Unfortunately for him, the Supreme Court of the US has already ruled that is irrelevant. Although I suppose there’s a chance that the state court will have a different take.
He is basing it on the fact that he doesn’t want to spend the rest of his life in prison.
Whatever, fuck that guy. He’s an evil POS.
Only at that level-
Justice Scalia’s words provide a technically correct reading of Supreme Court precedent and federal habeas corpus law: actual innocence is not a recognized claim of constitutional error that would allow federal courts to review a prisoner’s habeas petition.
Yes, courts will vacate a guilty verdict if the person is shown to be likely innocent. They did it a lot with DNA evidence.
I thought his guilty plea included waiving his right to any appeals. Can somebody set me straight here?
If (not that this happened) he took the plea based on false pretences, he should have a case.
Thanks for the gift link.
From the article:
He said his lawyers failed to disclose or review exculpatory evidence and had made promises about what life in prison would look like, including details about visits and employment. These pledges, he said, had induced him to agree to the plea.
And don’t forget the bananas. They must have promised him the right bananas.
Inner quote is the NYT quoting Kohberger:
For a guy who was in a Masters or PhD program (I forget which), he sure sucks at writing a short declarative English sentence.
Assuming that for whatever combo of reasons the relevant courts do vacate the guilty plea, and run a trial, and he’s found guilty, and is sentenced to death, I wonder what his next procedural complaint will be?
Is this a realistic approach by defense attorneys – give the defendant a few bits of incorrect information on purpose so they have an out if they change their mind?
IANAL, but I would imagine that if the defense attorneys actually did that, they would face serious consequences.
When a defendant enters a guilty plea, especially in a serious case like this, the judge spends a lot of time making sure they understand the consequences of what they’re doing. Specifically, they get an agreement that there were no promises or understandings other than what was in the plea paperwork. It’s very hard to come back later and say “but I had a misunderstanding.”
That certainly something he needs to consider. I had a client once that actually had a pretty good argument to withdraw his guilty plea. The prosecutor wisely said, basically, “go ahead, make my day. We won’t oppose your motion and you’re going to get 20 years instead of four.” My client backed down and served his four years.
Thanks, I was guessing that Kohberger’s claim was mostly pointless.
Perhaps he thinks snowballs are possible in hell. Why now? I saw, and I don’t recall the source, that he’s just bored.
He wants some attention.
Moderating:
This is literally what @ASL_v2.0 said in his next sentence, which you left out of your quote. That’s at best a weird way to agree with someone, and at worst is a misleading misquote. Please be more careful in how you quote other posters.
I find it very interesting timing that the Netflix documentary on this case comes out today. I’m thinking they pulled off an amazing publicity stunt with absolutely perfect timing! Disgusting yes, but amazing (& not in a good way) nonetheless.
or more like In Cold Blood by Truman Capote