Bryan Kohberger gets new attorney after saying he wants to withdraw his guilty plea for murders of four Idaho students
Bryan Kohberger, who murdered four University of Idaho students in November 2022, has petitioned to withdraw his guilty plea and has been appointed a new, publicly funded attorney to pursue the effort. The move comes roughly a year after he accepted a plea deal that spared him the death penalty in exchange for four consecutive life sentences, and it has caused fresh distress for the victims' families as the case risks reopening.
Kohberger, 31, told the New York Times he has an "absolute claim of innocence" and said his confession was based on "false promises and blatant disinformation." In a handwritten petition dated 27 July, he accused his former defence team of failing to disclose that a hair found at the crime scene had been ruled not to be his. His new lawyer, Greg Rauch, said he has not yet reviewed the case, while Idaho's Attorney General called the reversal "deeply painful" for the families of Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin. If Kohberger's petition for post-conviction relief succeeds, his plea could be revoked, sending the case to trial and potentially putting the death penalty back on the table.
- Kohberger seeks to withdraw guilty plea, claims innocence
- New public defender appointed; case could return to trial
- Victims' families call the move painful and attention-seeking
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of allowing the challenge argue that the right to contest a guilty plea is a fundamental safeguard of due process, particularly in a capital case where the stakes could not be higher. If Kohberger genuinely felt pressured by his own legal team into admitting guilt, perhaps to avoid the death penalty, then the courts have a duty to examine that claim rather than treat finality as more important than accuracy. A justice system worth the name must allow scrutiny of whether a plea was truly voluntary and informed, even at a late stage, since wrongful or coerced admissions have occurred before and the consequences of getting this wrong are irreversible.
The case against
Sceptics of the withdrawal attempt argue that guilty pleas are accepted only after a rigorous court colloquy specifically designed to confirm they are voluntary, informed and free of coercion, making a year-later reversal deeply implausible without concrete new evidence. They contend that permitting such reversals so readily invites abuse by defendants seeking only to delay proceedings, retraumatise victims' families and exploit the legal process for tactical advantage. Respecting the finality of a properly entered plea, they argue, is essential to a functioning justice system and to sparing grieving families from being dragged through the ordeal of trial again without genuine cause.