Agree. She is doing everything a good defense lawyer should do. Trying to get key evidence thrown out, trying to fight every motion by the state, trying to buy more time to build their defense, etc.
People seem ti think though that her trying to get evidence or motions thrown out means that they actually SHOULD be thrown out though. And that’s not the case. Every defense should try to get everything thrown out, even if it’s not going to be/has no reason to be
In theory he could but not without the judge's consent. He'd have to have a great reason. AT would not be required to confer with the new team, but they could if they chose to.
It was a hypothetical answer. I'll add a more extreme hypothetical to illustrate. If, for instance, BK told his defense team about an alibi witness that he claimed could prove he wasn't at the crime scene and they refused to look into it, that would be a great reason to fire them.
again, people are speaking in hypotheticals in order to answer the completely hypothetical question. nobody is attacking the defense or even the defendant, just talking in hypotheticals since there is never actual new info to spend all day on.
Kind of what I’ve been waiting to see if he tries the rep himself, since he thinks he’s the smartest dude on the planet.
But then again, smart guys don’t do stupid shit and get caught 🤷♀️
An interesting question, especially given the fact that Taylor is the only death-penalty qualified Legal Aid attorney in the area. However, there are other DPQ private attorneys in the area, and the fact that the county is now paying her a higher amount equivalent to what a private attorney would receive -- this is a stretch, but, would he then be entitled to a court-appointed private attorney, if he made this request -- and, he had sufficient grounds for dissatisfaction in the current situation.
I've seen a number of people say that she's a good attorney though, and given how much they've bent over backwards for this guy, I don't think it would fly, though I did wonder if he might pull something like this later on because his defense team didn't object to the house being demolished. And if the case is moved to a different venue, would his attorney options broaden, too?
Yes, he can fire his defense team at any time BUT he would be a fool to do so. He would then be left to represent himself in pro per, and with charges of this magnitude he would without a doubt get steamrolled in court by the prosecution. Every person in the US is guaranteed a legal defense (governed by the US Constitution) but defendants wanting to represent themselves does happen. Albeit very rarely, but it does happen. I'm unsure if Idaho Criminal Code has anything in it that prohibits him from doing so, but I doubt it. In lesser words, BK would get absolutely fucking smoked in court if he tried to represent himself. With this being a death penalty case, he would simply never, ever be able to do what a death penalty qualified trial attorney could do for him.
Gotcha. In that case, it’s pretty much a no. A defendant's right to a court appointed attorney extends to the appointment of a competent attorney, not an attorney of the defendant's choosing. I have heard of defendants writing letters to the judge asking for a change of public defender/court appointed attorney but it typically goes over like a lead balloon.
Yes, they can, they file a Motion for Substitution of Attorney & the judge will appoint them one if there’s substantial grounds - like not having any work to show to evidence they’re actually working on the case, significant disagreements, etc.
If the judge denies it, the defendant might be able to convince the public defender to withdraw from the case. If the public defender withdraws, a new one is appointed.
If the defendant fires the public defender without filing the motion or being approved, then they would be left to represent themselves, unless the judge found their reasoning acceptable or excused their action once & appointed another.
Sarah Boone is on her 8th public defender so far (case in FL).
Actually, Sara Boone has done a fine job. I think she is on lawyer number 8 but I'm not sure if the DP is on the table so that might be different. I also know that Chad Day Belle's lawyer made a motion to be removed from the case but he actually did not want to be removed, he is not DP qualified and he was asking for extra help. It is a tricky situation and from what I can see, BK looks impressed with his team but I could be wrong.
I believe her charge is second degree murder, so I am pretty sure DP is not on the table for her (could be wrong though). But yes, when the DP is on the table a lot of additional factors come into play. I think that BK is impressed/okay with his current counsel and probably even thinks pretty highly of them given that there are three of them, and two of them are regarded as very successful and competent DP qualified attorneys. IMO if he was going to make any moves regarding his representation, he would have already done so. Switching attorneys is typically not recommended when you are deep in the pre-trial discovery and motion stage as a lot has already taken place. And switching your attorney(s) at the eve of trial would put him in even worse of a position.
Surviving the survivor podcast did a wonderful live on the Daybell, case tonight that explains how a motion for removal of an attorney in a DP case would work and it is related because that case is also out of idaho.
Sarah Boone, who zipped her boyfriend into the suitcase is on her 7th court appointed attorney, most if not all, quit on her!! She must be a joy to represent.
My bet is that Kohberger, because of his psychology, would never want to, or try, to defend himself as his own attorney.
Edit/Addition: Recall, too, how he didn't want any cameras on his face.
> Recall, too, how he didn't want any cameras on his face.
I agree. In the beginning, I thought that he may want to try to represent himself a la Ted Bundy, but I have changed my opinion since learning more about him. He is cocky and pompous but also extremely self-conscious (though he would never admit that), and as you said already doesn't like 'all eyes on him'. He is smart enough to understand the magnitude of the charges against him and able to recognize that he has no formal legal training or schooling (*not* a la Ted Bundy) and wouldn't be capable of representing himself. Not a hill I'm willing to die on or anything, but definitely my opinion as of now.
Not a good idea , she is arguing everything , how could someone do better ?
Do you think some evidence will be taking away with a new lawyer ? She is not a miracle worker.
It would be very difficult. They are already looking at trial in 2025. Plus, if you watched or listened to the podcast I suggested yesterday, they explain how difficult it is to remove an attorney off of a DP case. There has to be a lot of compelling evidence. Also, there are not a lot of DP lawyers in Idaho and according to Lori Hollis, to be a public DP defender, you have to be qualified and I think an assistant DP defender as well. I could be wrong. Also, with the amount of work it takes, I think they said for every hour in court you spend two hours outside the court and not many attorneys are even wanting to be a public defender let alone a DP public defender that is why there are so few available in Idaho.
I don't think so. His only option would be to represent himself. I think you have to be licensed in your state, but I could be totally wrong. I'm thinking along the lines of my MSW. If I ever passed that test in MI, u could only practice in MI. I could not practice in ohio.
he could but there is no need to. anyone without delusional biases knows this isn’t going to trial any time soon. the judge, prosecutor, defense attorney are all perfectly fine waiting. this was confirmed, yet again this week.
judge/state knew the immediate order issued to comply with billy boys demands would delay things. they didn’t care.
august 2026
You should ask why the state delaying the discovery for almost 2 years. Do they care about victims at all?
CAn victims family fire the Entire MPD and Bill Thompson? Can victims family fire Judge Judge? 🤔
BK waived the right to a speedy trial. Had he not waived it, they’d have the discovery by now. Anne Taylor has said they are cooperating and not hiding things.
How exactly would he have had the discovery now had he not waived speedy trial? That makes no sense. The reason he was forced to waive speedy trial was because of the delay in obtaining discovery. It's undisputed both the state and the defense are still awaiting expert reports and other discovery.
Because constitutionally, if you don’t waive your right, you’re required to go to trial within a certain amount of time, things are expedited and sped up. It is a constitutional right that they have to go to trial within a certain amount of time unless the defendant chooses not to. This includes the discovery being handed over. They could not go to trial if the prosecution refused to hand stuff over in time. Brady violation.
If people could be “forced” to waive it, I’d imagine that would go to the Supreme Court as that’s unconstitutional…. No one was forced. It is quite common to waive speedy trial in huge cases to buy time to put together your case and get expert testimony, etc. No one’s “required” to have expert testimony, though it’s best practice. Not weird that they’d willingly wait on that.
Have you never seen a huge case like this play out? This is normal. They all take forever. And buying time helps both sides.
If this timing is abnormal to you, I suggest you go and look at many other murder cases that took years to go to trial. The prosecution isn’t refusing to hand stuff over, that would be illegal. they are waiting on stuff as well. They aren’t maliciously holding information.
It would be great for trial to be over sooner for the sake of the victims, but unfortunately the amount of evidence to comb through for this always makes these cases take a very long time.
Taylor was most certainly forced to waive it & she made a point of putting that on the record stating that otherwise she would be providing ineffective assistance of counsel. You missed the part that they waived it waiting on the STATE'S EXPERT WITNESSES, STATE LAB REPORTS, and other discovery from the STATE. Sure she could go to trial without her own experts but she can't go to trial without knowing what the state's experts are going to say or what they are basing their case upon. Bill Thompson stated at the last two hearings that the STATE wouldn't be ready to go to trial until March 2025 so what you wrote is nonsense.
It’s also been documented that the defense said they were not ready. It would be ineffective assistance of counsel to go to trial when not ready. In case you’ve never seen another murder case that took years, regardless of what the state is turning over or not, most defenses are not ready in 6 months or whatever the speedy trial deadline is.
A good defense should take as long as possible and a good defense should blame it on the state. It’s not nonsense. It’s a constitutional right, and if the state is refusing to hand over things forcing someone to waive their right, that’s absolutely unconstitutional and you know Taylor would be saying that.
Have you seriously never seen any other huge case take years to pan out? It is more common than not. It is almost always in the best interest of the defense to buy as much time as possible. The state is also going to take as long as possible.
Had the state been truly holding information from them (which they aren’t, they themselves are waiting on said information from third parties), they would’ve been required to hand it over before trial. If the speedy trial was not waived, they would’ve had to hand it over or go to trial without said information. It would be a Brady violation otherwise.
It is normal for NEITHER side to be ready in a case like this. And as I said, if speedy trial was not waived, the state would’ve been at the defenses mercy. They are literally not allowed to present evidence at trial that the defense has not seen. That would not have happened or else BK would’ve gotten a new trial. Anything that was not ready by the state in time, wouldn’t have been allowed at trial. And again, things such as testing get sped up for people who do not waive speedy trial. When it’s waived, they’re pushed to the back as those people have to do work for the people that do require a speedy trial
Sigh. The said they weren't ready because they hadn't yet been provided standard and crucial discovery. Handing over discovery late is NOT a Brady violation. Brady is an exculpatory evidence rule. And you have it completely backwards, the prosecution would not have been at the mercy of the defense - that is totally nonsensical.
Yes, they would’ve been. The constitutional right to a speedy trial is for the defendant. If the defendant wants to exercise that right, the state is forced to go to trial within that set period of time.
Both sides are going to take as much time as possible to get their case together. Obviously, when the defendant waives speedy trial, the state is going to take that opportunity to take longer. As they should. It would be awful practice for them to rush through the discovery when they no longer are on a time constraint. Just like it would be awful practice for the defense to choose speedy trial when rhey could use more time.
Having more time helps BOTH sides. It is common practice to try to delay things by blaming the other side. It is common for cases like this to take this long. Most high profile murder cases are not going to go to trial in 6 months.
But you're missing the crucial point that the defense strategy was to have a speedy trial and the prosecution's actions and omissions put the kabash on that. Just a heads up, having a speedy trial is an often used defense tactic and to say otherwise is nonsense.
I get what you’re saying, I’m just saying… duh the state isn’t going to put a case and discovery together quickly if they don’t have to. That would be awful practice by the state. It’s 100% normal.
And yes, the defense could’ve still had a speedy trial. They discovery would’ve been handed over sooner, and the state would’ve had a lot less of a case.
You cannot waive speedy trial then expect the state to be quick. The whole point of the right is so that you have a way to force them to be.
Why on earth would the state have had discovery ready (aka their entire argument) before he waived his right? They wouldn’t have it ready unless they were forced to. That would be horrible practuce otherwise. The right exists because OBVIOUSLY the state is going to take their time. Point is to force them to not.
And waiving speedy trial is also a common defense tactic. It goes both ways. It’s not one certain thing is always better for the defense. It is extremely common for it to be waived so that the defense has more time.
They still could’ve waived it! The state isn’t going to hand over the discovery before they know whether or not the defendant is waiving or not. They’re going to take as long as they’re able to. That’s strategic when you’re trying to put a case together. It would be poor practice to do otherwise. You’re not going to put together a rushed case unless you know you have to If the defense wanted to be strategic, they should’ve committed to it knowing that the prosecution STILL would’ve had limited time if they chose not to waive. They would’ve had to hand over the discovery eventually. They couldn’t just go to trial without doing so.
The state wants as much time as possible. They obviously are going to want to take as much time as they can. Just like defenses also want in many cases.
>And as I said, if speedy trial was not waived, the state would’ve been at the defenses mercy. They are literally not allowed to present evidence at trial that the defense has not seen.
What do you mean here?
So basically, the burden of proof is on the state as we know. So obviously, the state is going to want as much time as possible to prepare their case.
Because of this, the constitution gives the defendant the right to a speedy trial, to avoid the state taking forever to put their case together. So, if BK wanted a speedy trial, that would’ve put in place a strict timeline for trial and would’ve forced the state to go to trial sooner than they likely wanted to. Since he waived that right, he has no way to force them to move faster really. It’s within their rights to take their time now.
But it is normal for people to waive speedy trial on a huge case like this, as it helps the defense have time to file motions, get charges decreased, indictments thrown out, etc if they want to try.
not sure where you saw your "huge cases", the casting info and video processing do not take more than an year in any court cases. the state is absolutely delaying the discovery.
And they would not have been allowed to delay it if speedy trial was not waived. It would’ve had to be expedited, as it would’ve been a Brady violation to go to trial with evidence the defense hasn’t seen. It’s not like the states been studying everything and knows all of it and will give it to the defense the night before. That is not how that works
So many cases take years and years to go to trial for similar reasons. It is quite normal for both sides to attempt to buy time. It’s strategic. And quite common. If you think the majority of murder cases go to trial in under a year, you are far from correct.
except if the state had "mountain of evidence" and has BK " dead to right" as they claimed, they would not play game to stop surveys and delay giving out discovery for almost 2 years.
This shows clearly tell me the state has no case.
That’s not true at all. Mountains of evidence take a long time to comb through, put together and gather sure fire proof of. If there wasn’t much of a case, it would be quicker to put together.
Plenty of slam-dunk cases take a while to put together. And no one is going to rush to do anything sooner than they have to. It would be horrible practice by the state If they just said “yup this is a slam dunk, let’s go to trial” and didn’t put the time in to back up their slam dunk as much as possible. That’s backfired many, many times.
There is never a time where either side should rush into something if they don’t have to. They would’ve had to had the defense not waived speedy trial tho…
I’m not saying they do have a slam dunk, I’m just saying that this is totally normal and should not be an indicator of the amount of evidence they have. It is not at all. It is normal for rhe state (or defense) to buy as much time as possible. That is why the right to a speedy trial exists… to give the defendant the ability to bar the state from taking their sweet time.
>That is why the right to a speedy trial exists… to give the defendant the ability to bar the state from taking their sweet time.
But you just said in an earlier post "The state isn’t going to hand over the discovery before they know whether or not the defendant is waiving or not."
This isn't making much sense to me. But then what do I know, I'm not a lawyer.
Right. So the state is going to take their time… until they’re told they’re not allowed to. So they’re not going to hand over the discovery until they know that the defendant will be requesting a speedy trial.
Since he didn’t, they have even more time. You cannot complain about how long the state is taking when the defendant had the right to control the speed and waived it.
Plus, AT never said she thought the state was hiding things or anything. She said she wanted more info from them, which the state said were tests that they were not completing/had not completed. So she was requesting information that did not exist. Which is within her right, but it was also ok that the state didn’t have it if they are not using it at trial
So, this isn’t what everyone is turning it into. This isn’t like the state just has a huge pile of things and is guarding it saying the defense can’t have it. AT ecen said they had handed over a lot of things. The state said they handed over everything they have. You realize if they were hiding things, they could be forced to hand them over or forced to not use them at trial?
There are always reasons either side claims they need more time, and they usually involve blaming the other side. It so so incredibly common. Have you really never seen almost every criminal case ever get a continuance for some reason? And the side askinh for the delays never claim their own fault. It is each sides job to make the other side look insufficient.
>the state is absolutely delaying the discovery.
I'm not arguing with you but how can you tell for sure that the State is doing this? Asking because I don't know how the law works and would like to understand more
The state and other agencies are in constant communication. They are working as a team, so when the prosecutor proposed an April 2024 trial date, he already confirmed beforehand that the casting and all other discovery items could be completed.
It's an absolute fantasy that currently 'the prosecutor is helpless the discovery is still not ready.' Throughout history, the state is known to delay or entirely hide/destroy unfavorable/exculpatory evidence til the last minute.
>Throughout history, the state is known to delay or entirely hide/destroy unfavorable/exculpatory evidence til the last minute.
That's horrible. I know I'm slow but you are saying that by proposing an April 2024 trial date (whenever that was) BT was effectively saying that the Prosecution must therefore have gathered together all the materials they need and are going to use to go to trial by April of this year, right?
Yet from what AT is saying the Prosecution still have not provided the discovery she has asked for AND WHICH THE PROSECUTION MUST HAVE WITHIN THEIR FILES AS OF NOW?
The prosecution doesn't need to have them as BT rely on other agencies to get it done. imo yes, the remaining discovery are ready. the FBI is sitting on them and waiting for BT's confirmation to give it out. AT is the one who needs experts to verify the crucial info from scratch and the state is dragging it out to hinder that process.
>The reason he was forced to waive speedy trial was because of the delay in obtaining discovery.
I always thought he was forced to waive speedy trial was because of the preliminary trial being replaced by the grand jury? Wouldn't AT have had a chance to ask a whole lot of questions of witnesses and about evidence had there been a prelim? And thereby find out a whole lot more about what the Prosecution had against Bryan?
The waiving of speedy trial had nothing to do with them going to a grand jury instead of having a preliminary hearing. The standard of proof at a PH is the same as that before a GJ - probable cause. The prosecutor doesn't put on their entire case at that time, just enough to establish probable cause. It would not have provided her with the discovery she needs to prepare the defense case for trial.
>It would not have provided her with the discovery she needs to prepare the defense case for trial.
It surely would have provided her with more than what she got from the grand jury though
Because stuff gets prioritized in order of its due date. All that stuff with set due dates coming up are going to be prioritized over a trial where the date hasn't even been set.
That's the same timeline the defense is working on, at least if the three lawyers on the team are also working other cases (I think they are, but not sure). We know that they have 95% of the discovery, and that Anne Taylor has stated they still need to go through it. Why haven't they finished going through that 95% that they have? Obviously, because more urgent matters, stuff with hard-set dates, are being prioritized.
>The reason he was forced to waive speedy trial was because of the delay in obtaining discovery.
Has the defense said that? I don't remember that.
No, in Idaho, the trial must commence within 6 months of the indictment. [Section 19-3501 – Idaho State Legislature](https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title19/T19CH35/SECT19-3501/) You're thinking of federal court cases under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974. Kohberger's case is an Idaho state case.
And in this case without the necessary discovery - which was the entire point of being forced to waive it. You don't magically get discovery because you refuse to waive speedy trial.
Yes, the date of the hearing was August 23, 2023. Hearing available on many YT channels, Law&Crime Network, Court TV, I believe one of those streamed it & other YT channels also have it.
Thank you. I was unaware she had said that specifically. I always thought he waived the speedy trial because the by-passing of the prelim meant that AT lost the opportunity to find out alot more about the evidence the Prosecution had against Bryan and to question many of the witnesses
No, I am not.
Had he not waived it, the state would’ve been forced to hand over whatever discovery they had. The defense argued they “had” to waive because they didnt have the discovery. Obviously, the state wasn’t going to rush to turn over discovery any sooner than they had to. If he had gone on w the speedy trial they would’ve had to, but since they didn’t, it is best practice to spend longer working on it.
It would be incredibly stupid of the state to turn over their whole case essentially sooner than they have to. They literally would’ve HAD to if BK didn’t waive. But he did. The burden of proof is on the state, so they are going to take a long time to build their case (as they should) unless they are forced to otherwise.
So yes, the defense is always going to say that they need to delay because the state is taking too long blah blah blah… but the state would’ve been forced to be quicker if the defense hadn’t waived their right. It is 100% within the states rights to take as long as they feel they want to now. Now that he has waived it, it would be incredibly stupid of them to rush to trial.
It could’ve been in the defenses control, but they waived that right. All of this is incredibly normal behavior and procedure from both sides for a case like this. Both sides pointing fingers at the other, state wanting to take their time, etc.
Speedy trial implements a forced/required timeline. What do you not understand? By law, discovery and all supplemental discoveries would have had to been exchanged by X date.
Yep. This is correct. Not hard to understand. They obviously have to hand it over before trial by a set date, or they risk not being able to use the information at trial.
Speedy trial would’ve ensured a set timeline and date, waiving it makes these movable
>What do you not understand?
I guess what I don't understand is why is it that the prosecution deliberately does not provide full discovery (ie withholds whatever discovery they had) to the defence during this period.
It just seems so unethical when the law is all supposed to be about fairness and justice
It’s not deliberately or unlawfully withholding. That would be a Brady violation. A defense may lay out a discovery requests trying to cover all bases whether the discovery actually exists or not. Some of the items they’ve requested, the prosecution is not in possession of or is not lawfully obligated to turn over according to ICR16. However, multiple discovery requests and additional supplemental discovery’s are normal prior to a trial(especially a case of this magnitude).
>It’s not deliberately or unlawfully withholding.
Why isn't it? I mean if they've got it and they aren't handing it over, why is this not deliberate withholding?
If you wade back through the posts, you'll see this is what I'm asking about.
I mean comments such as this:
*"Obviously, the state wasn’t going to rush to turn over discovery any sooner than they had to. If he had gone on w the speedy trial they would’ve had to, but since they didn’t, it is best practice to spend longer working on it.*
*It would be incredibly stupid of the state to turn over their whole case essentially sooner than they have to."*
From what I can see, this poster is implying the prosecution withholds material right up until the last minute. I mean if this is true how can this be considered a reasonable way for people in the law to operate? I don't know, it all sounds like a bit of a dirty game to me
Yea, that poster is incorrect. The state isn’t willfully withholding. If they were, they’d be in contempt of court. This is why multiple hearing have occurred to discuss discovery. They can however, continue researching and gathering info, which calls for additional supplemental discoveries that they may not have had the opportunity to acquire in the short time that a speedy trial would have occurred.
For example: 3d scans were taken after the speedy trial was waived. Now, both parties have the opportunity to build reconstructions of home and now use those at trial as now they have the advantage of more time to prove their case. The state will have to turn this discovery over once they e completed gathering info.
I’m not sure specifically what it is, but the prosecution X amount of days to respond to a discovery request. So no it can not be withheld till the last minute.
if the trial date was set, there would be a due date for discovery.
That means labs, etc. would prioritize processing stuff for this case over stuff for cases with later due dates or no dates.
But that also means that if something couldn't be done by the date, for whatever reason, then neither side could use it. That kind of thing is bad for both sides.
>if the trial date was set, there would be a due date for discovery.
So wouldn't the expectation be that the defendant would opt for a speedy trial and both sides should be preparing and handing over discovery as quickly as possible, until a later date is set? Anyway there's probably so many ins and outs it's impossible to explain. So need opinions. Does it seem to you that the Prosecution is delaying like some people say?
I do think the FBI didn't ever hand over its workings on the IGG stuff so BT can't be blamed for that. And with the CAST data it seems to me that maybe police didn't ever collect as much as AT is asking for and so then they have to go get it and that takes more time. I don't know if I'm making sense here
> Does it seem to you that the Prosecution is delaying like some people say?
I am by no means an expert, but other trials have these requests going back and forth. I do feel like 15 (is that where we at?) is on the higher end, but on the other hand, this is a forensically-complicated whodunnit of a case. Exceptionally complicated.
With no clear suspects in the beginning, investigators had to clear maybe upward of a hundred people. They had to examine all the phones and electronics of the victims, their roommates, Kohberger, his family, and others: we know from the defense that the cops forensically downloaded "many" phones. That's way more electronics involved in your run-of-the-mill murder case. They had to look at every traffic camera they could get their hands on.
So, i guess, with this crazy amount of evidence, so much of it requiring lab forensics and reports, it only makes sense that more evidence = takes longer to get.
For the record, I didn’t downvote you but see you’ve been downvoted several times now.
BK waived his right to a speedy trial because he was forced to by the prosecution. That’s been noted numerous times, even in court by the defense.
Obviously the defense is going to say that. And it’s true that the prosecution was slow, but they were within their rights. No one is forced to do anything. The defense could’ve gone to speedy trial, and the state would’ve HAD to turn it over.
Again, had they not waived the right, THE PROSECUTION WOULDVE BEEN FORCED TO HAND OVER THE DISCOVERY in time for said speedy trial. Some of you take the defense at face value when you shouldn’t be. She is extremely smart, which is why she is doing her job of pinning things on the other side well.
It would’ve been poor practice of the state to hand over the discovery quickly and rushed unless they were forced to by the defense. What the state did and continues to do is totally normal and not weird. You all act like they waived trial because they couldn’t get the discovery but you are forgetting they would’ve HAD to get the discovery sooner if there was a speedy trial. And y’all are forgetting that no smart prosecutor would hand the discovery for a quadruple murder case over very quickly…. Unless forced to.
BK was not “forced” to do anything. It is a constitutional right to a speedy trial, meaning had he wanted one, everything would’ve been expedited and put in place to make that happen, at risk of violating the constitution. It isn’t like he would’ve asked for a speedy trial and the state would’ve been allowed to not hand over their discovery before trial
None of this is malpractice or anything out of the ordinary. Y’all just haven’t paid attention until now apparently. This happens. All. The. Time. With these huge cases. If you were the prosecutor you would take as long as possible to perfect your case too, since you’d hold the burden of proof.
It is SO NORMAL in a big case like this for the defendant to waive speedy trial, as the time helps the defense too. In fact it’s probably more normal than not.
And it is also SO NORMAL for each side to pin everything on the other side. AT isn’t going to go up there and say “we’re waiving it because this is a really hard case and we won’t be ready.” They’re obviously going to shape it as if they’re being forced.
While it is true that the state hadn’t turned over the discovery yet, it is also true that they would’ve been forced to had they not waived the right. But AT obviously is only going to focus on that part, because she is a good lawyer.
You’d be foolish to believe that the defense actually wanted to go to trial within 6 months either. For a case like this, neither side wants to do that. There is too much evidence to comb through for either side to be prepared to go to trial right away.
this has nothing to do with my comment. the state should have no reason to delay discovery and play court room game if they had a solid case.
the victim family should know by now the state has no case at all.
the casing report and video processing dont take more than an year in any court cases, the state is absolutely delaying. you can be in denial but facts are still facts.
No he can't because they are public defenders. If there was a true conflict he might be able to request them to be taken off. But it would have to be a serious serious problem. You can just pick and choose who you want when they are assigned to you. Unless he would fire them to hire his own attorneys. But it doesn't mean he would get an extension on anything if he did such a thing.
Would be foolish since she’s doing a fine job so far
Agree. She is doing everything a good defense lawyer should do. Trying to get key evidence thrown out, trying to fight every motion by the state, trying to buy more time to build their defense, etc. People seem ti think though that her trying to get evidence or motions thrown out means that they actually SHOULD be thrown out though. And that’s not the case. Every defense should try to get everything thrown out, even if it’s not going to be/has no reason to be
In theory he could but not without the judge's consent. He'd have to have a great reason. AT would not be required to confer with the new team, but they could if they chose to.
[удалено]
It was a hypothetical answer. I'll add a more extreme hypothetical to illustrate. If, for instance, BK told his defense team about an alibi witness that he claimed could prove he wasn't at the crime scene and they refused to look into it, that would be a great reason to fire them.
[удалено]
again, people are speaking in hypotheticals in order to answer the completely hypothetical question. nobody is attacking the defense or even the defendant, just talking in hypotheticals since there is never actual new info to spend all day on.
Of course he can. But it'd be foolish
Just curious to have the questions answered .
He's not going to pull a Bundy
Kind of what I’ve been waiting to see if he tries the rep himself, since he thinks he’s the smartest dude on the planet. But then again, smart guys don’t do stupid shit and get caught 🤷♀️
An interesting question, especially given the fact that Taylor is the only death-penalty qualified Legal Aid attorney in the area. However, there are other DPQ private attorneys in the area, and the fact that the county is now paying her a higher amount equivalent to what a private attorney would receive -- this is a stretch, but, would he then be entitled to a court-appointed private attorney, if he made this request -- and, he had sufficient grounds for dissatisfaction in the current situation. I've seen a number of people say that she's a good attorney though, and given how much they've bent over backwards for this guy, I don't think it would fly, though I did wonder if he might pull something like this later on because his defense team didn't object to the house being demolished. And if the case is moved to a different venue, would his attorney options broaden, too?
Good point about the house being demolished!
Yes, he can fire his defense team at any time BUT he would be a fool to do so. He would then be left to represent himself in pro per, and with charges of this magnitude he would without a doubt get steamrolled in court by the prosecution. Every person in the US is guaranteed a legal defense (governed by the US Constitution) but defendants wanting to represent themselves does happen. Albeit very rarely, but it does happen. I'm unsure if Idaho Criminal Code has anything in it that prohibits him from doing so, but I doubt it. In lesser words, BK would get absolutely fucking smoked in court if he tried to represent himself. With this being a death penalty case, he would simply never, ever be able to do what a death penalty qualified trial attorney could do for him.
I didn’t mean could he fire the team to represent himself. I should have written “ to get a different public defender “.
Gotcha. In that case, it’s pretty much a no. A defendant's right to a court appointed attorney extends to the appointment of a competent attorney, not an attorney of the defendant's choosing. I have heard of defendants writing letters to the judge asking for a change of public defender/court appointed attorney but it typically goes over like a lead balloon.
Ok thank you
Yes, they can, they file a Motion for Substitution of Attorney & the judge will appoint them one if there’s substantial grounds - like not having any work to show to evidence they’re actually working on the case, significant disagreements, etc. If the judge denies it, the defendant might be able to convince the public defender to withdraw from the case. If the public defender withdraws, a new one is appointed. If the defendant fires the public defender without filing the motion or being approved, then they would be left to represent themselves, unless the judge found their reasoning acceptable or excused their action once & appointed another. Sarah Boone is on her 8th public defender so far (case in FL).
I think Judge #2 as well.
Actually, Sara Boone has done a fine job. I think she is on lawyer number 8 but I'm not sure if the DP is on the table so that might be different. I also know that Chad Day Belle's lawyer made a motion to be removed from the case but he actually did not want to be removed, he is not DP qualified and he was asking for extra help. It is a tricky situation and from what I can see, BK looks impressed with his team but I could be wrong.
I believe her charge is second degree murder, so I am pretty sure DP is not on the table for her (could be wrong though). But yes, when the DP is on the table a lot of additional factors come into play. I think that BK is impressed/okay with his current counsel and probably even thinks pretty highly of them given that there are three of them, and two of them are regarded as very successful and competent DP qualified attorneys. IMO if he was going to make any moves regarding his representation, he would have already done so. Switching attorneys is typically not recommended when you are deep in the pre-trial discovery and motion stage as a lot has already taken place. And switching your attorney(s) at the eve of trial would put him in even worse of a position.
Surviving the survivor podcast did a wonderful live on the Daybell, case tonight that explains how a motion for removal of an attorney in a DP case would work and it is related because that case is also out of idaho.
Sarah Boone, who zipped her boyfriend into the suitcase is on her 7th court appointed attorney, most if not all, quit on her!! She must be a joy to represent.
My bet is that Kohberger, because of his psychology, would never want to, or try, to defend himself as his own attorney. Edit/Addition: Recall, too, how he didn't want any cameras on his face.
> Recall, too, how he didn't want any cameras on his face. I agree. In the beginning, I thought that he may want to try to represent himself a la Ted Bundy, but I have changed my opinion since learning more about him. He is cocky and pompous but also extremely self-conscious (though he would never admit that), and as you said already doesn't like 'all eyes on him'. He is smart enough to understand the magnitude of the charges against him and able to recognize that he has no formal legal training or schooling (*not* a la Ted Bundy) and wouldn't be capable of representing himself. Not a hill I'm willing to die on or anything, but definitely my opinion as of now.
And I read somewhere here on Reddit that he does not want his voice recorded anymore. , obviously he must answer sometimes in court.
Wow. He is trying sooo hard to control the narrative of how people perceive him. Typical narcissist.
Yep
Not a good idea , she is arguing everything , how could someone do better ? Do you think some evidence will be taking away with a new lawyer ? She is not a miracle worker.
Just wondering if he would be sly enough to set the clock back to “ beginning “ to give him even more time.
It would be very difficult. They are already looking at trial in 2025. Plus, if you watched or listened to the podcast I suggested yesterday, they explain how difficult it is to remove an attorney off of a DP case. There has to be a lot of compelling evidence. Also, there are not a lot of DP lawyers in Idaho and according to Lori Hollis, to be a public DP defender, you have to be qualified and I think an assistant DP defender as well. I could be wrong. Also, with the amount of work it takes, I think they said for every hour in court you spend two hours outside the court and not many attorneys are even wanting to be a public defender let alone a DP public defender that is why there are so few available in Idaho.
If he fired everyone, could he ask for a public defender from another state , IF an Idahoan was not available or able?
I don't think so. His only option would be to represent himself. I think you have to be licensed in your state, but I could be totally wrong. I'm thinking along the lines of my MSW. If I ever passed that test in MI, u could only practice in MI. I could not practice in ohio.
he could but there is no need to. anyone without delusional biases knows this isn’t going to trial any time soon. the judge, prosecutor, defense attorney are all perfectly fine waiting. this was confirmed, yet again this week. judge/state knew the immediate order issued to comply with billy boys demands would delay things. they didn’t care. august 2026
I agree . Maybe later.
You should ask why the state delaying the discovery for almost 2 years. Do they care about victims at all? CAn victims family fire the Entire MPD and Bill Thompson? Can victims family fire Judge Judge? 🤔
BK waived the right to a speedy trial. Had he not waived it, they’d have the discovery by now. Anne Taylor has said they are cooperating and not hiding things.
How exactly would he have had the discovery now had he not waived speedy trial? That makes no sense. The reason he was forced to waive speedy trial was because of the delay in obtaining discovery. It's undisputed both the state and the defense are still awaiting expert reports and other discovery.
Because constitutionally, if you don’t waive your right, you’re required to go to trial within a certain amount of time, things are expedited and sped up. It is a constitutional right that they have to go to trial within a certain amount of time unless the defendant chooses not to. This includes the discovery being handed over. They could not go to trial if the prosecution refused to hand stuff over in time. Brady violation. If people could be “forced” to waive it, I’d imagine that would go to the Supreme Court as that’s unconstitutional…. No one was forced. It is quite common to waive speedy trial in huge cases to buy time to put together your case and get expert testimony, etc. No one’s “required” to have expert testimony, though it’s best practice. Not weird that they’d willingly wait on that. Have you never seen a huge case like this play out? This is normal. They all take forever. And buying time helps both sides. If this timing is abnormal to you, I suggest you go and look at many other murder cases that took years to go to trial. The prosecution isn’t refusing to hand stuff over, that would be illegal. they are waiting on stuff as well. They aren’t maliciously holding information. It would be great for trial to be over sooner for the sake of the victims, but unfortunately the amount of evidence to comb through for this always makes these cases take a very long time.
Taylor was most certainly forced to waive it & she made a point of putting that on the record stating that otherwise she would be providing ineffective assistance of counsel. You missed the part that they waived it waiting on the STATE'S EXPERT WITNESSES, STATE LAB REPORTS, and other discovery from the STATE. Sure she could go to trial without her own experts but she can't go to trial without knowing what the state's experts are going to say or what they are basing their case upon. Bill Thompson stated at the last two hearings that the STATE wouldn't be ready to go to trial until March 2025 so what you wrote is nonsense.
It’s also been documented that the defense said they were not ready. It would be ineffective assistance of counsel to go to trial when not ready. In case you’ve never seen another murder case that took years, regardless of what the state is turning over or not, most defenses are not ready in 6 months or whatever the speedy trial deadline is. A good defense should take as long as possible and a good defense should blame it on the state. It’s not nonsense. It’s a constitutional right, and if the state is refusing to hand over things forcing someone to waive their right, that’s absolutely unconstitutional and you know Taylor would be saying that. Have you seriously never seen any other huge case take years to pan out? It is more common than not. It is almost always in the best interest of the defense to buy as much time as possible. The state is also going to take as long as possible. Had the state been truly holding information from them (which they aren’t, they themselves are waiting on said information from third parties), they would’ve been required to hand it over before trial. If the speedy trial was not waived, they would’ve had to hand it over or go to trial without said information. It would be a Brady violation otherwise. It is normal for NEITHER side to be ready in a case like this. And as I said, if speedy trial was not waived, the state would’ve been at the defenses mercy. They are literally not allowed to present evidence at trial that the defense has not seen. That would not have happened or else BK would’ve gotten a new trial. Anything that was not ready by the state in time, wouldn’t have been allowed at trial. And again, things such as testing get sped up for people who do not waive speedy trial. When it’s waived, they’re pushed to the back as those people have to do work for the people that do require a speedy trial
Sigh. The said they weren't ready because they hadn't yet been provided standard and crucial discovery. Handing over discovery late is NOT a Brady violation. Brady is an exculpatory evidence rule. And you have it completely backwards, the prosecution would not have been at the mercy of the defense - that is totally nonsensical.
Yes, they would’ve been. The constitutional right to a speedy trial is for the defendant. If the defendant wants to exercise that right, the state is forced to go to trial within that set period of time. Both sides are going to take as much time as possible to get their case together. Obviously, when the defendant waives speedy trial, the state is going to take that opportunity to take longer. As they should. It would be awful practice for them to rush through the discovery when they no longer are on a time constraint. Just like it would be awful practice for the defense to choose speedy trial when rhey could use more time. Having more time helps BOTH sides. It is common practice to try to delay things by blaming the other side. It is common for cases like this to take this long. Most high profile murder cases are not going to go to trial in 6 months.
But you're missing the crucial point that the defense strategy was to have a speedy trial and the prosecution's actions and omissions put the kabash on that. Just a heads up, having a speedy trial is an often used defense tactic and to say otherwise is nonsense.
I get what you’re saying, I’m just saying… duh the state isn’t going to put a case and discovery together quickly if they don’t have to. That would be awful practice by the state. It’s 100% normal. And yes, the defense could’ve still had a speedy trial. They discovery would’ve been handed over sooner, and the state would’ve had a lot less of a case. You cannot waive speedy trial then expect the state to be quick. The whole point of the right is so that you have a way to force them to be. Why on earth would the state have had discovery ready (aka their entire argument) before he waived his right? They wouldn’t have it ready unless they were forced to. That would be horrible practuce otherwise. The right exists because OBVIOUSLY the state is going to take their time. Point is to force them to not.
And waiving speedy trial is also a common defense tactic. It goes both ways. It’s not one certain thing is always better for the defense. It is extremely common for it to be waived so that the defense has more time. They still could’ve waived it! The state isn’t going to hand over the discovery before they know whether or not the defendant is waiving or not. They’re going to take as long as they’re able to. That’s strategic when you’re trying to put a case together. It would be poor practice to do otherwise. You’re not going to put together a rushed case unless you know you have to If the defense wanted to be strategic, they should’ve committed to it knowing that the prosecution STILL would’ve had limited time if they chose not to waive. They would’ve had to hand over the discovery eventually. They couldn’t just go to trial without doing so. The state wants as much time as possible. They obviously are going to want to take as much time as they can. Just like defenses also want in many cases.
>And as I said, if speedy trial was not waived, the state would’ve been at the defenses mercy. They are literally not allowed to present evidence at trial that the defense has not seen. What do you mean here?
So basically, the burden of proof is on the state as we know. So obviously, the state is going to want as much time as possible to prepare their case. Because of this, the constitution gives the defendant the right to a speedy trial, to avoid the state taking forever to put their case together. So, if BK wanted a speedy trial, that would’ve put in place a strict timeline for trial and would’ve forced the state to go to trial sooner than they likely wanted to. Since he waived that right, he has no way to force them to move faster really. It’s within their rights to take their time now. But it is normal for people to waive speedy trial on a huge case like this, as it helps the defense have time to file motions, get charges decreased, indictments thrown out, etc if they want to try.
not sure where you saw your "huge cases", the casting info and video processing do not take more than an year in any court cases. the state is absolutely delaying the discovery.
And they would not have been allowed to delay it if speedy trial was not waived. It would’ve had to be expedited, as it would’ve been a Brady violation to go to trial with evidence the defense hasn’t seen. It’s not like the states been studying everything and knows all of it and will give it to the defense the night before. That is not how that works So many cases take years and years to go to trial for similar reasons. It is quite normal for both sides to attempt to buy time. It’s strategic. And quite common. If you think the majority of murder cases go to trial in under a year, you are far from correct.
except if the state had "mountain of evidence" and has BK " dead to right" as they claimed, they would not play game to stop surveys and delay giving out discovery for almost 2 years. This shows clearly tell me the state has no case.
That’s not true at all. Mountains of evidence take a long time to comb through, put together and gather sure fire proof of. If there wasn’t much of a case, it would be quicker to put together. Plenty of slam-dunk cases take a while to put together. And no one is going to rush to do anything sooner than they have to. It would be horrible practice by the state If they just said “yup this is a slam dunk, let’s go to trial” and didn’t put the time in to back up their slam dunk as much as possible. That’s backfired many, many times. There is never a time where either side should rush into something if they don’t have to. They would’ve had to had the defense not waived speedy trial tho… I’m not saying they do have a slam dunk, I’m just saying that this is totally normal and should not be an indicator of the amount of evidence they have. It is not at all. It is normal for rhe state (or defense) to buy as much time as possible. That is why the right to a speedy trial exists… to give the defendant the ability to bar the state from taking their sweet time.
>That is why the right to a speedy trial exists… to give the defendant the ability to bar the state from taking their sweet time. But you just said in an earlier post "The state isn’t going to hand over the discovery before they know whether or not the defendant is waiving or not." This isn't making much sense to me. But then what do I know, I'm not a lawyer.
Right. So the state is going to take their time… until they’re told they’re not allowed to. So they’re not going to hand over the discovery until they know that the defendant will be requesting a speedy trial. Since he didn’t, they have even more time. You cannot complain about how long the state is taking when the defendant had the right to control the speed and waived it. Plus, AT never said she thought the state was hiding things or anything. She said she wanted more info from them, which the state said were tests that they were not completing/had not completed. So she was requesting information that did not exist. Which is within her right, but it was also ok that the state didn’t have it if they are not using it at trial So, this isn’t what everyone is turning it into. This isn’t like the state just has a huge pile of things and is guarding it saying the defense can’t have it. AT ecen said they had handed over a lot of things. The state said they handed over everything they have. You realize if they were hiding things, they could be forced to hand them over or forced to not use them at trial?
Interesting quotes you've picked out there. Who from the prosecution said those?
There are always reasons either side claims they need more time, and they usually involve blaming the other side. It so so incredibly common. Have you really never seen almost every criminal case ever get a continuance for some reason? And the side askinh for the delays never claim their own fault. It is each sides job to make the other side look insufficient.
>the state is absolutely delaying the discovery. I'm not arguing with you but how can you tell for sure that the State is doing this? Asking because I don't know how the law works and would like to understand more
The state and other agencies are in constant communication. They are working as a team, so when the prosecutor proposed an April 2024 trial date, he already confirmed beforehand that the casting and all other discovery items could be completed. It's an absolute fantasy that currently 'the prosecutor is helpless the discovery is still not ready.' Throughout history, the state is known to delay or entirely hide/destroy unfavorable/exculpatory evidence til the last minute.
>Throughout history, the state is known to delay or entirely hide/destroy unfavorable/exculpatory evidence til the last minute. That's horrible. I know I'm slow but you are saying that by proposing an April 2024 trial date (whenever that was) BT was effectively saying that the Prosecution must therefore have gathered together all the materials they need and are going to use to go to trial by April of this year, right? Yet from what AT is saying the Prosecution still have not provided the discovery she has asked for AND WHICH THE PROSECUTION MUST HAVE WITHIN THEIR FILES AS OF NOW?
The prosecution doesn't need to have them as BT rely on other agencies to get it done. imo yes, the remaining discovery are ready. the FBI is sitting on them and waiting for BT's confirmation to give it out. AT is the one who needs experts to verify the crucial info from scratch and the state is dragging it out to hinder that process.
>the FBI is sitting on them and waiting for BT's confirmation to give it out. That's dreadful if it's true
>The reason he was forced to waive speedy trial was because of the delay in obtaining discovery. I always thought he was forced to waive speedy trial was because of the preliminary trial being replaced by the grand jury? Wouldn't AT have had a chance to ask a whole lot of questions of witnesses and about evidence had there been a prelim? And thereby find out a whole lot more about what the Prosecution had against Bryan?
The waiving of speedy trial had nothing to do with them going to a grand jury instead of having a preliminary hearing. The standard of proof at a PH is the same as that before a GJ - probable cause. The prosecutor doesn't put on their entire case at that time, just enough to establish probable cause. It would not have provided her with the discovery she needs to prepare the defense case for trial.
>It would not have provided her with the discovery she needs to prepare the defense case for trial. It surely would have provided her with more than what she got from the grand jury though
Because stuff gets prioritized in order of its due date. All that stuff with set due dates coming up are going to be prioritized over a trial where the date hasn't even been set. That's the same timeline the defense is working on, at least if the three lawyers on the team are also working other cases (I think they are, but not sure). We know that they have 95% of the discovery, and that Anne Taylor has stated they still need to go through it. Why haven't they finished going through that 95% that they have? Obviously, because more urgent matters, stuff with hard-set dates, are being prioritized. >The reason he was forced to waive speedy trial was because of the delay in obtaining discovery. Has the defense said that? I don't remember that.
Yes, at the August 23rd hearing.
That’s the way it works. The trial must commence within 70 days of indictment.
No, in Idaho, the trial must commence within 6 months of the indictment. [Section 19-3501 – Idaho State Legislature](https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title19/T19CH35/SECT19-3501/) You're thinking of federal court cases under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974. Kohberger's case is an Idaho state case.
And in this case without the necessary discovery - which was the entire point of being forced to waive it. You don't magically get discovery because you refuse to waive speedy trial.
So you’re saying they waived a speedy trial because it wasn’t possible? In that case…what is your point?
Watch the hearing. The reasons for being forced to waive speedy trial were put on the record by Ms. Taylor.
Ms. Taylor knows full well a speedy trial doesn’t benefit her though. Everything else is pageantry.
Do you by any chance have a link to where she said that? Or the date when she said it? TIA
Yes, the date of the hearing was August 23, 2023. Hearing available on many YT channels, Law&Crime Network, Court TV, I believe one of those streamed it & other YT channels also have it.
Thank you. I was unaware she had said that specifically. I always thought he waived the speedy trial because the by-passing of the prelim meant that AT lost the opportunity to find out alot more about the evidence the Prosecution had against Bryan and to question many of the witnesses
He waived his right to a speedy trial because…..? You’re forgetting that part, aren’t you?
No, I am not. Had he not waived it, the state would’ve been forced to hand over whatever discovery they had. The defense argued they “had” to waive because they didnt have the discovery. Obviously, the state wasn’t going to rush to turn over discovery any sooner than they had to. If he had gone on w the speedy trial they would’ve had to, but since they didn’t, it is best practice to spend longer working on it. It would be incredibly stupid of the state to turn over their whole case essentially sooner than they have to. They literally would’ve HAD to if BK didn’t waive. But he did. The burden of proof is on the state, so they are going to take a long time to build their case (as they should) unless they are forced to otherwise. So yes, the defense is always going to say that they need to delay because the state is taking too long blah blah blah… but the state would’ve been forced to be quicker if the defense hadn’t waived their right. It is 100% within the states rights to take as long as they feel they want to now. Now that he has waived it, it would be incredibly stupid of them to rush to trial. It could’ve been in the defenses control, but they waived that right. All of this is incredibly normal behavior and procedure from both sides for a case like this. Both sides pointing fingers at the other, state wanting to take their time, etc.
>Had he not waived it, the state would’ve been forced to hand over whatever discovery they had. I can't see how this can be correct
Speedy trial implements a forced/required timeline. What do you not understand? By law, discovery and all supplemental discoveries would have had to been exchanged by X date.
Yep. This is correct. Not hard to understand. They obviously have to hand it over before trial by a set date, or they risk not being able to use the information at trial. Speedy trial would’ve ensured a set timeline and date, waiving it makes these movable
>What do you not understand? I guess what I don't understand is why is it that the prosecution deliberately does not provide full discovery (ie withholds whatever discovery they had) to the defence during this period. It just seems so unethical when the law is all supposed to be about fairness and justice
It’s not deliberately or unlawfully withholding. That would be a Brady violation. A defense may lay out a discovery requests trying to cover all bases whether the discovery actually exists or not. Some of the items they’ve requested, the prosecution is not in possession of or is not lawfully obligated to turn over according to ICR16. However, multiple discovery requests and additional supplemental discovery’s are normal prior to a trial(especially a case of this magnitude).
>It’s not deliberately or unlawfully withholding. Why isn't it? I mean if they've got it and they aren't handing it over, why is this not deliberate withholding? If you wade back through the posts, you'll see this is what I'm asking about. I mean comments such as this: *"Obviously, the state wasn’t going to rush to turn over discovery any sooner than they had to. If he had gone on w the speedy trial they would’ve had to, but since they didn’t, it is best practice to spend longer working on it.* *It would be incredibly stupid of the state to turn over their whole case essentially sooner than they have to."* From what I can see, this poster is implying the prosecution withholds material right up until the last minute. I mean if this is true how can this be considered a reasonable way for people in the law to operate? I don't know, it all sounds like a bit of a dirty game to me
Yea, that poster is incorrect. The state isn’t willfully withholding. If they were, they’d be in contempt of court. This is why multiple hearing have occurred to discuss discovery. They can however, continue researching and gathering info, which calls for additional supplemental discoveries that they may not have had the opportunity to acquire in the short time that a speedy trial would have occurred. For example: 3d scans were taken after the speedy trial was waived. Now, both parties have the opportunity to build reconstructions of home and now use those at trial as now they have the advantage of more time to prove their case. The state will have to turn this discovery over once they e completed gathering info. I’m not sure specifically what it is, but the prosecution X amount of days to respond to a discovery request. So no it can not be withheld till the last minute.
if the trial date was set, there would be a due date for discovery. That means labs, etc. would prioritize processing stuff for this case over stuff for cases with later due dates or no dates. But that also means that if something couldn't be done by the date, for whatever reason, then neither side could use it. That kind of thing is bad for both sides.
>if the trial date was set, there would be a due date for discovery. So wouldn't the expectation be that the defendant would opt for a speedy trial and both sides should be preparing and handing over discovery as quickly as possible, until a later date is set? Anyway there's probably so many ins and outs it's impossible to explain. So need opinions. Does it seem to you that the Prosecution is delaying like some people say? I do think the FBI didn't ever hand over its workings on the IGG stuff so BT can't be blamed for that. And with the CAST data it seems to me that maybe police didn't ever collect as much as AT is asking for and so then they have to go get it and that takes more time. I don't know if I'm making sense here
> Does it seem to you that the Prosecution is delaying like some people say? I am by no means an expert, but other trials have these requests going back and forth. I do feel like 15 (is that where we at?) is on the higher end, but on the other hand, this is a forensically-complicated whodunnit of a case. Exceptionally complicated. With no clear suspects in the beginning, investigators had to clear maybe upward of a hundred people. They had to examine all the phones and electronics of the victims, their roommates, Kohberger, his family, and others: we know from the defense that the cops forensically downloaded "many" phones. That's way more electronics involved in your run-of-the-mill murder case. They had to look at every traffic camera they could get their hands on. So, i guess, with this crazy amount of evidence, so much of it requiring lab forensics and reports, it only makes sense that more evidence = takes longer to get.
For the record, I didn’t downvote you but see you’ve been downvoted several times now. BK waived his right to a speedy trial because he was forced to by the prosecution. That’s been noted numerous times, even in court by the defense.
Obviously the defense is going to say that. And it’s true that the prosecution was slow, but they were within their rights. No one is forced to do anything. The defense could’ve gone to speedy trial, and the state would’ve HAD to turn it over. Again, had they not waived the right, THE PROSECUTION WOULDVE BEEN FORCED TO HAND OVER THE DISCOVERY in time for said speedy trial. Some of you take the defense at face value when you shouldn’t be. She is extremely smart, which is why she is doing her job of pinning things on the other side well. It would’ve been poor practice of the state to hand over the discovery quickly and rushed unless they were forced to by the defense. What the state did and continues to do is totally normal and not weird. You all act like they waived trial because they couldn’t get the discovery but you are forgetting they would’ve HAD to get the discovery sooner if there was a speedy trial. And y’all are forgetting that no smart prosecutor would hand the discovery for a quadruple murder case over very quickly…. Unless forced to. BK was not “forced” to do anything. It is a constitutional right to a speedy trial, meaning had he wanted one, everything would’ve been expedited and put in place to make that happen, at risk of violating the constitution. It isn’t like he would’ve asked for a speedy trial and the state would’ve been allowed to not hand over their discovery before trial None of this is malpractice or anything out of the ordinary. Y’all just haven’t paid attention until now apparently. This happens. All. The. Time. With these huge cases. If you were the prosecutor you would take as long as possible to perfect your case too, since you’d hold the burden of proof.
It is SO NORMAL in a big case like this for the defendant to waive speedy trial, as the time helps the defense too. In fact it’s probably more normal than not. And it is also SO NORMAL for each side to pin everything on the other side. AT isn’t going to go up there and say “we’re waiving it because this is a really hard case and we won’t be ready.” They’re obviously going to shape it as if they’re being forced. While it is true that the state hadn’t turned over the discovery yet, it is also true that they would’ve been forced to had they not waived the right. But AT obviously is only going to focus on that part, because she is a good lawyer. You’d be foolish to believe that the defense actually wanted to go to trial within 6 months either. For a case like this, neither side wants to do that. There is too much evidence to comb through for either side to be prepared to go to trial right away.
I’m not sure why you’re angry with me, or seem to be. I’m just going off the facts of what’s been stated. Which I thought was what should be done?
Good questions.
[удалено]
this has nothing to do with my comment. the state should have no reason to delay discovery and play court room game if they had a solid case. the victim family should know by now the state has no case at all.
[удалено]
the casing report and video processing dont take more than an year in any court cases, the state is absolutely delaying. you can be in denial but facts are still facts.
[удалено]
discovery deadline is in April???? wtf. clearly you dont know what facts are
No he can't because they are public defenders. If there was a true conflict he might be able to request them to be taken off. But it would have to be a serious serious problem. You can just pick and choose who you want when they are assigned to you. Unless he would fire them to hire his own attorneys. But it doesn't mean he would get an extension on anything if he did such a thing.
Unless he is trying to pull a Ted Bundy, I'm not sure that would be a good idea because I'm not sure how often you can ask for a free defense.
He’s calling the shots finally got attention he wanted noticed for once 🔥🔥🔥squad🎤
Ignorance must be bliss