Bryan Kohberger, charged with the fatal stabbing of four University of Idaho students in November 2022, has agreed to plead guilty. However, this agreement is not universally accepted among the victims’ families, as Kaylee Goncalves’ family stands against any plea deal that excludes the death penalty. Shanon Gray, the attorney representing Goncalves’ family, stated they requested a rescheduling of the plea hearing set for Wednesday so they could attend in Boise.
The Chapin family, who also lost their son Ethan in the incident, backs the proposed plea deal, as confirmed by Christina Teves, family spokesperson. Meanwhile, Karen and Scott Laramie, Madison Mogen’s mother and stepfather, plan to provide a statement post-hearing through their legal representative Leander James. No immediate response was given by Xana Kernodle’s relatives when approached for comments.
A letter obtained by ABC News indicates prosecutors met with available family members before proposing the plea bargain. This scenario raises questions about the impact on victims’ families when they disagree with legal proceedings. Understanding their rights and options is vital, both in Idaho and across the U.S.
Historically, the movement for victims’ rights began gaining traction in the 1970s, leading to formal legislative actions in subsequent decades. Enacted in 2004, the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act guarantees eight rights, such as protection from the accused and involvement in proceedings. Each state creates its own legal framework to protect crime victims, though the depth and breadth of these rights vary.
In Idaho, the Constitution provides victims ten fundamental rights, such as fair treatment and notification of legal proceedings. The law also ensures victims can be heard during criminal justice proceedings concerning pleas, sentencing, or any decisions impacting the defendant. Although it remains unconfirmed if the families will make a statement, Meg Garvin of the National Crime Victim Law Institute highlights this as a significant chance to communicate their perspectives to the court.
While judicial rejection of plea agreements is rare, it remains within a judge’s discretion. Previously, Kohberger’s attempt to exclude the death penalty on the grounds of his autism diagnosis was denied. Victims have a right to confer with prosecutors, meaning inclusion and communication throughout the judicial process without determining prosecutorial strategies or plea negotiations. Appeals by victims are limited, but inadequate consideration of victims’ perspectives could prompt courts to revisit decisions.
Garvin references the Adnan Syed case as a significant precedent, where procedural mishaps led to the vacating of a murder conviction. A lack of proper notification to victims was deemed a violation of their rights, leading to a reassessment of the case. In Idaho, prosecutors assured the victims’ families their concerns were pivotal to formulating the plea offer, made evident in correspondence claiming this approach as the most just resolution.
The Goncalves family expressed dissatisfaction via social media, stating the consultation process concerning the plea was brief and unclear, noting that actions accelerated after considerable delays since the crime. They felt discussions with prosecutors from Friday to Monday inadequately addressed their desire for capital punishment, viewing this plea as a missed opportunity for a public trial and potential death sentence.