Law&Crime Sidebar - Idaho Murders Judge Makes 3 Critical Calls as Bryan Kohberger's Case Progresses

Episode Date: October 27, 2023

Defense attorneys for Bryan Kohberger make a compelling argument to throw out his grand jury indictment as the accused student murderer pushes to get all charges dropped. The Law&Crime Network's Jesse Weber breaks down the top three developments you need to know about the defense’s claims, what happened in court, and the ultimate decisions from the judge.LAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerScript Writing - 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. Are you telling me that other places in the state are giving a different instruction that it should be beyond a reasonable doubt? What I'm telling you for this is that it appears to until 1980, that was true. Defense attorneys for Brian Koeberger make a compelling argument to throw out his grand jury indictment as the accused murderer wants this case to just go away. We've got the top three things you need to know about the defense's claims and what went

down in court, including the ultimate major decisions from the judge. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by law and crime. I'm Jesse Weber. So is the case against Brian Koberger going to continue? That was the question this week that had to be answered in court, and we're going to talk about it right now. So Brian Coburger, of course, is the former Ph.D. student accused of stabbing to death for University of Idaho students last November in an off-campus home, Kaylee Gonzalez, Madison Mogan, Ethan Chapin, Zanernernernernerner. It's currently facing four first-degree murder charges as well as a burglary charge. We know a lot of the evidence against Coburger, the cell phone data, the surveillance footage, his car, a match to DNA found at the crime.

seen, a potential eyewitness ID from a survivor in that house, but we also know that prosecutors presented their case in secret to a grand jury, and a grand jury returned an indictment against Ryan Koberger. Well, that brings me to these latest set of hearings, because leading up to this, the defense has argued that that grand jury indictment should be thrown out, basically asking for this case to be dismissed. So first, there was one hearing that was held between the attorneys and Judge John Judge. That's his name, Judge John Judge. And this first hearing was held in private.

There were no cameras. The decision hasn't been released. It concerned alleged bias by the grand jury. The reason it was closed is because by nature, grand jury proceedings. And of course, who the grand jurors are is secret. But after that, we did have a public hearing. And first, the judge dropped a major decision that we weren't expecting.

I'm sure you're probably interested in this. I haven't put a decision out yet, but what I'm going to do is take control of the cameras in the courtroom. I'm not going to ban cameras in the courtroom, but I need to have more control over what the cameras are doing and what media or people who are not media. are doing with the filming. I know I can only control so much, and that's why I continue to urge people to be patient and have some dignity and some restraint. Now, that is very big,

because there has been much debate about whether there would be cameras in the Brian Coburger trial. And based on Judge Judge's statements, it seems that we're going to have them Or maybe I should say, as of right now, the Coburger case and its proceedings will have cameras. Hopefully we'll have it by the time trial comes. But it is not clear what he means when he says he's going to take control.

Maybe that means they're going to use the court's own camera and not a media pool feed. We'll have to see. But one of the issues that has surfaced was the idea that the camera was spending too much time on Brian Coburger. And that's problematic. You know, a container of jury pool. if they're turning on and all they see is this image of Brian Koberger, close up shots of him, it's unfair public coverage, if all the focus is just on the defendant.

Whatever the case may be, this is a big win for transparency, a big win for seeing this process play out because so much of this case has been in secret. There's been a gag order in place. So this is a huge decision. Me personally, I love it. All in favor of cameras in the courtroom. Great decision. Okay, now let's move on to what the attorneys and the judge really were there to discuss

that day. And that was the defense's motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the grand jury instructions, what they were told, was wrong. I have to tell you, this is a very, very interesting argument from Koberger's defense. And honestly, I don't believe I've ever heard of it before. So it goes like this. It's a little complicated, but stay with it. So the grand jury indictment of Koberger should be thrown out because the grand jurors were given the improper instructions as to the standard of proof. You see, while they were instructed to return an indictment if they find probable cause exists,

meaning there's reasonable grounds to support that Brian Koberger committed these crimes, which, by the way, is the typical standard across the country in grand juries. And it's a relatively low standard, low burden. They always say that you can indict a ham sandwich because the standard is so low. The defense is arguing that that is not the standard under Idaho law. The defense is saying that if you look at the Idaho statute, grand juries should only return an indictment if they find proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, not only is that standard higher than probable cause, it is actually the highest standard we have in criminal law, the highest legal bar. The reason the defense says this is because under the Idaho Code, the Idaho statute, it says, quote, the grand jury ought to find an indictment when all the evidence before them taken together,

if unexplained or uncontradicted, would, in their judgment, warrant a conviction by a trial jury? The defense says, well, if you are saying the evidence would mean a conviction at trial, then that is beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the standard at a criminal trial. They're saying it's equal. So since the grand jurors were instructed, as the defense says, on the wrong standard, they say the indictment has to be thrown out. In other words, the defense is saying maybe the grand jury would have come back with an indictment anyway.

but you have to hold the prosecutors to their burden. They have to show more evidence. There's a higher standard. So here's the thing. They want the judge to either toss out the grand jury indictment, dismiss the case, or send the case to a preliminary hearing to decide if there's enough evidence to go forward with a trial against Koeberger. You see, if the case goes to a preliminary hearing and not a grand jury,

then it's decided by a judge, not at grand jurors. And it's not secret like a grand jury. The defense can hear the prosecution's evidence. They can even present or challenge some of the state's evidence. By all accounts, now that we know that cameras would be in the courtroom, it would be televised. Now, obviously, prosecutors went with the grand jury against Koberger because in a way it's easier. It's more streamlined to get an indictment that way than through a preliminary hearing. So now you've heard what the defense's argument is.

Clearly, the prosecution's not agreeing with this. Let's hear the arguments in court. Here is Koeberger's attorney Jay Logston. And first, he's explaining that the Idaho. code the statute means beyond a reasonable doubt and how we're just discovering this issue today because it seems Idaho has consistently been using probable cause for grand juries and that might be the wrong standard and the first question that a court has to ask is what's that mean and you start with the plain language which we argue what warrants a finding or a conviction

by a trial jury has been on a reasonable doubt and it meant that that that actually in 1887 when the territory took all of these statutes, almost entirely from the state of California, and it means it today. And then we also pointed out that the great state of California, when they had these on their books from back in the 50s, had already a case in the 1962

where they said that it's clearly something more than probable cause, but they weren't too specific about the exact way. And so I'm now put in a position of trying to explain why that occurred and why, in the year of our Lord of 2023, we are suddenly finding out that that's not quite how things are supposed to be. Why did we forget that we passed all these laws? And I don't have a great answer to that. But nobody's really been digging into this or raising it until this time. So when the court says, look, the Supreme Court has already a rule on this, Supreme Court's already,

ruled on it. It's just not true. They never ruled that probable causes the basis because there was an argument about it. And they said, no, no, no, you're wrong. That's probable cause. That hasn't occurred. They ruled a lot of things, but that's not one who wants. And then he says, well, if the grand jury was instructed as to the wrong standard, not only is their decision not accurate, not only is that indictment valid, but he gives us a behind the curtains look at what the grand jurors may have been thinking. Yeah, he kind of says something here that he shouldn't. And he explains that if the grand jurors were given the higher standard, they may not have returned an indictment. What it's intended to do is just make it so that if you're in a position to get an indictment

somebody, you're going to put on your A-game. But obviously, we've been talking a bit about how we don't think that that's what occurred in this particular case. And we certainly don't think that if occurred, we're to adopt this in this particular case, that this would even remotely cut the mustard because we know, from the grand jurors that at least six of them wanted to hear more until they were essentially cut off and told probable causes the standard more people do it. You probably should cut that what the grand jurors did or didn't do.

Hmm, that is interesting. Grand jurors on the fence wanted to hear more evidence. That's a pretty big bombshell, and the judge stopped in there. Well, then logs and says, okay, now for all of you out there who are like, okay, wait a second, if now we force grand juries to only return indictments, if they have to meet this higher standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, we're never going to get indictments, right? It's going to be chaos. he says that's not the case there have been convictions there won't be this kind of issue as people claim and then the prosecution after the defense had the chance to make this argument they had their chance

to respond and basically said look this is the law of the land probable cause is the standard it's constantly and consistently been upheld so in edmondson the supreme court said and i quote the purpose of the grand jury proceeding is determined whether sufficient probable cause exists to bind the defendant over for trial. The determination of guilt or innocence is saved for a later day. As long as the grand jury has received legally sufficient evidence, which in and of itself, supports the final probable cause, it is not for an appellate court to set aside the indictment. This court is bound by that holding. The Idaho Supreme Court applied that holding in two subsequent cases. Martinez and Jones both cited in my brief. The court of appeals has applied that holding

repeatedly this court is also bound by his holdings basically saying there's no issue here well now judge judge had the opportunity to give his tape to just say well they gave they were given the wrong instruction is not exactly the case i mean that is the standard that has been used uh in idaho for years maybe a hundred years i'm taking a fight about And you may have the opportunity to do that to the Supreme Court. Well. I mean, that's what you're building for. Because you know, you know that I am constrained by existing law.

I can't just change the law as a trial court. I appreciate the argument. I think it's really creative. I am going to deny that argument. I think the argument is good, but I can't go that far, not today. So the judge actually appreciated the argument, but he can only do so much. He's not the Supreme Court, where perhaps Mr. Logsend should argue this if he wants a change in the state. So the motion was denied, meaning the indictment stands, and Brian Colberger is still headed to trial.

That's all we have for you here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. Speak to you next time.