Bryan Kohberger Accused His Own Lawyer… Now She Has the Tape

SPEAKER_1 (0:01)

This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Drake.

Tony Brueski (0:08)

BryanKohberger's entire post-conviction case rests on one argument. His attorneys failed him. That's what he's saying, despite Anne Taylor being a stellar attorney. He named them in the petition. Anne Taylor, Alyssa Massoff, Bika Barlow, he accused them of hiding evidence, lying about what death row looks like, and telling him his plea didn't need to be truthful. He claims one of them fabricated a story about personally touring a death row cell. Anne Taylor hasn't said a word publicly, but if this case ever reaches an evidentiary hearing, she won't have a choice. Attorney Eric Faddis is here to walk through what happens when the person you threw under the bus gets called to the stand, which might happen in this case. Robin Drake, retired FBI Special Agent, Chief of the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program, also with us. So he's accusing Anne Taylor of lying to him, coercing the plea, hiding evidence.

That's an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. A claim, though, doesn't always necessarily equal facts or reality.

What is Anne Taylor walking into here as this progresses down the line? Attorney claim, privilege, the thing that was protecting every conversation Kohberger had with Taylor for years. Does that disappear with this petition that's been filed? What can now be said to the public on the part of Taylor to dispel or just rebut or refute or confirm whatever she wants to say, what Kohberger is claiming publicly here?

Eric Faddis (1:52)

Anne Taylor is in an undesirable position here because you have all these allegations against you as the attorney now.

But the privilege and confidentiality between the attorney and the client still persists. Now, it changes a little bit. But usually what happens is the attorney is allowed to disclose only that which is necessary to rebut the claims against the attorney by the client. And so, does that permit public disclosure to repair your good name? Probably not. What it probably permits is disclosure during the hearing.

And it can't be like of all the bad things you want to say about the client. It can't be like, hey, this client wasn't listening and they said all this other gross stuff, the court should know about this. No. You've got to keep your disclosure narrowly tailored to that which is necessary to rebut the claims against you. And so the attorney is still kind of handcuffed at this hearing in a significant way.

Tony Brueski (2:57)

Before the plea, Taylor's team filed a sealed memo with Judge Hippler saying Kohberger was having difficulty comprehending adverse rulings and couldn't rationally assess the case. She asked for more time and expert help. Hippler denied that continuance. So it wasn't a, you know, this client is not able to participate in their own defense argument, but it's, I don't know, it seems like it's kind of, you know, the second cousin of that sort of a claim.

What in reality does that mean? I mean, this would be conjecture. We don't know exactly what those conversations were like. But Eric, what were you taking that as meaning, you know, from your legal mind, when you see that, when you read that, what was your understanding of what she was referring to, what was going on behind those scenes?

Eric Faddis (3:53)

My understanding is that she was telling the court, we need a little more time. We need a little more time before we wrap up this quadruple homicide death penalty case, because my client allegedly was having difficulty understanding what was going on and things like that. The thing is, is that a gift that she kind of gave to Kohberger? Because now, Kohberger in his motion to withdraw the plea is kind of in part arguing, hey, I was sort of pushed into this, my attorneys were not straight up with me about it.

Is this filing consistent? Is that consistent with what Kohberger is arguing to the judge? I think in some folks' minds, it is. And so, does that possibly strengthen his ability to run it back and get these convictions vacated and have a second bite at the apple?

Tony Brueski (4:46)

What is the difference between understanding what pleading guilty means and not being able to participate in one's own defense? What's the difference here? Because she did say, when asked by the judge, is he able to do that? And the answer was yes to that question, but this is still in the notes.

Eric Faddis (5:07)

Yeah, you know, it sounds like, so if a person is incompetent, that usually means they have a medical disease or defect that causes them to not be aware of what's going on in the proceedings. So, and we're talking like, not really knowing where you're at, not knowing who these people are in the courtroom, not knowing who the judge is, who the prosecutor is, what their role is. It sounds like the lack of understanding was not to that level, you know? So that's incompetence, that's different. But there's certainly some overlap because I think, you know, he's arguing that he has a lack of understanding, but not to the level of being incompetent, not being able to contribute to your defense, things like that.