Bryan Kohberger Wants to Withdraw Guilty Plea in Murder of Idaho College Students
“ineffective assistance of counsel during criminal proceedings”
He is trying to claim that he had ineffective counsel. Will it work?
ABC News reports:
Bryan Kohberger seeks to withdraw guilty plea in University of Idaho murders: Court documents
Bryan Kohberger, who pleaded guilty last year to the University of Idaho murders, has filed a petition to withdraw his guilty plea and challenge his conviction, according to new court documents.
Kohberger filed a petition on Monday for post-conviction relief with the Ada County District Court. He is currently representing himself, according to the docket.
Kohberger is claiming in his petition that he pleaded guilty due to bad legal advice and “false promises.”
In the petition, Kohberger said he had “ineffective assistance of counsel during criminal proceedings” and was “convinced to falsely confess.” He claims his lawyers told him to give a “false plea.”
Kohberger was arrested for the stabbing deaths of four University of Idaho students — roommates Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen and Xana Kernodle, and Kernodle’s boyfriend, Ethan Chapin — at the girls’ off-campus house in 2022.
DNA from a knife sheath left at the crime scene was found to be a “statistical match” to Kohberger, authorities said. Kohberger’s phone was also near the victims’ house at least 12 times before the murders, court documents said, with all of those times, except for one, late at night or early in the morning.
The family of victim Kaylee Goncalves said in a statement Monday that Kohberger admitted his guilt in his plea and “chose not to leave his fate — or the facts of the case — to a jury.”
“We would have preferred a death-penalty trial; we believe fully in the evidence,” the family said. “Instead, [Kohberger] received exactly what he asked for: a deal that spared his life. Know this — he hates that life. He wants another chance to roll the dice.”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Normally, when you get a plea deal, you give up the right to appeal. In a way it’s too bad. It would be hilarious to see this clown try to defend himself in a real trial!
You can’t waive the right to effective assistance of counsel in deciding whether to accept a deal, because that very counsel is the one advising you to execute the waiver!
Oh poor serial killer has learned being known for killing young women and girls, and panicking and killing one of their male friends when he is there by accident means a bad life boo hoo.
His appeal by the way is statistically impossible, he is just learning that to the guards his PHD student status means nothing, and to other inmates he has a lot of explaining to do why he took the same turn they did when he started out much higher. There is a reason why people are willing to pay a lot of money to have Alan Dershowitz give lectures on our legal system, appeals almost never work because misconduct is rare, and in almost all cases the trial is the final decision.
Luckily everyone in a maximum security prison will be there a long time so he has plenty of time to make friends. Every defendant claims ineffective counsel after losing.
Ironically he better pray that the judge smacks him down because if granted he will be in solitary confinement for decades awaiting the death penalty.
When this creep allocated one of the questions he answered under oath asked if he was knowingly pleading guilty because he was guilty. He said yes. He would have also been asked if he understood he was waiving all rights to appeal. So it looks like this POS has no chance to weasel his way out of prison.
None of that matters if he had ineffective assistance of counsel. A finding that his counsel was in fact ineffective would void his consent and his waiver.
The fact that allocution is under oath is irrelevant because everyone knows that it is very common for allocutions to be false. Judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel routinely collude to solicit perjury, and barely bother to conceal it. Once in a while the accused, being under oath, starts to say the truth, and that throws the whole procedure into a tailspin. Their lawyer has to take them aside and coach them to say something that may be at least technically true, or close enough to cure what they started to say.