entirely inconsistent with the above provided precedent, Mr.
35:34
Speaker 1: Gray's position on this issue is contrary to the long-held
35:37
Speaker 1: acknowledgement that, even outside the courtroom, lawyers in pending cases
35:42
Speaker 1: are subject to ethical restrictions on speech, which an ordinary
35:46
Speaker 1: citizen would not be. Such as has always been the case,
35:51
Speaker 1: as membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. Third,
35:56
Speaker 1: versus the United States, 354 U.S., 278, 281, 1957. Quoting in, Rouse, 221,
35:58
Speaker 1: New York, 81, 84, 116, NE, 782, 783, 1917. Boy,
35:59
Speaker 1: going all the way back to 1917 for that precedent, huh? Mr.
36:03
Speaker 1: Gray's representation of the Gonsalves family does not entitle him
36:06
Speaker 1: to the same degree of freedom of speech... they enjoy
36:24
Speaker 1: as ordinary citizens. Further, Mr. Gray makes it clear that,
36:28
Speaker 1: if his motion is granted, he will comment on the
36:31
Speaker 1: case and other issues surrounding the investigation pursuant to Rule 3.6.
36:37
Speaker 1: What portion of Rule 3.6 Mr. Gray invokes here is
36:41
Speaker 1: an open question. Insofar as the rule addresses Mr. Gray's
36:45
Speaker 1: intended subject matter, it expressly identifies it as a subject
36:50
Speaker 1: more likely than not to have material prejudicial effect on
36:54
Speaker 1: a proceeding, particularly when they refer to a criminal matter
36:59
Speaker 1: or any other proceeding that could result in incarceration. IRPC 3.6,
37:05
Speaker 1: comment number 5. Indeed, the rule notes that criminal jury
37:09
Speaker 1: trials will be most sensitive to extrajudicial speech. IRPC 3.6,
37:15
Speaker 1: comment number 6. Mr. Gray argues he will not be
37:19
Speaker 1: offering up his own opinion regarding the facts surrounding the case,
37:23
Speaker 1: but rather only serving as his client's spokesperson conduit to
37:27
Speaker 1: the media and other parties in transmitting the victim's family's
37:31
Speaker 1: thoughts and opinions. Far from mitigating the already tenuous nature
37:36
Speaker 1: of this argument, this signal of intent again places Mr.
37:40
Speaker 1: Gray at odds with Rule 3.6 and Gentile. the court
37:45
Speaker 1: has already exempted Mr. Gray's clients from its order, adequately
37:48
Speaker 1: preserving their First Amendment rights. To extend this exemption to Mr.
37:53
Speaker 1: Gray would function solely to grant potentially prejudicial statements, the
37:58
Speaker 1: weight recognized as a danger by the genteel court on
38:02
Speaker 1: a subject the rule distinguishes as already extremely susceptible to prejudice.
38:08
Speaker 1: If Mr. Gray truly intends only to voice his clients'
38:11
Speaker 1: thoughts and opinions... then the court's previous exemption has already
38:15
Speaker 1: cured the supposed First Amendment infirmity. Mr. Gray's clients may
38:20
Speaker 1: voice these thoughts and opinions themselves as they clearly have
38:23
Speaker 1: been doing. The sole effect of maintaining the court's order
38:27
Speaker 1: in present form is the continued operation of a remedial
38:31
Speaker 1: measure that prevents prejudice at its inception. Mr. Gray is
38:35
Speaker 1: bound by the rules of professional conduct and the First
38:38
Speaker 1: Amendment does not excuse him from that obligation. This was
38:43
Speaker 1: dated February 8th, and it was signed by Jay Lodson,
38:48
Speaker 1: the chief deputy litigation assigned attorney to Brian Kohlberger. All right, folks.
38:54
Speaker 1: So with this hearing coming up about this issue, I
38:57
Speaker 1: thought this would be a solid add to the catalog
39:00
Speaker 1: to give us an idea of what the argument is here.
39:03
Speaker 1: And obviously, after they have this hearing on May 22nd,
39:07
Speaker 1: we'll have an episode breaking it all down. But until then,
39:11
Speaker 1: we'll continue to swim through this muck looking for some clarity.
39:15
Speaker 1: All right, folks, that's going to do it for this one.
39:17
Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with the episode can
39:20
Speaker 1: be found in the description box. And welcome back to
39:23
Speaker 1: the program. So Brian Koberger is requesting more time to decide.
39:30
Speaker 1: about offering an alibi. And how do we know that?
39:33
Speaker 1: Because there were new court filings that hit the docket.
39:37
Speaker 1: And these new filings occurred on Monday. So they're definitely
39:42
Speaker 1: working behind the scenes double time in the camp of
39:45
Speaker 1: Brian Koberger, trying to formulate a strategy for a defense here. Now,
39:50
Speaker 1: what they're going to come up with, your guess is
39:52
Speaker 1: as good as mine, because as much as I've racked
39:55
Speaker 1: my brain and tried to play the devil's advocate here,
39:58
Speaker 1: I don't know how Brian Kohlberger plans to explain away
40:02
Speaker 1: all of the evidence that has been presented thus far
40:05
Speaker 1: against them, never mind what they have hidden up their sleeve.
40:10
Speaker 1: So today, we have an article from ABC News and
40:13
Speaker 1: the headline. Idaho College murder suspect Brian Kohlberger requests more
40:18
Speaker 1: time to decide offering an alibi. This article was authored
40:23
Speaker 1: by Sasha Pezenik. The man accused of killing four Idaho
40:28
Speaker 1: College students is asking the court for more time to
40:31
Speaker 1: decide whether to offer an alibi as he prepares to
40:35
Speaker 1: mount his defense at trial this fall, according to new
40:39
Speaker 1: court documents. Brian Kohlberger's lawyer said in a motion filed Friday,
40:43
Speaker 1: That because of the voluminous discovery process, which is still ongoing,
40:48
Speaker 1: and because they're still investigating the charges against their client,
40:52
Speaker 1: deciding now would be at a minimum premature as wading
40:56
Speaker 1: through the extensive information that makes up the case is incomplete.
41:01
Speaker 1: Sounds like a bunch of hogwash to me. What's his alibi?
41:03
Speaker 1: Where was he? and who had eyes on him at
41:06
Speaker 1: the time when these murders occurred. You would think that
41:09
Speaker 1: you'd have your alibi all wrapped up nice and tight
41:12
Speaker 1: with a little bow on it, but that doesn't seem
41:14
Speaker 1: to be what's going on with Kohlberger here, and he
41:16
Speaker 1: can't even offer up an alibi. So, how is it
41:20
Speaker 1: that he's going to get himself off these charges when
41:23
Speaker 1: something basic as far as an alibi hasn't even been
41:26
Speaker 1: provided as of yet? There's a question for all of
41:30
Speaker 1: you contrarians out there who think Brian Kohlberger is innocent. Additionally,
41:35
Speaker 1: deciding at this juncture may tread into disclosures of protected information,
41:39
Speaker 1: they said. Oh, it may, huh? You would think that
41:42
Speaker 1: if you had an alibi, you'd be screaming about it
41:45
Speaker 1: from the rooftop. I know that if I was accused
41:47
Speaker 1: of crimes such as these, I'd be yelling and screaming
41:50
Speaker 1: for everybody to hear me. My alibi is this. Go
41:53
Speaker 1: ask Johnny. We were down at the local pub doing
41:56
Speaker 1: shots of Jägermeister. But no, we haven't heard anything like that,
42:00
Speaker 1: have we? Instead, it's about the process. It's about the technicalities.
42:04
Speaker 1: And that's how it always will be for people who
42:07
Speaker 1: are not innocent. Now, it's one thing when you're innocent
42:11
Speaker 1: and you're attacking the process as well as providing some
42:14
Speaker 1: evidence for why you're innocent. But when people are only
42:18
Speaker 1: attacking the process... One thing that I have certainly learned
42:21
Speaker 1: over the past few years that we've been following this stuff,
42:24
Speaker 1: when it's a complete attack of the process looking for
42:27
Speaker 1: loopholes and technicalities, it usually means that the person doing
42:31
Speaker 1: that is guilty and that their legal team has no
42:35
Speaker 1: other way to go after the case and try and
42:38
Speaker 1: destroy the foundation that it's built upon. And this defense
42:41
Speaker 1: strategy thus far is oozing with all sorts of signs
42:46
Speaker 1: of exactly that. Kohlberger's defense says It needs time to
42:49
Speaker 1: make this determination and consider evidentiary rules. Now, I don't
42:54
Speaker 1: disagree with that. There's a lot of discovery to get
42:57
Speaker 1: through here. And that's why I said from the beginning,
43:00
Speaker 1: I don't think this trial kicks off when they say
43:02
Speaker 1: it's going to in October. I think we're looking at
43:05
Speaker 1: a summer of 2024 type of start date for this.
43:09
Speaker 1: And the reason being is that the discovery is massive.
43:13
Speaker 1: We're talking three trilobites so far of information that they've
43:17
Speaker 1: handed over, meaning the prosecution. So the defense, obviously, they
43:21
Speaker 1: have to go through all of that with a fine
43:23
Speaker 1: tooth comb. And it's going to take time. So I
43:27
Speaker 1: highly doubt this trial kicks off in October, like they said.
43:30
Speaker 1: And you're getting a bunch of little tells about that
43:33
Speaker 1: along the way. And this is certainly one of them.
43:36
Speaker 1: When they start complaining or bringing up the fact that
43:38
Speaker 1: there's a lot of evidence to go through, that's usually
43:41
Speaker 1: a sign that they're going to ask for the trial
43:44
Speaker 1: to be delayed a little bit. The Latah County Prosecutor's
43:48
Speaker 1: Office leading the case against Kohlberger put in their demand
43:51
Speaker 1: for his notice of alibi a day after his May
43:55
Speaker 1: 22nd arraignment. According to Idaho law, defendants are supposed to
43:59
Speaker 1: respond to that demand within 10 days or at such
44:03
Speaker 1: different time as the court may direct with a written
44:06
Speaker 1: statement of where they claim to have been at the
44:09
Speaker 1: time of the alleged crime, along with the identities of
44:12
Speaker 1: the witnesses on whom they plan to rely on for
44:15
Speaker 1: that alibi. Now, I'm sure that there's some legal mind
44:19
Speaker 1: out there that understands this way better than me. But
44:22
Speaker 1: it seems like if you have an alibi, that's one
44:25
Speaker 1: of the first things you want to talk about. Hey,
44:27
Speaker 1: go talk to so-and-so. We were hanging out. I didn't
44:30
Speaker 1: do this. Why am I even in jail right now?
44:33
Speaker 1: And if Brian Kohlberger was hanging out with people around
44:35
Speaker 1: this time when these murders occurred, do you really think
44:39
Speaker 1: he'd still be sitting in jail right now? Or do
44:41
Speaker 1: you think that Ann Taylor would be making a big
44:43
Speaker 1: deal about it? Of course, she'd be making a big
44:45
Speaker 1: deal about it to get him bailed out. And I'm
44:48
Speaker 1: sure the judge would look at that and say, hey,
44:50
Speaker 1: you know what? This guy has an alibi. What are
44:51
Speaker 1: you guys talking about here? But none of that's occurred.
44:55
Speaker 1: All we have seen is the massive pile of evidence
44:58
Speaker 1: that is being built against Brian Kohlberger. And it all
45:01
Speaker 1: looks damning. Each piece of evidence that we receive, as
45:04
Speaker 1: the public even, is more damning than the last one.
45:08
Speaker 1: The defense is asking the court for more time to
45:10
Speaker 1: decide or to make an exception to that rule. They
45:14
Speaker 1: ask that if the court is not inclined to grant
45:16
Speaker 1: their request, a hearing be set to present oral argument, evidence,
45:21
Speaker 1: and or testimony in support of their motion. No ruling
45:25
Speaker 1: has yet been issued. And I have my eye on
45:28
Speaker 1: those court documents, obviously, every single day. And when we
45:31
Speaker 1: get a ruling, we'll have it updated. I plan on
45:34
Speaker 1: adding some more documents to the catalog over the week.
45:38
Speaker 1: That way, we're not behind and we're all up to
45:40
Speaker 1: date on what's going on behind the scenes. Neither Kohlberger's
45:45
Speaker 1: attorneys nor prosecutors immediately responded to requests for comment for
45:49
Speaker 1: this story from ABC News, and they're not going to
45:52
Speaker 1: comment because of the gag order. The judge in the
45:55
Speaker 1: case has issued an order largely barring both parties from
45:59
Speaker 1: speaking publicly about the investigation or pending prosecution outside of court.
46:05
Speaker 1: And just quickly, talking about judges, there wasn't a sudden
46:09
Speaker 1: shift in judges in this case. What happened was, The
46:13
Speaker 1: case originally hit Megan Marshall's office because she is a
46:16
Speaker 1: lower court. But now that it's progressed and he's been arraigned,
46:20
Speaker 1: it moves on to the next level of the court system.
46:22
Speaker 1: And that means it ends up in Judge John Judge's
46:26
Speaker 1: courtroom and not Judge Marshall's. And I know there was
46:28
Speaker 1: some confusion there about that issue. So that's what happened.
46:32
Speaker 1: It's nothing, you know, sinister or anything like that. That's
46:35
Speaker 1: just how the court system works. You get arraigned in
46:38
Speaker 1: one court and then you move on to the next level.
46:41
Speaker 1: and Idaho has a tiered court system that functions in
46:44
Speaker 1: that manner. Koberger, 28, was indicted last month in charge
46:49
Speaker 1: with four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary.
46:53
Speaker 1: At his arraignment in late May, Koberger declined to offer
46:56
Speaker 1: a plea, so the judge entered a not guilty plea
46:59
Speaker 1: on his behalf. A trial date has been set for
47:03
Speaker 1: October 2nd. Prosecutors allege that in the early morning hours
47:08
Speaker 1: of November 13, 2022, Kohlberger, a criminology Ph.D. student at
47:13
Speaker 1: Washington State University, broke into an off-campus home and stabbed
47:18
Speaker 1: to death four University of Idaho students, Ethan Chapin, Madison Mogan,
47:23
Speaker 1: Zanna Kernodle, and Kaylee Gonsalves. After a more than six-week hunt,
47:29
Speaker 1: police zeroed in on Kohlberger as a suspect, tracking his
47:33
Speaker 1: white Hyundai Elantra, cell phone, signal data, And recovering, what
47:37
Speaker 1: authorities say, was his DNA on a knife sheath found
47:41
Speaker 1: next to one of the victim's bodies, according to court documents.
47:45
Speaker 1: And that's the glue that binds it all together. That
47:48
Speaker 1: DNA on that knife sheath ties all that other evidence
47:52
Speaker 1: up in a nice little bow. And if you look
47:54
Speaker 1: at this evidence piecemeal, yeah, it doesn't look like it's
47:58
Speaker 1: a slam dunk. But when you look at all of
48:00
Speaker 1: the evidence combined, it makes all of that evidence that
48:04
Speaker 1: much stronger. And Brian Kohlberger and his team, they're going
48:08
Speaker 1: to have a big problem contending with all of that
48:11
Speaker 1: evidence balled into one. T-Mobile 5 was arrested on December
48:15
Speaker 1: 30th in Pennsylvania after driving cross-country to spend the holidays
48:19
Speaker 1: at his family home in Albrightville, Pennsylvania. Since the time
48:23
Speaker 1: of Kohlberger's arrest, the prosecution has disclosed roughly 51 terabytes
48:28
Speaker 1: of information. as part of the discovery process, including thousands
48:32
Speaker 1: of pages of discovery, thousands of photographs, hundreds of hours
48:36
Speaker 1: of recordings, further, many gigabytes of electronic phone record and
48:41
Speaker 1: social media data, according to court documents. So they dropped
48:45
Speaker 1: a whole ass ton of information in the laps of
48:48
Speaker 1: the defense. Now, they have to have time to go
48:50
Speaker 1: through all of that. So like I said earlier in
48:53
Speaker 1: this episode, I don't see the trial, unfortunately, kicking off
48:57
Speaker 1: at the start date of October 2nd, like they're hoping.
49:01
Speaker 1: And that all is based on the gigantic amount of
49:04
Speaker 1: evidence that has to be gone through here. Mr. Kohlberger's
49:08
Speaker 1: investigation and preparation of his defense is underway. His defense
49:13
Speaker 1: said in a response to the state's alibi demand and
49:16
Speaker 1: request for a discovery disclosure filed on Friday, adding that
49:20
Speaker 1: as determinations are made regarding trial evidence, the same will
49:24
Speaker 1: be timely disclosed. Trial witnesses will be disclosed as determinations
49:29
Speaker 1: are made. The defense wrote, Mr. Kohlberger does intend to
49:32
Speaker 1: call individuals named in the state's supply discovery materials. So
49:37
Speaker 1: what that means is He doesn't plan on calling his
49:39
Speaker 1: own witnesses. He plans on calling witnesses that are being
49:42
Speaker 1: brought up by the prosecution. That way his defense can
49:46
Speaker 1: hammer them. But I think they're going to need to
49:48
Speaker 1: bring a little more to the party than just that.
49:51
Speaker 1: Because when all is said and done, just the evidence
49:54
Speaker 1: that we see here is a mountain high. And can
49:57
Speaker 1: you imagine what they have behind the scenes? Imagine GPS coordinates.
50:01
Speaker 1: him connecting to a Wi-Fi router, and all of the
50:04
Speaker 1: other evidence that has been collected in the aftermath of
50:08
Speaker 1: these murders, the task before Brian Kohlberger's lawyers is massive.
50:13
Speaker 1: The question is, are they up for the challenge? And
50:16
Speaker 1: what strategy do they plan on using? All right, folks,
50:20
Speaker 1: that's going to do it for this one. All of
50:21
Speaker 1: the information that goes with the episode can be found
50:25
Speaker 1: in the description box.