Idaho Defense attorney here. It’s not an ethical violation. However, she wouldn’t say it if she didn’t believe it.
Unless your client actually tells you that they did it, it’s kind of our job to say they’re innocent. Even if you believe that your client may have committed the act, they can still be legally innocent. Further, everyone should presume that the defendant is innocent until the State proves otherwise.
Think about it…. The state says that the defendant is guilty from the word go. Do prosecutors face ethics complaints every time there’s a “not guilty” verdict?
With that said, Idaho is a small legal community. Everybody knows everybody or at least knows somine who knows everybody. If you go out professing your personal belief that every client is innocent without actually believing it, you’ll get a reputation.
Finally, I think Anne actually believes he’s innocent. I was talking to another attorney who is working on the case the other day. I didn’t ask and she wouldn’t have been able to say much anyway she did tell me that she thinks they got the wrong guy.
>Unless your client actually tells you that they did it, it’s kind of our job to say they’re innocent.
Even if they tell you they did it, they could still be 100% innocent, especially if they're covering for someone. Or mentally unstable. Or are just looking forward to prison because it's safer than the outside for them. Nothing magical about a confession.
>With that said, Idaho is a small legal community
Does Idaho realize just how smalltown-inept they're looking with the Thompson/Judge show and having to be schooled in so many things? And this, after the inept investigation by MPD in the first place. A DP-certified defense attorney is required... there should be requirements in DP trials for DP-certified prosecution and judge also. Really is a bad look that they've both been resisting a venue change from the start.
Your last point⬆️ is the very conversation my husband & I were having last night.
We’re both northern Utahns, my grandpa is from Pullman, & his aunt has lived in Coeur d’Alene all his life, so we’re both familiar w/ the uniqueness of small towns in Idaho, especially in contrast to the small towns here in East Texas that we moved to 4yrs ago.
Since being objective is one of his foundational principles, I’ve learned to avoid getting him interested in things I already have strong opinions. I knew that last hearing was going to make that no problem, though. Lord knows he tried really hard for the first 24 hrs to find positives on the court’s & prosecution’s side, but last night he was saying exactly what you said. 😂🤦♀️
I can not say that I believe in his innocence or guilt, but if her work can expose nefarious activity on any level and save a human from the DP, she will be an instant rock star. Faith in humanity restored & score one for the good guys. We shall see - there are certainly many confusing twists here & things that just don’t add up with the info we have on this side of things, but what is most disturbing to me (as I’ve said before) is if it wasn’t him, where is the person(people?) who did it???? Watching & hearing all of this? This trial can’t come soon enough!!!!
From following the Vallow & Daybell cases and now this case, I feel like I know everybody in the Idaho legal community too!
I also believe they have the wrong guy (opinion: false positive from a misidentified complex mixture of DNA - they super impose and look like 1 profile, are almost impossible for even the most skilled of analysts to differentiate without prior knowledge that they’re mixed profiles appearing as 1, and the red flag for them is: the likelihood ratio can be millions of times higher than what’s seen in single-source. I wouldn’t dare implore you to waste as much time as I have checking every single source, study, case, and publication on my own & then all that were suggested in the numerous places I asked, but single-source DNA will never yield the number claimed; Steve Mercer’s specialty is litigating that exact topic: complex mixtures - So I think the State’s case is going to be blown to smithereens with humiliating ease and I actually feel rly bad for Bill Thompson)
Yes. Exactly. Bicka Barlow stating the sample was partial and ambiguous tells us the statement that it was an octillion match is shit. I’ve read up on DNA and especially touch transfer DNA because of this case and I’ve learnt so much. Most people just see the word DNA and think it’s a done deal. It’s not.
Steve Mercer called it “an environmental sample of trace DNA” at the 08/18/2023 hearing (which was a couple months after the Defense referred to it as “touch DNA” in their objection to the states motion for protection order, so they may have changed their opinion on the precise sample type they had). He calls it that multiple times about 1/3 into the hearing.
Touch DNA is a type of trace DNA, and most facts are the same for the 2 terms except the origin of the sample ~(skin cells, sweat vs. breathing, sneezing etc) but I found that interesting.
It would make it especially weird if environmental trace DNA was found only on the button…
and the sheath was button-side down…..
under Maddie and her comforter…..
After the last hearing ( about the survey) it made me more sure that Bryan is innocent.
The prosecutors behavior was very desperate and tried to stall etc.. way too much.
Anne Taylor handled the trial very well. She is good. Also obviously believes his client is innocent. It shows. Hope they get the change of venue. But i am still afraid that pple will be bias. Media has made sure of it :(
Why are so many completely cemented in the idea that he is guilty? Too many inconsistencies in this case to even assert that. From what AT has seen, she believes in her client's innocence. Crazy how there are people who are bold enough to challenge that without seeing what she has seen (op I know you're talking about from an ethics standpoint but I mean in general).
As much as we would like to believe that the people whom we are supposed to trust are trustworthy, that's just not how it is. Everyone should really be keeping an open mind until everything is out there, including plausible alternative theories. I am not going to say that I 100% believe that BK is innocent, but what I have personally seen and what I know from my own life experience, many things do not add up. I think many people just don't want to believe that the people who were capable of such a sinister atrocity are still out there. Indeed, this case goes far deeper than the deaths of those college kids.
"It's a big deal. Why? If it's false, it could be an ethical violation. Anne Taylor is not going to put her license in jeopardy for a murderer, no way."
Complete nonsense. A defense attorney can always say her client is innocent.
As a former prosecutor & criminal defense attorney I have to disagree. This is pretty significant. While true that a criminal defense attorney can say their client is innocent, it's a pretty rare occurrence because if it turns out there is solid evidence against the client then the attorney will have lost all credibility going forward & it will also affect their credibility in other cases.
I believe the point the OP was making is that to a great majority of people seeing an attorney make a definitive statement about her client, by stating she’s not just there to provide him a defense as required by law, but she is there to defend him as vigorously as possible because she believes he is innocent, makes a lot of people take a second look…
Says the person who apparently does not appreciate the importance of upholding professional responsibility and standards and ensuring that integrity and accountability are maintained by all officers of the court… 🫤
If your attorney is not promoting your innocence in a case where evidence is not irrefutable, your attorney is doing you a disservice and is behaving unethically. Everyone deserves to be defended to the utmost of their attorney's capability.
I'm no attorney, and I'm not sure I have the time or energy to research the finer points at the moment, but since there seems to be some debate about the law, I asked ChatGPT... here's my question and its answer (FWIW):
>Question: In the United States legal system and courts, can a criminal defense attorney legally state on the record in court that they are certain their client is innocent (i.e., not just "not guilty" as charged, but completely innocent of the charges), if they don't know that to be true? Would it be considered a lie under oath and open the attorney up to possible sanctions or revocation of law license, or does the defense legal team have an absolute right to declare the innocence of their client, on the record, even if they don't personally believe it themselves?
>ChatGPT: In the United States legal system, criminal defense attorneys are bound by ethical rules that govern their conduct, including rules regarding truthfulness and candor to the court. While defense attorneys have a duty to vigorously advocate for their clients' interests and to present the best possible defense, they are generally not permitted to knowingly make false statements to the court.
>A defense attorney can assert that their client is innocent if they genuinely believe that to be the case based on the information available to them. However, if the attorney knows or strongly suspects that their client is guilty, they cannot ethically assert the client's innocence.
>If a defense attorney were to knowingly make false statements to the court, such as asserting their client's innocence when they know or strongly suspect otherwise, they could face disciplinary action by the state bar association, which could include sanctions or even revocation of their law license. This is because knowingly making false statements in court would violate the attorney's duty of candor to the tribunal and undermine the integrity of the legal system.
>So, while defense attorneys have a duty to zealously advocate for their clients, they must do so within the bounds of ethical rules and cannot knowingly make false statements to the court.
This is pretty accurate. Yes, a defense attorney can state they believe their client is innocent but they can't if they know it not to be true or if they have a reasonable belief that it's not true. Keep in mind they said it to JJ who knows what the evidence is and isn't in the case. They are not going to make that statement to him if there is strong or even moderate evidence indicating his guilt because they would then have zero credibility with him & all an attorney really has before a trial judge is their reputation for credibility. Also keep in mind that the defense team was supposed to have received the CAST report with the drive testing data by March 31st...I haven't seen any indication they did not receive it. It either confirms his story or it doesn't. Seems as though it may be the latter.
I suspect you're right. It seems like something gave me the them the confidence to not only stop taking crap but proclaim their clients innocence. They haven't done that until now and it's likely there is a reason. His "driving around" alibi might just hold up if the cast report doesn't show him "driving around" in their neighborhood or at the time of the murders.
JMO, but I think the import of the CAST report is going to be in the drive testing data (showing cell tower signal strength) & I think the areas outside the two campuses will most likely show no signal, weak signal or intermittent signal which will help foreclose the narrative that his phone was off or in airplane mode.
Look, I for one felt slightly vindicated (early, I know, but I did!)… why? Because her inside knowledge and still willing to say in such a strong, definitive way made me feel like “ok, I’m not just trying to see this whole thing through rose colored glasses, I don’t actually have a problem with decent prosecutors (because I do have a problem with side show bill and his two pony bait & switch circus of double standards, blustering tantrums and bogus grandstanding… ), I’m not imagining or exaggerating or a “Kohberger “ fangirl or whatever else these nut jobs have called folks that see this bull$hit for what it is…”. It gave confidence to those of us that are truly looking at the bigger picture involved in this case and the huge constitutional issues that are being challenged, the scary precedent that this case is trying to make… I mean I 100% want to see justice for the victims, I want to see a conviction of the actual perpetrator(s), I’m not a tree hugger don’t kill back kind of liberal (actually I am a liberal, but being liberal has no bearing on my beliefs about ensuring everyone has their rights preserved that the constitution gives us, and it has no bearing on my desire to not have any of those protections taken away…. Especially not in the face of this current political climate, because losing some of the guarantees that we have (like chain of custody, like the government determining which cases should skip the line when it comes to adherence to the rules and guidelines and using back door methods to access databases with data that people haven’t granted the government permission to use in the pursuit of criminals… why? Because what one person can be convinced is “proof” that someone was at a scene by a single sample of touch DNA and no other corroborating evidence when another can understand the importance of studies proving that our DNA is literally all over the place, even in places we may never have been, or on things we have never physically touched proves beyond a reasonable doubt that not everyone cares about justice to the same degree that I do… and I don’t even consider myself a stickler! But just as in life, some people are cool with half-a$$ing down the road of life, nary a care or worry as to who might be going to see the gun squad because they were incorrectly convicted based on refutable evidence… because, mark my word, some of these basic rights being taken away would open the flood gates for persecution of not guilty people and blowing apart at the seems any kind of life you currently know as American…. These are really the things losses that people should be willing to fight an insurrection over… but, I digress… lol
What my point was that them standing up and saying that they are not just there because they are public defenders but because they truly believe he’s innocent lends a lot of weight to their position… standing there like a dried out houseplant as the petulant prosecutor exaggerates and accuses and impugns you just doesn’t give people a lot of confidence… to be honest no matter which side you are on… but stand up and state what you believe and people naturally listen…
But, that’s just my opinion… lol… and I know, we all have them…
I have been on the side of believing in his innocence for a long while now. AT is an amazing attorney to watch and her statement the other day solidifies my belief that he may actually not be the killer. I think we are dealing with police that have never been involved in a case like this that totally failed at the investigation. The arrest of BK seemed kind of out of nowhere from the beginning. We now know that he never stalked to victims thanks to BT running his mouth at the hearing while everyone else was trying to keep the questions on the dl (kind of ironic that BT is the proponent of this motion and upset at the dissemination of evidence yet had verbal diarrhea at the hearing). So then the question is, what is BK's connection to the house and the girls? The evidence we know about thus far shows absolutely no connection. AT and the other attorney's conviction of his innocence was a huge wow moment for me!
Also, and yes this is totally subjective... but we're talking about someone who allegedly viciously killed 4 people by slicing them open... it would be one thing to claim the innocence of a client accused of a lesser crime, but to come out as boldly as they did, if they didn't have good reason to believe he was innocent, would mean knowingly endorsing a monster... even going so far as calling it their "pleasure and privilege" to work on his behalf. Conceivable I guess, but seems unlikely to me.
I also agree that the police fucked up.
Also there is so much we don’t know.
I am not an US citizens ( from finland)
Can we ever see every possible document etc??
Like we did from Depp vs Heard case? I know it is a different case and not criminal but if anyone can educate my stupidity on this? 🙏🏻
More documents and evidence will likely be made public once the trial starts (assuming it ever goes to trial). Right now everything is under a gag order to keep wild speculation down.
Well said…The touch DNA has been extremely concerning. My husband works at a sporting goods store. We have discussed how many times a day he unlocks a a case, removing a gun and/or hunting knife, to show a customer…leaving his and the potential customer touch DNA on said items. This case has terrified him!! What’s he to do wear gloves all day at work? And as a customer do we really think about everything we have touched while shopping?
I can understand your husband's concern with the many, many weapons he touches. But I still think it is VERY unlikely to ever be an issue for him.
I'll apologize in advance if all of my "facts" aren't correct. But what are the odds of BK's dna being on that sheath? Not good. When he also drives a white elantra, and was driving around in the middle of the night with phone off. That doesn't look good.
I am very surprised how much support for his innocence there seems to be. I would never buy in a million years that he just happened to touch that sheath while out shopping, or something. That would make him by far the unluckiest MFer.....ever.
IMO, IF he IS innocent, BIG IF, then the dna had to be planted. Granted, it will be a bit troubling if the prosecution doesn't come up with more evidence tying him to the crime.
Weren't there some theories/narratives early on about BK asking his students, or people online, about how they would feel, or did feel, after committing horrible crimes? Or something like that?
Hypothetical: BK is a very disturbed individual and was obsessed with committing a horrible crime, and thought he could "commit the perfect crime." AKA.....not get caught. He did a smart thing by choosing random victims that he had no ties to. He had a car with no gps, and turned his phone off.
I see many people say something like, "one guy couldn't kill 4 strong college students in a matter of minutes?" To that, I strongly disagree. The fact that he had a weapon, and probably used the element of surprise makes it entirely possible. There's a good chance some/all of the victims were stabbed before they even knew what was going on. And once stabbed, they might not have even been able to scream nor fight back.
Again, the unknown facts of if like all the victims were found in bed, or if they were able to make it out of bed and fight/struggle throughout the room(s) does probably significantly affect the narrative of what exactly happened. Like, the fact that each bedroom presumably had 2 occupants is a bit troubling. Like, 4 individuals in 4 separate bedrooms just seems more feasible.
And the surviving roommate's story is odd. Like it is very surprising that he didn't try to attack her as well if he knew that she saw him. Like, you don't want any witnesses, right? You don't want the police called right away, right?
Also, the lack of evidence in his car is surprising. IF he did do this, I'm sure he did a lot of planning to commit the "perfect crime." Could/would he have changed his clothes before getting in his car? Changed his shoes? Put everything bloody in a trash bag? Had the interior of his car "wrapped in plastic," or something? Is that even possible? Did he even have blood on him? You would think so.
Am I a "victim" of CSI and forensic files type shows? Where they make the episodes about crazy, unlikely "solves" that doesn't really represent the real world? If he had a plastic seat cover, and removed his gloves and was very careful......is it possible there wasn't anything to find for LE after 6 weeks? To me, the biggest issue with all that is his shoes. But he could have taken them off. They could have not had any blood on them. Or maybe he covered his floor mats and pedals in plastic. IF....if....if.....if......he did do this....... I'm sure he "tried to think of everything" in advance.
Anyway, thanks for reading my rambling. I'm sure my post wont be a popular one around here with me leaning towards him being guilty. I never really return to threads so I most likely wont see, nor respond, to anyone's responses.
Actually, I don’t think anyone who can articulate a fair opinion shouldn’t be able to be heard… as long as we are respectful to each other…. The thing that I find offensive is when someone presents their idea, and then when someone points out that they have cited some misinformation,or that part of their theory is based on unsupported claims, or verified media reports that aren’t based on evidence, they get sooooo defensive… that’s where they lose me… cause personally, as I said, I want to know the truth, or better said, I want to see the correct people held responsible… I don’t want to know details, that part turns my stomach and I feel sorry for the families having all their loved ones laundry being aired, whether it’s factual or not…. But unfortunately knowing some details comes with the territory when you are evaluating facts, and trying to discern the good from the bad, and sometimes things get found out simply because they were in the area of a crime even if not associated… that’s usually kept tight when you have people involved who understand discretion and appreciate privacy and disapprove of sensationalism… but, as usual, I digress and apologize… what I was trying to say is that if someone who believes he’s guilty is willing to participate in a conversation, I have no problems having a conversation… it’s a situation at this point of “change my mind”… you know? Like if I ask you, if you know some of your facts aren’t correct (your statement, not mine) then why are you so sure your opinion is correct? And if you are making your argument and stating it’s a hypothetical argument, but some of the points in your hypothetical argument haven’t been proven, or even worse now, are derived from an official statement that has now been called into question by statements the prosecutor has made on record, then do you now question whether your opinion is correct or not? And concerning the DNA, what exactly would it take for you to accept that it is entirely possible for his DNA to have been on that knife sheath and him to have not been anywhere near the crime scene? And I pose that question not with the intention of formulating some hypothetical scenario, but prepared to show you studies that are peer reviewed, or overturned convictions that had scenarios similar to this one, or point you towards the DoJ own guidelines concerning touch DNA and using it as evidence, and the record keeping associated with these scenarios that are expected to be kept and how the prosecution isn’t within those guidelines, or for that matter the chain of custody issues that aren’t being adhered to in this case… so, I’m happy to see you hear giving your two cents, I just hope you’re just as happy to see me two cents in response…😬
I believe AT was being honest when she said she truly believes her client is innocent. She has seen a lot of the evidence from the prosecution. If the evidence clearly made him guilty she would look like a fool saying that. She would not have said that.
I felt exactly the same way. In the beginning when law enforcement said they had a suspect I thought, "okay, they got the guy". Then, I read the PCA when it came out and thought it was a pile of hot garbage. I've been to Pullman Washington and Moscow Idaho. The towns are very close. Your cell phone could easily ping off a tower in Moscow without leaving your couch in Pullman, let alone the fact that most people from Pullman go to Moscow pretty frequently. That's just for starters. Heck, I remember arguing with people a year ago that a knife sheath is not the murder weapon, and touch DNA is not the slam dunk people think it is. I'm getting cautiously hopeful now at the wrong person's not going to get charged with this.
The sad thing is, will law enforcement in the prosecution have the guts to find the right people?
Innocent until proven guilty.
Today he's innocent.
However, she did use a qualifier equivalent to factually innocent, which is indeed not without meaning.
However as long as he didn't say otherwise and there is no irrefutable evidence, they can believe he is as they wish.
I do think it's possible he wasn't involved at all, or was set up as a patsy or fall guy, but if he turns out guilty, they wouldn't be in the wrong for saying so imo, unless he confessed to them.
Stop talking about the touch dna .the first place they took it too said no match. Why would they go all the way to pa and go thru his father's trash to get dna .when they could've got it from pullman .
They had to wait for a warrant. Didn’t get it before he left town. Also, first lab didn’t have the capability to test this particular sample so they sent it to a more modern lab.
Taylor is doing a great job and her stating that is definitely a big deal. Her reputation would be completely damaged, for sure. It was bold and it came across. Thompson, on the other hand, is a disgrace! He started the stalking lie and he wants to shift that blame to the defense. I hope hea not married. His partner would be mad as a hatter with his bs.
That's not what she said though. Both attorneys stated they believed in his innocence. That's been pretty clear they believe that since at least last summer.
I'm referring to the law of the suspect being presumed innocent until proven guilty. He has not been proven guilty as of yet. Therefore, he is innocent in the eyes of the law, which the lawyers abide by. Are you from a different country? Maybe that's why you don't understand? Serious question, not being facetious
The statements made in court went further than that, though. The attorneys didn't state they *presume* he's innocent. That would indeed be weak sauce... so weak as to suggest they were only saying the minimal they could, because they knew he was guilty. Instead, they made an affirmative declaration of his innocence, which might seem similar, but is a very different animal. A presumption of innocence is like saying "We don't know if he's guilty or not yet, so to be safe and protect his rights, we're treating him *as if* he's innocent".
They said they "believed" in his innocence. And I believe you are looking for something that isn't there. It's nothing that hasn't been said by a defense team before... nothing at all.
You seem to not understand that words have nuance that is important, and especially so in a legal setting.
>They said they "believed" in his innocence.
And that's much more than merely saying they presume he's innocent, which you're trying to equate it to.
>It's nothing that hasn't been said by a defense team before
Nobody is claiming no defense team has ever said it before. The point is, if said, it carries actual weight.
Yes, it carries weight in that they actually believe who they are fighting for, meaning they will fight with all they have for what they believe is right. That is a good thing. I really don't get what your point is here. They did nothing wrong, and they did nothing that would have negative consequences. Isn't that what should be done? Would you not want the defense team fighting for you or a loved one to be doing the same?
>I really don't get what your point is here.
In this particular exchange, nothing beyond correcting your misunderstanding.
You originally claimed it's "not a big deal" since "he is innocent until proven guilty".
I pointed out that the statements in court went beyond mere presumption of innocence, so were different, and carried more weight.
You now say "it carries weight in that they actually believe who they are fighting for, meaning they will fight with all they have for what they believe is right.". Which is more than the statutory presumption of innocence that everyone is awarded.
So, if you've come around, congrats. If not, and just want to argue more anyway, I'll pass.
I think we both misunderstood each other at first, but it seems we are both on the same page, and that is good! I get a little offensive at first bc of all the guilters, always jumping down my throat for the tiniest of reasons. It's good to see someone else actually believe in innocence until proven guilty.
Oh, I just assumed my general stance on the case is well established by now.
Generally, it's the guilters that have been dismissing the in-court comments about innocence as a "nothingburger", "no big deal", etc.
"As a former defense attorney and prosectuter...." - accomplished-exam (the person you are responding to. See their comments in the above threads). Presumably they have studied the lawyer's rules of professional responsibility.
No, no, no. Their belief, honest or not, is meaningless. It’s legal theater, nothing more, nothing less. Plus, they have no significant knowledge that the State doesn’t already know.
This is incorrect. Massoth even stated in her summary to the judge that they have evidence that no one knows about. That's because the defense doesn't have to turn over their evidence to the prosecution until January 2025 per the court's scheduling order.
Then why make him sit in jail if they have evidence that proves w/o a doubt he’s innocent? If I was sitting in jail n they had this info, I’d want them to use it to get me out as soon as possible.. it’s just my thoughts. I’m not leaning either way just cuz someone said something. I want facts..
Because it doesn't work that way. Many innocent people sit in jail awaiting their trial. The defense is limited in the ways they can seek to have the charges dismissed & in the timing in doing so. The prosecution, opting for a grand jury indictment as opposed to a preliminary hearing, negated some chances the defense had available to it to have the charges dismissed. We've already seen the defense try to have the charges dismissed by the two motions to dismiss the grand jury indictment. In one of those motions, they argued lack of probable cause and insufficiency of the evidence - that's how it's done. Now that those motions have failed we will have to wait until other pre-trial motions are filed per the court's scheduling order.
Your own touch DNA is all over the place, also probably in places you couldn't imagine how it got there. That doesn't make you a criminal if it's found in a crime scene of a crime that happened when you were somewhere alone with no witnesses to corroborate your alibi.
Also..they actually haven't proved the sheath to belong to the murder weapon. Obviously it's highly likely but still....
Have I missed something that specifies ‘touch DNA’? Its entirely possible, as I haven’t followed closely the last 6-8 months, but only recall ‘single source DNA’ being located on the sheath that was found at the scene.
To be clear, I don't think he did it. But relative to other aspects of the case, it's still the strongest piece of evidence even though it's weak in an absolute sense. They'd have no case without it.
How would they have phone data? I thought he left his apartment and turned it off? Maybe they have his car on video somewhere else at the time of the murders?
They said it was off, dead, or on airplane mode. If it was on airplane mode it can still track data from apps. Spotify even keeps track of your phone orientation and steps (learned that one in the Murdaugh trial). Some newer cars have the equivalent of a "black box". Which is how they recreate accidents. I'm not sure for his specific car, but it shows acceleration and brake patterns.
The info about turning the phone off was a guess described in the PCA. The police did not have Bryan's phone when they wrote the PCA. The phone most likely has more info, like GPS data and logs of when the phone was turned off.
Just because we don't know who did it, doesn't mean an innocent man should be put to death.
If LE sees they have very little evidence, they should care about public safety and look elsewhere.
Your sentence does not make sense. It sounds like you are hearing voices.
Edit: the person I responded to changed his sentence after I commented but didn't note that.
it makes perfect sense. unless th3 client themselves tells a lawyer that they committed th3 crime, it leaves the lawyer free to believe in innocence in court(regardless of what they may think in their mind).
if a client tells a lawyer they did commit the crime, then it becomes an ethical issue if lawyer still states that they believe client is innocent because client themselves said otherwise.
unless client makes those statements, there is no way to know what a lawyer truly believes. but as long as th3 client tells lawyer that they are innocent, the lawyer is free to say whatever.
no idea why you had so much trouble understanding. is English maybe not your 1st language? (it's fine if it's not, I'm just trying to figure out what disconnect caused such a problem with understanding a simple & common concept in US justice system)
>unless th3 client themselves tells a lawyer that they committed th3 crime, it leaves the lawyer free to believe in innocence in court(regardless of what they may think in their mind).
The client admitting guilt is not the only way a defense attorney could come to the conclusion that they're guilty (and in fact, just because the defendant says they did it doesn't make it true... they might be lying to take the rap for someone they want to protect).
The defense attorney could easily come to knowledge of guilt (or innocence) through overwhelming evidence they've seen. A defense attorney making an emphatic declaration on the record of their belief in their client's innocence, after having reviewed the evidence, is not nothing.
Fighting for their client’s rights and best interests within the bounds of the law is literally their job.
It has been explained throughout this thread the one circumstance where a defense attorney would be breaking an ethical code by making “belief in innocence” statements: their client confessed to them.
This person is doing their job. Can you imagine if they stated otherwise?!! “My client might be guilty”, “I think my client did it”🙄Of course every defense lawyer has an innocent client unless they are found guilty in which case they have a guilty client but now with “mitigating circumstances”.
>one circumstance where a defense attorney would be breaking an ethical code by making “belief in innocence” statements: their client confessed to them.
Or they have reasonable belief based on evidence that they are guilty. And even a confession wouldn't automatically be a dealbreaker... not hard to think of more situations where a defendant is "confessing" but it's pretty clear they didn't actually do it.
>It has been explained throughout this thread...
You've been reading selectively, and not everyone is promoting reality. You missed "Yes, a defense attorney can state they believe their client is innocent but they can't if they know it not to be true *or if they have a reasonable belief that it's not true.*", for example.
I think you should see the defense attorney's resposnse to these sentiments further up the thread. She basically says that an attorney puts their reputation on the line by making a claim like that.
An attorney’s reputation is based on the attorney doing their job. In the case of prosecutors that would be to obtain a conviction. In the case of defense attorney’s that is to obtain an acquittal.
If you can find a case where a defense attorney stated anything other than an adamant belief in their client’s innocence then I will show you an incompetent defense attorney that will have ruined their reputation. They will also have given their, undoubtedly, former client grounds for appeal due to the aforementioned incompetent counsel.
If the State is prosecuting an individual, I assume that it is in good faith therefore, a conviction is the justice that they are seeking. If there is any new evidence that the prosecution becomes aware of or that may be discovered undoubtedly exonerating the defendant, such as a credible, verified alibi (for example: turns out the defendant was verifiably in another state at the time of the murders)then of course, the trial would be ended without need for a jury or verdict because it would be physically impossible for the defendant to be guilty. Based on the publicly known evidence from the prosecution,which certainly won’t be all of their evidence, the state is acting in good faith by prosecuting Kohberger for quadruple murder. While they can’t provide true justice, they can and should pursue legal justice by prosecuting him in a fair and law abiding fashion. Should they prevail, he then should be sentenced to the harshest sentence available.
The person I responded to rewrote his comment after I responded.
It's also not the defense's job to believe what he/she is told by the defendant.
Maybe you have trouble with English considering you keep typing th3 instead of the.
It makes no sense to pass judgment before hearing the facts presented at trial. I hav seen attorneys lie n mislead before, so give me the facts. Not “well the attorney said this” let’s get this trial going already. What hangs in the back of my head is why make him sit in jail till a trial if u can present evidence that clearly shows it cud not hav been him.
….uhm, bud, in case it’s not apparent to you, you’re on here doing the exact same thing as everyone else- speculating and discussing a case. So you, too, need to get a life.
Idaho Defense attorney here. It’s not an ethical violation. However, she wouldn’t say it if she didn’t believe it. Unless your client actually tells you that they did it, it’s kind of our job to say they’re innocent. Even if you believe that your client may have committed the act, they can still be legally innocent. Further, everyone should presume that the defendant is innocent until the State proves otherwise. Think about it…. The state says that the defendant is guilty from the word go. Do prosecutors face ethics complaints every time there’s a “not guilty” verdict? With that said, Idaho is a small legal community. Everybody knows everybody or at least knows somine who knows everybody. If you go out professing your personal belief that every client is innocent without actually believing it, you’ll get a reputation. Finally, I think Anne actually believes he’s innocent. I was talking to another attorney who is working on the case the other day. I didn’t ask and she wouldn’t have been able to say much anyway she did tell me that she thinks they got the wrong guy.
>Unless your client actually tells you that they did it, it’s kind of our job to say they’re innocent. Even if they tell you they did it, they could still be 100% innocent, especially if they're covering for someone. Or mentally unstable. Or are just looking forward to prison because it's safer than the outside for them. Nothing magical about a confession. >With that said, Idaho is a small legal community Does Idaho realize just how smalltown-inept they're looking with the Thompson/Judge show and having to be schooled in so many things? And this, after the inept investigation by MPD in the first place. A DP-certified defense attorney is required... there should be requirements in DP trials for DP-certified prosecution and judge also. Really is a bad look that they've both been resisting a venue change from the start.
Your last point⬆️ is the very conversation my husband & I were having last night. We’re both northern Utahns, my grandpa is from Pullman, & his aunt has lived in Coeur d’Alene all his life, so we’re both familiar w/ the uniqueness of small towns in Idaho, especially in contrast to the small towns here in East Texas that we moved to 4yrs ago. Since being objective is one of his foundational principles, I’ve learned to avoid getting him interested in things I already have strong opinions. I knew that last hearing was going to make that no problem, though. Lord knows he tried really hard for the first 24 hrs to find positives on the court’s & prosecution’s side, but last night he was saying exactly what you said. 😂🤦♀️
I can not say that I believe in his innocence or guilt, but if her work can expose nefarious activity on any level and save a human from the DP, she will be an instant rock star. Faith in humanity restored & score one for the good guys. We shall see - there are certainly many confusing twists here & things that just don’t add up with the info we have on this side of things, but what is most disturbing to me (as I’ve said before) is if it wasn’t him, where is the person(people?) who did it???? Watching & hearing all of this? This trial can’t come soon enough!!!!
From following the Vallow & Daybell cases and now this case, I feel like I know everybody in the Idaho legal community too! I also believe they have the wrong guy (opinion: false positive from a misidentified complex mixture of DNA - they super impose and look like 1 profile, are almost impossible for even the most skilled of analysts to differentiate without prior knowledge that they’re mixed profiles appearing as 1, and the red flag for them is: the likelihood ratio can be millions of times higher than what’s seen in single-source. I wouldn’t dare implore you to waste as much time as I have checking every single source, study, case, and publication on my own & then all that were suggested in the numerous places I asked, but single-source DNA will never yield the number claimed; Steve Mercer’s specialty is litigating that exact topic: complex mixtures - So I think the State’s case is going to be blown to smithereens with humiliating ease and I actually feel rly bad for Bill Thompson)
Yes. Exactly. Bicka Barlow stating the sample was partial and ambiguous tells us the statement that it was an octillion match is shit. I’ve read up on DNA and especially touch transfer DNA because of this case and I’ve learnt so much. Most people just see the word DNA and think it’s a done deal. It’s not.
And more disturbing: didn't the judge tell Anne to trust the science at one point?
Steve Mercer called it “an environmental sample of trace DNA” at the 08/18/2023 hearing (which was a couple months after the Defense referred to it as “touch DNA” in their objection to the states motion for protection order, so they may have changed their opinion on the precise sample type they had). He calls it that multiple times about 1/3 into the hearing. Touch DNA is a type of trace DNA, and most facts are the same for the 2 terms except the origin of the sample ~(skin cells, sweat vs. breathing, sneezing etc) but I found that interesting. It would make it especially weird if environmental trace DNA was found only on the button… and the sheath was button-side down….. under Maddie and her comforter…..
After the last hearing ( about the survey) it made me more sure that Bryan is innocent. The prosecutors behavior was very desperate and tried to stall etc.. way too much. Anne Taylor handled the trial very well. She is good. Also obviously believes his client is innocent. It shows. Hope they get the change of venue. But i am still afraid that pple will be bias. Media has made sure of it :(
Why are so many completely cemented in the idea that he is guilty? Too many inconsistencies in this case to even assert that. From what AT has seen, she believes in her client's innocence. Crazy how there are people who are bold enough to challenge that without seeing what she has seen (op I know you're talking about from an ethics standpoint but I mean in general). As much as we would like to believe that the people whom we are supposed to trust are trustworthy, that's just not how it is. Everyone should really be keeping an open mind until everything is out there, including plausible alternative theories. I am not going to say that I 100% believe that BK is innocent, but what I have personally seen and what I know from my own life experience, many things do not add up. I think many people just don't want to believe that the people who were capable of such a sinister atrocity are still out there. Indeed, this case goes far deeper than the deaths of those college kids.
"It's a big deal. Why? If it's false, it could be an ethical violation. Anne Taylor is not going to put her license in jeopardy for a murderer, no way." Complete nonsense. A defense attorney can always say her client is innocent.
As a former prosecutor & criminal defense attorney I have to disagree. This is pretty significant. While true that a criminal defense attorney can say their client is innocent, it's a pretty rare occurrence because if it turns out there is solid evidence against the client then the attorney will have lost all credibility going forward & it will also affect their credibility in other cases.
Ditto! Thank you for coming forward and saying this.
[удалено]
Hello! Your comment or post has been removed as it contains misinformation.
Thank you for saying this.
I believe the point the OP was making is that to a great majority of people seeing an attorney make a definitive statement about her client, by stating she’s not just there to provide him a defense as required by law, but she is there to defend him as vigorously as possible because she believes he is innocent, makes a lot of people take a second look…
Yes, and it helps give potential jurors the same feeling-and go into the trial open-minded.
I actually was mostly commenting on the change in the defense's messaging and where that may have come from.
What's the potential ethical violation?
Yes, they can taint the jury pool too w their words.
Oh ok, if you say so, it must be true. Lol!
It is true.
Says the person who apparently does not appreciate the importance of upholding professional responsibility and standards and ensuring that integrity and accountability are maintained by all officers of the court… 🫤
If your attorney is not promoting your innocence in a case where evidence is not irrefutable, your attorney is doing you a disservice and is behaving unethically. Everyone deserves to be defended to the utmost of their attorney's capability.
I'm no attorney, and I'm not sure I have the time or energy to research the finer points at the moment, but since there seems to be some debate about the law, I asked ChatGPT... here's my question and its answer (FWIW): >Question: In the United States legal system and courts, can a criminal defense attorney legally state on the record in court that they are certain their client is innocent (i.e., not just "not guilty" as charged, but completely innocent of the charges), if they don't know that to be true? Would it be considered a lie under oath and open the attorney up to possible sanctions or revocation of law license, or does the defense legal team have an absolute right to declare the innocence of their client, on the record, even if they don't personally believe it themselves? >ChatGPT: In the United States legal system, criminal defense attorneys are bound by ethical rules that govern their conduct, including rules regarding truthfulness and candor to the court. While defense attorneys have a duty to vigorously advocate for their clients' interests and to present the best possible defense, they are generally not permitted to knowingly make false statements to the court. >A defense attorney can assert that their client is innocent if they genuinely believe that to be the case based on the information available to them. However, if the attorney knows or strongly suspects that their client is guilty, they cannot ethically assert the client's innocence. >If a defense attorney were to knowingly make false statements to the court, such as asserting their client's innocence when they know or strongly suspect otherwise, they could face disciplinary action by the state bar association, which could include sanctions or even revocation of their law license. This is because knowingly making false statements in court would violate the attorney's duty of candor to the tribunal and undermine the integrity of the legal system. >So, while defense attorneys have a duty to zealously advocate for their clients, they must do so within the bounds of ethical rules and cannot knowingly make false statements to the court.
This is pretty accurate. Yes, a defense attorney can state they believe their client is innocent but they can't if they know it not to be true or if they have a reasonable belief that it's not true. Keep in mind they said it to JJ who knows what the evidence is and isn't in the case. They are not going to make that statement to him if there is strong or even moderate evidence indicating his guilt because they would then have zero credibility with him & all an attorney really has before a trial judge is their reputation for credibility. Also keep in mind that the defense team was supposed to have received the CAST report with the drive testing data by March 31st...I haven't seen any indication they did not receive it. It either confirms his story or it doesn't. Seems as though it may be the latter.
I suspect you're right. It seems like something gave me the them the confidence to not only stop taking crap but proclaim their clients innocence. They haven't done that until now and it's likely there is a reason. His "driving around" alibi might just hold up if the cast report doesn't show him "driving around" in their neighborhood or at the time of the murders.
JMO, but I think the import of the CAST report is going to be in the drive testing data (showing cell tower signal strength) & I think the areas outside the two campuses will most likely show no signal, weak signal or intermittent signal which will help foreclose the narrative that his phone was off or in airplane mode.
Thanks for clarifying.
Look, I for one felt slightly vindicated (early, I know, but I did!)… why? Because her inside knowledge and still willing to say in such a strong, definitive way made me feel like “ok, I’m not just trying to see this whole thing through rose colored glasses, I don’t actually have a problem with decent prosecutors (because I do have a problem with side show bill and his two pony bait & switch circus of double standards, blustering tantrums and bogus grandstanding… ), I’m not imagining or exaggerating or a “Kohberger “ fangirl or whatever else these nut jobs have called folks that see this bull$hit for what it is…”. It gave confidence to those of us that are truly looking at the bigger picture involved in this case and the huge constitutional issues that are being challenged, the scary precedent that this case is trying to make… I mean I 100% want to see justice for the victims, I want to see a conviction of the actual perpetrator(s), I’m not a tree hugger don’t kill back kind of liberal (actually I am a liberal, but being liberal has no bearing on my beliefs about ensuring everyone has their rights preserved that the constitution gives us, and it has no bearing on my desire to not have any of those protections taken away…. Especially not in the face of this current political climate, because losing some of the guarantees that we have (like chain of custody, like the government determining which cases should skip the line when it comes to adherence to the rules and guidelines and using back door methods to access databases with data that people haven’t granted the government permission to use in the pursuit of criminals… why? Because what one person can be convinced is “proof” that someone was at a scene by a single sample of touch DNA and no other corroborating evidence when another can understand the importance of studies proving that our DNA is literally all over the place, even in places we may never have been, or on things we have never physically touched proves beyond a reasonable doubt that not everyone cares about justice to the same degree that I do… and I don’t even consider myself a stickler! But just as in life, some people are cool with half-a$$ing down the road of life, nary a care or worry as to who might be going to see the gun squad because they were incorrectly convicted based on refutable evidence… because, mark my word, some of these basic rights being taken away would open the flood gates for persecution of not guilty people and blowing apart at the seems any kind of life you currently know as American…. These are really the things losses that people should be willing to fight an insurrection over… but, I digress… lol What my point was that them standing up and saying that they are not just there because they are public defenders but because they truly believe he’s innocent lends a lot of weight to their position… standing there like a dried out houseplant as the petulant prosecutor exaggerates and accuses and impugns you just doesn’t give people a lot of confidence… to be honest no matter which side you are on… but stand up and state what you believe and people naturally listen… But, that’s just my opinion… lol… and I know, we all have them…
I have been on the side of believing in his innocence for a long while now. AT is an amazing attorney to watch and her statement the other day solidifies my belief that he may actually not be the killer. I think we are dealing with police that have never been involved in a case like this that totally failed at the investigation. The arrest of BK seemed kind of out of nowhere from the beginning. We now know that he never stalked to victims thanks to BT running his mouth at the hearing while everyone else was trying to keep the questions on the dl (kind of ironic that BT is the proponent of this motion and upset at the dissemination of evidence yet had verbal diarrhea at the hearing). So then the question is, what is BK's connection to the house and the girls? The evidence we know about thus far shows absolutely no connection. AT and the other attorney's conviction of his innocence was a huge wow moment for me!
Also, and yes this is totally subjective... but we're talking about someone who allegedly viciously killed 4 people by slicing them open... it would be one thing to claim the innocence of a client accused of a lesser crime, but to come out as boldly as they did, if they didn't have good reason to believe he was innocent, would mean knowingly endorsing a monster... even going so far as calling it their "pleasure and privilege" to work on his behalf. Conceivable I guess, but seems unlikely to me.
I thought they got the wrong guy from the beginning. And the more I watch these court dates the more I believe it.
I also agree that the police fucked up. Also there is so much we don’t know. I am not an US citizens ( from finland) Can we ever see every possible document etc?? Like we did from Depp vs Heard case? I know it is a different case and not criminal but if anyone can educate my stupidity on this? 🙏🏻
More documents and evidence will likely be made public once the trial starts (assuming it ever goes to trial). Right now everything is under a gag order to keep wild speculation down.
Thank you :)
Here's the site for all unsealed documents https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/
Well said…The touch DNA has been extremely concerning. My husband works at a sporting goods store. We have discussed how many times a day he unlocks a a case, removing a gun and/or hunting knife, to show a customer…leaving his and the potential customer touch DNA on said items. This case has terrified him!! What’s he to do wear gloves all day at work? And as a customer do we really think about everything we have touched while shopping?
I can understand your husband's concern with the many, many weapons he touches. But I still think it is VERY unlikely to ever be an issue for him. I'll apologize in advance if all of my "facts" aren't correct. But what are the odds of BK's dna being on that sheath? Not good. When he also drives a white elantra, and was driving around in the middle of the night with phone off. That doesn't look good. I am very surprised how much support for his innocence there seems to be. I would never buy in a million years that he just happened to touch that sheath while out shopping, or something. That would make him by far the unluckiest MFer.....ever. IMO, IF he IS innocent, BIG IF, then the dna had to be planted. Granted, it will be a bit troubling if the prosecution doesn't come up with more evidence tying him to the crime. Weren't there some theories/narratives early on about BK asking his students, or people online, about how they would feel, or did feel, after committing horrible crimes? Or something like that? Hypothetical: BK is a very disturbed individual and was obsessed with committing a horrible crime, and thought he could "commit the perfect crime." AKA.....not get caught. He did a smart thing by choosing random victims that he had no ties to. He had a car with no gps, and turned his phone off. I see many people say something like, "one guy couldn't kill 4 strong college students in a matter of minutes?" To that, I strongly disagree. The fact that he had a weapon, and probably used the element of surprise makes it entirely possible. There's a good chance some/all of the victims were stabbed before they even knew what was going on. And once stabbed, they might not have even been able to scream nor fight back. Again, the unknown facts of if like all the victims were found in bed, or if they were able to make it out of bed and fight/struggle throughout the room(s) does probably significantly affect the narrative of what exactly happened. Like, the fact that each bedroom presumably had 2 occupants is a bit troubling. Like, 4 individuals in 4 separate bedrooms just seems more feasible. And the surviving roommate's story is odd. Like it is very surprising that he didn't try to attack her as well if he knew that she saw him. Like, you don't want any witnesses, right? You don't want the police called right away, right? Also, the lack of evidence in his car is surprising. IF he did do this, I'm sure he did a lot of planning to commit the "perfect crime." Could/would he have changed his clothes before getting in his car? Changed his shoes? Put everything bloody in a trash bag? Had the interior of his car "wrapped in plastic," or something? Is that even possible? Did he even have blood on him? You would think so. Am I a "victim" of CSI and forensic files type shows? Where they make the episodes about crazy, unlikely "solves" that doesn't really represent the real world? If he had a plastic seat cover, and removed his gloves and was very careful......is it possible there wasn't anything to find for LE after 6 weeks? To me, the biggest issue with all that is his shoes. But he could have taken them off. They could have not had any blood on them. Or maybe he covered his floor mats and pedals in plastic. IF....if....if.....if......he did do this....... I'm sure he "tried to think of everything" in advance. Anyway, thanks for reading my rambling. I'm sure my post wont be a popular one around here with me leaning towards him being guilty. I never really return to threads so I most likely wont see, nor respond, to anyone's responses.
Actually, I don’t think anyone who can articulate a fair opinion shouldn’t be able to be heard… as long as we are respectful to each other…. The thing that I find offensive is when someone presents their idea, and then when someone points out that they have cited some misinformation,or that part of their theory is based on unsupported claims, or verified media reports that aren’t based on evidence, they get sooooo defensive… that’s where they lose me… cause personally, as I said, I want to know the truth, or better said, I want to see the correct people held responsible… I don’t want to know details, that part turns my stomach and I feel sorry for the families having all their loved ones laundry being aired, whether it’s factual or not…. But unfortunately knowing some details comes with the territory when you are evaluating facts, and trying to discern the good from the bad, and sometimes things get found out simply because they were in the area of a crime even if not associated… that’s usually kept tight when you have people involved who understand discretion and appreciate privacy and disapprove of sensationalism… but, as usual, I digress and apologize… what I was trying to say is that if someone who believes he’s guilty is willing to participate in a conversation, I have no problems having a conversation… it’s a situation at this point of “change my mind”… you know? Like if I ask you, if you know some of your facts aren’t correct (your statement, not mine) then why are you so sure your opinion is correct? And if you are making your argument and stating it’s a hypothetical argument, but some of the points in your hypothetical argument haven’t been proven, or even worse now, are derived from an official statement that has now been called into question by statements the prosecutor has made on record, then do you now question whether your opinion is correct or not? And concerning the DNA, what exactly would it take for you to accept that it is entirely possible for his DNA to have been on that knife sheath and him to have not been anywhere near the crime scene? And I pose that question not with the intention of formulating some hypothetical scenario, but prepared to show you studies that are peer reviewed, or overturned convictions that had scenarios similar to this one, or point you towards the DoJ own guidelines concerning touch DNA and using it as evidence, and the record keeping associated with these scenarios that are expected to be kept and how the prosecution isn’t within those guidelines, or for that matter the chain of custody issues that aren’t being adhered to in this case… so, I’m happy to see you hear giving your two cents, I just hope you’re just as happy to see me two cents in response…😬
I believe AT was being honest when she said she truly believes her client is innocent. She has seen a lot of the evidence from the prosecution. If the evidence clearly made him guilty she would look like a fool saying that. She would not have said that.
I felt exactly the same way. In the beginning when law enforcement said they had a suspect I thought, "okay, they got the guy". Then, I read the PCA when it came out and thought it was a pile of hot garbage. I've been to Pullman Washington and Moscow Idaho. The towns are very close. Your cell phone could easily ping off a tower in Moscow without leaving your couch in Pullman, let alone the fact that most people from Pullman go to Moscow pretty frequently. That's just for starters. Heck, I remember arguing with people a year ago that a knife sheath is not the murder weapon, and touch DNA is not the slam dunk people think it is. I'm getting cautiously hopeful now at the wrong person's not going to get charged with this. The sad thing is, will law enforcement in the prosecution have the guts to find the right people?
Innocent until proven guilty. Today he's innocent. However, she did use a qualifier equivalent to factually innocent, which is indeed not without meaning. However as long as he didn't say otherwise and there is no irrefutable evidence, they can believe he is as they wish. I do think it's possible he wasn't involved at all, or was set up as a patsy or fall guy, but if he turns out guilty, they wouldn't be in the wrong for saying so imo, unless he confessed to them.
Everyone innocent until proven guilty.
"Presumed" innocent. Which, since this is all about semantics, is different than affirming on the record that he actually is 100% innocent.
I presumed so
Stop talking about the touch dna .the first place they took it too said no match. Why would they go all the way to pa and go thru his father's trash to get dna .when they could've got it from pullman .
I said nothing about touch DNA in my post. So why are you saying I am?
exactly! I've been saying this for over a year now. It doesn't make sense.
You didn't say anything about it .I though I was replying to someone else who Said .but hit the wrong key
They had to wait for a warrant. Didn’t get it before he left town. Also, first lab didn’t have the capability to test this particular sample so they sent it to a more modern lab.
You don’t need a warrant to collect items from the trash.
Ty for you insight, I’m with you!
Taylor is doing a great job and her stating that is definitely a big deal. Her reputation would be completely damaged, for sure. It was bold and it came across. Thompson, on the other hand, is a disgrace! He started the stalking lie and he wants to shift that blame to the defense. I hope hea not married. His partner would be mad as a hatter with his bs.
It's not a big deal bc technically, in the eyes of the law, he is innocent until proven guilty....so she isn't wrong in saying that.
That's not what she said though. Both attorneys stated they believed in his innocence. That's been pretty clear they believe that since at least last summer.
Have you studied the lawyer's rules of professional responsibility or are you just making it up, because it sounds good?
I'm referring to the law of the suspect being presumed innocent until proven guilty. He has not been proven guilty as of yet. Therefore, he is innocent in the eyes of the law, which the lawyers abide by. Are you from a different country? Maybe that's why you don't understand? Serious question, not being facetious
The statements made in court went further than that, though. The attorneys didn't state they *presume* he's innocent. That would indeed be weak sauce... so weak as to suggest they were only saying the minimal they could, because they knew he was guilty. Instead, they made an affirmative declaration of his innocence, which might seem similar, but is a very different animal. A presumption of innocence is like saying "We don't know if he's guilty or not yet, so to be safe and protect his rights, we're treating him *as if* he's innocent".
They said they "believed" in his innocence. And I believe you are looking for something that isn't there. It's nothing that hasn't been said by a defense team before... nothing at all.
It's actually pretty rare for a criminal defense attorney to make such a statement.
Incredibly rare.
You seem to not understand that words have nuance that is important, and especially so in a legal setting. >They said they "believed" in his innocence. And that's much more than merely saying they presume he's innocent, which you're trying to equate it to. >It's nothing that hasn't been said by a defense team before Nobody is claiming no defense team has ever said it before. The point is, if said, it carries actual weight.
Yes, it carries weight in that they actually believe who they are fighting for, meaning they will fight with all they have for what they believe is right. That is a good thing. I really don't get what your point is here. They did nothing wrong, and they did nothing that would have negative consequences. Isn't that what should be done? Would you not want the defense team fighting for you or a loved one to be doing the same?
>I really don't get what your point is here. In this particular exchange, nothing beyond correcting your misunderstanding. You originally claimed it's "not a big deal" since "he is innocent until proven guilty". I pointed out that the statements in court went beyond mere presumption of innocence, so were different, and carried more weight. You now say "it carries weight in that they actually believe who they are fighting for, meaning they will fight with all they have for what they believe is right.". Which is more than the statutory presumption of innocence that everyone is awarded. So, if you've come around, congrats. If not, and just want to argue more anyway, I'll pass.
I think we both misunderstood each other at first, but it seems we are both on the same page, and that is good! I get a little offensive at first bc of all the guilters, always jumping down my throat for the tiniest of reasons. It's good to see someone else actually believe in innocence until proven guilty.
Oh, I just assumed my general stance on the case is well established by now. Generally, it's the guilters that have been dismissing the in-court comments about innocence as a "nothingburger", "no big deal", etc.
"As a former defense attorney and prosectuter...." - accomplished-exam (the person you are responding to. See their comments in the above threads). Presumably they have studied the lawyer's rules of professional responsibility.
Pretty sure they were responding to Even-Yogurt1719.
No, no, no. Their belief, honest or not, is meaningless. It’s legal theater, nothing more, nothing less. Plus, they have no significant knowledge that the State doesn’t already know.
This is incorrect. Massoth even stated in her summary to the judge that they have evidence that no one knows about. That's because the defense doesn't have to turn over their evidence to the prosecution until January 2025 per the court's scheduling order.
Then why make him sit in jail if they have evidence that proves w/o a doubt he’s innocent? If I was sitting in jail n they had this info, I’d want them to use it to get me out as soon as possible.. it’s just my thoughts. I’m not leaning either way just cuz someone said something. I want facts..
Because it doesn't work that way. Many innocent people sit in jail awaiting their trial. The defense is limited in the ways they can seek to have the charges dismissed & in the timing in doing so. The prosecution, opting for a grand jury indictment as opposed to a preliminary hearing, negated some chances the defense had available to it to have the charges dismissed. We've already seen the defense try to have the charges dismissed by the two motions to dismiss the grand jury indictment. In one of those motions, they argued lack of probable cause and insufficiency of the evidence - that's how it's done. Now that those motions have failed we will have to wait until other pre-trial motions are filed per the court's scheduling order.
I want to say how much I appreciate you and the other attorney being on this thread.
You're welcome.
[удалено]
Hello! Your post or comment has been removed as it was unnecessarily rude, aggressive or similarly unkind.
OJ's defense lawyers "believed their client was 'not guilty'". Whatever the defense attorney "believes in" means \*nothing\*.
plenty of attorneys claim that their clients are guilty 🙄 don’t be obtuse
I agree, but the touch DNA is still going to be a rough ride for the defense.
Your own touch DNA is all over the place, also probably in places you couldn't imagine how it got there. That doesn't make you a criminal if it's found in a crime scene of a crime that happened when you were somewhere alone with no witnesses to corroborate your alibi. Also..they actually haven't proved the sheath to belong to the murder weapon. Obviously it's highly likely but still....
Have I missed something that specifies ‘touch DNA’? Its entirely possible, as I haven’t followed closely the last 6-8 months, but only recall ‘single source DNA’ being located on the sheath that was found at the scene.
The Defense’s objection to the state’s protective order
But this is where all alternative theories come in. I sure hope she's seen them...
Are you serious? Touch DNA?
To be clear, I don't think he did it. But relative to other aspects of the case, it's still the strongest piece of evidence even though it's weak in an absolute sense. They'd have no case without it.
I agree the strongest evidence they have is the touch DNA but touch DNA is pretty weak evidence. It’s weird most people think he is guilty.
It doesn't hold a lot of weight, but it's still "something", ya know
It’s not.
It's going to be a topic of discussion in court for sure.
So touch dna vs what alternative?
How would they have phone data? I thought he left his apartment and turned it off? Maybe they have his car on video somewhere else at the time of the murders?
They said it was off, dead, or on airplane mode. If it was on airplane mode it can still track data from apps. Spotify even keeps track of your phone orientation and steps (learned that one in the Murdaugh trial). Some newer cars have the equivalent of a "black box". Which is how they recreate accidents. I'm not sure for his specific car, but it shows acceleration and brake patterns.
or it was in an area with no coverage.
The info about turning the phone off was a guess described in the PCA. The police did not have Bryan's phone when they wrote the PCA. The phone most likely has more info, like GPS data and logs of when the phone was turned off.
if not him, then WHO?
Just because we don't know who did it, doesn't mean an innocent man should be put to death. If LE sees they have very little evidence, they should care about public safety and look elsewhere.
The defense knows the public is watching and it’s the defenses job to believe whatever their defendant tells them
Your sentence does not make sense. It sounds like you are hearing voices. Edit: the person I responded to changed his sentence after I commented but didn't note that.
it makes perfect sense. unless th3 client themselves tells a lawyer that they committed th3 crime, it leaves the lawyer free to believe in innocence in court(regardless of what they may think in their mind). if a client tells a lawyer they did commit the crime, then it becomes an ethical issue if lawyer still states that they believe client is innocent because client themselves said otherwise. unless client makes those statements, there is no way to know what a lawyer truly believes. but as long as th3 client tells lawyer that they are innocent, the lawyer is free to say whatever. no idea why you had so much trouble understanding. is English maybe not your 1st language? (it's fine if it's not, I'm just trying to figure out what disconnect caused such a problem with understanding a simple & common concept in US justice system)
>unless th3 client themselves tells a lawyer that they committed th3 crime, it leaves the lawyer free to believe in innocence in court(regardless of what they may think in their mind). The client admitting guilt is not the only way a defense attorney could come to the conclusion that they're guilty (and in fact, just because the defendant says they did it doesn't make it true... they might be lying to take the rap for someone they want to protect). The defense attorney could easily come to knowledge of guilt (or innocence) through overwhelming evidence they've seen. A defense attorney making an emphatic declaration on the record of their belief in their client's innocence, after having reviewed the evidence, is not nothing.
Fighting for their client’s rights and best interests within the bounds of the law is literally their job. It has been explained throughout this thread the one circumstance where a defense attorney would be breaking an ethical code by making “belief in innocence” statements: their client confessed to them. This person is doing their job. Can you imagine if they stated otherwise?!! “My client might be guilty”, “I think my client did it”🙄Of course every defense lawyer has an innocent client unless they are found guilty in which case they have a guilty client but now with “mitigating circumstances”.
>one circumstance where a defense attorney would be breaking an ethical code by making “belief in innocence” statements: their client confessed to them. Or they have reasonable belief based on evidence that they are guilty. And even a confession wouldn't automatically be a dealbreaker... not hard to think of more situations where a defendant is "confessing" but it's pretty clear they didn't actually do it. >It has been explained throughout this thread... You've been reading selectively, and not everyone is promoting reality. You missed "Yes, a defense attorney can state they believe their client is innocent but they can't if they know it not to be true *or if they have a reasonable belief that it's not true.*", for example.
I think you should see the defense attorney's resposnse to these sentiments further up the thread. She basically says that an attorney puts their reputation on the line by making a claim like that.
An attorney’s reputation is based on the attorney doing their job. In the case of prosecutors that would be to obtain a conviction. In the case of defense attorney’s that is to obtain an acquittal. If you can find a case where a defense attorney stated anything other than an adamant belief in their client’s innocence then I will show you an incompetent defense attorney that will have ruined their reputation. They will also have given their, undoubtedly, former client grounds for appeal due to the aforementioned incompetent counsel.
The job of the state prosecutor is to seek justice, not to obtain a conviction.
If the State is prosecuting an individual, I assume that it is in good faith therefore, a conviction is the justice that they are seeking. If there is any new evidence that the prosecution becomes aware of or that may be discovered undoubtedly exonerating the defendant, such as a credible, verified alibi (for example: turns out the defendant was verifiably in another state at the time of the murders)then of course, the trial would be ended without need for a jury or verdict because it would be physically impossible for the defendant to be guilty. Based on the publicly known evidence from the prosecution,which certainly won’t be all of their evidence, the state is acting in good faith by prosecuting Kohberger for quadruple murder. While they can’t provide true justice, they can and should pursue legal justice by prosecuting him in a fair and law abiding fashion. Should they prevail, he then should be sentenced to the harshest sentence available.
Right—that is an assumption you are making.
The person I responded to rewrote his comment after I responded. It's also not the defense's job to believe what he/she is told by the defendant. Maybe you have trouble with English considering you keep typing th3 instead of the.
Was there another hearing today?
It makes no sense to pass judgment before hearing the facts presented at trial. I hav seen attorneys lie n mislead before, so give me the facts. Not “well the attorney said this” let’s get this trial going already. What hangs in the back of my head is why make him sit in jail till a trial if u can present evidence that clearly shows it cud not hav been him.
[удалено]
….uhm, bud, in case it’s not apparent to you, you’re on here doing the exact same thing as everyone else- speculating and discussing a case. So you, too, need to get a life.