In the most recent stabbings at the University of Idaho, the suspect, Bryan Christopher Kohberger, is about to be extradited to face charges. His lawyer made the following statement:
“Mr. Kohberger is eager to be exonerated of these charges and looks forward to resolving these matters as promptly as possible.”
Why would the lawyer say this? According to the news report I read, there is DNA evidence linking him to the crime, plus he drove the same color and model of car associated with the location of the crime.
Is this statement for show? Is there really a doubt that he did it? Doesn’t the lawyer look stupid for confidently saying his client is looking forward to his day in court? If I did it, I wouldn’t be looking forward to my day in court at all.
Does the lawyer believe his client? Do they have evidence of his innocence? I mean, I know the burden of proof is on the prosecution, right? But given the strength of the evidence the prosecution says it has, it seems really dumb to profess to be publicly eager to confront said evidence.
If I were his lawyer, I wouldn’t advertise this at all, except if I had something that would blow the prosecution’s testimony up.
This isn’t the first time I have heard this whole “my client is eager for his/her day in court” statement. Do lawyers who say this often win?
A criminal defense attorney’s job isn’t to be worried about whether her or she “looks dumb.” Their job is to obtain the most favorable outcome possible for their client. By expressing confidence in his client’s case and a willingness to fight the charges, Kohberger’s attorney is essentially beginning his negotiation with the DA’s office. You don’t open a plea negotiation saying your client is guilty as fuck.
How do you know he did it? Because he was arrested? He’s innocent until proven guilty, and his attorney is going to back him until he is found guilty. We have no idea what evidence they have against him, but police think every case is a slam dunk, and that’s rarely the case.
You’re a criminal defense attorney. You’ve been hired on a case that will get national press coverage. From a business perspective, this is great, because it will garner you notoriety. People charged with crimes like hiring famous lawyers to defend them.
Naturally, the press call your office for a statement. Now, you can decline the call, but that won’t get your name in the news. The article will say something like “Kohberger’s attorney declined comment.”
So you want to say something. That way you get quoted, making your name a part of the story. What to say? Something succinct, and which reflects confidence.
“My client looks forward to being exonerated/setting the record straight/presenting his side of the story/having his day in court” is a pretty good option.
He might be hoping to get DNA evidence thrown out ? or explained as not proof .
Seems DNA would be the strong evidence , at the moment. There may be other evidence still in analysis… Eg cellphone triangulation … such as repeating the trip to measure the result, might be months away. Certainly the processing of evidence from possessions, eg at his home, office, etc…
The only reason to talk like that is tell the people who will be on the jury to keep an open mind ? jurors might remember the arrest and that they decided he was guilty, and act like the trial is just a formality, not pay attention , not vote sincerely
Kohberger and his lawyer have two options. They can fight extradition, or they can waive extradition. If they try to fight it, they will almost certainly lose, and with it lose any chance they have of potentially making a deal with the prosecution.
Under the circumstances you’re better off publicly saying, “Hell no we ain’t afraid. This is how my client will clear his name!”
It is a house where college students live. Having the DNA of a different student there is hardly surprising.
There were two surviving tenants, their DNA must be all over the place, are they guilty?
There has been no testimony from the Prosecution. There has been no evidence submitted, no pre-trial hearing, no arraignment, nothing.
Of what? DNA evidence does not prove guilt, it only shows that a person what there at one time. Now in the case of rape or DNA evidence found under fingernails, it could be strong. Now let us say they can prove he was there- so what? So were others.
So far , of what the police have released, not only is there every doubt he did it, there might not even be evidence of probable cause. In other words, with the evidence we have seen, the case would be tossed out by any competent judge.
This is fairly boilerplate defense lawyer language. I worked for a criminal defense attorney for a year and a half, and that exact phrasing I heard a few times when going to trial. What do you want a defense lawyer to say? Their job in an adversarial system is to provide the most vigorous defense for their client that they can. It is the prosecution’s job to do their job and prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s guilt.
And, besides, I for one am not at all convinced of Kohberger’s guilt based on what we, the public, know so far. I’m not sure why you wouldn’t think there’s doubt. There’s plenty of it. That’s still immaterial as I, as a defense lawyer, would give the same statement as you’ve given above. It would be unethical, I would think, to imply that even you think your client is guilty.
Keep in mind that, according to his attorney, Jason LaBar :
… “We don’t really know much about the case. I don’t have any affidavit or probable cause. I didn’t want to discuss the case with him because I’m merely his representation for this procedural issue as to whether or not he wants to be extradited back to Idaho.”
So his quoted comment from the OP doesn’t mean much in context.
LaBar is only representing Kohberg in the extradition hearing. Since Kohberg isn’t contesting the extradition, his only resposibility is to not screw up any defense his client may present. Kohberg hasn’t entered a plea at all, as far as I know.
I just read the NY Times article about it and the only evidence they even mentioned was the white Hyundai Elantra that had been seen at the murder scene and in the town he was arrested. How many white Hyundai Elantras are there in the US. And, from the story, that was the only evidence given for his arrest. If there is DNA evidence it wasn’t mentioned and, in any case, couldn’t have been available to the arresting cops. There is something missing in the published story. No probable cause is even mentioned in the article.
I get what you all are saying. Thanks. I see why it’s necessary.
In my naivete and ignorance (freely admitted, that’s why I am here!):
I would imagine saying you are going to fight hard in court makes your reputation dependent on indeed having something worthwhile to say, or some legitimate exculpatory evidence. Someone who promises a vigorous defense would surely be held to some kind of standard beyond “Clause X in Law Y says that this DNA evidence was collected improperly.” It seems so transparent to me.
I guess I am kind of taking a dim view on things like legal arguments—the obvious kind of rhetoric that screams “I have nothing to argue but obscure points of law.” What was that old saying “If you can’t argue the facts…”?
Why don’t juries and judges see right through arguments like this? I mean, if you are arguing the lawfulness of admitted evidence and not the evidence itself, it seems like that is only because you can’t argue that the evidence against your client exists. Which is saying implicity, I KNOW MY CLIENT DID IT, YOU KNOW IT TOO.
And then it seems like if the evidence was collected improperly, or the legal doctrine wasn’t followed, that it should be a separate fight, irrespective of the accused’s guilt or innocence. Why is a person’s guilt or innocence dependent on the subsequent actions of actors (law enforcement) that had nothing to do with the crime itself?
Please educate me.
And then I think of people like Johnnie Cochran who made a well-publicized living off this.
Again, I have no knowledge in law. Obviously this is how the system is supposed to work. Is it the best way to go about it?
This is what the defence attorney says to the press before trial, not what they say in court, to a judge or jury, or in a legal brief. It should, in theory, have zero impact on the verdict of the trial. I get that in practice that is not entirely true, for high profile American trials like this one, but still has there ever been a case where what the defence attorney said to the press before the trial was likely the deciding factor in whether the defendant was ultimately found guilty by the jury?
In answer to the OP IANAL but I’d imagine the duty of every defence lawyer, regardless of the facts, is to stridently proclaim their client’s innocence to the press, in a way that is generic enough it doesn’t give the prosecutor any clues as to what their actual strategy will be in court (and regardless of whether they plan to plead out)
Once again, Jason LaBar is not Kohberg’s defense attorney. This is an extradition hearing which Kohberg is not contesting. It is not a murder trial. There is no evidence for a judge or jury to see through. He will have a different attorney when the trial starts in Idaho.
Though that doesn’t change the answer to the OP. What the extradition attorney says to the press should, in theory, have as much impact on the trial as what the actual defence attorney says. That is nothing at all.
In practice it’s still true that they have about the same amount of impact, seeing as your average jury pool member reading this would probably not get the distinction either.
Slight side track but what does an extradition attorney do in a case like this? As in is there ever any circumstances they can actually prevent extradition between states? Other than i guess showing that the crime being prosecuted is not actually a crime in their state? Or maybe mistaken identity?