In a shocking turn of events, Brian

Cobberger,

the man accused of savagely

killing four University of Idaho

students in cold blood, has just decided

to plead guilty after a threeyear legal

saga right on the eve of trial. Why do

this now? And especially after he tried

to point the finger at others. We’re

going to break it down. Welcome to

Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I’m

Jesse Weber.

Brian Coberger plans to plead guilty.

That is a shocking headline that was

first reported by News Nation. Came out

Monday night. Still reeling from this,

trying to understand why. Now, I think

there is an important legal

consideration, an important legal

reason, something that just happened

that may have influenced this decision.

But I mean, for us here on Sidebar,

anybody who’s been following our show

for the past what, 3 years, we were

covering this case even before we knew

about Brian Cobberger, we were covering

this when the killings happened. And

there was that whole six week search for

the killer before his arrest. And when I

say killings, you know what I’m talking

about, right? The brutal stabbing deaths

of four University of Idaho students at

this off-campus rental home. 21-year-old

Madison Mogan, 21-year-old Kaylee

Gonzalez, 20-year-old Xanakodal, and

20-year-old Ethan Chapen. This was back

on November 13th, 2022. Now, 30-year-old

Brian Coberger, who was arrested the

following month, a former criminology

student at Washington State University,

he has been facing four counts of murder

and burglary. And now, it was announced

on the eve of his criminal trial about

to begin in August. August 4th was jury

selection. August 18th opening

statements, he intends to plead guilty

as per a plea deal with the prosecution

in Moscow. And as part of that deal, the

idea would be that he would be sentenced

to life in prison without the

possibility of parole, but the death

penalty would be taken off the table.

He’ll also reportedly wave his right to

an appeal. Now, as reported by the Idaho

Statesman, according to a letter that

was sent to a victim’s family, Leak

County prosecuting attorney Bill

Thompson said, “We cannot fathom the

toll that this case has taken on your

family, and this resolution is our

sincere attempt to seek justice for your

family. This agreement ensures that the

defendant will be convicted, will spend

the rest of his life in prison, and will

not be able to put you and the other

families through the uncertainty of

decades of postconviction appeals.”

Here’s the problem with that. It appears

that some of the families don’t want

this. In a Facebook statement, the

family of Kaylee Gonzalez said, “It’s

true. We are beyond furious at the state

of Idaho. They have failed us. Please

give us some time. This was very

unexpected. We appreciate all your love

and support. #heartbroken

#kayjadeforever.”

Now, in a follow-up statement, the

family said the following. The death

penalty is merely an illusion in the

criminal justice system. When available,

it serves as a bargaining tool for the

state, and when rarely applied, it’s

never enforced due to a highly

inefficient appellet process. The notion

that someone can plead guilty to a crime

and still face years of appellet delays

reveals a systemic failure. The Lat

County Prosecutor’s Office treatment of

our family during this process is

something I wouldn’t wish on anyone. We

questioned decisions early in the

investigation. Why was the mayor

commenting on the case? Why was the

coroner speaking to families? Why was an

officer with less than two years

experience leading the investigation?

Why was the University of Idaho involved

when they declared it an isolated

off-campus incident? Why was the

university permitted to write a book

about the incident while others were

silenced under an overly broad order? As

a result, we were branded adversaries.

So, it was no shock how the Lat County

prosecutor’s office mishandled the plea

deal. They vaguely mentioned a possible

plea on Friday without seeking our input

and presented the plea on Sunday. Lat

County should be ashamed of its

prosecutor’s office. Four wonderful

young people lost their lives. Yet, the

victim’s families were treated as

opponents from the outset. We weren’t

even called about the plea. We received

an email with a letter attached. That’s

how Lat County’s prosecutor’s office

treats murder victims families. Adding

insult to injury, they’re rushing the

plea, giving families just one day to

coordinate and appear at the courthouse

for a plea on July 2nd. Who do they

think they are? After more than two

years, this is how it concludes with a

secretive deal and a hurried effort to

close the case without any input from

the victim’s families on the police

details. Our family is frustrated right

now and that will subside and we will

come together as always and deal with

the reality that we face moving forward.

Once again, we thank everyone for their

thoughts and prayers. Now, according to

TMZ, Zanzant Kim Kernodal is furious.

wanted Coberg to face a jury despite the

prosecution allegedly telling them that

this spares the families having to see

gruesome crime scene photos. Kim

responded, “We know the graphics. They

were not trying to spare us.” She claims

when prosecutors informed them of the

deal, they didn’t mention removing the

death penalty. Hey everybody, this is

another lawn crime legal alert. If you

receive Deborah Paa birth control shots

and were later diagnosed with a brain or

spinal tumor called meningioma, you may

be eligible for a lawsuit. That’s right,

Morgan and Morgan. They’re investigating

claims that patients weren’t improperly

warned about this risk. It’s free to

check, just takes a few minutes, and you

don’t pay unless they win. So, scan the

QR code on screen, click the link below,

or go to forthepeople.com/lcdepo

to see if you qualify.

So, now we have this hearing that’s

scheduled Wednesday. It is expected

Brian Coberger will change his plea to

guilty. This is a hearing that is

required under Idaho law. So, why do

this? Why do this now? For that, let me

bring on somebody who’s been following

the case from the very beginning. I’m

joined by trial attorney friend of the

show, Rich Showenstein. Rich, good to

see you. Thanks for taking the time.

Happy to be here, Jesse.

Reaction?

Well, I I’m shocked like everybody else.

I didn’t see this coming. Everything we

heard about this case was that Brian

Coberger was going to deny guilt and

that the state of Idaho was going to

vigorously pursue this prosecution. So,

I I didn’t know this was coming. I

didn’t have any preview and I was very

surprised that it happened.

What is your

reaction to the family’s reaction? I

mean, the Gonzalez family attorney,

Shannon Gray, told CNN the issue is

they’re trying to cram the plea for July

2nd only gives the families a day to get

to Boise. That’s, you know, aside from

the scheduling of it, the lack of

information, the lack of input. Does

that seem typical to you?

Well, I have concerns about what we’ve

heard, but also I think I’m right here.

We’ve only heard from two of the four

families. And one of the complicating

factors in this is that there are four

families that would have to be

separately consulted and that might not

all be of the same opinion. So, I I am

concerned about what I’ve heard. If the

families weren’t consulted or they

weren’t given very much time in the

course of being consulted or they

haven’t been listened to at all, I would

be concerned about that. Um, but I sort

of suspect that’s not really the case.

Uh, I I assume there was some

consultation here. I assume there’s been

ongoing discussions with these families.

I would have to know more about that

back and forth to really have an opinion

about it

if there was. So, you know, we

don’t really know the specifics of what

was said and what wasn’t, but if the

family or families really do not want

this to happen under Idaho law, I don’t

know if you know this, could the court

reject the plea? Could the court

generally reject the plea if the family

say we do not want this? war. At the end

of the day, if the defendant is choosing

to plead guilty and the prosecution is

accepting that, did the families really

not have any input?

So, I don’t know the specifics about

Idaho law on this point. But as a

general matter, I would say that if you

have prosecutors who have negotiated a

deal and a defendant who is going to

take the deal and the deal appears

somewhat reasonable and he’s agreeing to

life in prison without the possibility

of parole, the court’s not going to deny

that deal. The court is going to approve

that deal even if some of the families

disagree. I mean, the court can’t make

the prosecutors seek the death penalty,

which is basically the option here. So,

I think at the end of the day, the court

will approve this deal one way or the

other.

I am curious at this hearing,

which we plan to cover, by the way, on

law and crime. We’re going to try to do

live coverage. I’m curious if the family

makes a statement if they try to

persuade the judge not to agree to this

in some way.

Yeah, I would I well, it sounds like at

least one or two of the families are

pretty vocal, so I expect they would try

to be heard at this hearing and would

try to be heard publicly. So, I think

that will be interesting. And I I feel

really bad for the families. You know,

you want them to have some level of

catharsis here. You want them to get

some solace out of the conclusion of

these criminal proceedings. And it’s one

thing not to like the result that may or

may not happen, but to be so troubled by

the process, I really feel bad for those

families.

I want to go through maybe the

legal reasons why this is happening.

Okay. So, it was reported just days ago

before this plea deal, just days ago

that the judge overseeing this case,

Steven Hiper, who’s going to be, you

know, ultimately deciding whether to

accept this deal, barred the defense,

prevented the defense from moving

forward with a quote alternate

perpetrator defense, meaning someone

else did it. So apparently, while the

defense intended to point the finger at

four alternative suspects, their

identity is unknown because there are

sealed documents. Although USA Today

reports that there were three who were

quote socially connected to one or more

of the victims, while the other had a

quote passing connection, the judge

wasn’t convinced. The judge wasn’t

convinced there was anything to back

this up, saying quote the evidence is

entirely irrelevant, citing a lack of

motive or even means to carry out the

killings. Hitler writing in his

decision, “They have each cooperated

with law enforcement, providing DNA

samples, fingerprints, and allowing

searches as requested. Notably, lab

testing has excluded their DNA from

samples taken from the crime scene and

victims.” And he went on to say, “It is

not sufficient for a defendant to merely

offer up unsupported speculation that

another person may have committed the

crime, which is all defendant has done

here, and that this would quote lead the

jury astray.” Rich, I wonder I got to

believe the fact that they weren’t given

this option, this defense, may have

played a role in his decision to

ultimately plead guilty.

Sure, I bet it

did. When you think about it, the

primary reason a defendant would agree

to this deal is that he doesn’t believe

he has a chance of victory at trial. Uh

the evidence is overwhelming against

him. I mean, from what I’ve heard, it’s

very compelling. He doesn’t have a

defense. He doesn’t have an alibi. He’s

not the court’s not going to let him put

in this third party culprit kind of

defense. So he feels going into the

trial that he doesn’t have any chance of

success on guilt. And then he realizes

that if I’m found guilty, they’re going

to consider the death penalty and

they’re going to find aggravating

factors and I’m going to get sentenced

to death. That is the most likely

outcome if the trial goes forward.

Rich, I got to tell you, when I heard

this is the first thing that came to my

mind, assuming he did this, right? What

do I mean by that? Assuming he’s not a

guy who says, “I’m completely innocent,

but you know, I can’t get a fair shake

at this trial. I’m just, you know,

taking the best that I can. You know, I

I don’t want the death penalty. I’m I’m

pleading guilty to something I didn’t

do.” Assuming that’s not the case. Okay,

let’s assume he really did do this.

Okay, what a monster. What a monster for

a guy who’s admitting who’s going to

plead guilty. Okay, so if we’re assuming

he did this, he was trying to blame

other people 5 minutes ago. I’m sorry. I

know that you’re entitled to a defense,

but there’s something about that that

really, really gets me angry.

Yeah, I get that. I mean, he’s going to

go down as one of the great monsters in

US history. I mean, for somebody to come

in to the home of these college students

and do that to completely innocent

people for whatever warped crazy reasons

he did it. Um, it it really is

unspeakable evil and we’ve assumed from

the evidence that he probably did it.

He’s now going to admit guilt. Uh, his

name will live forever as an example of

evil.

And I also have to wonder one of

the reasons why that he might have pled

guilty. There was another legal

development, right? It was also the

judge recently, a few days ago, denied

the defense’s bid to delay the trial.

The argument was that they needed more

time for discovery. They also made the

argument that because of the extensive

media coverage of the case, including

this dine episode, it may have uh

created a prejuditial effect,

particularly on a jury. But Judge Hipler

wrote in an order, quote, “Defendant has

not made showing that there is good

cause to continue the trial or that his

substantial rights will be prejudiced by

proceeding to trial as scheduled.” And

he also added, “The longer the public is

made to sit and wait for the facts to

come out at trial, the more time there

is for inflammatory speculative stories,

movies, and books to circulate, and more

time for prior ones to be rebroadcast,

purchased, viewed, and consumed by the

public. proceeding with trials scheduled

will likely avoid negative consequences

from future publicity. Rich, again, it

seems to me that had a factor that that

must have had a factor as well,

right? I

think the people keep asking, well, why

did this happen now? And and the reason

is that the trial was approaching

quickly and it’s not unusual for all

basically all kinds of court cases get

into settlement discussions on the eve

of trial, both criminal and civil cases.

And so with trial approaching here and

rulings not going in his favor and the

evidence stacked against him, it might

have been a moment where he realized,

I’m just going to have to plead guilty

to save my life because going through

with this trial isn’t going to work and

delaying this trial isn’t going to work

either.

And in my legal opinion, they

had him dead to rights. Okay, look, he’s

he was innocent until proven guilty. But

what did they have? Prosecutors alleged

that Coberger’s DNA was found on a KBAR

knife sheath that was left at the crime

scene. Cell phone records allegedly

placed him near the victim’s home before

the killings. More particularly for

reporting from Fox News and East Idaho

News. We’re talking cell phone data that

demonstrates or arguably demonstrates

that Cobberger’s phone pinged almost a

dozen times near a tower that provides

coverage within feet of the crime scene.

Surveillance footage apparently shows a

white Hyundai Elantre matching

Cobberger’s car speeding away afterward.

It was in that area multiple times to,

according to the government, a potential

eyewitness ID from a surviving roommate.

Court documents indicate the roommate

described the intruder as quote not very

muscular, but athletically built with

bushy eyebrows. And we did this whole

separate sidebar on this as well where

there’s this apparently or maybe a

mysterious other witness, potential Door

Dash delivery driver who allegedly saw

Coberger at the crime scene. Internet

searches allegedly from Cobberger’s

phone about Ted Bundy, the Moscow

killings, pornography. So again, what

was the defense going to be, Rich? He

was driving around late at night. You

know, it was reported that the judge was

going to allow the defense to call

several people. One was apparently a

friend of Coers in high school. Another

was potentially Coberger’s boxing coach,

a guy who owns the dealership where

Cobberger’s parents bought the Hyundai

Elantre. But when you look at that

mountain of evidence, and I’ve been

using that phrase from the very

beginning, a mountain of evidence, it

became very difficult for the defense to

argue against it.

Yeah, I I think it was overwhelming. But

also, you know, Jesse, we can talk for a

minute if you want about why the state

of Idaho would do this. I I know the

evidence seemed overwhelming against

him, but at the end of the day, there’s

a jury of 12 people, and they all have

to be convinced beyond a reasonable

doubt that the government has proved

guilt. And so for the government,

there’s always a chance that somebody on

that jury doesn’t feel like they can

convict this person. And so for them to

get a guilty plea, first of all, it gets

rid of the cost and effort of doing this

trial. And it gets certainty

because

it’s expensive. It’s expensive. It’s not

a trial. It’s it’s also a death penalty

trial.

Right. Exactly. Right. And it’s

not just a trial. In these kind of

cases, it’s years and years of appeals

and habius petitions and fights about

the death penalty. And you avoid all of

that. You avoid the public spectacle.

You avoid shining a light on these

innocent college students that were

murdered in their home. You avoid the

circus atmosphere. You avoid all of it.

and you put this monster in jail for the

rest of his life. And I do feel bad if

one or more of the families are unhappy

with that outcome. But I got to tell

you, that is a good outcome from the

prosecution’s point of view. Life in

prison without the chance of parole, not

having to do a trial, not going through

years and years of appeals, that is a

good outcome for the state of Idaho. And

look, the jury a jury would be spared

from seeing these photos. Even though

the family said that they’ve already

seen everything and they’ve already seen

the graphics, they too were spared from

seeing it. Um, you also talk about the

fact that the surviving maybe the

surviving roommate doesn’t have to

testify and recount what she saw because

she became a a point of conversation as

well. Um, and you know there this trial

would be difficult for a number of

different reasons. Having said that, you

can’t put aside the how the family feels

and what they wanted and what they saw

as justice. I guess my question is about

this now. Are we ever going to find out

what really happened here? You know, one

of the interests that people had about

this trial was it wasn’t necessarily was

he going to be found guilty or not? I

think a lot of people felt that he was

going to be found guilty. The question

was, is any information going to come

out, Rich, about why he did this, his

motive, any kind of the why? And now

that he is going to be potentially

pleading guilty, I don’t think by law he

has to like there’s a mandatory like

it’s mandatory that he provide a

statement about why he did it. He

doesn’t have to do that. Um, there’s an

Idaho criminal rule 33 that says before

imposing sentence, the court must give

counsel an opportunity to speak on

behalf of the defendant and must ask the

defendant personally if the defendant

wishes to make a statement and to

present, you know, any information in

mitigation of punishment. But are we

going to find out any information uh

from Brian Cobberger? Are we going to

find out any information from the

prosecution? Now, you tell me.

So, he’s not going to be required to

make a statement. And I’ve never seen

that in this kind of plea deal to

explain himself and say why he committed

the crime. I don’t think that’s going to

be required of him. He might get the

opportunity to do it. He might get the

opportunity to make a statement or he

can make a statement from jail. I mean,

he can be interviewed. He can provide

information if he wants, but he’s not

going to be obligated to. And we may

never know really what the story was. Uh

the prosecution has evidence. They may

be able to release some of that

following the guilty plea, following the

conclusion of the proceeding. Maybe

we’ll get a little more of the evidence

that we would have seen in trial. You

might get some more information, but are

we ever going to really know? I mean, I

I don’t think it’s knowable how somebody

could do uh something like this. I I’ll

never get a satisfactory answer. I I’m

hoping because if they remove the gag

order because so much of this has been

in secret. I if we know, you know, what

his activity was leading up the months,

the weeks leading up to this, what was

his search history? Was he what was his

connection? The stranger coming into the

house in the middle of the night is what

makes this particularly chilling and

eerie. And that’s the part that’s very

hard to grasp. Um, and that’s the part

that I’m hoping everybody gets a little

bit more information, particularly the

families. the families need more

information than anybody else. Now, one

thing I wanted to ask you about is uh

ABC News is reporting that the state

will also seek restitution for the

victims and their families. This is

according to the plea agreement. What

does that look like exactly?

Well, I mean, it’s usually some sort of

financial provision by the defendant. I

don’t know. I I have no information

about his financial wherewithal. I don’t

know what his assets are like. Um, but

if he has any assets, they could be

significantly depleted in favor of the

families. I’m sure that’s not really

solace to them either.

No. The uh

University of Idaho released a

statement, too. We keep the families of

the victims in our hearts as each deals

with this outcome in their own way. No

outcome can replace what they lost. We

will never forget the four incredible

lives taken. Rich Shoenstein, thank you

so much. Appreciate you taking the time,

sir.

Glad to be here. Happy fourth. And

that’s all we have for you right now

here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so

much for joining us. And as always,

please subscribe on YouTube, Apple

Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should

get your podcasts. I’m Jesse Weber. I’ll

speak to you next time.

[Music]