Bryan Kohberger, the man accused of killing four Idaho college students, appeared in court Monday as part of what will certainly be one of the highest-profile murder trials this year. Kohberger “stood silent,” leading the assigned judge to enter default not guilty pleas on all murder charges against him. He also declined to waive his speedy trial rights, and Latah County District Judge John Judge scheduled an October trial date. This last decision might quietly give Kohberger one of his most significant advantages in a case that otherwise seems to be getting worse for him as time goes on.
There was a lot of attention given to Kohberger’s decision to stand silent.
There was a lot of attention given to Kohberger’s decision to stand silent. To an uninformed outsider, it might seem strange, adding to the drama of an already mysterious case. But from a legal perspective, the more consequential choice was Kohberger’s demand for a speedy trial. This constitutionally guaranteed right gives us some clues about the defendant’s defense strategy. It also signals what his lawyers — and Kohberger himself — think about the state’s case.
Procedurally, when defendants in Idaho choose not to say anything at their arraignment, the judge will automatically enter a “not guilty” plea on their behalf. Last year, Lori Vallow, an eastern Idaho mother accused of murdering two of her children, stood silent and the court entered a plea of not guilty on her behalf, as well. It’s not that uncommon. (Vallow was just found guilty on all charges and will spend the rest of her life in prison.)
But why would a defendant even bother with a symbolic gesture that makes no substantive difference in the case? Because while symbolic gestures may not mean much to the court or the prosecutor, these little moments can mean a lot to people locked up 23 hours a day, with nothing else to think about. In a high-profile case like this one, Kohberger knows that every word and gesture from him will be newsworthy. So, perhaps he’s refusing to acknowledge the authority of the court. Maybe he’s just messing with us. Incarcerated defendants can hyperfocus on these kinds of details. Now we’re hyperfocusing on it too. And it’s not the most important thing that happened at the arraignment.
Far more important than Kohberger’s silent plea was his defense team’s refusal to waive their client’s “speedy trial” rights. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, along with Article I, Section 13 of the Idaho Constitution, guarantee a criminal defendant the right to a speedy trial. The Idaho Legislature has established specific time limits within which a criminal defendant must be brought to trial.
The law provides that “unless good cause to the contrary is shown,” the trial court must dismiss the case if an indicted defendant is not brought to trial within six months of the arraignment date. It’s not a hard deadline; the “good cause” exception gives the state a lot of leeway. For example, if the defendant requests a continuance of a court date, or otherwise delays his own case, that time won’t be counted against prosecutors. (On the other hand, if the state delays the case to accommodate a victim’s schedule, that may not be considered “good cause.” Neither would be a delay caused by a trial court’s overcrowded calendar.) The court’s failings could conceivably lead to a dismissal, even if the prosecution was not at fault.
If the facts or issues are complex, then defendants should consider waiving their speedy trial rights in order to digest terabytes of discovery and prepare their own defense.
There are also some situations in which defendants should waive their speedy trial rights. For example, in many federal criminal cases, the Justice Department has investigated a defendant for months or years before seeking an indictment. The government has amassed phone records, bank records, emails and text messages. Federal prosecutors are often pretty much ready to go to trial by the time they present to the grand jury — before defendants even know they are about to become defendants. If the facts or issues are complex, then defendants should consider waiving their speedy trial rights in order to digest terabytes of discovery and prepare their own defense. In those cases, the prosecution doesn’t need the extra time; the defense does.
Murder cases, on the other hand, are reactions to a crime already committed. They are not investigated months before the crime happens. The criminal has the head start, not the police.
Kohberger’s team asked for a trial date at the outer limits of the six-month deadline. They are sending a message to the prosecution: put up or shut up. It’s the right call. By all indications, the state is still collecting evidence against Kohberger, and the investigation is already stretching financial resources. And the defense is hoping that the prosecution won’t be ready for trial in six months. Of course, the timeline impacts both sides. A short turnaround also means that the defense has even less time to prepare for trial. But that’s not a big deal if the defense strategy is primarily to focus on the weakness of the state’s case, and the failures of the investigation. And it seems like that’s exactly what the defense is going to do here. Unless Kohberger and his lawyer somehow develop an “alternate killer” theory, they are probably planning to just paint law enforcement’s case as shoddy and hurried. They will accuse the police of “tunnel vision” — focusing on the defendant early on, to the exclusion of other viable suspects. The defense doesn’t need extra time to prepare that trial strategy. But the state in this case could really use the extra time. And Kohberger’s defense team knows it. The speedy trial decision Monday could end up being the most significant defense strategy in this case.
