Defense attorneys for Bryan Kohberger make a compelling argument to throw out his grand jury indictment – as the accused murderer wants the case to just go away! The Law&Crime Network’s Jesse Weber has the top 3 things you need to know about the defense’s claims, what happened in court, and the ultimate decisions from the judge.

Listen to Law&Crime’s Sidebar Podcast on Apple & Spotify:
Apple: https://apple.co/3wMgRgB
Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3wITe7b

Hosts:
Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweber
Angenette Levy: https://twitter.com/Angenette5

LAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:
Head of Social Media, YouTube – Bobby Szoke
Podcast Director – Sam Goldberg
Senior Director of Social Media – Vanessa Bein
Senior Digital Producer – Savannah Williamson
Video Editing – Michael Deininger
Guest Booking – Alyssa Fisher

#IdahoFour #BryanKohberger #LawAndCrime

STAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:
Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3y
Where To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5
Sign Up For Law&Crime’s Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletter
Read Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2Iqo

For Advertising Inquires, Please Contact: sales@lawandcrime.com
For Licensing Inquiries, Please Contact: licensing@lawandcrime.com

LAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetwork
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrime
Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetwork
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrime

LAW&CRIME NETWORK PODCASTS: https://lawandcrime.com/podcasts/

SUBSCRIBE TO ALL OF LAW&CRIME NETWORK YOUTUBE CHANNELS:
Main Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz8K1occVvDTYDfFo7N5EZw
Law&Crime Shorts: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVXOqoOCYbi-iXChKAl6DTQ
Channel B: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXCLaaClAWQiTkl3pw9ZdLw
Channel C: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMV3pzWIhJGLYzoHyxBjjNw

source

By elboriyorker

HOSTING BY PHILLYFINESTSERVERSTAT | ANGELHOUSE © 2009 - 2024 | ALL YOUTUBE VIDEOS IS A REGISTERED TRADEMARK OF GOOGLE INC. THE YOUTUBE CHANNELS AND BLOG FEEDS IS MANAGED BY THERE RIGHTFUL OWNERS. POST QUESTION OR INQUIRIES SEND ME AN EMAIL TO elboriyorkeratgmailcom (www.phillyfinest369.com)

42 thoughts on “Idaho Murders Judge Makes 3 Critical Calls as Bryan Kohberger’s Case Progresses”
  1. What a circus the defense is trying to turn this into!!! I’m so tired of their shenanigans to get Koberger off!! It’s a waste of time and energy plus taxpayers money!!!😡😡😡 I’m so tired of this and the smirky looks from Kobergers face!!

  2. It makes you think the Defense lawyers are willing to overlook the damning facts to get a win. These kids were not from wealthy families, some poor and struggling and they still have student loans and incredible heartache.
    The media is full of you tubers calling these gals druggies or dealers bc it was a party house.
    The lawyers don’t care as long as it could be a stepping stone to try something in the Supreme Court.
    Disgusting and immoral legal games.

  3. Bla bla bla.. in order to bind over the defendant and hold them for trial. He was already arested AND bound over for trial. There wasn't a need for the indictment. So that reason didn't make sense.
    They didn't want the preliminary hearing.
    All this from the procecution STINKS.
    Why did they arest him if they were going to indict?

  4. Judge John Judge – I appreciate you, and the alliteration in your name 😊.

    I'm absolutely gripped by this tragic event that took place in Idaho. So many times I've thought "He's definitely guilty" then something comes along that may contradict my belief.

    Liverpool 🇬🇧.

    Justice for Kaylee, Maddie, Ethan & Xana ❤

  5. The families need answers and relief Brian needs to be held accountable he’s trying to delay it to get out of it. He thinks his rights count but those kids didn’t have a chance what about their rights.

  6. The jury used the evidence of all 3 jurisdictions : Idaho,WA, and PA in order to return an indictment,they had to show them everything in order to have " standing" in that jurisdiction where " jurisdiction " is the rule for indictments. ( Federal) jurisdiction.

  7. The argument about reasonable doubt is mute,because it became a federal case because it crosses jurisdictional mandates meaning multiple states " Idaho" PA, WA counties,so the case is not just sole jurisdiction to Idaho, therefore the case becomes a federal case ,and the same G jury rules are much more broad. That argument will not work.

  8. Judge John Judge seems to be doing a great job dealing with whatever comes up.
    I’m happy to see there will be monitored camara use.
    Hopefully it will be treated responsibility and respectfully.

  9. Well I wish all Judges could as well spoken as Judge John Judge. That was a polite and clear response to a valid argument. This is an interesting case and I'm curious to see how it goes.

  10. The statute is too ambiguous – would vs could "…would, in their judgment, warrant a conviction by a jury trial." The issue is simply, whether the case will result in an
    indictment after the grand jury proceeding NOT what the ultimate trier of fact will, might, would or could use later at trial as the standard of proof in the proceeding.
    Should the case be kicked "upstairs" to court with an indictment? Yes or no? The defense, grasping at straws, is essentially making an unconstitutionality issue over
    would vs could. What will the subsequent standard of proof be at the later trial is not or should not be the issue here. It is a red herring, a throw in the kitchen
    sink, hail Mary argument to muddy the waters and DELAY the proceedings. The defense position has been from the get go – delay the case and proceedings by whatever
    manner available and to make the proceedings as complicated, expensive, dilatory and burdensome as possible. In this regard, unfortunately, the defense is WINNING
    this case by attrition. Think OJ Simpson murder trial. This case, like that one, got (is getting) so incredibly bogged down that the impossible might just very well happen
    (not guilty).

  11. The Statute says 'warrant' a conviction, IF a conviction is made, it's not saying a conviction must be made! This defense team can't understand their own Statute! They're reaching.

Comments are closed.