Just over a year ago, Bryan Kohberger, who was accused of killing four University of Idaho students, made a stunning courtroom admission. “Are you pleading guilty because you are guilty?” Judge Steven Hippler asked at a hearing last July. “Yes,” Kohberger said in open court. The admission was astonishing after his defence team had spent years diligently defending him against the charges. But a year after his plea, Kohberger wants to take it back. Kohberger pleaded guilty to killing the four students in their Moscow, Idaho, home in the early hours of November 13, 2022. The victims were Ethan Chapin, 20; Kaylee Goncalves, 21; Xana Kernodle, 20; and Madison Mogen, 21. His plea, which he changed just a month before jury selection started in his trial, helped him avoid the death penalty, which is still enforced in Idaho. He was ultimately sentenced to life in prison without parole. Kohberger claims he had ineffective assistance from his attorneys, that his plea was not entered knowingly or voluntarily because it was “induced by unkept promises,” and that his plea was induced by threats from his attorneys, he said in a court document filed Monday. He specifically claims his attorneys didn’t discuss evidence during plea discussions that could help show his innocence, and that his attorneys promised his plea didn’t need to be truthful despite his “vehement denial of actual guilt,” the court document says. His attorneys also promised he would get certain privileges such as immediate contact visits, freedom of movement and employment — and they shared “elaborate lies” of what a life sentence and death row life would look like, Kohberger alleges in the document. “My actual innocence is my truth, and the plea, hinged on by false promises and blatant disinformation, MUST be withdrawn,” Kohberger said in a statement provided to The New York Times. The statement left many asking: Can he do that? CNN spoke with legal experts to get insight on the rights Kohberger has as he attempts to reverse his plea. What did the paperwork that Kohberger signed say? As part of his plea agreement signed last year, Kohberger answered a questionnaire that aimed to ensure he was pleading guilty of his own free will. Several of the prompts, to which he answered “yes,” include: Are you entering your plea freely and voluntarily? Are you admitting to all the elements of the crime(s) to which you are pleading guilty? Do you understand that if the Court accepts your guilty plea(s) that you may not be able to withdraw your plea(s) at later date? The nine-page survey goes over his constitutional rights, his cognitive ability to enter a plea, the actual agreement and his right to appeal, among other items, and was signed before he went before Judge Hippler. Kohberger waived his appeal rights. How significant is that? Waiving the right to an appeal usually prevents an appellate review or a review of a plea, Samuel Newton, an associate professor of law at the University of Idaho College of Law, told CNN. But Kohberger still has some options. Kohberger can say either that his attorneys were ineffective in representing him or that his plea was coerced in some way, and usually something should be filed within a year, CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson said. The courts have separate post-conviction proceedings for “exactly the kind of claims … that a standard appeal typically can’t reach,” Newton said. “So the (appeal) waiver was real and significant, but it’s also precisely why he’s using the post-conviction route instead of an appeal,” he said. How difficult is it, under Idaho law, to withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing? The short answer is that it’s pretty difficult, both attorneys said. “Idaho Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(c) uses a lenient ‘fair and just reason’ standard before sentencing, but once (the) sentence is imposed, withdrawal is permitted only to correct a ‘manifest injustice,’” Newton said. Manifest injustice is a high standard to meet, requiring Kohberger to show he didn’t enter his plea voluntarily, wasn’t informed of the consequences or several other standards showing he didn’t have informed consent, according to the criminal statute. Kohberger says his plea was based on “false promises” and “blatant disinformation.” How does he prove that? The first step to proving this requires Kohberger to file for the post-conviction relief, Newton said, which he did Monday. This is a civil proceeding, called a collateral proceeding, where Kohberger will have the responsibility to prove his case, he said. “To succeed on a ‘false promises/disinformation’ theory, he’d essentially need to show either (a) his plea was rendered involuntary or unknowing by a material misrepresentation from his lawyers or the state, or (b) for some reason or another he received ineffective assistance of counsel,” Newton said, adding that Kohberger would need to show “a reasonable probability” he would’ve gone to trial if it wasn’t for these factors. Kohberger would need “concrete, credible evidence” to prove this, and he would also need to explain why he said last year he was making the plea of his own free will, he said. Kohberger will need to show this through evidence, Jackson said. This might include evidence such as the knife sheath that was left at the scene with DNA on it that was a “statistical match” for Kohberger, evidence from cellphone towers that helped track some of his movements, or other information that could show multiple people committed the crime, according to Jackson. How important is it that the judge asked Kohberger whether he was pleading guilty because he was guilty? It’s a big factor, experts said. The judge explicitly asked Kohberger whether he was pleading guilty because he was guilty, and he also asked other questions to make sure Kohberger was doing so because he wanted to, Jackson said. Kohberger made these statements while he was under oath, which also weighs against him, according to Newton. “Sworn, on-the-record statements like that carry a strong presumption of truthfulness in later proceedings.” Is it hard for Kohberger to argue his attorneys were ineffective after he said he was satisfied with their performance? Again, this is difficult to prove with Kohberger’s on-the-record statement, Jackson said. “The errors need to be so egregious as to fall below standards of professionalism such that they were not even acting as a lawyer,” he said. While that makes it difficult, it’s not impossible, Newton said. “To get around it, he’d typically need to show either that counsel withheld material information from him at the time (so his in-court answer was sincere but based on an incomplete picture) or point to new evidence unavailable when he made that statement,” Newton said. How often do defendants in these types of cases successfully withdraw their guilty pleas? While there isn’t good or reliable data on these cases, Newton said, he tells his clients “the chances are slim to none.” “I would think this will be incredibly hard to show, especially where, as here, there’s a thorough plea colloquy on record,” he said. By Taylor Romine, Emily Smith, CNN
