Bryan Kohberger, who has been charged with the Idaho college student murders refused to say anything when asked how he pled to the charges against him. His lawyer said, "Your honor, we are standing silent.” What’s the reasoning behind this? Is this a “Sovereign citizen ‘You have no jurisdiction over me’” kind of thing?
Please excuse Fox News as a source, but according to this apparently straightforward reporting of the facts, standing silent “can be a tactic to continue negotiations with the prosecution.”
Standing mute doesn’t seem like a sovereign citizen thing to do – they seem to like talking long and loud about why the court doesn’t have jurisdiction. I would guess (with no real knowledge) that it’s more likely the Kohberger case will involve an insanity defense at some point.
The article says that standing silent is effectively the same as a not guilty plea. This is how it’s been done in other trials, the judge will enter a not guilty plea to move on with the case. I suppose in some cases there’s room to negotiate, but I don’t see any in this one so far. I don’t think the prosecution will go for anything but the maximum sentence. The exception would be if there are others involved that this guy could rat out.
I know one Christian defendant who said one’s conscience would consider it a lie to plea not guilty if one indeed did commit the crime, yet one hopes to get off due to the prosecution being weak. So instead of pleading guilty, he advised remaining silent and letting the judge enter what is a de facto ‘not guilty.’
I wonder if this means that if they actually plead not guilty that they can’t negotiate further or that pleading not guilty weakens their bargaining position.
If the prosecution preferred a guilty plea to avoid a trial maybe holding off on the plea would help. I can see that working in rape cases or anytime you want to protect a victim or witnesses from being cross-examined in a trial. Is there any reason to think that would be a problem in this case though?
That is a very weird sort of morality. One commits a crime, and is evidently fine with doing so. Despite this they are afraid of lying to a judge in a very commonly accepted way, and hopes that by keeping their mouth shut they avoid the rightful punishment they know they deserve for committing the crime? There’s no shortage of Bible verses about accepting what’s coming to you. Refusing to accept the consequences for your actions is far less honest than saying “Not Guilty” to a judge. Even if what you did isn’t a crime in your eyes, calmly accepting unfair persecution is maybe the most Christian thing anyone can ever do.
It’s possible they will take the death penalty off the table in exchange for a guilty plea.
Kohberger is accused of stabbing four people to death. So let’s no rule out the possibility that he’s crazy and there’s no rational basis for his action.
Having dealt with a few crazy murderers, I’ll note that extreme solipsism is not uncommon in that crowd. Kohberger may not believe other people are real like he is. He may feel that as long as he doesn’t participate in the trial, it’s not really happening.
These the judge just enters a not guilty plea on your behalf, but this wasn’t always the case. The upside to being pressed to death was that your estate still went your heirs instead of being forfeit to the Crown.
I assume the defendant is just being weird. The sildent treatment just seems like the mentality of a five-year-old, not some deep strategy.
I suppose pleading guilty is an admission of guilt - it cannot be assumed without a trial, so the default to move things along is a “not guilty” plea. It does the least damage, it avoids an action (guilty) that would seem tailor-made for an appeal. Whether the defense is insanity, or “I didn’t do it” or “it was my evil twin” is up to the defense lawyers.
I assume if the defendant does not cooperate with his (appointed?) lawyers, it’s difficult to appeal later and say that he didn’t get a fair trial because of that. You don’t get to keep going to trial over and over until you decide to cooperate.
I’m reminded of the story of the Mafia boss in NYC back in the 20’s who plead nolo contendere - and the fine intellects at one New York tabloid had the headline “Mob Boss Pleads Guilty In Italian!”
I don’t see this as wacko. Quite the opposite.
There has got to be some practical legal advantage to doing this versus a straight “not guilty” plea. Which may be a creature of Idaho law specifically. We just don’t have a handy expert here to explain the nuance to us.
CBS News says the same thing:
Standing silent has the same legal effect as entering a not guilty plea, and it could give the defendant more options during any potential plea negotiations, according to CBS News legal contributor Jessica Levinson.
“He keeps on the table the possibility that he could plead guilty in exchange for not receiving the death penalty,” Levinson said.
Not at all. It’s perfunctory. You have a constitutional right to be presumed not guilty unless and until the government can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you committed the crime with which you are accused.
It’s not a question of being innocent. Usually, by the point of arraignment (which is the name of the hearing whereby this not guilty plea is entered), the government hasn’t provided all of their evidence to the defense. So of course you should plead not guilty - there’s no proof to convince you otherwise.
If a plea is entered, then the defendant requests a change of plea, where they will then come in and admit to some predetermined plea offer.
So why not just say not guilty?
This is probably most likely, in my opinion. He may not be legally insane (which is, did he understand right from wrong), but he might be a complete lunatic, with delusions of grandeur or raging grievances.
Exactly.
His lawyer stood up and said that he wasn’t going to respond to break the awkward silence. And the judge entered the plea for the defendant because - unless you are agreeing on an immediate disposition of the case - defendants always plead not guilty at the outset, to get the ball rolling.
(Usually, the next step is going to be a status check by the judge, to see if a plea is likely, and if the evidence has all been disclosed)
Yes. People plead “not guitly” and change their plea all the time. There’s nothing magical about it. All it does strategically, I would think, is reinforce “this guy is wacko” if he’s going for an insanity defence.
Is there some reason the state wouldn’t want to go for the death penalty? They have plenty of time to take it off the table if there is a reason so I don’t see how this nonsense benefits Kohberger.
From CNN:
(Seattle attorney Anne) Bremner dismissed the idea that the move could indicate Kohberger’s attorney may be considering a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity because there is no insanity defense in Idaho.
Everybody knows there ain’t no sanity clause…
There may not be an insanity defense, but there is always the issue of competence to stand trial.
Legal insanity deals with a mental state at the time the crime was committed. Competency is an issue for when the case is being tried.
A person may be deemed incompetent if they aren’t aware of what’s going on, or can’t help their lawyers prepare a defense. If he won’t interact with them, they may have to raise competency as an issue.
Being incompetent, though, isn’t a defense. It just delays the trial unless and until the defendant can be restored to competency. How do they do that? Usually by pumping them full of drugs. And not in a good way.
I’d argue that if Idaho had an insanity defense, probably 50% of their residents would qualify. Their license plate motto oughta be
Idaho: the SovCit state.