Loading summary

Transcript61 lines

[00:00]
A
Hey, everyone, I'm Ann Emerson and this is criminally obsessed.
[00:04]
B
Are you pleading guilty because you are guilty. Yes.
[00:08]
A
That was supposed to be the end. A little more than one year ago, Brian Kohberger admitted under oath that he murdered four University of Idaho students. He took a plea deal, escaped the death penalty, and was sentenced to spend the rest of his life behind bars. Now he wants another bite at the apple. He's filed for post conviction relief. He's asking the court to undo his guilty plea. Former Idaho Attorney general Dave Leroy has spent decades inside the legal system of Idaho. And today he's answering the questions we are all asking. How is this possible?
[00:47]
B
He wants to come back to the public spotlight. Being locked in a cage 23 hours a day is not his favorite sport. And he wants to get back in the game.
[00:55]
A
What if Kohberger gets a second chance?
[00:58]
B
There is a diversity of opinion which has emerged here in Idaho and among the victim families that they say if Co Burger wants a new trial where death is a possible outcome, bring it on.
[01:10]
A
He's right. All you have to do is listen to the older sister of Kaylee Gonsalves at the sentencing. You can just hear the anger in her voice. You didn't win. You just exposed yourself as the coward you are. You're a delusional, pathetic, hypochondriac loser who thought you were so much smarter than everybody else. So what's next? Is this filing nothing more than a long shot or could Brian Kohberger force the legal system and the victims families to relive this nightmare all over again? Be sure to like and subscribe. We'll be updating this story and all of the big cases that you're covering. Now let's get into it. Dave Leroy, you're the former Idaho Attorney General. Decades, decades of experience in the courtroom. I am so grateful that you can come in and talk to us today about the latest information we've been learning about Brian Coburger and what he is doing. Thank you for being with us. I appreciate it.
[02:17]
B
Welcome. It's a pleasure to be with you.
[02:18]
A
I wanted to talk to you a little bit about where we are as far as. As. As where you're. Where you're talking to us from. You know, you have very strong ties obviously to Idaho, to ADA county where Brian Coburger's case was transferred to and where. Where he was sentenced. Tell me first, can you tell me your background in Idaho and ADA County a little bit?
[02:44]
B
Well, sure. I grew up in northern Idaho, just south of Moscow, where This crime took place. And in fact, on one occasion I was in the house in which this crime took place when I was campaigning for Congress back in about 2018. One of my strong supporters had a child who was one of the tenants in that rental property at that time. And I spent about half an hour in there chatting with him and with the other male tenants who occupied the place at that time. But I grew up in northern Idaho, got a law degree at the University of Idaho, was a criminal defense lawyer in New York City for about three years, took a two thirds cut and pay, came home to Idaho, became a deputy prosecutor, was subsequently elected prosecuting attorney, attorney general, lieutenant governor, have continued to practice law subsequent to that.
[03:41]
A
It's incredible what you just told me, that you had actually been in that house before. What do you remember of that house when you were there?
[03:49]
B
Well, it was kind of an oddly constructed set against the hill, a little bit dark and gloomy inside because of that terrain and the comparative lack of windows in the structure. I didn't get above the first entry living floor, but it was kind of a common layout in terms of the. The sort of thing you expect in a college town with a small living room, a medium sized kitchen, and rooms and hallways that go off from there.
[04:25]
A
So it had been used for years obviously as like a student housing kind of thing.
[04:30]
B
Yes, it was private residence housing, but I presume it, it looked like it was built in the 70s, 80s, something like that.
[04:41]
A
I mean, who could have ever known that you would be dealing with that house again on such a tragic level? It's unbelievable. Before we talk about what Coburger is really doing, can you give us your take on his former defense expert Syrai's analysis that he believes from looking at cell phone geolocation points that Co Burger was actually inside that the victim's home before their deaths. What do you take away from that?
[05:10]
B
Well, geolocation data is of course approximate to some degree in every circumstance, but there's absolutely no doubt whether inside or approximate outside, that he visited that location many, many times. And so in that regard, and including the day after the crime, it is clear that for an innocent man, he spent a lot of time in that vicinity before perhaps during and after the event.
[05:44]
A
Yeah, I think it's just it just to hear that he was spending so much time stalking basically this area, obsessing over this area. He was definitely laying out a very clear plan of what was to come.
[06:00]
B
Well, not only that, but remember now, claiming to be an innocent man, he purchased a K bar Knife with a sheath. About four months before the crime, when the sheath was lost, he apparently attempted to get online and purchase another K bar knife or sheath. I mean the, the crime and these allegations are so closely bracketed to Coburger that for him to attend now that there's a manifest injustice in him being found guilty after admitting to guilt, after a very lengthy recitation of the facts that would be proved at trial by the prosecution voluntarily entering that guilty plea immediately after that recitation of evidence. It's strange, the credulity for him to take this new position, Dave.
[06:52]
A
It's actually shocking. I mean it really when I think that was one of the reasons we all had to just take a, take a minute and look at, look at what he was trying to do and why it's such a, the whole thing was so terrifying in the first place. The whole, the whole situation for, for, for everyone. But you know, for him to, to want to take back his plea deal that, that he claims he had this ineffective assistance from his attorneys right off the bat. Is there any way that he can do this? Can he actually try and do this? Does this, does this even.
[07:26]
B
Well, he is trying, but I call it a slim and none petition that he's filed with the court. Four pages including a one page affidavit that attests under oath to all of these contentions. It's slim in that I don't think it's going to go very far with Judge Hipper. Although Judge Hipper correctly and properly appointed the state Appellate Defenders office to represent him in this matter. I think he'll ultimately get no relief out of it. The bad news is that it brings him back before the public and the media and the victims families and everybody else.
[08:03]
A
It's just, it means that everybody has to be re. Victimized. Re traumatized by someone who is clearly guilty.
[08:13]
B
In my opinion, that's certainly the case. And remember, he's not an unsophisticated defendant. He is someone who had an undergraduate degree in criminal justice, studied criminals and convicted persons up close and personal, was a professor in the criminal justice arena at his then Washington State University Assistant principalship or professorship. So he's not an unsophisticated defendant who was somehow unaware of the state of his proceedings and the consequences of his guilty plea when he pled.
[08:53]
A
Yeah, I mean, and I think, you know, if you don't mind helping us understand because he did waive his right to an appeal yet when he took the plea deal. But this is, this is not an appeal. This Is this is a move that, that I think is, is complicated for people to understand why he's allowed to do this. Can you help us?
[09:12]
B
Sure. He waived his appeal rights in writing and in the courtroom when he entered this plea. However, under Idaho law and under federal law, under the Idaho and state constitutions, every defendant, even under that circumstance, has the right to subsequently claim that they were ineffectively represented by counsel or that there was a manifest injustice in their case. Well, that's what he's claiming. He's suggesting that this very talented and aggressive trial team that fought for him for three years that invented this argument and came up with that expert witness on their own, somehow they were ineffective in presenting him to the court in an informed way when he pled guilty, which is a fairly outrageous claim, but we'll see how far he gets with it. And I think it's once again a slim and non petition.
[10:07]
A
Dave, the Koberger says his attorneys didn't tell him about evidence. Is that right that, that he says could have helped show his innocence. What kind of evidence is he talking about?
[10:19]
B
Well, I think the sole claim that he has in that regard is that one of the victims had some strands of hair associated with their hand that could have been related to defensive activity as the crime was being committed. He apparently alleges that his attorneys withheld that evidence from him and therefore he was unknowing about that aspect of a potential other criminal involved in the case when he pled implicated in that is of course, that apparently that hair was not tested or allegedly was not tested by the prosecution or the defense. So it's not a very well developed claim. I believe that issue came to the fore when some author presented a book that claimed that fence was defective in that particular, not having analyzed it. And I, I do not know what Coburger will say or claim or prove to, to insist that he was unknowing about that particular aspect of the case. Nor, nor do we know how the defense lawyers will reply.
[11:37]
A
Well, you know, and, and he also says that his attorneys told him his plea didn't have to be the truth, that he was still denying his guilt behind the scenes and that his attorneys promised him things like immediate contact, visits in prison, and that they lied to him about what a life sentence and, and death row life would, would be like. How does this play into what he's, what he's portending or asking for?
[12:06]
B
Well, it, it plays centrally into what he's contending, but I don't see that it's going to play very Loudly or cleanly or compellingly with the court.
[12:18]
A
Yeah. Or compassionate. Like who, who's gonna feel empathy for this kind of thing? Like you're not getting what you want in prison. Like the vegan diet isn't working or. I, I don't know, I don't mean of it, but I mean, I really, I don't understand. What does he mean he doesn't think prison is the way he thought it would be. And that's our problem.
[12:36]
B
Well, as I read his, his contention as to prison life, the implication is that the attorneys suggested to him that conditions on death row and facing death in prison were more harsh than he has now determined the reality to be. And he would prefer to be in that segment of the prison versus the maximum security unit in which he now finds himself. Now, it is fair to note that Coburger, within just relatively few days, relatively few weeks of showing up in the Idaho Correctional Institution south of Boise and the maximum security unit where he's kept for his own safety, parenthetically was complaining about conditions, about the fact that he didn't have much more liberty than the one hour or whatever it is per day, about the fact that other inmates were hooting and hollering and making noise and keeping him up at night as a, as a new arrival in the unit. So he at some point was relatively unwelcome where he is. And we haven't had an update on that, but perhaps that condition continues and the finds that unfavorable and now chooses to blame that on his lawyers.
[13:57]
A
So are you saying that he literally thought that death row would have been a gentler, kinder place to land than where he is right now?
[14:08]
B
Well, I, I think one of the specific conventions in his affidavit, in fact I may have it here, is how would he even know that a gross. This is a, this is an allegation against his lawyers. A gross misrepresentation of and promises regarding what a life sentence would immediately afford. Petitioner. And gross misrepresentation of death row in Idaho, including an elaborate fabricated story of Council's horrific experience touring an actual 8 by 8 death row cell. All communicated to petitioner and his family, etc. So he, he says they oversold death row and undersold life in prison in terms of the conditions he would face. None of which has anything to do with a gross and manifest injustice. And his guilty plea upon facts, where he was indeed guilty.
[15:18]
A
Yeah. And not to mention that during this sentencing when the judge asked him was he pleading guilty because he was guilty and he Said yes under oath. I mean, how does that play into his attempt to take it all back?
[15:33]
B
Well, in Idaho we have not only that oral articulation, but we also have an 11 page written document that it requires initials in about a third of it in response to questions about waiving your rights, understanding your rights, your condition of awareness and knowledge, your ability to read and write and understand the English language and are you making this plead knowingly and guilty and intention intelligently pleading guilty. And so the combination of these oral elocutions as you describe them and the written form make a pretty luck solid case that at that moment he was aware precisely of the evidence in his case, precisely of what he was doing and pleading guilty.
[16:28]
A
So he knew exactly what he was doing. His arguments that he had ineffective counsel and you know that there's going to be evidence that's going to come out that shows that he never, he didn't do this, that that's. I, I'm just trying to like marry all of this together to understand what's going to outweigh what when it comes to listening to his petition.
[16:53]
B
Well, to suggest that his counsel was ineffective against the mounds and mounds of evidence against him suggesting that he was indeed guilty is going to be a very difficult balancing test. Remember, this was a team of experienced death qualified lawyers. They were joined toward the end of the proceedings by a former Idaho United States attorney who came onto the team. They fought for I think nearly three years, creating every possible angle of kicking the tires and examining under the rocks. The prosecutions offered evidence. It seemed to me that for a long while, should this case go on appeal, they were attempting to create a brand new constitutional right against genetic DNA being used generically to narrow down a list of suspects. This was a very creative, very aggressive, very expensive, parenthetically defense team for the public and they did superior job. And he pled. He pled. Yeah, only very last minute immediately before the jury was imp paneled when every other possibility to save his life was exhausted. So on the context and looking at what these lawyers did over a considerable period of time, who they were and how creative and professional they were, to suggest that they were ineffective in all particulars or any particular is a very tough sell.
[18:41]
A
It's absurd. It's absolutely absurd. And we can see updates on, on the Ida county court records. We know he was representing himself. And on the 29th we believe that there was a judge's order appointing the public defender, as you mentioned. And the next day his request to look at sealed records was denied. Does this tell you anything?
[19:05]
B
Well, I do think that this proceeding will probably be handled in the entirety on paper pleadings, the exchange of observations from the prosecutor in a reply brief, perhaps very narrow comments by the defense lawyers in response to a particular allegation. And I would expect, in my opinion, Judge Hippler will end up disposing of this matter in on written documents and pleadings rather than actually convening a hearing at which anyone testifies. In this case, it's not about the evidence. It's simply about the performance of the lawyers in the particulars that are raised in this petition. And again, those speak for themselves almost.
[19:52]
A
And. And how hard is it under Idaho law to withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing in general? Like, not just for CO Burger, but just in general, how hard is it to do something like that?
[20:06]
B
The whole effort of making an oral record in the courtroom before a plea is accepted is for two reasons. Number one, to make sure that the defendant really does know what they're doing and really is aware of the consequences of their act, namely leading to an immediate likely sentence. And then secondly, it's designed, specifically designed to make it nearly impossible to withdraw that guilty plea. Yeah. Judges will hear someone's subsequent plea when only very, very rarely, upon good cause shown, do they ever set aside those guilty pleasure.
[20:44]
A
They're. They're locking it in. I mean, they're. This, this. They have to, because otherwise it's just, you know, what's the point? What's the point of pleading guilty if. If you can walk it back? Right. I mean, it doesn't even make sense.
[20:58]
B
Exactly. Thousands of cases every year are disposed of by guilty pleas in every state in this union. And we need, in the. In the judicial system, finality in old cases so that we can get to the new cases.
[21:11]
A
Dave, I wanted to get what your reaction was actually to that part of Coburger's statement when he said, my actual innocence is my truth. And the plea hinged on by false promises and blatant disinformation, must all in caps, be withdrawn. What was your reaction when you saw that?
[21:30]
B
Tells you more about who he is and where he is. He wants to come back to the public spotlight. Being locked in a cage 23 hours a day is not his favorite sport. And he wants to get back in the game. And unfortunately, he's found a vehicle by which he can do that for a limited period of time in this very limited perspective. But he's. He's a man of, apparently who desires some spotlight, some manipulation. He wants to be in Control again. And that's not where this thing is going to go.
[22:04]
A
Narcissist.
[22:06]
B
Absolutely. World class.
[22:08]
A
Yeah. And this is his chance to do it, so he gets a few more minutes. Do you know of any of the attorneys that are involved in this or the investigators?
[22:19]
B
Certainly I know some of the defense team. I am aware of our long standing Leyto county prosecutor who has been prosecutor longer than any other in the, in the state of Idaho by virtue of elected terms and service. So I do know some of the original team. I'm unaware who of who has been appointed a state public appellate defender in this particular instance. But that will be an experienced person as well.
[22:52]
A
Is there a time, is there a clock running on this as well? I feel like there's a clock running on how long this can go on for, you know, for him to be filing this petition for it to be heard. Is that clock running pretty hard? Is that also why he did it, sort of this Hail Mary at the last hour?
[23:12]
B
Sure. He had, I think, until September to file this particular kind of pleading in Idaho. And unfortunately, once filed, there really is no clock running on the entire continuum of how long this can go. There is, however, of course, a date that will be imposed in terms of a response by the prosecutor, response by the defense. So there will be many steps. But if the question is can this go on for years, the answer is unfortunately yes. And that's one of the reasons that an original plea was taken here, to take the death penalty off the table, because this state of Idaho and Lato county and Ada county had invested, I think to that point, directly and indirectly, about $8 million on this prosecution. And so when these things go on and on, there is a cost to the public psyche. There's a cost to the public pocketbook. The idea that these cases can go on for years and years is one reason people from time to time in this case and other cases avoid a death penalty and plead to life in the benefit of often both parties. In this case, we got the benefit of no appeals, but we could not. And no case can truly foreclose a claim of ineffective assistance to counsel under the Sixth Amendment.
[24:43]
A
You mentioned that it could go on for years. And even if he's denied outright this time, can he really keep trying this over and over again?
[24:54]
B
Well, no, not over and over again, but he can appeal to this ruling to the Idaho Supreme Court. That process can take several months or perhaps a year. Results there can be appeal to the 9th, to the federal district court in Idaho, which can appeal thereafter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which thereafter can of course be reviewed potentially by the Idaho, by the United States Supreme Court. So there are, there is this appellate chain that is available in ineffective assistance, manifest injustice cases that does have the potential to go on for years.
[25:40]
A
I mean, for those poor families that would have to listen to this monster come back into their lives over and over again, having to go through this, I mean, your experience working with victims families in horrific cases, this is, this is the worst of the worst, isn't it?
[26:00]
B
Well, it is. On the other hand here, if any case ever deserved the death penalty, these kinds of facts, these horrific murders in a little college town of these very innocent and promising young people with these loving and supporting families and friends is a death penalty type of fact pattern. And so there is a diversity of opinion which has emerged here in Idaho and among the victim families that they say if Coburger wants a new trial where death is a possible outcome, bring it on. Because that is not entirely unattractive, although the process of getting there would be very unattractive.
[26:41]
A
Well, how do you feel about that, personally? Can you give me your opinion? Do you think that the prosecution should have held out for the death penalty?
[26:51]
B
No, I don't. The prosecution, in my opinion, played this very strong and very effectively. And there comes a point when, against a very aggressive and effective defense team going into a trial, you know, that there will be a hundred evidence rulings, a thousand evidence rulings. To take all of those contingencies off the table and go for the certainty of a life sentence in this instance, I think was the right decision by the prosecution.
[27:29]
A
Dave, I, you know, I just want to say thank you so much for talking to me about this. Really helps put it into perspective. I almost feel like I'm asking you as a, a human being as much as like a, a veteran, you know, attorney and legal mind in this, in this world, tell us it's going to be okay and that he's going to stay in jail. I mean, like, literally, that's. I feel like, I feel like I'm one of those people saying, just let me know that he is not, he's never getting out of prison. That's, that's pretty much what I want to hear.
[28:02]
B
Well, this is a human tragedy from every perspective, including his own family, including the potential that had he been and stayed unbent in this society, might have realized himself with a man of some intelligence and trying to seek a way in the world. So it is a human tragedy. But this is the petition currently filed now in Idaho is a slim and none petition. It will for a period of time have the slim invasion of our lives as the judge considers this and that, as the prosecution replies, as the defense lawyers become involved in a bit of rebuttal and as Mr. Kohlberger attempts to explain how his innocence is prevailing here and was somehow subverted when he stood up and pled guilty. That's the slim part. The nun is there's no chance that he will get out of jail on this activity, even though he will be back occasionally once every couple of three months with a little bit of a ruling here and a little bit of a ruling perhaps in the, in the, certainly in the trial court and perhaps subsequently over a period of years in appellate courts. We'll see him and hear him now and then, but he won't be any place but the Idaho State Penitentiary Facility Maximum Security Unit.
[29:24]
A
Good riddance. Thank you so much for your time today. I really appreciate it. I enjoyed speaking with you and hearing your thoughts and appreciate it.
[29:34]
B
My pleasure.
[29:35]
A
Drop a comment below. I want to hear what you're thinking about this case. I can only imagine how painful it is for the victims families to have to to hear that he's put this post Conviction Relief up right now. Do you think there is any shot that he has at getting this through the legal system or do you think this is just slim or none, as Dave Leroy said. Look forward to your comments. Be sure to like subscribe and turn on your notifications. I'll be updating this story and all of the big cases that we're covering.

Summary5 min read

Criminally Obsessed — Kohberger Wants His Guilty Plea Reversed. Families Say: "Bring It On."

Host: Anne Emerson
Guest: Dave Leroy, Former Idaho Attorney General
Release Date: August 4, 2026

Episode Overview

This episode centers on the surprising legal maneuver by Brian Kohberger, who, after pleading guilty to the murders of four University of Idaho students and escaping the death penalty, is now seeking to have his guilty plea withdrawn. Host Anne Emerson and guest Dave Leroy (former Idaho AG) break down the legal implications, the evidence, and the emotional toll on the victims’ families. The conversation covers how rare plea reversals are, the grounds for Kohberger’s petition, and the likelihood of him succeeding.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Background & Case Context

Kohberger’s Conviction and Current Status
- Kohberger pleaded guilty to brutally murdering four students, avoided the death penalty, and was sentenced to life imprisonment ([00:07]).
- Now seeking post-conviction relief, asking the court to undo his guilty plea ([00:36]).
Victims’ Families Respond
- Victims’ families, despite their pain, are unafraid of a new trial if the death penalty is back on the table.
- Memorable quote from Kaylee Goncalves’s sister at sentencing:
  
  “You didn’t win. You just exposed yourself as the coward you are. You’re a delusional, pathetic, hypochondriac loser who thought you were so much smarter than everybody else.” ([01:09])

2. Inside Perspective from Dave Leroy

Personal Connection
- Leroy reveals he has been inside the crime house years prior, giving a vivid description of its atmosphere as "dark and gloomy," typical for college towns ([02:44], [03:49]).
- Shares his deep Idaho legal roots and personal reaction to now being involved with the house again under such circumstances.
Kohberger’s Actions & Evidence
- Addresses geolocation evidence:
  
  “He visited that location many, many times... for an innocent man, he spent a lot of time in that vicinity before, perhaps during and after the event.” ([05:09])
- Points to Kohberger’s purchase of a K-bar knife prior to the murders, tying him closely to the crime ([06:00]).

3. Kohberger's Legal Maneuvering

Grounds for the Petition
- Kohberger claims “ineffective assistance of counsel,” alleging his defense failed him and misrepresented evidence ([06:51]; [09:12]).
- Leroy categorizes the petition as a "slim and none" chance effort:
  
  “Slim in that I don’t think it’s going to go very far with Judge Hipper... I think he’ll ultimately get no relief out of it.” ([07:26])
Nature of the Claims
- Kohberger’s main supposed evidence: strands of hair found on a victim’s hand might implicate someone else—though never tested ([10:19]).
- He alleges his lawyers lied about prison conditions and that he thought death row might be preferable ([12:35], [14:07]).
- Kohberger says his attorneys told him, "your plea didn’t have to be the truth"—an assertion dismissed by Leroy as unconvincing ([11:37]).
Legal Procedure and Chances
- Plea withdrawal after sentencing is extremely difficult by design; Idaho law builds in mechanisms to ensure the plea is final ([19:52-20:44]).
- Leroy:
  
  “Judges will hear someone’s subsequent plea when only very, very rarely, upon good cause shown, do they ever set aside those guilty [pleas].” ([20:44])

4. Systemic and Familial Impact

Public and Victim Impact
- Concern that the process re-traumatizes victims' families every time Kohberger re-emerges via legal filings ([08:03], [25:39]).
Finality vs. Possibility of Further Appeals
- Even if denied, Kohberger can continue appealing up the chain: Idaho Supreme Court, U.S. District, Ninth Circuit, and even U.S. Supreme Court ([24:54]).
- “These cases can go on for years and years,” notes the potential for long-term distress for the families and cost to the public ([23:11], [24:43]).
Victims’ Families’ Outlook
- Some express readiness for a retrial if it means the death penalty could be reinstated:
  
  “If Coburger wants a new trial where death is a possible outcome, bring it on. Because that is not entirely unattractive…” ([26:00])

5. Expert Analysis and Closing Thoughts

Defense’s Professionalism vs. Claims
- Leroy emphasizes that Kohberger’s lawyers were highly competent, creative, and thorough—making claims of ineffectiveness tough to support ([16:53]).
Psychological Profile
- Leroy and Anne label Kohberger a narcissist, seeking to “get back in the game” and manipulate the system for attention:
  
  “He wants to come back to the public spotlight. Being locked in a cage 23 hours a day is not his favorite sport. And he wants to get back in the game.” (Leroy, [00:46], echoed at [21:29]) “Narcissist.” (Anne, [22:03])
  “Absolutely. World class.” (Leroy, [22:05])
Conviction's Security
- Anne asks for reassurance. Leroy’s verdict:
  
  “…the petition currently filed now in Idaho is a slim and none petition… There’s no chance that he will get out of jail on this activity…” ([28:01])

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

On the Crime and its Aftermath:

“Who could have ever known that you would be dealing with that house again on such a tragic level?” (Anne, [04:40])
On the Legal System:

“The whole effort of making an oral record… is… to make it nearly impossible to withdraw that guilty plea.” (Leroy, [20:05])
On Kohberger’s Motives:

“He wants to be in control again. And that’s not where this thing is going to go.” (Leroy, [21:29])
On the Odds:

“This is a slim and none petition. It will… have the slim invasion of our lives… The none is there’s no chance that he will get out of jail on this activity…” (Leroy, [28:01])
Victims’ Families’ Resolve:

“If Coburger wants a new trial where death is a possible outcome, bring it on.” (Leroy, paraphrasing local sentiment, [00:57], [26:00])

Important Timestamps

[00:07] — Recap of guilty plea and sentencing
[01:09] — Victim’s family statement at sentencing
[02:44–03:49] — Leroy's personal recollection of the crime house
[05:09] — Discussion of geolocation evidence and pre-crime visits
[06:00] — Evidence of premeditation (K-bar knife purchase)
[07:26, 09:12] — Explanation of post-conviction relief and its rarity
[10:19] — “Hair” evidence claim
[12:35, 14:07] — Allegations about prison conditions and death row
[16:53] — Defense team’s quality and tactics
[20:05, 20:44] — Plea withdrawal toughness under Idaho law
[21:29–22:05] — Kohberger’s attention-seeking described as “world class narcissism”
[24:54] — Outline of long appellate process
[26:00] — Death penalty sentiment among families
[28:01] — Assurance about security of conviction

Tone & Style

The episode tone is direct, empathetic to victims, and incisive in legal analysis. Anne and Dave display a mix of professional expertise and personal frustration at the audacity and psychological motivations of Kohberger, while maintaining respect for the gravity of the tragedy.

Summary

For those seeking clarity on the post-conviction challenge by Brian Kohberger, this episode breaks down the near-impossibility of revoking his guilty plea, the repetitive harm to victims’ families, and the legal mechanisms designed to ensure finality. Expert guest Dave Leroy strongly reassures listeners that Kohberger's chances are virtually zero, despite his continued attempts to exploit the legal system for attention. The families remain resolute; the community, while weary, stands firm.

Loading summary

Transcript61 lines

[00:00]
A
Hey, everyone, I'm Ann Emerson and this is criminally obsessed.
[00:04]
B
Are you pleading guilty because you are guilty. Yes.
[00:08]
A
That was supposed to be the end. A little more than one year ago, Brian Kohberger admitted under oath that he murdered four University of Idaho students. He took a plea deal, escaped the death penalty, and was sentenced to spend the rest of his life behind bars. Now he wants another bite at the apple. He's filed for post conviction relief. He's asking the court to undo his guilty plea. Former Idaho Attorney general Dave Leroy has spent decades inside the legal system of Idaho. And today he's answering the questions we are all asking. How is this possible?
[00:47]
B
He wants to come back to the public spotlight. Being locked in a cage 23 hours a day is not his favorite sport. And he wants to get back in the game.
[00:55]
A
What if Kohberger gets a second chance?
[00:58]
B
There is a diversity of opinion which has emerged here in Idaho and among the victim families that they say if Co Burger wants a new trial where death is a possible outcome, bring it on.
[01:10]
A
He's right. All you have to do is listen to the older sister of Kaylee Gonsalves at the sentencing. You can just hear the anger in her voice. You didn't win. You just exposed yourself as the coward you are. You're a delusional, pathetic, hypochondriac loser who thought you were so much smarter than everybody else. So what's next? Is this filing nothing more than a long shot or could Brian Kohberger force the legal system and the victims families to relive this nightmare all over again? Be sure to like and subscribe. We'll be updating this story and all of the big cases that you're covering. Now let's get into it. Dave Leroy, you're the former Idaho Attorney General. Decades, decades of experience in the courtroom. I am so grateful that you can come in and talk to us today about the latest information we've been learning about Brian Coburger and what he is doing. Thank you for being with us. I appreciate it.
[02:17]
B
Welcome. It's a pleasure to be with you.
[02:18]
A
I wanted to talk to you a little bit about where we are as far as. As. As where you're. Where you're talking to us from. You know, you have very strong ties obviously to Idaho, to ADA county where Brian Coburger's case was transferred to and where. Where he was sentenced. Tell me first, can you tell me your background in Idaho and ADA County a little bit?
[02:44]
B
Well, sure. I grew up in northern Idaho, just south of Moscow, where This crime took place. And in fact, on one occasion I was in the house in which this crime took place when I was campaigning for Congress back in about 2018. One of my strong supporters had a child who was one of the tenants in that rental property at that time. And I spent about half an hour in there chatting with him and with the other male tenants who occupied the place at that time. But I grew up in northern Idaho, got a law degree at the University of Idaho, was a criminal defense lawyer in New York City for about three years, took a two thirds cut and pay, came home to Idaho, became a deputy prosecutor, was subsequently elected prosecuting attorney, attorney general, lieutenant governor, have continued to practice law subsequent to that.
[03:41]
A
It's incredible what you just told me, that you had actually been in that house before. What do you remember of that house when you were there?
[03:49]
B
Well, it was kind of an oddly constructed set against the hill, a little bit dark and gloomy inside because of that terrain and the comparative lack of windows in the structure. I didn't get above the first entry living floor, but it was kind of a common layout in terms of the. The sort of thing you expect in a college town with a small living room, a medium sized kitchen, and rooms and hallways that go off from there.
[04:25]
A
So it had been used for years obviously as like a student housing kind of thing.
[04:30]
B
Yes, it was private residence housing, but I presume it, it looked like it was built in the 70s, 80s, something like that.
[04:41]
A
I mean, who could have ever known that you would be dealing with that house again on such a tragic level? It's unbelievable. Before we talk about what Coburger is really doing, can you give us your take on his former defense expert Syrai's analysis that he believes from looking at cell phone geolocation points that Co Burger was actually inside that the victim's home before their deaths. What do you take away from that?
[05:10]
B
Well, geolocation data is of course approximate to some degree in every circumstance, but there's absolutely no doubt whether inside or approximate outside, that he visited that location many, many times. And so in that regard, and including the day after the crime, it is clear that for an innocent man, he spent a lot of time in that vicinity before perhaps during and after the event.
[05:44]
A
Yeah, I think it's just it just to hear that he was spending so much time stalking basically this area, obsessing over this area. He was definitely laying out a very clear plan of what was to come.
[06:00]
B
Well, not only that, but remember now, claiming to be an innocent man, he purchased a K bar Knife with a sheath. About four months before the crime, when the sheath was lost, he apparently attempted to get online and purchase another K bar knife or sheath. I mean the, the crime and these allegations are so closely bracketed to Coburger that for him to attend now that there's a manifest injustice in him being found guilty after admitting to guilt, after a very lengthy recitation of the facts that would be proved at trial by the prosecution voluntarily entering that guilty plea immediately after that recitation of evidence. It's strange, the credulity for him to take this new position, Dave.
[06:52]
A
It's actually shocking. I mean it really when I think that was one of the reasons we all had to just take a, take a minute and look at, look at what he was trying to do and why it's such a, the whole thing was so terrifying in the first place. The whole, the whole situation for, for, for everyone. But you know, for him to, to want to take back his plea deal that, that he claims he had this ineffective assistance from his attorneys right off the bat. Is there any way that he can do this? Can he actually try and do this? Does this, does this even.
[07:26]
B
Well, he is trying, but I call it a slim and none petition that he's filed with the court. Four pages including a one page affidavit that attests under oath to all of these contentions. It's slim in that I don't think it's going to go very far with Judge Hipper. Although Judge Hipper correctly and properly appointed the state Appellate Defenders office to represent him in this matter. I think he'll ultimately get no relief out of it. The bad news is that it brings him back before the public and the media and the victims families and everybody else.
[08:03]
A
It's just, it means that everybody has to be re. Victimized. Re traumatized by someone who is clearly guilty.
[08:13]
B
In my opinion, that's certainly the case. And remember, he's not an unsophisticated defendant. He is someone who had an undergraduate degree in criminal justice, studied criminals and convicted persons up close and personal, was a professor in the criminal justice arena at his then Washington State University Assistant principalship or professorship. So he's not an unsophisticated defendant who was somehow unaware of the state of his proceedings and the consequences of his guilty plea when he pled.
[08:53]
A
Yeah, I mean, and I think, you know, if you don't mind helping us understand because he did waive his right to an appeal yet when he took the plea deal. But this is, this is not an appeal. This Is this is a move that, that I think is, is complicated for people to understand why he's allowed to do this. Can you help us?
[09:12]
B
Sure. He waived his appeal rights in writing and in the courtroom when he entered this plea. However, under Idaho law and under federal law, under the Idaho and state constitutions, every defendant, even under that circumstance, has the right to subsequently claim that they were ineffectively represented by counsel or that there was a manifest injustice in their case. Well, that's what he's claiming. He's suggesting that this very talented and aggressive trial team that fought for him for three years that invented this argument and came up with that expert witness on their own, somehow they were ineffective in presenting him to the court in an informed way when he pled guilty, which is a fairly outrageous claim, but we'll see how far he gets with it. And I think it's once again a slim and non petition.
[10:07]
A
Dave, the Koberger says his attorneys didn't tell him about evidence. Is that right that, that he says could have helped show his innocence. What kind of evidence is he talking about?
[10:19]
B
Well, I think the sole claim that he has in that regard is that one of the victims had some strands of hair associated with their hand that could have been related to defensive activity as the crime was being committed. He apparently alleges that his attorneys withheld that evidence from him and therefore he was unknowing about that aspect of a potential other criminal involved in the case when he pled implicated in that is of course, that apparently that hair was not tested or allegedly was not tested by the prosecution or the defense. So it's not a very well developed claim. I believe that issue came to the fore when some author presented a book that claimed that fence was defective in that particular, not having analyzed it. And I, I do not know what Coburger will say or claim or prove to, to insist that he was unknowing about that particular aspect of the case. Nor, nor do we know how the defense lawyers will reply.
[11:37]
A
Well, you know, and, and he also says that his attorneys told him his plea didn't have to be the truth, that he was still denying his guilt behind the scenes and that his attorneys promised him things like immediate contact, visits in prison, and that they lied to him about what a life sentence and, and death row life would, would be like. How does this play into what he's, what he's portending or asking for?
[12:06]
B
Well, it, it plays centrally into what he's contending, but I don't see that it's going to play very Loudly or cleanly or compellingly with the court.
[12:18]
A
Yeah. Or compassionate. Like who, who's gonna feel empathy for this kind of thing? Like you're not getting what you want in prison. Like the vegan diet isn't working or. I, I don't know, I don't mean of it, but I mean, I really, I don't understand. What does he mean he doesn't think prison is the way he thought it would be. And that's our problem.
[12:36]
B
Well, as I read his, his contention as to prison life, the implication is that the attorneys suggested to him that conditions on death row and facing death in prison were more harsh than he has now determined the reality to be. And he would prefer to be in that segment of the prison versus the maximum security unit in which he now finds himself. Now, it is fair to note that Coburger, within just relatively few days, relatively few weeks of showing up in the Idaho Correctional Institution south of Boise and the maximum security unit where he's kept for his own safety, parenthetically was complaining about conditions, about the fact that he didn't have much more liberty than the one hour or whatever it is per day, about the fact that other inmates were hooting and hollering and making noise and keeping him up at night as a, as a new arrival in the unit. So he at some point was relatively unwelcome where he is. And we haven't had an update on that, but perhaps that condition continues and the finds that unfavorable and now chooses to blame that on his lawyers.
[13:57]
A
So are you saying that he literally thought that death row would have been a gentler, kinder place to land than where he is right now?
[14:08]
B
Well, I, I think one of the specific conventions in his affidavit, in fact I may have it here, is how would he even know that a gross. This is a, this is an allegation against his lawyers. A gross misrepresentation of and promises regarding what a life sentence would immediately afford. Petitioner. And gross misrepresentation of death row in Idaho, including an elaborate fabricated story of Council's horrific experience touring an actual 8 by 8 death row cell. All communicated to petitioner and his family, etc. So he, he says they oversold death row and undersold life in prison in terms of the conditions he would face. None of which has anything to do with a gross and manifest injustice. And his guilty plea upon facts, where he was indeed guilty.
[15:18]
A
Yeah. And not to mention that during this sentencing when the judge asked him was he pleading guilty because he was guilty and he Said yes under oath. I mean, how does that play into his attempt to take it all back?
[15:33]
B
Well, in Idaho we have not only that oral articulation, but we also have an 11 page written document that it requires initials in about a third of it in response to questions about waiving your rights, understanding your rights, your condition of awareness and knowledge, your ability to read and write and understand the English language and are you making this plead knowingly and guilty and intention intelligently pleading guilty. And so the combination of these oral elocutions as you describe them and the written form make a pretty luck solid case that at that moment he was aware precisely of the evidence in his case, precisely of what he was doing and pleading guilty.
[16:28]
A
So he knew exactly what he was doing. His arguments that he had ineffective counsel and you know that there's going to be evidence that's going to come out that shows that he never, he didn't do this, that that's. I, I'm just trying to like marry all of this together to understand what's going to outweigh what when it comes to listening to his petition.
[16:53]
B
Well, to suggest that his counsel was ineffective against the mounds and mounds of evidence against him suggesting that he was indeed guilty is going to be a very difficult balancing test. Remember, this was a team of experienced death qualified lawyers. They were joined toward the end of the proceedings by a former Idaho United States attorney who came onto the team. They fought for I think nearly three years, creating every possible angle of kicking the tires and examining under the rocks. The prosecutions offered evidence. It seemed to me that for a long while, should this case go on appeal, they were attempting to create a brand new constitutional right against genetic DNA being used generically to narrow down a list of suspects. This was a very creative, very aggressive, very expensive, parenthetically defense team for the public and they did superior job. And he pled. He pled. Yeah, only very last minute immediately before the jury was imp paneled when every other possibility to save his life was exhausted. So on the context and looking at what these lawyers did over a considerable period of time, who they were and how creative and professional they were, to suggest that they were ineffective in all particulars or any particular is a very tough sell.
[18:41]
A
It's absurd. It's absolutely absurd. And we can see updates on, on the Ida county court records. We know he was representing himself. And on the 29th we believe that there was a judge's order appointing the public defender, as you mentioned. And the next day his request to look at sealed records was denied. Does this tell you anything?
[19:05]
B
Well, I do think that this proceeding will probably be handled in the entirety on paper pleadings, the exchange of observations from the prosecutor in a reply brief, perhaps very narrow comments by the defense lawyers in response to a particular allegation. And I would expect, in my opinion, Judge Hippler will end up disposing of this matter in on written documents and pleadings rather than actually convening a hearing at which anyone testifies. In this case, it's not about the evidence. It's simply about the performance of the lawyers in the particulars that are raised in this petition. And again, those speak for themselves almost.
[19:52]
A
And. And how hard is it under Idaho law to withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing in general? Like, not just for CO Burger, but just in general, how hard is it to do something like that?
[20:06]
B
The whole effort of making an oral record in the courtroom before a plea is accepted is for two reasons. Number one, to make sure that the defendant really does know what they're doing and really is aware of the consequences of their act, namely leading to an immediate likely sentence. And then secondly, it's designed, specifically designed to make it nearly impossible to withdraw that guilty plea. Yeah. Judges will hear someone's subsequent plea when only very, very rarely, upon good cause shown, do they ever set aside those guilty pleasure.
[20:44]
A
They're. They're locking it in. I mean, they're. This, this. They have to, because otherwise it's just, you know, what's the point? What's the point of pleading guilty if. If you can walk it back? Right. I mean, it doesn't even make sense.
[20:58]
B
Exactly. Thousands of cases every year are disposed of by guilty pleas in every state in this union. And we need, in the. In the judicial system, finality in old cases so that we can get to the new cases.
[21:11]
A
Dave, I wanted to get what your reaction was actually to that part of Coburger's statement when he said, my actual innocence is my truth. And the plea hinged on by false promises and blatant disinformation, must all in caps, be withdrawn. What was your reaction when you saw that?
[21:30]
B
Tells you more about who he is and where he is. He wants to come back to the public spotlight. Being locked in a cage 23 hours a day is not his favorite sport. And he wants to get back in the game. And unfortunately, he's found a vehicle by which he can do that for a limited period of time in this very limited perspective. But he's. He's a man of, apparently who desires some spotlight, some manipulation. He wants to be in Control again. And that's not where this thing is going to go.
[22:04]
A
Narcissist.
[22:06]
B
Absolutely. World class.
[22:08]
A
Yeah. And this is his chance to do it, so he gets a few more minutes. Do you know of any of the attorneys that are involved in this or the investigators?
[22:19]
B
Certainly I know some of the defense team. I am aware of our long standing Leyto county prosecutor who has been prosecutor longer than any other in the, in the state of Idaho by virtue of elected terms and service. So I do know some of the original team. I'm unaware who of who has been appointed a state public appellate defender in this particular instance. But that will be an experienced person as well.
[22:52]
A
Is there a time, is there a clock running on this as well? I feel like there's a clock running on how long this can go on for, you know, for him to be filing this petition for it to be heard. Is that clock running pretty hard? Is that also why he did it, sort of this Hail Mary at the last hour?
[23:12]
B
Sure. He had, I think, until September to file this particular kind of pleading in Idaho. And unfortunately, once filed, there really is no clock running on the entire continuum of how long this can go. There is, however, of course, a date that will be imposed in terms of a response by the prosecutor, response by the defense. So there will be many steps. But if the question is can this go on for years, the answer is unfortunately yes. And that's one of the reasons that an original plea was taken here, to take the death penalty off the table, because this state of Idaho and Lato county and Ada county had invested, I think to that point, directly and indirectly, about $8 million on this prosecution. And so when these things go on and on, there is a cost to the public psyche. There's a cost to the public pocketbook. The idea that these cases can go on for years and years is one reason people from time to time in this case and other cases avoid a death penalty and plead to life in the benefit of often both parties. In this case, we got the benefit of no appeals, but we could not. And no case can truly foreclose a claim of ineffective assistance to counsel under the Sixth Amendment.
[24:43]
A
You mentioned that it could go on for years. And even if he's denied outright this time, can he really keep trying this over and over again?
[24:54]
B
Well, no, not over and over again, but he can appeal to this ruling to the Idaho Supreme Court. That process can take several months or perhaps a year. Results there can be appeal to the 9th, to the federal district court in Idaho, which can appeal thereafter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which thereafter can of course be reviewed potentially by the Idaho, by the United States Supreme Court. So there are, there is this appellate chain that is available in ineffective assistance, manifest injustice cases that does have the potential to go on for years.
[25:40]
A
I mean, for those poor families that would have to listen to this monster come back into their lives over and over again, having to go through this, I mean, your experience working with victims families in horrific cases, this is, this is the worst of the worst, isn't it?
[26:00]
B
Well, it is. On the other hand here, if any case ever deserved the death penalty, these kinds of facts, these horrific murders in a little college town of these very innocent and promising young people with these loving and supporting families and friends is a death penalty type of fact pattern. And so there is a diversity of opinion which has emerged here in Idaho and among the victim families that they say if Coburger wants a new trial where death is a possible outcome, bring it on. Because that is not entirely unattractive, although the process of getting there would be very unattractive.
[26:41]
A
Well, how do you feel about that, personally? Can you give me your opinion? Do you think that the prosecution should have held out for the death penalty?
[26:51]
B
No, I don't. The prosecution, in my opinion, played this very strong and very effectively. And there comes a point when, against a very aggressive and effective defense team going into a trial, you know, that there will be a hundred evidence rulings, a thousand evidence rulings. To take all of those contingencies off the table and go for the certainty of a life sentence in this instance, I think was the right decision by the prosecution.
[27:29]
A
Dave, I, you know, I just want to say thank you so much for talking to me about this. Really helps put it into perspective. I almost feel like I'm asking you as a, a human being as much as like a, a veteran, you know, attorney and legal mind in this, in this world, tell us it's going to be okay and that he's going to stay in jail. I mean, like, literally, that's. I feel like, I feel like I'm one of those people saying, just let me know that he is not, he's never getting out of prison. That's, that's pretty much what I want to hear.
[28:02]
B
Well, this is a human tragedy from every perspective, including his own family, including the potential that had he been and stayed unbent in this society, might have realized himself with a man of some intelligence and trying to seek a way in the world. So it is a human tragedy. But this is the petition currently filed now in Idaho is a slim and none petition. It will for a period of time have the slim invasion of our lives as the judge considers this and that, as the prosecution replies, as the defense lawyers become involved in a bit of rebuttal and as Mr. Kohlberger attempts to explain how his innocence is prevailing here and was somehow subverted when he stood up and pled guilty. That's the slim part. The nun is there's no chance that he will get out of jail on this activity, even though he will be back occasionally once every couple of three months with a little bit of a ruling here and a little bit of a ruling perhaps in the, in the, certainly in the trial court and perhaps subsequently over a period of years in appellate courts. We'll see him and hear him now and then, but he won't be any place but the Idaho State Penitentiary Facility Maximum Security Unit.
[29:24]
A
Good riddance. Thank you so much for your time today. I really appreciate it. I enjoyed speaking with you and hearing your thoughts and appreciate it.
[29:34]
B
My pleasure.
[29:35]
A
Drop a comment below. I want to hear what you're thinking about this case. I can only imagine how painful it is for the victims families to have to to hear that he's put this post Conviction Relief up right now. Do you think there is any shot that he has at getting this through the legal system or do you think this is just slim or none, as Dave Leroy said. Look forward to your comments. Be sure to like subscribe and turn on your notifications. I'll be updating this story and all of the big cases that we're covering.