Legal experts say Bryan Kohberger faces steep odds in trying to withdraw guilty plea
Bryan Kohberger, convicted of killing four University of Idaho students, has filed a post-conviction motion to overturn his guilty plea, but scholars note that Idaho law makes such a reversal difficult.
A year after pleading guilty to the murders of four University of Idaho students, Bryan Kohberger has filed a post-conviction motion seeking to withdraw that plea. He argues that his attorneys gave ineffective assistance and made false promises that induced the plea, and that the agreement was not entered voluntarily. Kohberger’s statement to the New York Times asserts that his “actual innocence” was compromised by “false promises and disinformation.”
Legal analysts say the plea agreement included a questionnaire confirming that Kohberger entered the plea freely, understood the charges, and waived his right to appeal. While waiving appeal rights limits standard appellate review, experts note that Idaho courts allow post-conviction relief for claims that cannot be raised on appeal. To succeed, Kohberger must demonstrate that his plea was involuntary or the result of ineffective counsel, and that a “manifest injustice” occurred, a high legal threshold.
Professor Samuel Newton of the University of Idaho College of Law explains that Idaho Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(c) permits withdrawal before sentencing for “fair and just reason,” but after sentencing it is allowed only to correct a manifest injustice. Post-conviction relief is a civil, collateral proceeding in which Kohberger bears the burden of proof. He would need concrete evidence showing material misrepresentations by his lawyers or that a reasonable probability existed that he would have gone to trial absent those factors.
The judge’s direct question at the plea hearing—whether Kohberger was pleading guilty because he was guilty—creates a strong presumption of truthfulness, according to the experts. Additionally, proving ineffective assistance after an on-record statement of satisfaction with counsel is challenging; errors must be egregious enough to fall below professional standards. While not impossible, the consensus among scholars is that the likelihood of overturning the plea is very low.