Right, but like you said he’s not making a legal argument. There are no legal arguments to be made since Kohberg is not contesting extradition. He’s making a statement to the press. What’s he supposed to say? “My client, a deranged monster who brutally murdered four young people, is returning to Idaho where he will hopefully be punished to the full extent of the law.”
As mentioned, I think this is a boilerplate defense statement. Like when a school shooter is reported to plan to plead “not guilty”. Even when they catch someone red-handed and there is no doubt, the opening defense position is going to be “not guilty”, because there is always a chance some part of the evidence wont hold up, or someone made a procedural error in the investigation, or enough doubt can be sown to get the perpetrator a lighter sentence. A statement like the one here is also to help balance the court of public opinion, which, as we can already see, has tried and convicted this suspect.
Hi Larry, guess I missed that important detail. However, my question then is: Does Kohberger face any undue expectations or assumptions about his own defense because of an attorney (even an extradition attorney) speaking on his behalf?
Snowthx, thanks for the summary. Regarding what I asked before, if there is a procedural error in the investigation, why does that affect the judgment of the defendant’s actions? It’s like they are trying the police at the same time they are trying the defendant.
At this point, no one knows if there has been a procedural error. The trial will make all that evident, if there is any. The statement regarding exoneration is just a hedge, leaving the window open to such an event. As mentioned upthread:
The defense will want to paint a positive a picture as possible in the face of the mountain of public opinion.
There have been cases of planted evidence to get a conviction - that is why I mention procedures - if they were not followed to the letter in collecting evidence, that would be an opening for the defense. See the recent Scott Peterson case news.
Well, it certainly depends on what the “procedural error” is. If the cops barge into your house without any warrant or probable cause and find evidence of a crime, that’s against the fourth amendment of the constitution. If we give an exception to say “yeah, but he did it so we should still show it to the jury” then what’s the point of the rule in the first place?
I think the simplest answer is that it can be viewed as the best way to protect the innocent from violation. If the police conduct an illegal search and don’t find anything, it puts the burden on the victim to seek a remedy (and even then the damages are hard to calculate). But if the guilty person is able to get evidence thrown out, then it incentivizes the police to only conduct lawful searches. There’s a trade-off there, and obviously considerable dispute over how effective it is.
Quoting on this phone is difficult, but to your question, the answer is no. Why would he?
That is not the case at all. The only thing that is supposed to matter is what is said in court at the trial and the various legal procedures that lead up to it. What is said to the press and the “court of public opinion” is not supposed to matter. There is not supposed to be any expectation that the defense attorney or anyone else involved in the trial will give detailed statements to the media in the lead up to the trial.
The fact none of these things are true in practice, for high profile trials in the US, is pretty messed up IMO.
There’s another possible way of enforcing the rules. We could hold the police officer personally liable for violating the constitutional rights of the accused, but still let the tainted evidence come in.
But at that point you’ve potentially created a huge disincentive to becoming law enforcement (I might get punished personally if I make a mistake), and you may not have deterred the illegal activities (if the personal punishment is just a slap on the wrist, maybe it justifies illegal police conduct).
So, instead, we exclude the fruits of a constitutional violation. That way, the law ensures that police have a collective incentive to follow the law while not personally being punished for judgment errors.
(There is, of course, an avenue for redress if the cop intentionally violates the law, but I’m referring to the usual defense that some facet of an investigation was legally improper, despite police intent to the contrary).
You also have to wonder how effective it would be because it would shift the burden of pursuing the civil case to the “innocent” (who is not likely to be cash-flush and litigious).
On that note, the OP might be interested in reading up on some recent Supreme Court decisions related to law enforcement, as the system is quickly working its way toward constitutional violations being not only not bars to conviction, but also not really redressable civilly!
The defendant is presumed innocent. They have to prove he committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing he does changes that, except to the tiny extent that if he does something that is, itself, admissible evidence that he committed a crime, that can be used against him. His lawyer saying “he would like to be exonerated” doesn’t count.
You’re looking at this as a situation where somebody “probably” did a crime, and evaluating the circumstances from that point of view. But the entire system is built on the notion that you never, ever, do that. If that’s your starting point then all of the assumptions and expectations of everything that happens will come out looking funny.
To the OP, I would ask this: can you prove that Mr. Kohberger wasn’t an invited guest at a party held at that house or another house in that area on that night? Can you prove that his car wasn’t in the area at that odd hour for some reason other than that (1) he had just been at a party where alcohol was served, (2) he imbibed, (3) he realized he might be legally intoxicated, and so chose to spend some part of the night sleeping it off in the backseat of his car before driving home, because he’s just such a fine, upstanding, and responsible young man who would never ever put people’s lives in danger by driving while intoxicated?
What’s that? You found his DNA at the scene? Well of course. The human body sheds all manner of cells with DNA all the time. And you still haven’t proven he didn’t innocently shed whatever cells you allegedly obtained at the crime scene while he was at that house on that night or some other night for one of the many parties we, through testimony, will establish took place there. College kids and all…
All that to say, this case is hardly a slam dunk—never mind whether evidence was “properly” collected—until such time as we know more about where the DNA was found, what it was from, and whether the evidence might exclude innocent explanations such as being a guest at a party or some kind of transfer event. There is a huuuuge gap between “flesh and blood under the victim’s fingernails” and “trace samples of DNA on the doorknob.” And right now we don’t know whether the DNA is one of those, or something in between (like, “a single spot of blood in the hallway with the suspect’s DNA on it”).
I guess basically I agree with @DrDeth that there needs to be a bit more precision in the evidence before we can say he’s definitely guilty.
Consider my ignorance fought!
So I guess this informs why defendants are declared “not guilty” as opposed to “innocent.” The language used does not directly exculpate the defendant, it only says that the proceedings were unable to establish guilt.
Are “not guilty” verdicts more of a reflection on the failure of the prosecution? Or the skill of the defense attorney?
“Failure of the prosecution” and “the skill of the defense” as the possible reasons for acquittals is a perspective that I think is again presuming the person is factually guilty. There are the facts of the case to take into account, too. Some people really are innocent at the end of the day. I suppose you could say that if the prosecution takes a case to trial and then doesn’t get a conviction, that’s a failure in the same sense that if the defense doesn’t take a lesser plea deal, and then gets convicted at trial, that’s a failure, but that’s only a subjective view of the outcome.
There’s also the (high-minded, idealistic, but not irrational) option of looking at a trial as a machine you use to get at the (legal) truth. That’s why it’s called a trial. If it looks probable that a person committed a crime, they get charged, then they get tried. At the end of the trial, if the evidence says they did it beyond a reasonable doubt, they get convicted. If they get acquitted, despite that probable cause existed that they were guilty, then the trial achieved its purpose. Most prosecutors and defense attorneys would tell you (at least in idealistic terms) that in serving their roles as parts of that machine, they aren’t necessarily succeeding or failing based on the outcome.
Sometimes the skilled defense attorney is necessary to highlight the failure of the prosecution. They don’t have to be super stars, but competent and experienced. As Jimmy_Chitwood points out, some defendants truly are innocent (at least of the crime they are charged with).
I had my share of Not Guilty verdicts when I practiced criminal law. Some were due to screw ups by the prosecution. Things like not getting their evidence lined up, or critical witnesses to court. That was usually for less serious crimes. And crimes that they never should have charged in the first place. (Some time ask me about my client who was arrested for petting a horse). Even some serious charges sometimes involve innocent defendants. Good lawyers can make a difference, but they can’t get a not guilty verdict when the prosecution has a solid case. (as they usually do)
I read an interesting item in the Times about the case. Apparently the reason he is not fighting extradition is that under Idaho law he cannot see the actual arrest warrant until he is in the state. And I assume that will lay out reasons why he might be the culprit. Presumably more convincing than that he drives a white Hyundai.
Once they have him, they will study his DNA and that will be hard to refute. This raises an interesting question. Suppose the arrest warrant is invalid, based on nothing but the white car, but the DNA evidence is irrefutable. Thus he should not have been arrested but is irrefutably guilty. Then what?
Because his client instructed him to get him acquitted.
Can’t they bring in a suspect for whatever reason, and then if additional evidence cements the case, the initial reason for the arrest no longer hold any relevance, and can be discarded? “…should not have been arrested” - I am not sure how that plays into this. The authorities do not need to show all their cards when someone is arrested - they only have to do that if there is a trial?
Arrest warrants issued by the Courts of Idaho have no effect in the State of Pennsylvania. He was probably arrested under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (a state law passed with substantially identical language by 48 states and D.C.) As I understand it Idaho issued a warrant, then demanded Pennsylvania deliver the fugitive from justice. Pennsylvania then issues its own arrest warrant. Pennsylvania is still required to inform the person of the crime they have been charged with, the state demanding their extradition, and their right to a lawyer.
42 Pa.C.S. § 9131
No person arrested upon such warrant shall be delivered over to the agent whom the executive authority demanding him shall have appointed to receive him unless he shall first be taken forthwith before a judge of a court of record in this Commonwealth who shall inform him of the demand made for his surrender and of the crime with which he is charged and that he has the right to demand and procure legal counsel, and, if the prisoner or his counsel shall state that he or they desire to test the legality of his arrest, the judge of such court of record shall fix a reasonable time to be allowed him within which to apply for a writ of habeas corpus. When such writ is applied for, notice thereof and of the time and place of hearing thereon shall be given to the prosecuting officer of the county in which the arrest is made and in which the accused is in custody and to the said agent of the demanding state.
There really isn’t much you can do to fight extradition. The only recourse a lawyer has is to file a writ of habeas corpus - the burden of proof is on the accused to show that the documents are deficient or inapplicable. These are the only sorts of things you can challenge when facing extradition:
The extradition documents are missing
Documents are missing required signatures
You have the wrong man, my name is Max and this warrant is for a Joe
I haven’t been formally accused of a crime
I can prove conclusively that it was impossible for me to have been in the state of Idaho at all during the time the crimes I am accused of committing were committed
~Max