A NEW court filing puts an important question front and center: Who should hear Bryan Kohberger’s post-conviction challenge? Filed October 13, 2026, this reply from attorney Gregory R. Rauch pushes back against the State’s opposition to the request to disqualify Judge Steven Hippler. Here’s what his attorney is arguing and why this filing deserves a closer look. 👇 🔴 WHAT DOES THE ATTORNEY DISPUTE? Rauch argues that the State has treated Kohberger’s motion as admitting points it never conceded. His reply challenges how the State characterized those arguments and asks the court to consider the concerns together. 🔴 WHY DO THE JUDGE’S PREVIOUS COMMENTS MATTER? The reply points to remarks about Kohberger’s truthfulness and earlier criticism of the defense’s preparation. Rauch argues that those prior assessments could matter if the same judge must now evaluate claims involving the preparation and advice behind Kohberger’s guilty plea. 🔴 WHAT IS HE ASKING FOR? He wants another qualified judge assigned to the post-conviction case. He asks for disqualification for cause or, alternatively, for Hippler to consider voluntarily stepping aside. His argument includes concerns about the appearance of impartiality and public confidence in the proceedings. ⚖️ WHY AM I SHOWING YOU THIS? Because understanding this case means looking at what the filings actually say, what each side is arguing, and what the court is being asked to decide. This reply explains why Kohberger’s attorney believes a different judge should hear the challenge. That’s important context for understanding what comes next. An important distinction: These are his attorney’s arguments, not findings that bias or coercion has been proven. This motion does not ask the court to decide whether the guilty plea is valid, and the filing itself does not remove the judge or overturn the conviction. Read it. Ask questions. Look at the documents for yourself. Do you think a different judge should hear the post-conviction challenge? Tell me why in the comments. Please like, save, and share so more people can understand what this filing actually says. Source: Petitioner’s reply filed October 13, 2026, pages 1–10. Case CV01-26-15094. #Idaho4 #BryanKohberger #CourtDocuments #TrueCrimeCommunity #TrueCrimeWithNatashaCooper - @truecrimewithnatashac