The case of Bryan Kohberger took an interesting twist recently as his defense team made a bold move. They filed a motion seeking dismissal of his indictment because the grand jury had been misled regarding the standard of proof required for an indictment. The defense argued that the grand jury had been erroneously instructed with a standard of proof required for a pre-sentiment when they should have been informed that the standard was beyond a reasonable doubt.

Tony Brueski and retired FBI Special Agent Jennifer Coffindaffer recently discussed these proceedings on their podcast, "Hidden Killers." According to Coffindaffer, the move is more than mere finagling of the language. "It's a smart move, they're really just finagling the language and I guess I should say Tony, it's a little bit more than finagling," she explained.
 
The podcast delves into the complexities of the U.S. grand jury system, revealing that the standard of proof is not identical across all grand juries. Coffindaffer believes that this could turn out to be good news for the prosecution. She reasons that the case was presented as "a probable cause, plus up to the point of believing that the evidence they presented would be indeed a beyond a reasonable doubt proof."
 
The expert also stressed that this motion could be a double-edged sword for Kohberger's defense. If the defense is successful and the grand jury is reconvened, the outcome could still potentially be the same. "If not, and they lose now, they've said, look, a jury of your peers has already convicted you basically. By finding a beyond a reasonable doubt standard at the grand jury level," Coffindaffer elucidated.
 
This move by the defense could potentially affect the timeline of the trial. If another grand jury has to be convened, then a new true bill or no bill would need to be returned. Kohberger would then have to plea for that bill, effectively restarting the speedy trial clock. This process, as Coffindaffer pointed out, would be akin to "round two."
 
Moreover, the motion by the prosecution, asking the judge to compel Kohberger's defense team to provide more information about an elusive alibi, came under discussion. The defense has so far stated that the alibi may be offered through cross-examination of the state's witnesses and through expert witnesses.
 
Coffindaffer called it "the most backhanded version of an alibi I've ever heard," criticizing the defense's non-committal approach. "They really gave no alibi because if they came up and said, yes, we have an alibi, you have to provide. Essentially what corroborates that so that the state would have time to cross examine or, to interview those witnesses," she pointed out.
 
The defense’s possible strategy, according to Coffindaffer, could be to present a different interpretation of existing cell phone and video evidence, attempting to prove that Kohberger was not at the crime scene. "I think what they're going to try to say is, they're going to get experts that will say, he triangulated to someplace else," she explained.
 
Coffindaffer, however, remained skeptical of the defense’s potential strategy, saying, "And that makes sense. I just don't think anybody is going to buy it. Judging from the amount of video and I think we haven't even seen it all yet." As the discussion came to an end, Coffindaffer and Brueski agreed that while the defense has presented a potentially clever strategy, the wealth of evidence against Kohberger might prove insurmountable.
 
The recent moves in the Bryan Kohberger case underscore the complexities of the legal process and the nuances of defense strategy. As the trial unfolds, it will indeed be interesting to see how these strategies play out in court and how they will influence the jury's decision.
Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj

Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
The latest on Ca