He doesn’t have to prove he’s innocent, the prosecution has to prove he’s guilty.

Defense doesn’t have to prove innocence. Burden in on the state!

The burden of proof is the responsibility of the prosecution in all court cases. Defense doesn't have to prove anything.

By law, he is presumed INNOCENT until proven guilty. The burden is on the Prosecutor not Defendant.

It’s too bad these trials are such a long ways away. I’m wanting to know all the info NOW!!

If there is an informant..I am not surprised if they don't release the information. Some online sleuths are getting out of hand and that person would possibly be harrased

"Information from sources close to the investigation"..what the heck. Sounds like cheap tabloid speak.

Ashley is running out of stories on this case

Why should she drop him as a client? What needs to be addressed is why friends were called over to the crime scene before LE and why 9-11 wasn't called for 8 hours? The potential crime scene integrity contaminated by the guests invited to the scene is a bigger conflict of interest than a client dropped for not appearing at court against the advice of her publicly sponsored legal counsel

Burden of proof is on the prosecution not the defense. Defense just has to plant the seed of reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury.

All that Discovery report said (the parts shown on this segment) was that they don't have anything "AT THIS TIME." That doesn't actually definitively mean anything other than exactly what it says. It just means they don't have anything to turn over yet, because they haven't confirmed anything yet, they're probably still doing research and investigations, doesn't mean they won't have some sort of supposed "evidence" of innocence that theyll turn over later when they come up with it. And the reference to an informant is probably just one of the housemates or other people they talked to along the way who gave information or details that ultimately helped to lead them in the direction of BK...

I’m AMERICA your innocent until proven guilty and all are allowed lawyers to probe forward, how dare you suggest no one defend him because you assume him guilty…. 🙄

AT doesn’t have to “prove”/“show” he is innocent- she is a defense attorney; the onus is on the DA to prove BK’s case with evidence. *edited

He doesn’t have to prove his innocence. He starts with the presumption of innocence.

"Sources" giving info while there's a gag order? I don't think so

Uh ...literally every single attorney that has been asked about this says it's standard paperwork, and that it DOES NOT IMPLICATE A CO DEFENDANT...this woman isn't even speaking facts correctly

This reporter shouldn't have become reporter at all. She's always trying to stir up drama and make everything look bigger than it is. Why would the lawyer need to prove bk is innocent to her. And why would she reveal any evidence/details she might have to this reporter. She's not the judge, everything doesn't revolve her show and her ratings.

He’s innocent. That’s why

banfield honestly should be either reprimanded, suspended, or fired. she has sensationalized this case so much for her OWN benefit, making her star rise by asking intrusive and innapropriote questions, conducting unprofessional interviews, and just obsessing to the point that youd think SHE was personally affected by the case itself. i believe she has gone outside the bounds of her paygrade and caused irreparable harm to this case. banfield disgusts me.

not how burden of proof works... clickbait title

I swear this reporter needs to understand what they're reporting 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

I fail to understand why there hasn't been a new attorney assigned to Kohberger? His attorney represented one, if not more, of the victim's family members. How is that not a conflict of interest?

It’s not weird they don’t have anything PROVING he’s innocent 🤷🏻

If there is even a hint of conflict, the attorney will be removed either by the prosection or sua sponte by the Judge. They don't want any potential procedural errors to be brought up on appeal. My best guess is that when the State shows it's full hand during discovery, the defendant will take a plea deal... Life without parole rather than go through a trial.

I stilll think he’s innocent…until proven guilty 😅

0:11 Bryan doesn’t have to prove his innocence. In reality, he never could. The prosecutor has to prove that Bryan is guilty. 🤔 I guess they are both in the same boat!

Maybe they'll worry about it when the state shows real evidence of guilt.

That public defender wants the spot light on her. Selfish!!!

Newsflash: A Taylor doesn't need to prove he's innocent.

If you listen to public defense attorneys on YT they say there is no conflict of interest and are not happy with Banfield for hyping this erroneous conclusion for drama's sake. Also they need a local defense attorney who is death penalty qualified.

Is there a law saying she needs to recuse? Why make a big deal if you don't cite the rule saying she needs to recuse? It's not like Idaho has an abundance of people with her qualifications. NN wants more clicks and that's what this video is about.

And of course, everyone knows that the defense does not have the burden of proving their client innocent. That burden rests with the prosecution. - to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt But Banfield will continue to use click bait to sensationalize nothing burgers and get views.

Oh..well I was under the impression it's the prosecutions duty to show and prove guilt?

Ashley take break for Christ s sake !

" coroner " is a liar, EVERYTHING is so sketchy!

Wish they'd find a different (former) FBI agent to talk to. Something about Jennifer Koffendoffer just rubs me the wrong way.

Why the hell would she have to show you he's innocent? 😆

She does not have to show he's innocent, she just has to show that the prosecution has not proven its case. You cannot prove a negative, she cannot prove that he did not do something, it's the prosecutions job to prove he did it. The framing of this video that she has no evidence to prove his innocence is a little ridiculous.

They need to really look at the surviving roommates. There story doesn’t sit well with me !

These trials are just a game for lawyers who know how to play, fortunately sometimes the truth is hard to argue.

Key words: " In the possession of the DEFENDANT at this time". The law has it all now from his room and property.

Well, the state has to prove he is guilty. The defendant isn't under any obligation to pove innocence.

The defense doesn't have to prove innocence. The burden of proof is on the state.

Our coroner was a bit of a loose cannon that first week or so, understandably given the horror at the scene. Those discrepamcies seem pretty trivial. The defense attorney's prior relationships with the victims' families, however, are very troubling

Like it or lump it, it’s up to prosecution to prove him Guilty, he is assumed innocent, they don’t have to prove shit

She is so full of herself, she should take one for the team & recuse herself.

She doesn't have to show anything. He doesn't bear the burden.

Reasonable DOUBT.. It's the DA's job too proof guilt.. Without any doubt. And she can stay as his attorney, why not.. It's a jury that will decide, not the lawyers.

There is no legal conflict as it exists and no need to recuse, regardless of it being a death penalty case or not.

A title that reflects ignorance of the law-the burden of proof is on the prosecutor not the defense attorney.

Ashley you’ve gone to law school. Come on now. You know this is nothing at this point

I don't understand why there are still people holding on to his words " I can't wait to be exonerated" I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have never gotten as far as him needing to wave extradition if they didn't have him dead to rights... on Like day 3 of him still being in custody in Idaho people should have realized that dude ain't going anywhere..... it really is getting tiresome though of everyone and their mother broadcasting their thoughts and theories... no information is coming from anyone that is credible because there is a gag order on everyone people seriously need to dial it back there can be some serious issues from some of these KZfaqrs that are just speculating.... not saying there's anything wrong with speculation but some of these guys are doing it from the top of a mountain with a bullhorn (lol so to speak) and a big quality of what they're saying is nowhere near true

Uh little misleading since there's a gag order?!! Not defending him but ffs media will do anything for stories and clicks for profit

Defendants don't have to price themselves innocent. Seems like you'd know this by now.

If perfectly normal for the Defence to be holding back any submissions until trial. People need to stop speculating.

3 Key Words: "At. This. Time."

Prosecutors have to prove he is guilty . Not other way around. . Defense defends based on prosecution,

Lmao I’m dead he really thought he was gonna get away with it 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 boy u know u did it give it up

This means they don't any strong evidence against Brian

No Bryan apologist here, but WHY would the defense attorney release information to the press about his "innocence" ...Smh That isn't the way the legal system works. It is up to the prosecutors to prove evidence beyond a reasonable doubt he is guilty, and we will see that play out later this year...What is the point of this???

You guys are something else. Let it play out

How can she stay on the case!

Didn't the judge put a gag order on this case? "Sources." lol

They must think their viewers are dumb. Ms. Taylor's job is to establish reasonable doubt, not provide proof of innocence. She has to give a credible alternate scenario which exonerates her client, not necessarily prove he didn't do it.

Ummm burden of proof is on prosecution.

She needs to make a public apology, or lose her job. Her resources can not be verified. She's doing everything for clicks. She's honestly a horrible person for her remarks, saying that she has 2 resources saying how the victims were murdered. Horrible.

Please refer to Idaho Criminal Rule 16. Discovery and Inspection. Rule 16(h) Defense Information Not Subject to Disclosure. Except as to scientific or medical reports, this rule does not authorize the discovery or inspection of reports, memoranda, or other internal defense documents made by the defendant, or defendant's attorneys or agents in connection with the investigation or defense of the case, or of statements made by the defendant or prosecuting attorney or defense witnesses, or prospective state or defense witnesses to the defendant, defendant's agents or attorneys.

Following you again, because you finally do good research. 👍😃

Burden on the state.

The defense doesn't have to prove anything.

IMO, if he was innocent, and Anne Taylor believed he was innocent, he would not have waived his right to a speedy trial. They would have gone to trial within 2 weeks. That speaks volumes to me.

This isn't about the defense having to prove he's in innocent. That happens in the trial, which hasn't even been determined yet. This is the discovery process. Both sides are obligated to share certain information such as an alibi with the other side if they have it. Of course she doesn't need proof of anything, but if she has something like that, she has to share it. This can also work to their advantage in trying to get the case dismissed using exculpatory evidence. Again, this is not the trial.

Everyone needs to wait till the trial.

With all evidence against him the Da is supposed to have it sounds like a slam dunk

Innocent until proven guilty.

Maybe I don't understand what a gag order is, but how is someone close to the case allowed to talk about this information without getting in trouble? Doesn't a gag order mean NO ONE close to the case can talk about it? Meaning we wouldn't have any new information until the trial. Just wondering.

And there’s an informant? Really? was he also in on these murders and now they’re giving him immunity? I am going to keep saying this till the cows come home. DM is lying knows exactly who committed these murders and they were committed by more than one assailant. Now let’s see how this post ages.

His lawyer is not going to release shit to the media, why would she, the media taints everything as do KZfaqrs who don’t know shit about the case.

The defense does not have to prove innocence. The burden is on the prosecution. The defendant has the presumption of innocence. The defense has 6 months to prepare and they will take it.

She doesn’t have to show he is innocent. The prosecutors have to PROVE his guilt. Geez!

Ashley... Get a new job !!

Is it possible this case is way above a public defender’s calling? In other words, if Kohberger had the money to afford a good defense attorney, would they be able to do any better for him? Or is he just that guilty regardless? I really haven’t been following the case much since he was arrested.

Leave Ann Taylor alone ffs also they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt

Why does that title sound like a headline from " the onion" lol

She doesn’t have to prove that he’s innocent though. It’s innocent until proven guilty right?

She never said the were “All” in bed, she was asked if they died in bed and she vaguely said yes.

Won't a judge decide if she must recuse or not?

I think his best defense is that the attorney had a conflict of interest and the whole thing will end in a mistrial

Bryan looks like Frankenstein

Would the “informant” word be another word for “witness?” Because if Ethan was killed in the doorway, wouldn’t have DM have seen it happen? And wouldn’t that explain her locking her door and not coming out of that room?

This headline is so sensational and misleading. So much for Dan Abrams’ “fact-driven, unbiased news”.

Given the source here we can safely assume there's no informant

First of all, discovery requests don't ask for docs proving innocence. The point of discovery is to see what opposing counsel has so they can study it and develop arguments to invalidate it and/or simply to know what they have ahead of time. Discovery requests are cut and paste docs. The document read is generic and was cut from a template and pasted under the State vs Kohberger caption by an admin. It's customary to word the responses exactly as the requests were written. Secondly, law "enforcement" doesn't know the laws, rather they enforce specific laws as instructed by their superiors. Many lawyers have explained why there is no conflict of interest and it's interesting neither of these women know that. As to the informant - Again - This is a cut and paste document and the question is asked of every defendant in BK's category. They're called, "Standard Requests", in civil court there are seven. They cut and paste and add requests thereto if they like.

Lawyer speak. I get a feel that he will have a new lawyer or even a new trial on appeal. Just a hunch.~ If true, I wonder about so said informant and BK asking...Has anybody else been arrested?

Can’t a judge dismiss her!?!

That's one creepie homicidal narcisist who better get himself a new lawyer.

I don’t know on what regard Bryan thinks he’s going to be exonerated from this case. They have all of the evidence they need when it comes to proving him guilty, and will gather more evidence as the months go on.

She said based on Tara’s background? What is she talking about? Did I hear that wrong?

He's freaking guilty.

Maddie was his target " I believe so.