She should not have been appointed as public defender on the case if she actually had conflict of interest issues. So just went and did a little research and there is no way that she should be Kohberger's attorney. They're going to have to go to one of the other defenders capable of taking a capital murder case. The other dozen in Idaho all practice in Southern Idaho. She got the case because she's the only capital defender practicing in Northern Idaho. She defended Kernodle's mom on drug charges several times and had an active case as of Jan 5th 2023. She knows the family. That's a conflict of interest. She will have to potentially cross-examine one of her prior clients whom she has confidential information outside the framework of the case. That's a conflict of interest. She represented another parent of one of the murder victims in 4 cases, currently inactive. She made the wrong choice when she conflicted out her prior clients. She should have conflicted out Kohberger instead. BTW, there are a lot of drug-trafficking related signs here. One of the few scenarios other than deranged psychopath that is valid is retribution for drug deal gone wrong. The father of one of the upstairs victims said "he didn't have to go upstairs." At the time we didn't know what that meant but if Xana's killing was to threaten her mom to keep her mouth shut then it makes sense. This case is a hot mess for the authorities right now.
That’s what I was thinking too, and that’s a loss for him. I’ve read that she’s one hell of an attorney. The drug theory is interesting. Before this case I’ve never even thought of Idaho more than it’s on the bag of potatoes. But it seems that there is a lot of drug activity and even cartel problems there, from what Ive read anyway.
This is an interesting development. Given defense counsel's prior representation of the victims' family members, it just gives things a very bad look. Let's see if the prosecutor moves to disqualify defense counsel. He has to be concerned that if he obtains a conviction, the defendant will later claim that defense counsel pulled her punches at trial out of loyalty to her formal clients. The last thing the prosecutor wants is for a conviction to be vacated on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. If the prosecutor files a motion, the whole issue will be hashed out in open court. The judge can advise the defendant of the potential conflict and its ramifications, and the defendant can decide whether to waive the conflict. The situation definitely gives an appearance of impropriety. The attorney owes a duty of loyalty to her former clients (the victims' family members) while owing the same duty to the guy charged with killing the victims. Whether this conflict is more than just appearances is an open question. It may hinge on whether there is any connection whatsoever between these murders and the cases in which she represented the victims' family members. It may also hinge on whether any of her former clients will testify at trial. If the prosecutor seeks the death penalty, for example, I can see these family members testifying at the penalty phase, even if they don't testify at the guilt phase.
Isn't that what being a public defender is all about? They can represent you one day and then represent someone who committed a crime against you the next. It is not a conflict of interest because they are separate cases. (although it was kinda shitty that she dropped the girl's mother's case like that in anticipation of this one)
Yes and no. This situation isn't uncommon in public defenders' offices, especially in small counties. That's why these offices have conflict attorneys or pool attorneys to handle cases in which the public defenders have a conflict. Here, the better course might have been to farm out this murder case to the conflict attorney or a pool attorney. This public defender created the troublesome issue by ditching her former clients so that she could represent this defendant. If the murder case had been farmed out, there wouldn't be any conflict or potential conflict. Don't forget that the conflict-of-interest rules apply equally to private attorneys and public defenders.
The other thing is that Taylor apparently represented one of the parents in 4 drug cases. That's an eye-opener as it is hard to see where somebody winds up charged with simple possession 4 times. Not that this is an Ozarks or Breaking Bad type situation but if drugs were sold out of the house and the parents of anybody living there was charged at any point with distribution the whole case starts to look different. Cartels are not noted for their subtlety and 4 victims stabbed to death would easily be in the range of potential punitive actions by a cartel. Also it brings a huge question mark to the long delay in reporting the deaths and the fact that two people in the house were not killed.
But it could well leave reasonable doubt for Kohberger particularly if the case turns out to be largely circumstantial and the solid evidence is impeachable somehow. The way the case has presented itself so far looks a lot like the preamble to a witch burning. Not to say Kohberger couldn't be guilty but we've got a lot of angry villagers with pitchforks sounding off on social media and extending to the quasi-real crime net.
Idk about that. Pointing out that the girl he brutally stabbed to death also had a crackhead for a mom might turn the jury against him even more
This discussion shows how insidious these conflict issues can be. A defense attorney might try to absolve Kohberger by claiming these murders were the result of a drug deal gone sour and that the murderer was a local dealer (who had been stiffed by one of the victims) or a local user (who had been ripped off by one of the victims). Forget the cartels. Pissed-off local dealers or users can be very nasty, too. If defense counsel doesn't pursue this theory at trial, the defendant might argue later that she punted out of loyalty to her former clients. Maybe she didn't want to shed further light on their drug activities or maybe she feared that pointing the finger at local dealers might lead to retaliation against her former clients. This all may be very far afield, but it shows why this conflict issue raises troubling questions.
The other thing is that one of the mechanisms that often resolve messy cases like this one is likely off the table. The prosecutors cannot offer a plea bargain likely to induce the defendant to plead guilty because anything that would be a major inducement would provoke wide-spread outrage in the community at large.
The only thing I am sure of at this point is if they make a movie it is going to be a Coen Brothers production.
Not too much new going on Idaho. family attorney has filed against the gag order. Some family members of one of the victims are publicly questioning the surviving roommates actions, or lack of. how about the alex murdaugh trial? Holy shit.
If you like true crime stuff you should watch the American Greed episodes on Murdaugh. They did a good job establishing a motive and discussing all of his financial crimes. It’s 2 or 3 parts and should be available on demand for CNBC through most cable providers.
What a POS that guy is. I spent some time in that little town of Hampton, SC. I have a long funny story that I'll spare you but I really liked it there, good small town folks there (Murdaugh's aside)
I’ll have to check that out, was looking for something new to watch. It’s a pretty local case, my kids went to school with people who knew the girl who died on the boat.
This guys voice is really hard to listen to. I dont know the validity obviously, but what he’s saying here makes a hell of a lot more sense than what’s in the pca. He claims to be the boyfriend of someone very close to her.:: and his girlfriend has been around Dylan “Almost everyday since”. Which would put him somewhere near or in her hometown, because she never went back to school. Could possibly be a boyfriend of an older sibling/cousin etc? Could be a 2 pack a day bs artist too, but still, makes more sense than the “frozen shock” for 8 hours
