Law&Crime Sidebar - Bryan Kohberger Trial Date to Be Set in Idaho Student Murders Case

Episode Date: February 14, 2024

The quadruple college murders that captured the nation's attention may soon have a trial date set. Judge John Judge has scheduled a hearing with prosecutors and Bryan Kohberger's defense team to discuss a trial date, as well as whether the trial will move out of Latah County. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber analyzes the latest arguments with law professor and evidence expert Jules Epstein.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If you've been injured at work you can go to Pondlehocky.com/LCSidebar or pick up the phone and call them @ 833-669-4043HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerScript Writing & Producing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that will

keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. A trial in this case is going to happen and the question is when. More than a year after four college students were brutally stabbed to death in a home near the University of Idaho, we may finally learn when the prime suspect will go to trial. We're discussing the next steps in Brian Coburger's case with law professor and evidence expert, Jules Epstein. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Ryan Coburger, the 29-year-old doctoral student or former doctoral student accused of stabbing four University of Idaho students to death back in

November of 2022. We'll be back in a courtroom at the end of the month, February 28, to be more precise. And why is that date so important? Well, I will tell you. But first, a little background. Koberger, of course, is charged with four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary after he allegedly entered an off-campus rental home

in Moscow, Idaho, and stabbed to death Madison Mogan, Haley Gonzalez, Ethan Chappen, and Zana Kurnodal. Now, Kovurger was a graduate student at nearby Washington State University at the time of the killings, and he was arrested a few weeks later at his parents' home in Pennsylvania and brought back to Idaho.

The judge entered a not guilty plea on Coburger's behalf last summer, and he's been locked up ever since. The state is seeking the death penalty in this case. So let's talk about what happens next. Well, we now know that Coburger will be back in Judge John Judge's courtroom, like I said on February 28th. And Judge Judge asked the attorneys to be prepared to discuss a number of issues, dates for the criminal trial, the motion for a change of venue, and deadlines for pretrial motions, discovery, and expert disclosures. But let's actually focus on that trial date for a minute because that is the issue that a lot of us are talking about and a lot of us want to know. So what we do know is that during a hearing last month, the defense team once again

argued that the grand jury's indictment of Brian Coburger is invalid because the jurors, they say, were provided the wrong instruction on the standard of proof. They made a very novel argument that a grand jury indictment requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt as the standard of proof, not just a finding of probable cause, as has always been the standard in Idaho and other states. It was a very interesting argument, but we've discussed it before here on sidebar, but judge, judge, had previously denied the motions to have the indictment thrown out. Well, now, LATO County prosecutors said that they were worried that delaying the trial

until after a higher court could take a look at the defense's argument would be harmful. I don't want to lose sight of the fact of the seriousness of this case. We are talking about a quadruple homicide. Under Idaho's law, not only are those who were killed victims,

but every single one of their immediate family members is a victim. And in this state, in Idaho, our victims have a constitutional right to a timely resolution of the litigation. we are already quite a ways out and the idea that we would hit the pause button and take power away from this court

because there is an interesting issue for the Idaho Supreme Court to address is not something that this court or any court should tolerate. It's time for a trial, Your Honor. But the defense argued that whether Koberger goes to trial now or later, this issue is still going to come up.

We believe this would be an important issue and one that is worth getting a glance, at least from a higher court, rather than being tucked away and forgotten in the maelstrom that is to come. As the state undoubtedly knows, trial won't put an end to this case. This case will go on for 28 years if they do actually achieving conviction. So the idea that somehow we're running towards something and that that's going to do anybody any good from their standpoint is, I think, false. What we're trying to do is make sure that the things that occur in this case are done correctly. And if you want to talk about how long things are going to take, get some stuff wrong

and then see how long it all takes. We're asking that the court would give us permission to go and see if the Idaho Supreme Court would be willing to weigh in on this particular subject. Whether or not the case makes its way to trial at some point is, in our mind, just part of what the court has to look at, particularly in a case where the states decided that it wants to try to kill some. Judge Judge, once again disagreed with the defense's argument. And I'm very concerned about delay, and I think that if we send this to the court,

that it's going to add delay. Mr. Logston is correct. I mean, this is a complicated case. It could take a long time, longer than any of us want, but I think that would add additional delay. Now, here's the issue. Koeberger waived his right to a speedy trial last year, which is one of the reasons it's taken so long to even get to the point where we have a trial date set. The prosecution, though, wants to go to trial sooner rather than later.

When the state filed our motion asking for a scheduling order in trial date, which was a little bit over a month ago, we proposed the summer of this year. And at that time, at this time right now, we believe that we could be prepared for trial summer of this year. We realize defense has factors and considerations. They want your honor to take into account, and certainly we want to afford them that opportunity. I will say, though, that we touched on this in our motion, in our request for the scheduling order, that given the nature of this case, if we are going to try this case effectively with minimal unnecessary harm or disruption to our community, it should be done during the summertime.

And then we heard from the defense who have major issues about this trial happening this year. Your Honor, I received Mr. Thompson's motion for a scheduling order, and I had the opportunity to meet with him and talk with him and Ms. Jennings about that. So it is no surprise to the prosecution that we do not believe a summer of 2024 trial is realistic in any way. Understanding the state's concerns if a trial were to happen in Laytog County, we would suggest looking at summer of 2025. However, at council and the court's aware that our intention is to file a motion for change of venue. I do not believe this is a six-week trial. I believe this is more like a 12 to 15-week trial. This is, as everybody said today, a very complicated case. And I want to talk a little bit about what drives both our request no sooner than summer of 2025. And I say that with fear,

Your Honor. There are a lot of things that we have to still do. I want the court and counsel to know that we haven't sat around waiting for a scheduling conference to begin doing those things. We have been on this case and active and seeking discovery and reviewing discovery, meeting with experts and working the case since the day we were assigned this case. So with that said, there's still plenty to do. That's the duty I owe to Brian. That's his right for effective assistance of counsel to have me do those things. Your Honor, summer of 2024, it's impossible for us to do it.

Our team constantly meets. We constantly work. We are on this. This is our priority. Brian's our priority. But we are not going to be ready in June of 2024. And one of the biggest concerns here is the sheer amount of discovery that the defense needs to go through,

including 51 terabytes of data, including one very important video that defense needs to go through. we don't have clarification about what that video is there are also calls with tips to police videos paperwork they've acknowledged that there are 400 potential witnesses that might be in this case and the defense is only interviewed apparently a fraction of them they need to sort through experts they need to prepare more background information on coburgers life potentially for the penalty phase if he's convicted because with the death penalty on the table there would need to be a focus on mitigating evidence during that phase and the judge is considering all of that and could set

an official trial date at the hearing in a couple of weeks. And that is just the issue of the trial date. We haven't even gotten into the other issues. But before we even do that, let me bring on right now, evidence expert, Jules Epstein, who is the Edward D. Allbound Professor of Law at Temple University's Easley School of Law. Professor, good to see you. Thanks so much for coming back on.

Good afternoon. So what do you think about a potential trial date? Because the judge said during the hearing that it's very hard. for him right now to consider setting a trial date for 2025. I listed out a few of the issues. What's your take on a trial date? My take is that the way for the judge to do this right is actually to meet with each party separately and say, what do you need? The judge really needs in a death penalty case in particular to be sensitive to the need of the defense to explore all the background, what you call the mitigation. Second, there's this issue of the violence.

of materials, although I want to dial that back for a second. There are artificial intelligence programs that can to some extent help screen those documents. But even with that, it would be reasonable for the defense to say, look, Judge, we haven't even read everything and we're trying, here's how long it will take, and then the judge has to use a reasonable estimate of how much pressure can I put on this? defense, where will it be the tipping point where I will have violated new process rights? Given the volume that you've talked about and not knowing how far along the defense is, I think we're talking months and months and months or more.

So here's what's really interesting about that. It seems both sides are agreeing, maybe more the prosecution, that a trial has to be set in the summertime. There was talk about whether or not, you know, you delay it until the fall. And their concern was that this is going to have a detrimental effect on the community, particularly the students who are back in school. I mean, you're dealing with a case about four college students who are killed. So the idea of this happening summer 2024 now seems unlikely. But the question is, do you push it to summer 2025?

That is so long away from now. And, you know, they also talked about the fact that there's going to be so much media attention, the availability of hotel rooms, lodging, that it would be easier to have a trial like this in the summer than another time. What's your thoughts on that? My thought is that is a convenience factor. That is a sensitivity to the community factor. I'm not sure that it overrides, on the one hand, speedy trial rights or doing it right and getting it right. Let's just imagine that the defense said we can be ready September 20th. Who is served by putting it off till June 2025? I'm not smart enough to make that judgment, but while it's important to be considerate of the college and the college town and things like that in hotel rooms,

it's also kind of important to get cases resolved. I'm not suggesting the defense is rushing it. I just don't know how one balances those. That's up to the particular judge's gut feeling, not science. I don't know. Maybe it's the legal analyst in me, the attorney in me. I love analyzing these like little legal intricacies of these cases like the Koberger one. And when you think about how complicated the law can be, like for example, in personal injury cases, if you ever find yourself in a situation like that,

you need a lawyer you can trust. That is why I'm excited to talk about Con Lee Hawkins. Giordano. This is a powerhouse legal team and a sponsor of ours here on Sidebar. Notice how I said team, by the way, because when you hire Ponley Hockey Giordano, you're not just being represented by a single attorney. You're getting access to the entire team with over 250 years of combined courtroom experience. They're not just lawyers. They are advocates who fight tooth and nail for your rights. After an accident, they want to make sure that you never have to recover alone. Their track record speaks volumes because they've secured over a billion dollars for their more than 100,000 injured

and disabled clients. And at Ponlihaki Giordano, their mission has always been to help as many people as possible, even if that means they can't handle your specific legal issue. That's why they're proud to have the Panli Hockey referral department, which has helped tens of thousands of individuals throughout all 50 states find the best attorney and law firm in their city or town for their specific legal needs. So if you've been hurt and you want to see, if Ponley Hockey Giordano is right for you or can help you. You can check them out at ponlihockey.com slash LC sidebar or by picking up the phone and calling them at 833-669-404-3.

I think the judge is quite sensitive and receptive to the defense's needs here because I think the last thing the judge wants is there to be a conviction and the defense to say, we were rushed into this trial, we weren't given enough time, then a retrial is granted

because this is such a painful case. And look, the judge is also saying for the victim's family members, they deserve a resolution of this case sooner rather than later, but obviously it's complicated with the amount of alleged discovery in this case. Which is why I said that I think a judge would be proper, because neither side should hear the other's plans that the judge says, I'm going to meet with each of you. We call it in-camera individually and say, give me a realistic, what's going on, how are your resources, how much time are you devoting to this? and then the judge has to do their best to make a fair and balanced decision. What do you think the judge is going to decide here? I'm not privy to the documents or how far along they are in the work, but I said earlier, this is going to be a while before it goes to trial.

Let me ask you this. Putting aside the fact of the argument that there's so much discovery for the defense to go through, the prosecution says that they would have been ready to go to trial this summer. Is there an advantage for the defense? to push this case down the road? Because if you think if you're Brian Koeberger and he says that he's completely innocent of this, wouldn't he want this case resolved sooner rather than later?

But is there an advantage for the defense to pushing this case to 2025? So when I answer that, I'm not suggesting that that's what's motivating the defense. Sure. Your question is, could it benefit them? Sure. The answer is sure in three ways.

One is the longer time, the better prepared they are. One is the longer the time, the slightly reduced passions. And this, of course, is going to dovetail with change of ending, right? This is a horrible, horrible crime. It will always be a horrible, horrible crime, but the shock of it, the terror of it, diminishes over time. So a little bit of calming is beneficial. The third, and I'm not, certainly not suggesting this as a proper motive, is as time goes by, a witness may be lost, a something may happen, although that's true going both ways. So some advantages, but again, to me, the most important advantage is not delaying it, but getting the time right so that the preparation can be done.

Before we move on to the next issue of change of venue, wanted your opinion real quick. And those were great points because I was thinking of the same thing about that. But the idea that the judge is reluctant to not delay the trial until the Idaho Supreme Court resolves the issue of the standard of proof for grand jury indictment. In fact, not only was he reluctant to deny, he denied the defense's motion to appeal the issue right now. You know, the defense was saying, look, this issue needs to be resolved by the courts before we even have a trial. Otherwise, it's going to mess everything up in the future. what's your take on the fact that judge said no no no no no that happens that happens down the line we got to keep this trial going we don't want to delay it based on waiting for a higher court

to decide this issue so i'm not an expert in that state's law but with that disclaimer there are a lot of issues that the defense any defense loses pretrial that seem really important. And states have rules about which of those can be appealed before trial. And the rules tend to say they are very few. And occasionally could say, well, judge, would you give me permission and make this an exception? And that's within the judge's discretion. You talked earlier about this was a, as you put it politely, a novel theory, not supported by the law of that state. Well, maybe that was the reason the judge said, I'm pretty comfortable with. with this ruling, let's go to trial.

He did say, look, the Supreme Court, the Idaho Supreme Court may rule differently. That may be an issue that they decide, although he seems to suggest that he feels pretty confident since that has been the law of the land there for, I don't know, centuries, decades, but interesting to talk about, okay, let's talk about change of venue, which I think is a really fascinating issue. So Coburger's public defender, Ann Taylor, she filed this motion two weeks ago, and in that filing, she says that a fair and impartial jury cannot be. found in Laetoc County, due to, quote, extensive inflammatory pretrial publicity, allegations made

about Mr. Coburger to the public by media that will be inadmissible at his trial, the small size of the community, the salacious nature of the alleged crimes, and the severity of the charges. She argued that Laetoc County just doesn't have a large enough population to avoid bias. Give everybody an idea. Laetoc County has a population of a little over 40,000. Now, Laetoc County prosecutor, Bill Thompson, responded last. week saying that this request is, quote, premature and without sufficient basis, because the defense,

quote, has not provided the court with adequate information to conclude that a Latak County jury could not fairly and impartially decide defendant's case. Professor Epstein, what are your thoughts? Courts are reluctant to change venue. And change venue means let's have the trial in another part of the state. First of all, this case had a lot of publicity, a lot of places. Second, of all, I have not seen the public defender's pleadings. Typically in a change of venue motion, you do two things. You list and attach and cite to every news article and every TV report and every social media report. Nowadays, you'd hyperlink to it. As a subpart of that, you'd say, look, this report mentioned X, which is inadmissible at trial. And this report mentioned Y, which is

inadmissible at trial because it's not enough that the crime be well known, but it also has to be that this information polluted the potential jurors. If you can take the next step, you do some polling, you know, random knock on doors, however polling is done and say, what do you think? Do you feel he's guilty? Why do you feel he's guilty? You know, stuff like that. And if you could, you'd come in with poll results to say, judge, we're not just saying there's all this publicity, we have some ability to show its impact. Reading between the lines, that's what it sounds like the prosecutor's response was addressing, although again, I haven't seen the pleadings. Sometimes judges will say, my God, this publicity was so pervasive. We're out of here. Sometimes they'll say,

I want more data. Sometimes they'll say, let's try. Because, and I know, this doesn't rock your world lots of people pay no attention to the news or crime news no offense okay hey none taken those are called those are called those are called those are called potential followers of ours that we're trying to capture their attention that's right so having done jury selection in incredibly high profile cases in philadelphia and when we pulled you know prospective jurors did you hear about this uh-uh it was like how could you not hear about this it was everywhere. Sadly, lots of people don't stay current. Okay. So sometimes a judge will say, let's try jury selection and see how we do. There is no absolute rule of you have to do it this way

or you have to do it that way. It may be more cautious and problem avoidant to just say, you're right, let's move across state. And I'm sure their state has a process where the state Supreme Court says, e-me-mini-mo, we're moving you to ex-location. But those are the factors a judge has to think about. I would agree that if this was a

case that was so big in a local community, a corruption case, a murder case, everybody in the town's talking about it. But no one else in the state even knows it's going on. I'd say that's a good change of venue. Everybody knows about the Brian Coburger case. And obviously, I don't mean

everybody, but I'm saying this is now gone on national airwaves. You cannot find it, not in national papers, papers in different states. Everybody is talking about this case. So for me, and we've covered other high-profile trials before, one off the top of my head, the Derek Chauvin case, right? There was no change of venue there.

I mean, you had high-profile trials where there's no change of venue because the case is so saturated across the country. Everywhere you go, someone's going to know about it. I think that's a big issue here. So let's distinguish everyone. knows about it versus everybody knows about it and it hits home to them. That's fair. That's fair. So I'm with you, although trust me, you go out and pick a dozen people off the street, five of them.

This is a purely unscientific guess, okay? Five of them will have heard of Koeberger. Seven won't. But in that town, everybody knows somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody or is related to a police officer or is something. I get the public defender's request. It sure is in the reasonableness zone. Right. Let me ask you this.

Let me ask you this. I'll end it with this question. I've seen an interesting argument put forward that it's important to keep this trial in that community. A, this is, affects their community. They want to get it right. You know, this is, they should be the ones who hear this case that affects their community, affects the people there.

And two, I've actually put forward this idea. I don't know if it's totally crazy, but I'll, I'll, let you decide it. I think for the defense, there's almost a benefit because if you have jury members who know that community and who know that geography, when you're raising questions about where Brian Koeberger was or why he was driving that night, and if they're like, wait a minute, that's a party town, it wouldn't be outside. I've driven that route before. It wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility to go from A to B. I think having jury members who understand the layout, the geography of this might be beneficial to the defense's case.

because they remember they might be putting an alibi that he was just driving around or there was an explanation for why he was where he was i don't know you tell me any advantage for the defense keeping it in that locality and b the idea you want to keep it there because you want a community that community deciding this case so let me take them in reverse order sure that would be that would be an ideal if the members of that community can meet the sixth amendment mandate of being impartial jurors, okay? I'm not sure I can be an impartial juror when there's a murder down the block from me. And that's the trade-off with the community. As to your point that it might benefit, the defense, I was on Jones Highway down by the old mill or whatever it is.

I have no idea if that would be to their benefit or their detriment because someone could just as easily say, well, I've been there. You can get there much quicker. Right now. Again, I don't know the defense. I don't know the geography and what comes into play here. I would be incredibly careful as a defense attorney in making that assumption unless it was really, really, really clear and something that sort of like insider knowledge where I'd benefit, crystal clear benefit. from the jury knowing, oh, that road, that bridge, you can't drive fast over that bridge, something like that. Jules Epstein, what a pleasure.

Always love having you on, a fan favorite, my fan favorite, but also all of our viewers fan favorites. Thank you so much for coming on. Really appreciate it, as always. Take care, my friend. See you soon. All right, everybody. That's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us.

Please subscribe on Apple Podcast, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcast. Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time.