Bryan Kohberger and Sandra Birchmore: The Evidence vs. the Defense

Eric Faddis (0:00)

I hate Kohberger, by the way.

Tony Brueski (0:02)

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

Bryan Kohberger was supposed to be in a Boise courtroom today, actually, as of this recording on this Thursday, the 15th of October of 2026 Instead, Judge Stephen Hippler filed an order just the other day, vacating the hearing. And not just Thursdays either, there's one that's been on the calendar for June of next year too, the June status conference and the June evidentiary hearing in Kohberger's plea.

Withdrawal are gone too. What's going on? Every court date on the post-conviction calendar has been wiped. Kohberger's family attorney Jason Goldman says, this marks the start of a longer fight. Oh, yay.

So let's figure out what exactly this all means. We're going to talk about what's going on with the judge here. We're going to talk about what would happen if Kohberger did get a new trial. What would he be able to argue? Is he just there for the journey of trying to get into another courtroom? And what does it all mean going forward? To do that, former prosecutor and defense attorney Eric Faddis is with us, along with Robin Drake, retired FBI special agent, for the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program and master class instructor. So Kohberger's team set to argue today that Judge Hippler should be thrown off the case. That's what we were all preparing for happening. Call Kohberger's crimes grotesque acts of evil at set and sing is what the judge did. And he couldn't find anything redeeming about the man. Normal stuff the judges say after the defendant says, I did it. Now, Hippler himself files an order the night before vacating. Not just that hearing, but every hearing on the books. Eric, what is going on here? Why did the judge do this? I think that's the biggest question. Just why? What's going on?

Eric Faddis (2:08)

It's a little bit of a head scratcher. My understanding is the judge should not include any reasoning in his decision to vacate these hearings. But some of the contextual circumstances give us some clues. So Kohberger is seeking to have that judge recused.

Is this some indication that the judge might be siding with that petition and might be going in the direction of granting it, in which case that would result in a vacation of the future court dates and they would be reset on a new judge's calendar? Is that possibly what's going on? I think it's possible. And then on top of that, it could also be that the judge thinks these hearings have no merit at all, should not have been granted a hearing for, and is just going to try to kick them out, so it's a lot of possible interpretations.

Robin Drake (2:55)

I like the last one there because I hate that they're doing this. You know, it just really pisses me off that Kohberger even has the time of day to do this.

Can you, for those with the small legal brains, what exactly does it mean when the judge is vacating this? What's that mean?

Eric Faddis (3:15)

Yeah, so the judge, my understanding is has had several court proceedings set for the future to address some of these legal issues, including the motion to withdraw the plea. And so what the judge did was he sort of wiped that from the calendar, saying, hey, these are no longer scheduled, they're no longer happening as of right now.

And we'll see kind of what the next play is.

Robin Drake (3:35)

And you see, I'm sorry, Tony, I'm just falling, but just kind of wrapping my head around that. So does that mean that it can't happen ever again or like, what is the next step on that?

Eric Faddis (3:47)

Those hearings can certainly be rescheduled and those matters might be litigated again, perhaps in front of this judge, perhaps in front of the new judge.

Tony Brueski (3:55)

Okay, I got two here. Can a judge say, yeah, you know what, this isn't worth a hearing. I'm not even going to grant it. I'm not even going to give you the hearing.

Did these things have to procedurally land on his calendar to begin with? And then he has the call of doing exactly this, vacating it or taking the hearing and actually having it. What sort of authority does Hipler actually have on even giving Kohberger the time of day?

Eric Faddis (4:25)

It can vary by jurisdiction, but as a general rule, no one is automatically entitled to a hearing based on some motion you file. It's not like I can file something that has no merit, that has no support, and the judge is like, oh, well, we're going to waste two hours anyway on the court's docket to have a hearing on this. No, the judge can certainly summarily deny pleadings and can't do so without providing much reasoning, if any. And so there's no right that Kohberger has to a hearing necessarily. Usually the judge has to determine that there is at least some credibility to the filing that would justify using the court's time for that hearing right now.