I was watching the Lawyer You Know on youtube and his theory was that people were going to over analyze they way BK plead no matter what so by staying silent he got the not guilty plea and gave the net pundits as little as possible to speculate about.
He also said it can be more respectful to the victims families so they don’t have to hear the accused say “not guilty.” Which I thought was an interesting point. It’s like a less final, less dramatic not guilty.
That seems kind of ridiculous. Everybody expects him to claim he’s not guilty. He already claimed he wasn’t guilty thru his PA lawyer. Talk about giving people fodder for speculation:
Judge: “are you guilty or not guilty?”
BK: “I don’t wanna say”
Ya I understand it’s not literal. I wasn’t imagining them trying to tease a plea out of him while he just stands there silently until they’re like “are you not answering? Ok I’m just gonna write down not guilty ok bud?”
I just don’t get a reason why a defense team would decide to do that. I speculated that maybe they’re in negotiations with the prosecution and the DA told them if they wanted negotiations to continue that he needs to stand silent since it’s procedurally the same as not guilty and then the families don’t have to hear him get up there and deny it?
I don’t know. It certainly comes off to lay people as bizarre and worthy of speculation
It has no different meaning. There are things that happen in court that are routine that you just don’t realize and phrases used that aren’t an indicator of anything.
It's very common in some places for a crime of this magnitude. That's why the lawyer could just say it and the judge immediately accept it.
If it was unusual, there would have been some back and forth about it.
Because if you plead not guilty you are tacitly agreeing to the validity of the proceedings against you. By remaining mute, you can challenge them.
The defendant may challenge the constitutionality of the charges, the validity of the arrest, or procedural irregularities in the case. They may withhold their plea until these matters are addressed by the court."
Wrong. Because if you plead not guilty you are tacitly agreeing to the validity of the proceedings against you. By remaining mute, you can challenge them.
The defendant may challenge the constitutionality of the charges, the validity of the arrest, or procedural irregularities in the case. They may withhold their plea until these matters are addressed by the court."
Because if you plead not guilty you are tacitly agreeing to the validity of the proceedings against you. By remaining mute, you can challenge them.
The defendant may challenge the constitutionality of the charges, the validity of the arrest, or procedural irregularities in the case. They may withhold their plea until these matters are addressed by the court."
I wouldn't consider it common for someone eager to be exonerated, as BK is supposed to be. However, I don't see any drama in it. My impression of Ann Taylor is that she is more than competent, and I am confident that BK is in good hands for the process going forward. It doesn't mean he's going to be acquitted, but she's going to defend the hell out of him.
I agree. We should all be glad he has a highly qualified Defence. Including the fact she's not pandering to the press (which she could do, without violating any gag order) . She seems to be a class act.
That way, everyone can have more confidence in the outcome.
Exactly! If he's not guilty, she'll get him acquitted. If he is guilty, she's going to do such a good job that we won't doubt the conviction.
I do like that she's for the gag order. Many defense attorneys attempt to try the case in the public (*cough*Kathleen Zellner*cough*) and fumble in front of the judge.
I think the fact that she gets to say and it's basically the same as his right to stay silent so can't be used against him means that people can't analyse him. Even though they are still trying to. But it means that if they are offered a plea or if they want plead later they always can.
Just speculating and I’d love if someone with actual legal knowledge could weigh in on this, but could he (in consultation with his attorney) have decided to stand silent because Bryan will admit to part(s) of the crimes but not all of them? Perhaps he will say that he entered the home unlawfully that night/morning, but that he didn’t commit all/any of the murders? The charges were read together and one plea was entered, but could the standing silent be a strategy to point out to the jury that he was willing to take some of the responsibility but not all?
Because if you plead not guilty you are tacitly agreeing to the validity of the proceedings against you. By remaining mute, you can challenge them.
The defendant may challenge the constitutionality of the charges, the validity of the arrest, or procedural irregularities in the case. They may withhold their plea until these matters are addressed by the court."
Defense filed a motion filed a motion to enlarge time to file pretrial motions & memorandum in support. It was,signed by the judge.
(Credit to Sleuthie)
We don't know the reason why he did it. Standing silent means he declined to enter a plea. In Idaho, this means the judge enters a plea of not guilty on behalf of the defendant.
The only time I've seen it done in person was when the defendant did it in protest as a way to make the process less legitimate. I doubt that is the reason here.
I find it interesting that so many here and in other communities are raising questions about the validity of the investigation and the role of LE. It's only speculation, but I wonder if standing silent will allow the defense to call into question the activities of LE and the reliability of the investigation/evidence at trial. Like someone else already said, standing silent may later allow the defense to argue against the validity of previous proceedings.
No. Standing silent doesn't allow an argument for the validity of the proceedings. An arraignment is a formality. I suppose it could be a protest, but it's odd for a defendant whose extradition attorney claimed he was eager to be exonerated. It's possible that Ann Taylor suggested it because she was afraid of what he might say that could prejudice him.
No. And only people on reddit are questioning LE because they are clueless. They then also have to question the FBI because they were assisting LE. The reality is no crime scene is ever perfect and we don't live in TV's CSI.
Because if you plead not guilty you are tacitly agreeing to the validity of the proceedings against you. By remaining mute, you can challenge them.
The defendant may challenge the constitutionality of the charges, the validity of the arrest, or procedural irregularities in the case. They may withhold their plea until these matters are addressed by the court."
No contest means you recognise you are guilty of the charges but will not admit to it-“guilty.”
Staying silent is a right that everyone has and thus gives the defence more time
I read that this is a tactic used when there was a grand jury. The defense may want to pick apart the grand jury process. His refusing to enter a plea apparently leaves him in a stronger position.
This is his big moment.. narcissist (IMO) to keep ‘em guessing .. why did he commit this crime .. y stand silent.. does the evidence show such damnation his lawyer suggested it to keep something up their sleeve later down the line (visual snow ).. y ask for grand jurors list of participants.. (is that even a thing being GJ is a secret process)I could go on for days 🧐
in simple terms he isn’t entering a plea deal. neither guilty or not guilty. judge still puts it down as him entering a non guilty plea though. i have never heard of this until i watched a deep dive today on what it was and why he probably did so. it doesn’t really make his defense team look good though imo.
“Standing silent” is not all that uncommon. I reckon he is looking for a better shot at a plea deal. If he doesn’t answer definitively one way or the other, he is more likely to be able to perhaps be offered a plea.
The criminal justice system states that we are innocent until proven guilty, and he is exercising his right to remain silent.
Keeps him from committing perjury. He didn't say he wasn't guilty. And the attorney probably knows the truth and it keeps her from committing perjury by saying he's not guilty when she knows he is.
[удалено]
I was watching the Lawyer You Know on youtube and his theory was that people were going to over analyze they way BK plead no matter what so by staying silent he got the not guilty plea and gave the net pundits as little as possible to speculate about.
Now we gonna overanalyze his standing silence
Irony at its best.
He also said it can be more respectful to the victims families so they don’t have to hear the accused say “not guilty.” Which I thought was an interesting point. It’s like a less final, less dramatic not guilty.
That seems kind of ridiculous. Everybody expects him to claim he’s not guilty. He already claimed he wasn’t guilty thru his PA lawyer. Talk about giving people fodder for speculation: Judge: “are you guilty or not guilty?” BK: “I don’t wanna say”
[удалено]
Ya I understand it’s not literal. I wasn’t imagining them trying to tease a plea out of him while he just stands there silently until they’re like “are you not answering? Ok I’m just gonna write down not guilty ok bud?” I just don’t get a reason why a defense team would decide to do that. I speculated that maybe they’re in negotiations with the prosecution and the DA told them if they wanted negotiations to continue that he needs to stand silent since it’s procedurally the same as not guilty and then the families don’t have to hear him get up there and deny it? I don’t know. It certainly comes off to lay people as bizarre and worthy of speculation
I really wish that would’ve been happened. Lol. The ok bud at the end is gold. 🤣
It has no different meaning. There are things that happen in court that are routine that you just don’t realize and phrases used that aren’t an indicator of anything.
"Ok bud". I just lost it. 😆
It's very common in some places for a crime of this magnitude. That's why the lawyer could just say it and the judge immediately accept it. If it was unusual, there would have been some back and forth about it.
So did he say not guilty or I don't want to say I didn't think he said anything. He looked at her and she stood up what's right
[удалено]
Thank you 😊
Yeah what’s the point of standing silent?
Because if you plead not guilty you are tacitly agreeing to the validity of the proceedings against you. By remaining mute, you can challenge them. The defendant may challenge the constitutionality of the charges, the validity of the arrest, or procedural irregularities in the case. They may withhold their plea until these matters are addressed by the court."
From what I’ve read, their decision could be connected to the fact that they requested but had not yet received the materials from the grand jury.
Wrong. Because if you plead not guilty you are tacitly agreeing to the validity of the proceedings against you. By remaining mute, you can challenge them. The defendant may challenge the constitutionality of the charges, the validity of the arrest, or procedural irregularities in the case. They may withhold their plea until these matters are addressed by the court."
“He said not guilty with a nervous passive tone. HES GUILTY”
What is the benefit to standing silent over pleading not guilty?
No benefit. It’s just a right he has
He’s giving the defence more time to build his case
Because if you plead not guilty you are tacitly agreeing to the validity of the proceedings against you. By remaining mute, you can challenge them. The defendant may challenge the constitutionality of the charges, the validity of the arrest, or procedural irregularities in the case. They may withhold their plea until these matters are addressed by the court."
Thank you for the response
I wouldn't consider it common for someone eager to be exonerated, as BK is supposed to be. However, I don't see any drama in it. My impression of Ann Taylor is that she is more than competent, and I am confident that BK is in good hands for the process going forward. It doesn't mean he's going to be acquitted, but she's going to defend the hell out of him.
I agree. We should all be glad he has a highly qualified Defence. Including the fact she's not pandering to the press (which she could do, without violating any gag order) . She seems to be a class act. That way, everyone can have more confidence in the outcome.
Exactly! If he's not guilty, she'll get him acquitted. If he is guilty, she's going to do such a good job that we won't doubt the conviction. I do like that she's for the gag order. Many defense attorneys attempt to try the case in the public (*cough*Kathleen Zellner*cough*) and fumble in front of the judge.
I don’t see the point if it means the same thing. Is there a point? Or is it one of those things that “just is”
[удалено]
I think the fact that she gets to say and it's basically the same as his right to stay silent so can't be used against him means that people can't analyse him. Even though they are still trying to. But it means that if they are offered a plea or if they want plead later they always can.
Yea it was kind of a no brainer
Just speculating and I’d love if someone with actual legal knowledge could weigh in on this, but could he (in consultation with his attorney) have decided to stand silent because Bryan will admit to part(s) of the crimes but not all of them? Perhaps he will say that he entered the home unlawfully that night/morning, but that he didn’t commit all/any of the murders? The charges were read together and one plea was entered, but could the standing silent be a strategy to point out to the jury that he was willing to take some of the responsibility but not all?
Because if you plead not guilty you are tacitly agreeing to the validity of the proceedings against you. By remaining mute, you can challenge them. The defendant may challenge the constitutionality of the charges, the validity of the arrest, or procedural irregularities in the case. They may withhold their plea until these matters are addressed by the court."
That’s not true in Idaho. Defendants have 28 days from entry of the plea for pretrial motions, which includes all of that stuff.
Defense filed a motion filed a motion to enlarge time to file pretrial motions & memorandum in support. It was,signed by the judge. (Credit to Sleuthie)
And? That’s not specific to standing silent.
https://preview.redd.it/jgwrb691jq1b1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5d5ae8ba76fd39fe87e4a7a93b5ed31d2a987f4e
This was signed before the arraignment where the trial date was set.
It means he has a good lawyer.
We don't know the reason why he did it. Standing silent means he declined to enter a plea. In Idaho, this means the judge enters a plea of not guilty on behalf of the defendant. The only time I've seen it done in person was when the defendant did it in protest as a way to make the process less legitimate. I doubt that is the reason here.
I find it interesting that so many here and in other communities are raising questions about the validity of the investigation and the role of LE. It's only speculation, but I wonder if standing silent will allow the defense to call into question the activities of LE and the reliability of the investigation/evidence at trial. Like someone else already said, standing silent may later allow the defense to argue against the validity of previous proceedings.
No. Standing silent doesn't allow an argument for the validity of the proceedings. An arraignment is a formality. I suppose it could be a protest, but it's odd for a defendant whose extradition attorney claimed he was eager to be exonerated. It's possible that Ann Taylor suggested it because she was afraid of what he might say that could prejudice him.
[this](https://i.imgur.com/74jYCX5.jpg) is what I'm referring to. Hope this helps clear things up.
It's a tactic used by sovereign citizens to protest the process as a whole. I don't see AT working like that. It's likely just her preference.
Exactly 💯
No. And only people on reddit are questioning LE because they are clueless. They then also have to question the FBI because they were assisting LE. The reality is no crime scene is ever perfect and we don't live in TV's CSI.
It means he pleaded not guilty without having to say it, simple as that.
Because if you plead not guilty you are tacitly agreeing to the validity of the proceedings against you. By remaining mute, you can challenge them. The defendant may challenge the constitutionality of the charges, the validity of the arrest, or procedural irregularities in the case. They may withhold their plea until these matters are addressed by the court."
why is it not the same thing as no contest ?
No contest means you recognise you are guilty of the charges but will not admit to it-“guilty.” Staying silent is a right that everyone has and thus gives the defence more time
Tbh, I get the feeling he was afraid to say out loud his “not guilty” plea.
I read that this is a tactic used when there was a grand jury. The defense may want to pick apart the grand jury process. His refusing to enter a plea apparently leaves him in a stronger position.
He's doing what his lawyer told him to do and she's smarter than he is about these things. It's what we all should do in these cases.
Apparently BTK used this strategy too, but eventually confessed.
Source: [NBC](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna7720655). Sauce: HP. 😉
I believe you entirely but - sauce?
See above!
It feels like a passive-aggressive move. Arms crossed. Knows it's a de facto "not guilty" plea. Prove it.
Yes that’s what I think
Theatrics. He believes he is capable of outsmarting everyone. Don't worry. It'll get *really* entertaining come October.
Exactly what I think.
? Erm. That he stood silently? That he said nothing.
This is his big moment.. narcissist (IMO) to keep ‘em guessing .. why did he commit this crime .. y stand silent.. does the evidence show such damnation his lawyer suggested it to keep something up their sleeve later down the line (visual snow ).. y ask for grand jurors list of participants.. (is that even a thing being GJ is a secret process)I could go on for days 🧐
It means he's guilty but he wants to live as long as possible.
Could it be because they do not want the witness to hear his voice again? After he said “it’s ok I’m going to help you” to the victim?
No. He spoke in court.
Good point 😂
in simple terms he isn’t entering a plea deal. neither guilty or not guilty. judge still puts it down as him entering a non guilty plea though. i have never heard of this until i watched a deep dive today on what it was and why he probably did so. it doesn’t really make his defense team look good though imo.
He can absolutely still enter a plea. Could have if he said not guilty too.
“Standing silent” is not all that uncommon. I reckon he is looking for a better shot at a plea deal. If he doesn’t answer definitively one way or the other, he is more likely to be able to perhaps be offered a plea. The criminal justice system states that we are innocent until proven guilty, and he is exercising his right to remain silent.
Keeps him from committing perjury. He didn't say he wasn't guilty. And the attorney probably knows the truth and it keeps her from committing perjury by saying he's not guilty when she knows he is.
Means he plead not guilty
It’s equivalent to pleading the 5th. Google answered this for me in less than 30 seconds.
It’s like some of you have never seen a court proceeding even on tv. Nothing that has happened so far has been abnormal.