Will Kohberger’s Motion to Dismiss Succeed?
The upcoming case against Bryan Kohberger, the legal stage is set for some intricate courtroom maneuvers. According to a recent discussion on the podcast “Hidden Killers” with Tony Brueski, Defense Attorney and host of “Defense Diaries,” Bob Motta, addressed the pending motion to dismiss the charges against Kohberger. The motion, raised by defense attorney Ann Taylor, is scheduled for the end of this week.
While the speedy trial has already been waived, removing the October 2nd trial date from the table, Taylor is reportedly still going to argue for a dismissal. Motta, elaborating on the intricacies of this maneuver, stated, “I think that Ann Taylor has been…waiting for an indictment by grand jury because they’re very unusual in Idaho. They typically go by preliminary hearing.” It’s important to note that while grand juries are standard practice in many states, Idaho often relies on preliminary hearings to decide whether to charge a defendant.
To the surprise of many, including Motta, who predicted this change in course earlier this year, the state opted for a grand jury in the Kohberger case. He hypothesized that this move might have been driven by a desire to mitigate potential media interference, saying, “As much as some people don’t want to acknowledge the fact that a jury pool can be tainted by constant negative press about a defendant, the fact of the matter is that it can.”
Central to Taylor’s argument for dismissal is a challenge to the constitutionality of Idaho’s grand jury indictments. Motta explained, “She’s basically saying that the Idaho constitution… has set the standard for a grand jury indictment that it essentially has to be beyond a reasonable doubt.” The crux of the issue is a potential discrepancy between the Idaho constitution and the Idaho Criminal Rules (ICR). While the ICR states that a grand jury only needs probable cause to indict, Taylor argues that the Idaho constitution requires a higher standard—namely, the same “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in trials.
Motta found this legal contention particularly fascinating, pointing out that if Taylor’s interpretation is correct, the grand jury was misinformed of the burden they had to meet. He elaborated, “You have these two competing things and they’re very different burdens. She’s basically arguing, look, they went in and they went to the grand jury and they gave them the wrong burden.”
The implications of Taylor’s argument are far-reaching. If she prevails, it doesn’t mean that Kohberger will be freed, but rather that the legal process might have to start over. When Brueski pressed Motta on this, asking about the path forward should Taylor succeed, Motta clarified, “If she did succeed and he dismissed that grand jury indictment, that doesn’t mean that Kohlberg’s walking. That means, yeah, they’d have to do the process all over again.”
While Motta expressed skepticism about the likelihood of Taylor’s motion succeeding, he admitted, “For legal nerds, it’s going to be a very interesting conversation and argument. I am chomping at the bit to hear it.”
The Kohberger case thus presents not just the story of the crime itself but also a deep dive into the nuances and intricacies of the legal system. As defense attorneys, prosecutors, and legal enthusiasts alike await the courtroom debate, many are eager to see how these arguments play out in shaping the course of Idaho’s criminal justice process.
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, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
While the speedy trial has already been waived, removing the October 2nd trial date from the table, Taylor is reportedly still going to argue for a dismissal. Motta, elaborating on the intricacies of this maneuver, stated, “I think that Ann Taylor has been…waiting for an indictment by grand jury because they’re very unusual in Idaho. They typically go by preliminary hearing.” It’s important to note that while grand juries are standard practice in many states, Idaho often relies on preliminary hearings to decide whether to charge a defendant.
To the surprise of many, including Motta, who predicted this change in course earlier this year, the state opted for a grand jury in the Kohberger case. He hypothesized that this move might have been driven by a desire to mitigate potential media interference, saying, “As much as some people don’t want to acknowledge the fact that a jury pool can be tainted by constant negative press about a defendant, the fact of the matter is that it can.”
Central to Taylor’s argument for dismissal is a challenge to the constitutionality of Idaho’s grand jury indictments. Motta explained, “She’s basically saying that the Idaho constitution… has set the standard for a grand jury indictment that it essentially has to be beyond a reasonable doubt.” The crux of the issue is a potential discrepancy between the Idaho constitution and the Idaho Criminal Rules (ICR). While the ICR states that a grand jury only needs probable cause to indict, Taylor argues that the Idaho constitution requires a higher standard—namely, the same “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in trials.
Motta found this legal contention particularly fascinating, pointing out that if Taylor’s interpretation is correct, the grand jury was misinformed of the burden they had to meet. He elaborated, “You have these two competing things and they’re very different burdens. She’s basically arguing, look, they went in and they went to the grand jury and they gave them the wrong burden.”
The implications of Taylor’s argument are far-reaching. If she prevails, it doesn’t mean that Kohberger will be freed, but rather that the legal process might have to start over. When Brueski pressed Motta on this, asking about the path forward should Taylor succeed, Motta clarified, “If she did succeed and he dismissed that grand jury indictment, that doesn’t mean that Kohlberg’s walking. That means, yeah, they’d have to do the process all over again.”
While Motta expressed skepticism about the likelihood of Taylor’s motion succeeding, he admitted, “For legal nerds, it’s going to be a very interesting conversation and argument. I am chomping at the bit to hear it.”
The Kohberger case thus presents not just the story of the crime itself but also a deep dive into the nuances and intricacies of the legal system. As defense attorneys, prosecutors, and legal enthusiasts alike await the courtroom debate, many are eager to see how these arguments play out in shaping the course of Idaho’s criminal justice process.
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, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
