The Bryan Kohberger Plea Deal Announced - What Happens Now? | Case Brief

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/7U4g45EG71gOn June 30, 2025, it was reported that Bryan Kohberger is taking a plea deal in the Idaho College Murders, with a hearing set for July 2nd. The plea deal, as detailed by ABC News, involves Kohberger pleading guilty to all four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary. In exchange, he will be spared the death penalty. He will be sentenced to four consecutive life sentences for the murder counts and a maximum of 10 years for the burglary, amounting to life without parole. Crucially, Kohberger will waive all rights to appeal, bringing finality to the case.The trial was originally slated to begin with jury selection on August 4th, with opening statements on August 18th. Prosecutors stated in a letter to families that Kohberger's defense team approached them last week seeking a plea offer. Prosecutors met with available family members and decided to make a formal offer. They emphasize that this agreement ensures conviction, life in prison, and avoids "decades of post-conviction appeals" that are common in death penalty cases.RESOURCESThe Idaho College Murders Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKASBczV3CsUx-t5oRAK0caABC News Reporting - https://abcnews.go.com/US/bryan-kohberger-plead-guilty-counts-idaho-college-murders/story?id=123356808 The Kohberger Leaks - https://youtu.be/IAF8jCkNKn4Scott Peterson Case - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SremTw2WyZkThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/6U-T0fjM5MMThe post-verdict statements from jurors in the Karen Read Retrial, emphasizing the importance of juror transparency and their reasoning for the "not guilty" verdict. The jurors were described as serious, conscientious, and respectful in their deliberations, focusing on the evidence and defining each charge. There are concerns that threats and harassment against jurors could discourage future citizens from serving, suggesting that juror lists should be sealed by default to protect their privacy unless they choose to come forward.The initial, withdrawn verdict was due to one male juror having doubts at lunch, asking if he could take back his vote, but later confirming "Okay, guilty of OUI."Juror #1 aka The Foreperson, stated there was no single moment that solidified guilt, and the evidence presented was "paper-thin," failing to bring comfort to the victim's family. He highlighted the struggle to reconcile sympathy for the victim's family with the lack of sufficient evidence for a conviction. He worked really hard to make sure that all of the jurors felt heard and confident with their decision.Juror #11, addressed accusations from "internet trolls," clarifying she is an attorney in Brazil but not the US, and her interest in true crime was focused on Brazilian cases, hence her unfamiliarity with the Read case before jury duty. She expressed happiness that Karen Read would not go to jail for something she didn't do, but also anger that John O'Keefe's fate remains unknown. She also confirmed they were largely unaware of the large crowds and chanting outside the courthouse due to precautions taken by jury officers and entering through the back. This reinforces that external pressure did not influence their deliberations.Juror #12 initially leaned towards "guilty" but changed her mind after reviewing the evidence, not finding a specific piece of information she was looking for. She wouldn't share what that evidence was.An anonymous juror spoke with the media and mentioned that during deliberations, they started making more progress when they got "huge poster board paper." They then worked with other members of the jury to write down the definition of every charge on the poster board, essentially workshopping the jury instructions.Despite the challenges, jurors' willingness to speak out fosters transparency and highlights that jurors genuinely strive to make the right decisions based on the evidence presented.RESOURCESJune 24 Live Stream - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7IdKgUQoDUThe Ghislane Maxwell Case - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gL31tnzpu6Du3wLHoQRaIq8Foreperson on w/ Today Show - https://youtu.be/nE-a9MR1oUMJuror #12 on WCVB - https://youtu.be/-Tfoc0OvOf0Anonymous Juror on NBC 10 - https://youtu.be/Vi8bkGvciaIJuror #11 on WBZ - https://youtu.be/Qx9KONKG6REThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe -...

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/i7IdKgUQoDUAfter Karen Read was acquitted of the Murder charges on June 18, 2025, DA Michael Morrissey, & Special Prosecutor, Hank Brennan gave statements to the media that prompted Alan Jackson counter."The jury has spoken," DA Michael Morrissey simply states.Hank Brennan expresses disappointment in the verdict and states that his independent review, along with a closed federal investigation, led him to conclude that only one person was responsible for John O'Keefe's death, and no other suspects were identified. If Brennan believed only one person was responsible, a prosecutor's job is to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, which was not achieved. He also condemns a "campaign of intimidation and abuse" against witnesses. That sentiment is agreeable but incomplete because he doesn't also condemn it also against the witness, jurors and other participates. Jackson blasts Brennan for an "egregious breach of prosecutorial ethics" by attempting to publicly shame and discredit the jury and supplant his personal views for that of the jury. Jackson argues that Brennan's claims of a thorough investigation are false, given the defense uncovered hidden exculpatory evidence, lies, and perjury by the Commonwealth's own witnesses, cops covering for other cops, a biased and corrupt lead investigator with personal ties to witnesses, and inculpatory and suspicious conduct by a myriad of witnesses. Jackson asserts that the prosecution's effort was a personal vendetta against Karen Read, not a pursuit of justice for John O'Keefe, and that the case never should have gone to trial in the first place. He directly accuses DA Michael Morrissey of having no interest in actually seeking justice for John O'Keefe.RESOURCESDA Michael Morrissey's Statement - https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/norfolk-da-michael-morrissey-gives-statement-karen-read-verdict/6N6N23YM25AQPMEXRLR6HAOTOM/Hank Brennan's Statement - https://x.com/TedDanielnews/status/1937134441505096022Alan Jackson's Statement - https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/karen-read-attorney-alan-jackson-blasts-special-prosecutor-new-statement/NY7R26CSFJETXGFLIEKHRQE6Y4/This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/i7IdKgUQoDUAfter Karen Read was acquitted of the Murder charges on June 18, 2025, Michael Proctor, The Alberts & McCabes attended video interviews.Michael Proctor was Interviewed by 20/20. He addresses his strong negative feelings and derogatory comments about Karen Read, stating they developed as the case progressed, but admits they were regrettable. Proctor denies planting evidence, calling it a ridiculous accusation. He believes the negative perception from the public is a "loud minority" and maintains he would do nothing differently in the investigation, attributing any issues to the "crazy crazy so-called conspiracy" online rather than acknowledging any potential flaws in his own work. There was a lack of remorse from Proctor for potentially tainting the investigation and no apology to Karen Read. He believes he was unfairly fired for personal texts and that his union rep took his uniforms.Brian, Nicole and Chris Albert were interviewed together with Jen and Matt McCabe by ABC's Nightline. Brian Albert's lack of curiosity and inaction given the situation, especially as a Boston police officer, despite not being Canton PD. Brian's response essentially was, "Why would I go out there?" Brian Albert also describes Jen McCabe barging into his room early in the morning but there was no mention in their recounting of the morning about wrangling the dog. Ultimately, the families felt like they were not protect by the judicial process and told the audience to think twice before becoming a witness in a trial. That is not sound advice as there are consequences for not cooperating with a subpoena. There was a lot of frustration with the clipped nature of the interviews and the perceived lack of accountability or self-reflection from the interviewees. The witnesses seem to be focusing on the "straw man" of public conspiracy theories rather than addressing odd behavior or a poor investigation, leading to unanswered questions.RESOURCESThe Alberts & McCabes Interview from ABC Nightline – https://youtu.be/yIrVOSbx9gMDid Proctor Plant Evidence? https://youtu.be/qZDx1lCJFZY Michael Proctor Wouldn't Change Anything - https://youtu.be/oiuKayU6UQoThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/JaBePBtlqQADay 36 of the Karen Read Retrial happened on June 18, 2025 and a Verdict was reached! After 4 days of deliberation, the jury in the Karen Read murder retrial delivered their verdicts. Karen Read was found not guilty of second-degree murder (Count 1) and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death (Count 3). She was found guilty only on the lesser included charge of operating under the influence (OUI) with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or greater (Count 2), which is a misdemeanor.Immediately after the verdict, Karen Read was sentenced to one year of probation and a 24D program, which is a standard first-time OUI offer.Outside the courthouse, Karen Read addressed the crowd while standing next to her defense team, David Yannetti, Alan Jackson, and Elizabeth Little, and Robert Alessi. Karen Read thanked her supporters and stated that no one has fought harder for justice for John O'Keefe than she and her team. Her father also acknowledged the strength of Karen and the support of their extended family and the legal team.There was confusion during the reading of the verdicts, likely due to an initial incorrect verdict form. This form was sealed. The Commonwealth cannot appeal the not guilty verdicts. It's unlikely anyone else will be charged in John O'Keefe's death for the same crime, but if there are issues with the investigation itself, those could be charged separately. There is still the civil case against Karen read by the O'Keefe family which I will follow up on in the future but for now, .RESOURCESWhat You Need to Know About the Retrial - https://youtu.be/89Jpa8vz1RQ Karen Read Retrial Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKOJlfL__9F027hlETVU-vo Karen Read Trial - 2024 - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKUeCUzApgsEuQRXu5IXeTSThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/1FQDyZVIbhoDay 35 of the Karen Read Retrial happened on June 17, 2025. We are on the 3rd day of Verdict Watch and the jurors had questions! 1) They asked about the specific time frame for the OUI (Operating Under the Influence) charge, whether it was 12:45 a.m. or 5:00 a.m. The court responded that the jurors have all the evidence and are the sole fact-finders.2) They asked if video clips of Karen Read's interviews were evidence and how they could consider them. The court affirmed that the videos are evidence and should be weighed like any other evidence. However, before considering any such statement, the jury must determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Read made the statement voluntarily, freely, and rationally.3) The jury asked if convicting on a sub-charge (specifically offense two, number five, referring to the OUI) would automatically convict on the overall charges. The court introduced and read an amended verdict slip to clarify the process.Later, the jury sent another question while the court was deliberating on how to answer the first 3 questions. 4) They were asking if finding "not guilty" on two charges but being unable to agree on a third, results in a hung jury on all three or just one. The court's initial inclination was to respond that it was a theoretical question and could not be answered, as jurors are not to be concerned with the consequences of their verdict. The defense objected, arguing that it was a question about how to report a verdict, not its consequences, and that the jury instructions already addressed this. Ultimately, the court decided to respond that it was a theoretical question and thus unanswerable.No Verdict was made at the end of day, we'll see what happens on Day 36.RESOURCESWhat You Need to Know About the Retrial - https://youtu.be/89Jpa8vz1RQ Karen Read Retrial Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKOJlfL__9F027hlETVU-vo Karen Read Trial - 2024 - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKUeCUzApgsEuQRXu5IXeTSThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

Get 15% off OneSkin with the code LAWNERD at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod #adJoin Emily as she breaks down the latest case outside of the Karen Read Retrial. Donna Adelson's quest for a change of venue is denied and her new trial is date set during the Bryan Kohberger trial. Kouri Richins new trial is set for February 2026 and there’s a possibility of her testifying! Plus, get the full breakdown of the massive dismissal in the Blake Lively/Justin Baldoni lawsuit.RESOURCESKaren Read Retrial Day 33 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wSJeNZph94 Donna Adelson Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKREcVCO0ynq9o9K6A37cuk Kouri Richins Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gJYyEMQDM_Cn4icqWBV20fW Depp v Heard Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gLVeg1x2AInDBfPU6-ffnD0 Last Update - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAF8jCkNKn4 NY Times Sued - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR5ncu7g_Qc Triller v. h3h3 - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gLNJ0I6fzFd8uaqDR_BOEw1 Gwyneth Paltrow Ski Crash Trial - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gIlMUdeLtN4mNQCerfWxONy This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/4wSJeNZph94Day 33 of the Karen Read Retrial happened on June 13, 2025. The Defense's closing argument, delivered by Jackson, focused on the lack of collision and the integrity of the investigation. The Prosecution's closing argument, delivered by Hank Brennan, focused on Karen Read's actions and the data.After lunch, the court read the jury instructions. The court did not include the defense's requested instruction regarding John O'Keefe's hoodie but did include a straight DUI as a lesser included charge.The jury began deliberations just after 2:39 PM local time and deliberated for a little under two hours before asking to go home for the weekend. They were instructed not to discuss the case with anyone, conduct independent research, or follow news about the case over the weekend. Deliberations will resume on Monday morning.RESOURCESKaren Read Retrial Day 32 - https://youtube.com/live/N1az5x1PEkMWhat You Need to Know About the Retrial - https://youtu.be/89Jpa8vz1RQ Karen Read Retrial Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKOJlfL__9F027hlETVU-vo Karen Read Trial - 2024 - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKUeCUzApgsEuQRXu5IXeTSThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/9W-28UtY1lYDay 31 of the Karen Read Retrial happened on June 11, 2025. Neither Karen Read nor Former Trooper Proctor will be called to testify. A charging conference, where jury instructions will be discussed, is scheduled for tomorrow. The Defense is requesting instructions regarding "missing witnesses" and the hoodie, but not a "third-party culprit" instruction.Dr. Rentschler's testimony focused on the paint transfer test and concluded that the injuries were inconsistent with the Commonwealth's theory, stating that the abrasions on O'Keefe's arm do not correspond to how an arm would interact with the vehicle if struck at a right angle. The Defense effectively used visuals from his Power Point to support Dr. Rentschler's testimony.During cross-examination, Special Prosecutor, Hank Brennan, largely avoided questions about Dr. Rentschler's testing, instead focusing on his independence and expenses. Rentschler maintained his opinions were unchanged by these factors. Brennan's cross-examination strategy undermined the Commonwealth's position, especially given the high payment to their own experts.A significant development is that the Commonwealth will not call any rebuttal witnesses once the defense rests, a surprising move given their prior legal battles over testimony. The introduction of X-rays by the defense, which many believed didn't exist due to Dr. Welcher's testimony, may have influenced this decision.With the evidence phase concluding, the next steps are the charging conference, where jury instructions and lesser-included crimes will be debated, and then closing arguments on Friday. The jury will then deliberate, with the complexity of Count Two (involuntary manslaughter) expected to be a key focus, as it was in the previous trial. RESOURCESWhat You Need to Know About the Retrial - https://youtu.be/89Jpa8vz1RQ Karen Read Retrial Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKOJlfL__9F027hlETVU-vo Karen Read Trial - 2024 - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKUeCUzApgsEuQRXu5IXeTSThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/qgkQm-VgMu0Day 30 of the Karen Read Retrial happened on June 10, 2025. Defense Attorney Alan Jackson started the day by coming in hot and accused the Prosecution of "burden shifting," implying they were improperly trying to make the defense prove their case. He provided a transcript that the Prosecution opened the door to ask Dr. Laposata about dog bites when Brennan inquired Dr. Russell about Dr. Laposata's report about dos bites. The Judge Denied questioning about dog bites but okay to question about animal bites. The judge offered to give an instruction about burden shifting to the jury but Jackson declined it.There was confusion about whether Dr. Wrenchler had seen X-ray evidence, as he testified there were none done to the arm, while Dr. La Pasada's testimony indicated X-rays did exist. This point raises questions about what evidence was provided to Dr. Wrenchler and how rebuttal will go.During Cross Examination and the Morning Break, Brennan wanted to impeach Dr. Laposata's credibility with past issues from her time as a medical examiner, including an audit and handling of the Station nightclub fire. The court allowed some of this to be brought up during cross-examination but not all.A juror's question led to the court clarifying what it meant when video evidence was "stricken" during testimony showing that all jurors are paying attention and really want to get the understanding right.The Defense's last witness, Dr. Andrew Rentschler, a Biomechanical Engineer at ARCCA, testified about how ARCCA was hired by a government agency and was not given information about the case. They were only give the circumstances and to try to recreate it. His analysis of John O'Keefe's injuries were that the injuries were not consistent with being struck by the Lexus, specifically the tail light. He determined that the force required to produce the skull fracture was significantly higher than what could result from impact with the taillight at a speed of 15 mph.There were several disputes regarding the content of Dr. Rentschler's PowerPoint presentation, with objections to text containing hearsay and ultimate opinions. The court ordered the presentation to be edited, with certain text removed. This will be finalized on Day 31 before the jury comes in.RESOURCESWhat You Need to Know About the Retrial - https://youtu.be/89Jpa8vz1RQ Karen Read Retrial Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKOJlfL__9F027hlETVU-vo Karen Read Trial - 2024 - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKUeCUzApgsEuQRXu5IXeTSThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy