What Does Bryan Kohberger's Attorney Want the World To Know About His Case?
Jan 31, 10:00 PM
Is Bryan Kohberger's recent legal maneuver a genuine call for transparency, or a strategic play in a high-stakes game of legal chess? The latest twist in the Bryan Kohberger case, involving his attorney's request for the judge to unseal the reasons behind the denial of a motion to dismiss charges, has raised eyebrows and ignited public curiosity. Eric Faddis, a former felony prosecutor and attorney, joined Tony Brueski on the "Hidden Killers" podcast to dissect this unusual development.
"Regardless of the merits of that motion to dismiss, the public does have a right to know," argues Faddis, highlighting the case's impact on public interest. Kohberger, accused of a quadruple murder, has his defense team pushing for the release of details behind the closed-door hearing, a move that Faddis believes is fair given the one-sided narrative so far.
This request, however, begs the question: How influential is public opinion in a case of this magnitude? Faddis points out the importance of managing public sentiment, especially in high-profile cases like Kohberger's, where social pressure can significantly impact the trial's outcome.
"The defense is trying to manage the optics and equalize that social pressure," Faddis explains, suggesting that the defense’s move is not just about legal proceedings but also about influencing public perception in Moscow, Idaho, where the trial is set to take place.
The discussion turns to the power of pre-trial publicity in shaping jurors' opinions. Faddis, drawing on his legal experience, expresses skepticism about the idea of an entirely unbiased jury. "These are people; there's been tremendous coverage of this case already," he says, underscoring the real-world influence of media and public discourse on jury selection and deliberation.
As for the defense's strategy, Faddis ponders whether they possess truly exonerating evidence. He points out that if Kohberger were innocent, an alibi would be crucial, yet nothing substantial has surfaced. "We haven't heard anything like that," Faddis notes, suggesting that the lack of a clear alibi or digital evidence placing Kohberger elsewhere during the murders is telling.
Faddis also addresses the timing of revealing any exonerating evidence, weighing the benefits of releasing it early versus holding it back for a courtroom reveal. In Kohberger's case, the growing public conviction of his guilt may make an early disclosure more effective, he argues.
As the conversation with Brueski continues, Faddis acknowledges the complexity of the case and the challenging task facing Kohberger's defense. The absence of an alibi and the mounting digital evidence against Kohberger paint a grim picture, making the defense's job increasingly difficult.
In conclusion, Faddis reflects on the broader implications of the defense's request to unseal court documents. While the public's right to know is vital, especially in a case as significant as this, the defense's tactics seem to be more about shaping public opinion than uncovering new evidence. As the case progresses, the question remains: Will Kohberger's legal team manage to sway public opinion, or will their efforts prove futile in the face of overwhelming evidence against their client? The answer, as Faddis implies, may lie behind the yet-to-be-opened doors of the courtroom.
"Regardless of the merits of that motion to dismiss, the public does have a right to know," argues Faddis, highlighting the case's impact on public interest. Kohberger, accused of a quadruple murder, has his defense team pushing for the release of details behind the closed-door hearing, a move that Faddis believes is fair given the one-sided narrative so far.
This request, however, begs the question: How influential is public opinion in a case of this magnitude? Faddis points out the importance of managing public sentiment, especially in high-profile cases like Kohberger's, where social pressure can significantly impact the trial's outcome.
"The defense is trying to manage the optics and equalize that social pressure," Faddis explains, suggesting that the defense’s move is not just about legal proceedings but also about influencing public perception in Moscow, Idaho, where the trial is set to take place.
The discussion turns to the power of pre-trial publicity in shaping jurors' opinions. Faddis, drawing on his legal experience, expresses skepticism about the idea of an entirely unbiased jury. "These are people; there's been tremendous coverage of this case already," he says, underscoring the real-world influence of media and public discourse on jury selection and deliberation.
As for the defense's strategy, Faddis ponders whether they possess truly exonerating evidence. He points out that if Kohberger were innocent, an alibi would be crucial, yet nothing substantial has surfaced. "We haven't heard anything like that," Faddis notes, suggesting that the lack of a clear alibi or digital evidence placing Kohberger elsewhere during the murders is telling.
Faddis also addresses the timing of revealing any exonerating evidence, weighing the benefits of releasing it early versus holding it back for a courtroom reveal. In Kohberger's case, the growing public conviction of his guilt may make an early disclosure more effective, he argues.
As the conversation with Brueski continues, Faddis acknowledges the complexity of the case and the challenging task facing Kohberger's defense. The absence of an alibi and the mounting digital evidence against Kohberger paint a grim picture, making the defense's job increasingly difficult.
In conclusion, Faddis reflects on the broader implications of the defense's request to unseal court documents. While the public's right to know is vital, especially in a case as significant as this, the defense's tactics seem to be more about shaping public opinion than uncovering new evidence. As the case progresses, the question remains: Will Kohberger's legal team manage to sway public opinion, or will their efforts prove futile in the face of overwhelming evidence against their client? The answer, as Faddis implies, may lie behind the yet-to-be-opened doors of the courtroom.
Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj
Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK’s Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK’s Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com