ADA COUNTY, Idaho (TCN) — Bryan Kohberger, who was recently granted a status conference and evidentiary hearing in June 2027 after he requested to withdraw his guilty plea and go to trial, will appear in court much sooner.
Last summer, the 31-year-old pleaded guilty to four counts of first-degree murder in connection with the fatal November 2022 stabbings of University of Idaho students Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, Madison Mogen, and Ethan Chapin. He pleaded about a month before his trial was set to begin.
On July 27, Kohberger filed a handwritten petition alleging he had been manipulated by his defense and did not get adequate representation. He alleged that an unknown hair had been found in the hand of one of the victims, and he had felt threatened to plead guilty. In addition, he alleged he had been misled about the conditions on death row.
In a statement to the New York Times, Kohberger said, “My actual innocence is my truth, and the plea, hinged on by false promises and blatant disinformation, MUST be withdrawn.”
Though he waived any right to appeal when he pleaded guilty last year, Kohberger’s request for a new trial can lead to a similar outcome as an appeal. It is part of post-conviction relief, per the Idaho Statesman.
In August, Judge Steven Hippler granted Kohberger a status conference and evidentiary hearing to take place in June 2027.
According to a court docket, Kohberger will appear in court much sooner and his new hearing is scheduled for Oct. 15, People reports. According to the outlet, it is not clear whether Kohberger, who is in custody at the Idaho Maximum Security Institution, will be present for the hearing.
If a new trial is granted, Kohberger could face the death penalty. According to People, Kohberger’s defense will have the opportunity to argue for Judge Steven Hippler to be removed from the case at the Oct. 15 hearing.
According to People, one of Kohberger’s lawyers said of their bid to remove Hippler from the case, “This is not about attacking the Court nor asking for special treatment. It is about ensuring that the serious constitutional questions now before the Court are heard in a forum whose impartiality and neutrality cannot be questioned. … It would be an inherent conflict for the same presiding judge to decide these very issues.”
MORE:
