Return to Transcripts main page
CNN News Central
Brian Kohberger Says He Wants to Withdraw Guilty Plea and Face Trial for Murder of Idaho College Students; Testimony Begins for Mother Who Admits to Killing Her 3 Children; Arizona State University Launches Content Creation Degree. Aired 3:30-4p ET
Aired July 27, 2026 - 15:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:30:00]
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: The convicted killer who brutally ended the lives of four University of Idaho students says he's seeking to reopen his case. Brian Kohberger was convicted just a year ago for the first degree murders of Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin. But in a prison interview with the New York Times, Kohberger now says he's filing a petition to retract his guilty plea and be put on trial.
CNN has reached out to Kohberger's attorney and the local and state prosecutors for comment.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Let's bring in CNN's Josh Campbell. So Josh, what more did Kohberger have to say?
JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Well, this certainly I think came out of nowhere for a lot of people. We know that last year there was that trial that often included gruesome details that led to an eventual plea deal with Kohberger himself saying that, yes, I killed these four Idaho students. I mean, who can forget whenever he was asked over and over by the judge with the name of each victim.
And then the judge asked, you know, did you actually kill this person? And then he said, yes. Now, according to the New York Times, he's saying that he's innocent.
And, you know, in a lot of these instances where we hear someone trying to get a new trial or to challenge their conviction, there's often some type of evidence that comes to light, perhaps exonerating the person, maybe their allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. Here, what Kohberger is telling the New York Times essentially is that he was misled into confessing. I'll read you part of what the New York Times says, a quote from Kohberger.
He said that, "My actual innocence is my truth and the plea hinged on by false promises and blatant disinformation must be withdrawn." Now, he did not specify to the New York Times reporter exactly why he thinks this should occur, the details of what he expects to actually happen here. But we will all be watching.
There was a petition filed on the Idaho court docket today, which we believe to be this challenge. But of course, who can forget the damning evidence? In addition to his actual plea of guilty, there was, you go back to that day, DNA that was found on a knife sheath that was near two of the victims in that Idaho home.
Amazon purchase records showed that he had bought a Ka-Bar knife and this sheath in the months before the actual incident. There was his vehicle, the same type of vehicle that was seen on surveillance footage circling the crime scene and then speeding away. And then on the night of the actual murder, his cell phone is turned off and then turned back on again.
So again, there was a lot of damning evidence. But of course, for the families of the victims, we can only imagine what they're going through right now. Hearing this new challenge, the Idaho attorney general issued a statement saying that he is keeping that family in his thoughts.
And of course, we'll wait to see how this goes here as far as how successful he might be in bringing this and then ultimately overturning that. We'll leave that to the legal experts. But certainly a development, like I said, that I don't think many expected.
SANCHEZ: Josh Campbell, thank you so much for that.
Let's bring in CNN legal analyst, criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson. So Joey Coburn is blaming his guilty plea on false promises and wrong information.
[15:35:00]
He declined to give specifics to The New York Times. I wonder what you think he could be referring to.
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Good to be with you, Boris Brianna. I have no idea in as much as there were very much procedural regularities that went on prior to this. What am I speaking about?
Procedural regularities. Before you take a plea, Boris, Brianna, you are asked several questions. Like what? Sir, are you pleading guilty because you are guilty?
Are you under the influence of any drugs or intoxicants? Are you satisfied with your lawyer's representation? Has anybody threatened or otherwise coerced you to do so, sir?
Answer all those questions, right? Prior to that happening, it had to be at least two years that his attorneys were going back and forth with respect to evaluating the discovery, looking at the cell tower evidence in terms of the cell triangulation, where was his cell phone? Josh Campbell mentioned the DNA with respect to the knife, the same knife, by the way, that on Amazon was purchased by him, looking at the white car he was in.
I can go on. But the issue is, is there's going to be a paper trail of information with regard to his lawyers communicating with him when his lawyers were speaking with him, right? And not necessarily the substance of those conversations, that's privilege, but just as there was that dynamic.
Why is all of this relevant? It's all relevant because he's essentially saying something that you have to say in order to get that plea taken back. And that is that the Supreme Court has ruled that in order to get a plea back, you need to do one or two things.
You need to say, hey, my lawyers were so terrible that I had ineffective assistance of counsel, which alludes to step two, which is he's saying I was given disinformation, which bleeds into what I just said, that my lawyers were just so bad and they didn't give me any information. Last point. And that is that it's interesting that the reason he pled guilty weeks, just a few weeks before the actual trial was so that the death penalty can be taken off the table.
A court is going to evaluate everything that I said in the context of how terrible could his lawyers have been and how much disinformation could they have given you when the exact reason that you may have pled guilty, it was widely thought, was to avoid the death penalty, which is exactly what happened. And so in terms of what disinformation he's talking about, I don't know. But I do know that lawyers, before you enter into a plea, put together a very detailed memorandum advising your client why they're pleading.
It's their choice to plead. You go over with your client. Then when you go into court, I won't reiterate.
The judge asked you the questions that I started out by saying to you that you know what you're doing. So this is a very, very difficult lever for him to push. And I just don't know if he gets to the top of that mountain because it is a mountain, indeed.
KEILAR: Yes, a lot of families thought that he was getting a pretty good deal in this. They weren't happy that he got it.
So the Times says that in the handwritten filing made public by court officials on Monday, they go on to say he said his lawyers failed to disclose a review of exculpatory evidence and had made promises about what life in prison would look like, including details about visits and employment. Your reaction to that?
JACKSON: Listen, the reality of the matter is that the attorney is essentially functioning in the role of advising you with respect to overcoming a trial, going over the evidence, looking at what the odds are to prevailing, looking at the consequences with respect to you failing, which would have been a potential death here. And that's, I think, the court's focus. An attorney generally is not going to talk to you about how many visits you might get in court and whether your family is going to come to see you every other Thursday and whether other people in custody are going to be kind to you.
It's sort of outside the purview. I'm not suggesting those discussions didn't occur, but I could assure you that if a court basing a decision and by the way, one, maybe two percent of these things get actually granted, the court is going to be focused on the specifics of was there an attorney-client dialogue, right? Did it rise to the standard of professionalism? And the bar, Brianna, and bars, just to be clear, it's not whether your attorney was, you know, the next coming of Johnny Cochran. The standard is did you fall below the level of professional decency such that you didn't have an attorney at all? So it's a very high bar.
And so what he's doing, it looks like, is using what he can use under the law, which is I was given disinformation, I was misled, which allows you, Supreme Court has said, hey, you're allowed to attack that. And he's using my attorneys were just very bad at what they were doing. Let's see if a court grants it.
But I'm going to tell you that attorneys generally put together a very detailed memorandum with respect to your understanding, and my understanding, and the court's understanding, and the prosecutor's understanding. And then when you come into that courtroom, as was done here, there's an allocution where the judge asked you specifically, were you coerced in any way? Are you drunk?
Are you, you know, otherwise high? Are you feeling OK? And are you under position to take this plea?
[15:40:00]
All that was done on the record. And that's the basis for which I tell you that it's going to be very difficult for him to do so.
Last, last point, in the event, for example, that this is in fact, granted, he could be facing the death penalty again. I don't think we'll get that far.
But certainly in the event, for example, that it is granted, that's not the end of the story. He then goes to trial. And I would presume that prosecutors would put the death penalty back on the table.
KEILAR: Yes, I think it was on this program. We watched him read all that stuff in apparent right mind with saying that he had had basically good counsel to do so. Joey Jackson, thanks so much. Really appreciate it.
Coming up, a key witness takes a stand today in the triple murder trial of Lindsay Clancy. Well, Clancy's ex-husband is testifying about her past as the mom stands accused of murdering her three small children.
A live update next.
[15:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEILAR: Now to the criminal trial that has people asking, was it premeditated murder or was it a mental health breakdown? Today, jurors heard from the first witness in the trial of Lindsay Clancy.
The Massachusetts mother admits to strangling her three young children in 2023, five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month- old Callan. Prosecutors say she acted intentionally and in control. The defense says that Clancy was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis, that she killed her children as she tried to take her own life.
CNN's Jean Casarez is covering the trial for us. Jean, how did the two sides make their case in the openings today?
JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the prosecution is saying that this is most definitely premeditated murder and she fooled everyone. And she really fooled her husband. And maybe she had postpartum depression.
But what she did and how she manipulated the circumstances to show that it was much more than it was, was merely a plan to orchestrate and kill her children. Here is the assistant district attorney, Shanan Buckingham, during opening statements.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHANAN BUCKINGHAM, PLYMOUTH COUNTY ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY: We are here, ladies and gentlemen, because they are not. They were strangled, deliberately and meticulously killed by this defendant on January 24th of 2023. One by one, she wrapped exercise bands around each one of the kids' necks and pulled until their little bodies were limp and lifeless.
First Dawson, then Cora, and finally Callan. Your job, ladies and gentlemen, is not easy in this case.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CASAREZ: And the defense is saying this was a psychotic break. This was a psychosis. And it got to the point that the hallucinations were in her mind and there were voices that were directing her to kill her children.
And that is how this happened. And because of that, she does not bear any criminally responsibility because she did not know right from wrong. She was mentally insane at that moment.
But the prosecution put as the first witness on the stand today, Patrick Clancy, the father of those three children. The emotion in that courtroom, the emotion we see in that courtroom was so evident when he had to testify against his wife as a prosecution witness. And I think some of the highlights of his testimony there was that, number one, there was a wedding in the fall of 2022.
And she told her husband, you know, I'm depressed. I'm going to go to a doctor. I'm going to find a doctor, get some Zoloft.
But it came out in the trial that she'd already been to a doctor. She already had a prescription for Zoloft. She wasn't telling him the full truth.
And then after that, there were aspects that that she would say that there were certain voices in her head and things were happening that. But the fact is that there was no relevancy to that, because at the same time, she was normal and she was doing everything she was supposed to do. I think we have some sound.
Let's play that right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PATRICK CLANCY, EX-HUSBAND OF LINDSAY CLANCY: She described thoughts of, of hurting the kids or, um, or having, or them having some sort of ailment. It's like, she was very worried that Cora had -- whenever she had a stomachache, she became overly worried that she was, um, you know, like I had like a liver problem or something much more dramatic than it was.
BUCKINGHAM: OK. But going back to that first part, she said she had thoughts of harming the kids. Is that correct?
CLANCY: Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CASAREZ: And the prosecution went through all of this medication that was found afterwards. Actually, Patrick had it in his car. And with all of these medications, many of them, psychiatric medications that she had taken two tablets or three tablets out of a 30 lot supply, not taking that medication. And the defense says that it's the medication and the lack of, of organization with all of these doctors that made her be, have that psychosis and that break.
They're blaming it on the physicians and the health system.
KEILAR: Yes, it'll be very interesting to, to watch this trial because I think it also has a lot of ramifications for perhaps other trials as well. Jean Casarez, thank you so much for being with us on that -- Boris.
[15:50:00]
SANCHEZ: Now to some of the other headlines we're watching this hour, the New York police department is now using drones to catch subway surfers. Last week, officers use their aerial cameras to catch these five teens in Brooklyn. Just two days later, a 16 year old in Queens was critically injured, trying to pull off the same dangerous stunt.
We're also getting newly released body camera video showing police officers rushing into danger, trying to save horses from a fire at a racetrack. This happened in June at a harness racing venue in Saratoga Springs, New York, 10 horses managed to escape from a barn right next to the one that was on fire. Sadly, 17 others did not survive. More than 300 horses from several different barns were also ultimately rescued.
We also have some new details on a stunt from the top of Seattle Space Needle on Friday evening. Two men suddenly climbed over a safety barrier on the observation deck and then just jumped off the ledge as you're watching this video parachuting down more than 600 feet. Investigators are still trying to find them.
They could face criminal trespassing charges.
Coming up, calling all aspiring influencers. One major university is launching a new bachelor's degree just for you. We've got the details straight ahead.
[15:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEILAR: Many kids will head to college soon to start studying different fields from engineering to journalism. And now students at Arizona State University have one more option, a degree in content creation. The school's new program promises to prepare students to become an influencer and strategic storyteller that can thrive in the growing creator economy.
SANCHEZ: Specifically, ASU says students will learn to create powerful content across video podcasts, social media and emerging platforms while building their brand. Both a bachelor's and master's degree are offered.
Let's discuss with Camille Moore. She's a branding expert and influencer. So let's start by defining a few terms for our audiences. Tell us about content creators and the creator economy.
KEILAR: Can you hear us?
CAMILLE MOORE, BRANDING EXPERT AND INFLUENCER: Hello.
SANCHEZ: Hey.
MOORE: I can hear you perfectly. Can you hear me?
KEILAR: Yes.
SANCHEZ: Yes. So tell us about content creators and the creator economy. What should prospective students know?
MOORE: Well, it's a it's projected to be a thirty nine billion dollar a billion dollar economy in 2026. Like this is no joke. Like there is so much money being spent on creators and there isn't a formal program to learn it in school.
And I think this is an amazing move from ASU as a branding move to respond to students who are coming out of schools. I can't find successful paying jobs. Like brands have such a low barrier as long as you have a followership. But being able to tell a story, create a hook, understand storytelling is so powerful for getting ahead and taking more of that pie.
KEILAR: Yes. And it's you know, I think a lot of people are doing this. A number of them are successful at it.
Not everyone is, obviously, but they're figuring it out how to do it on their own, the ones who are very successful. Being a creator isn't just taking your phone out and shooting videos for Instagram. There's the content strategy.
There's the personal branding, the audience analytics, negotiating with brands. We see that happening. Tell us about that in the totals that maybe can be taught in the classroom instead of just kind of this trial and error learning of it.
MOORE: Look, it's very overwhelming and there is no -- it's actually hilarious. Like there is no book or course on this. Right.
Like it's actually exactly what's needed to teach people the thinking of how to negotiate. Like one of my -- one of my good friends is a really big influencer and her friend who has more followers recently came to her years later and was like, hey, you know, what's a good baseline for my rates? Like ASU doing this is actually super helpful because they're able to monetize a growing industry that no one has created structure around.
It's really quite smart.
SANCHEZ: Just as there are sort of pros and cons to any choice and field of study when it comes to getting your degree, getting an education, pursuing a career. What would you say students that might be thinking about pursuing this should keep in mind as potential downfalls or reasons why they may face more challenges than they might expect?
MOORE: Well, I think people see like it as easy money and that there isn't skill needed, right? Because it's you know, you're posting online and you have followers, but the people who are successful at doing it are our master storytellers and they're really creative, especially because there's so much content that's put out there every single day online.
The bar to be able to break through is so high. And there's also another interesting thing happening at the same time where because this idea of branding is really so new and a conduit of making a brand successful is having these people with audience ships to disseminate and share the message. Right.
Media is changing right now so quickly. So I guess the way to properly answer that is you need to have really strong skills in order to break through. And that's where the most amount of money is made and teaching people how to hone those skills faster as this market is burgeoning.
It just it makes sense. But it's not as simple as people make. And I think that's also why the Internet has been really running with this is people are laughing that like a university is handing out like a degree and being an influencer.
But it really is a powerful way that we're consuming information and a lot of money is being spent based off of what people post online.
[16:00:00] So honing that skill, it just makes simple sense for where society is gone, like not going but gone.
KEILAR: Yes.
SANCHEZ: Yes, that's a good way to put it. Camille Moore, thanks so much for sharing part of your afternoon with us. Appreciate the time.
MOORE: Have a great day, guys.
SANCHEZ: Have a good one. I don't know what she said, but --
KEILAR: She said, have a great day, guys.
SANCHEZ: Let's do it. Have a good time with "THE ARENA" as well with Kasie Hunt. It starts right now.
END
