Prosecutor says judge can’t give Kohberger more time

The Latah County prosecutor argues the law does not allow Bryan Kohberger to partially waive his statutory right to a speedy trial in response to a recent order from the Latah County district judge.

Last week, District Judge John Judge ordered a stay of Bryan Kohberger’s speedy trial “clock” as the suspect in the Moscow quadruple murder case prepares to potentially contest his grand jury indictment.

Kohberger faces four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary in the November stabbing deaths of University of Idaho students Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin. He remains in Latah County Jail as he awaits a trial scheduled for Oct. 2 to Nov. 12.

Kohberger needs time to review the grand jury records and transcript to determine if there are grounds for challenging the grand jury selection process.

He must also decide whether to waive his right to a speedy trial. According to Idaho code, an indictment must be dismissed if the defendant is not brought to trial within six months after their arraignment.

As a result, Judge ordered a 37-day pause of the speedy trial clock to allow Kohberger time to review all of the grand jury materials without waiving his right to a speedy trial.

According to court documents released this week, Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson argued Idaho code does not allow defendants this kind of relief if their trials have been postponed upon their own application.

Thompson wrote that the Idaho Supreme Court rejected the notion that a defendant can partially, but not fully, waive his right to a speedy trial.

While Kohberger may have stated he does not intend to waive his right to a speedy trial, Judge’s order means the trial may be set outside of the 6-month period, Thompson wrote.

Thompson also said this complicates matters for the case parties, witnesses and victims’ families who want predictability in this case.

“As a purely practical matter, the parties, witnesses, and victim family members are now in limbo—will trial be set out thirty days at the Defendant’s option, or not?,” Thompson wrote. “If the Defendant reviews the grand jury materials and elects to challenge them, will the Court issue another few-weeks postponement?”

Thompson said his office understands that the court must balance the needs of the parties in the case.

“But while the Defendant undeniably has the right to review the grand jury materials, the law simply does not allow for a defendant to agree to toll speedy trial beyond six months, and later invoke his right to a speedy trial,” Thompson wrote.