Brian Buckmire

We need one that will still uphold Brian Koberger's constitutional rights to a fair and impartial trial, but also inform those who are most interested in this case and have a vested interest in the facts as they come out. And so I think that's the balance that this new judge is trying to strike.

We need one that will still uphold Brian Koberger's constitutional rights to a fair and impartial trial, but also inform those who are most interested in this case and have a vested interest in the facts as they come out. And so I think that's the balance that this new judge is trying to strike.

So... Again, I'm not a defense attorney on this team, but I can only theorize why. One main reason could be they didn't have the information. Maybe Brian Koberger wasn't evaluated. Maybe the report by whoever evaluated him wasn't done. When you evaluate an individual,

So... Again, I'm not a defense attorney on this team, but I can only theorize why. One main reason could be they didn't have the information. Maybe Brian Koberger wasn't evaluated. Maybe the report by whoever evaluated him wasn't done. When you evaluate an individual,

especially one who's incarcerated, you've got to cut through the red tape of, hey, I need an expert to go and sit down and talk with my client. So it's a red tape of getting that done. The other thing too could just be strategy. Maybe they think this is one of their stronger arguments and they wanted to kind of leave it on the last doorstep of this case, kind of like the final push.

especially one who's incarcerated, you've got to cut through the red tape of, hey, I need an expert to go and sit down and talk with my client. So it's a red tape of getting that done. The other thing too could just be strategy. Maybe they think this is one of their stronger arguments and they wanted to kind of leave it on the last doorstep of this case, kind of like the final push.

In 2002, there was a Supreme Court case called Atkins v. Virginia. And in that Supreme Court case, it basically said, The United States of America cannot put people who have severe disability to death. So that just became the law of the land. And that snowballed into making different arguments, a lot of them which we are seeing here now. There are five main arguments in this 28-page motion.

In 2002, there was a Supreme Court case called Atkins v. Virginia. And in that Supreme Court case, it basically said, The United States of America cannot put people who have severe disability to death. So that just became the law of the land. And that snowballed into making different arguments, a lot of them which we are seeing here now. There are five main arguments in this 28-page motion.

The first three, I would say, could be categorized as he has ASD. And because of that, he is not culpable enough, like not guilty enough to be executed. Executing people with ASD falls in line with that kind of idea that we can't do this. The Supreme Court says we can't do it. The fourth argument is a very unique one. I haven't seen it. Very interesting. But everyone has the right in –

The first three, I would say, could be categorized as he has ASD. And because of that, he is not culpable enough, like not guilty enough to be executed. Executing people with ASD falls in line with that kind of idea that we can't do this. The Supreme Court says we can't do it. The fourth argument is a very unique one. I haven't seen it. Very interesting. But everyone has the right in –

What's going to be a bifurcated case, and what I mean by bifurcated is first the jury will decide guilt or innocence, and then the jury will decide the sentencing as to whether or not he gets put to death. I don't think Brian Kovrig is going to testify at the guilt phase to decide whether or not he's guilty or not. Maybe he will. But if I'm a betting man, I say no.

What's going to be a bifurcated case, and what I mean by bifurcated is first the jury will decide guilt or innocence, and then the jury will decide the sentencing as to whether or not he gets put to death. I don't think Brian Kovrig is going to testify at the guilt phase to decide whether or not he's guilty or not. Maybe he will. But if I'm a betting man, I say no.

But if he's found guilty, I definitely think it would behoove him or be in his interest to testify at that sentencing phase. And that's what the defense is talking about here. That if he was to take that opportunity to testify in that sentencing phase, to fight for his life, his mannerisms and the way his affect is, people will look at him and be like, that looks like a cold-blooded killer.

But if he's found guilty, I definitely think it would behoove him or be in his interest to testify at that sentencing phase. And that's what the defense is talking about here. That if he was to take that opportunity to testify in that sentencing phase, to fight for his life, his mannerisms and the way his affect is, people will look at him and be like, that looks like a cold-blooded killer.

that's gonna take away his right to be able to defend himself and that's why the death penalty should not be there. I think they bolster that argument in the fifth and final argument of this motion of saying, look, the media is already doing it. We're looking at him in these pictures and we're looking at social media and the way people describe him as this menacing figure, it's already happening.

that's gonna take away his right to be able to defend himself and that's why the death penalty should not be there. I think they bolster that argument in the fifth and final argument of this motion of saying, look, the media is already doing it. We're looking at him in these pictures and we're looking at social media and the way people describe him as this menacing figure, it's already happening.

And that's going to taint the jury, that's gonna happen again when he testifies in the sentencing phase. And because of that, ASD should rule out the death penalty.

And that's going to taint the jury, that's gonna happen again when he testifies in the sentencing phase. And because of that, ASD should rule out the death penalty.

No, I think what it is, is you have a public defender, a person who went to law school and chose to pick a profession where they feel they are representing individuals that but for them would not have the form of representation that Ann Taylor is giving, which I still think is amazing. And they're trying to save someone's life.

No, I think what it is, is you have a public defender, a person who went to law school and chose to pick a profession where they feel they are representing individuals that but for them would not have the form of representation that Ann Taylor is giving, which I still think is amazing. And they're trying to save someone's life.