Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Bryan Kohberger Blasted Over Delay Request Amid Secret Evidence Testing

Episode Date: June 11, 2025

Bryan Kohberger's attorneys have asked to continue his upcoming trial for the murders of four University of Idaho students so they can have more time to investigate the case and alternate perpetrators. But prosecutors are opposing that request saying it's time to try the case. This comes as Judge Hippler has sealed a number of motions including one that requested testing of evidence by the defense. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy looks at all of it in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:Watch Dr. Layke's step-by-step video free and uninterrupted at https://BHMD1.com/FixHost:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest:Philip Dubé https://www.instagram.com/philip.dube/Producer:Jordan ChaconCRIME FIX PRODUCTION:Head of Social Media, YouTube - Bobby SzokeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinVideo Editing - Daniel CamachoGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this law and crimes series ad free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple podcasts or Spotify. Hello, I'm Alice Levine. And I'm Matt Ford and we're the hosts of British Scandal. Yes, and you need to strap in for our next series, the Salisbury poisonings. Key ingredients, a botched assassination, a military-grade nerve agent, and an innocent lad's trip to the world-famous Salisbury Cathedral.

Who can forget? Seven years ago, former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter were poisoned by two Putin goons right here on British soil. Cue a British city on lockdown, one of the single most bizarre TV interviews in British scandal history, and a game of diplomatic cat and mouse between then Prime Minister Theresa May and still Russian President Vladimir Putin. We often say that when we look back scandals are just plain weirder than we remember. This is definitely one of those times. Follow British Scandal wherever you listen to podcasts and binge entire seasons early and ad-free on Wondery Plus. Something is going on behind the scenes in Brian Coburger's case, and it could impact his upcoming trial,

as Judge Hipler grants the accused killer's request to analyze evidence. I take a look at what it all means and why prosecutors are pushing back on his request to delay the trial. Welcome to Crime Fix. I'm Anjana Levy. Jury selection in Brian Coburger's trial is scheduled to begin on August 4th in Boise, Idaho. That's less than two months from now. But if his lawyers get their way, that won't happen. They want the trial delayed.

But prosecutors, they're pushing back on that request big time. And let me tell you, looking at the court documents, something is going on behind the scenes. New motions have been filed and they're all sealed. But we know basically what they discuss. But there's more. Judge Hippler has granted Coburger's request to have evidence analyzed by an independent expert. Unfortunately, I can't tell you what that evidence is because the motion requesting it is sealed and so is the order. But he granted the defense motion to have the evidence analyzed after prosecutors

filed a response. We don't know if the prosecution objected to the request because it's also sealed, but we do know that prosecutors have told Judge Hippler they are opposed to delaying the trial. Now, Brian Koberger's lawyers have said he maintains his innocence in the murders of Maddie Mogin, Kaylee Goncalves, Ethan Chapin, and Zana Karnodle. All four were stabbed to death in the home on King Road in Moscow, Idaho, in November 2022. Coburger is due back in court next week on June 18th when his attorneys will argue, behind closed doors, that they should be allowed to tell the jury about other suspects who could

have carried out these murders. Prosecutors are objecting to that too. They say there's only one suspect and it's Brian Coburger. But Coburger's lawyers have said there are other suspects who were not investigated by law enforcement. Here was Ann Taylor at a hearing earlier this year. We're not completed with that. I think I've read most of the police reports in this case, but I haven't read the thousands and thousands and thousands of tips that came in on this case. Don't think they're all not relevant though. Recently, we came across a tip just in trying to work

through some of these issues, we came across a tip that would appear to be an alternate suspect. And we're trying to work through that as rapidly as we can. It was quite a surprise to come up with that. There's got to be more in there that I need to know. And Ann Taylor plans to argue at trial that two people carried out these murders,

and neither one of them was Brian Koberger. Your Honor, we have produced an expert that believes that it's likely that there were two people, two weapons that doesn't- Testimony about the degree of intoxication goes to the, what I'm assuming was given that degree of intoxication, the ability to fight back. And in rebuttal to your experts, as I understand it. I think that's what the state says.

I don't think that's proper rebuttal. Well, because we didn't talk about intoxication, because the state's medical examiner talks about defensive wounds anyway. So this would seem to be contradictory with other testimony that they intend to put on. We are not contesting the intoxication level of any of the deceased. Now back to these new court documents

and what has piqued my interest. A motion for an emergency order was filed last Friday, and it was sealed, along with the state's response to the defense motion for independent analysis of evidence. Then on Monday, Judge Hippler granted the defense's motion. That same day, Hippler sealed an order, staying in order. So that is sealed. So this indicates Hippler issued a stay

on one of his own orders and then sealed it. Now why, we don't know. Is one side appealing something? We don't know that either. Judge Hippler had been opposed to stealing documents not too long ago, but now many things in the case are being sealed again. We've all heard that wrinkle creams are the secret to looking younger, but according to one Beverly Hills doctor, that might not be the whole story. Dr. John Lakey, a renowned cosmetic surgeon and beauty expert says that most wrinkle solutions

on the market are just glorified moisturizers, and they don't always deliver the results they promise. In fact, some can even irritate your skin. But Dr. Lakey didn't stop there. He's been working on something new, an anti-aging breakthrough that he calls the age rewinder method. It's a simple at-home technique that he says

can visibly reduce the signs of aging in under two minutes. Think of it like a mini makeover, almost like Photoshop for your face, but real. Curious? Dr. Lakey put together a short video showing you exactly how it works, step-by-step so you can how it works, step by step, so you can try it yourself from home.

The response? It's been huge. The video has already gotten more than 7.2 million views and the reviews are pouring in. Thousands of women say they look noticeably younger. One even said, best results I've ever seen. I'll never stop using this. So if you want to see what it's all about, just go to BHMD1.com slash fix or click the link in the description below. It only takes a few minutes

to watch. Again, that's BHMD1.com slash fix. That's BHMD, the number one dot com slash fix. We do know that prosecutors are pushing back on the defense request to delay the trial. We do know that prosecutors are pushing back on the defense request to delay the trial. The prosecutors write, It is time to try this case. Defendant was arrested in late December of 2022 and was indicted in May of 2023. He successfully moved to transfer venue to Ada County. In October 2024, this court entered its scheduling order, setting deadlines for pretrial motions and expert disclosures. Defendant complied with those deadlines

without moving for a continuance, including by disclosing six expert reports for the penalty phase, disclosing over 2,100 pages of purported mitigation materials, listing 55 penalty phase witnesses and identifying 132 exhibits he may introduce during the penalty phase of trial. Now2 exhibits he may introduce during the penalty

phase of trial. Now in the state's opinion, the defense has had plenty of time to prepare for trial, but Ann Taylor has said previously she still needs more time and she's quoted case law about death penalty cases that say death is different. Taylor claims there is still discovery that she wants and needs and she says she needs more time to prepare for a possible penalty phase in the trial. Now, prosecutors argue that Koberger and his team, that they've had plenty of time and they have plenty of resources. Defendant has three attorneys, including a lead attorney, who has represented him from day one, two investigators, and the assistance of at least one additional public defense attorney.

He also has engaged an outside mitigation specialist to assist in obtaining materials for use during the penalty phase. This record reflects that this defense team has been working hard for defendant and as explained below has met the professional standards for the defense of a death penalty case. Now, prosecutors are also pushing back on Taylor's claim the defense needs more time to complete a social history investigation. Now, prosecutors are also pushing back on Taylor's claim the defense needs more time to complete a social history investigation. And the elephant in the room with all of this is that Dateline special that aired in May.

That special aired evidence that hadn't been revealed before. And it included video from a house next door to 1122 King Road that shows suspect vehicle one. It also included information about Brian Coburger's Google searches from his phone and selfies of Coburger wearing a black hoodie and claims that he was searching serial killer Ted Bundy on Google. Bundy went to college in Washington state

and killed women across the country, including sorority sisters. Judge Hipler was livid about the special and so was the defense. Hipler made it clear that he believed the information was leaked by law enforcement or a current or former member of the prosecution team. Coburger's lawyers say that special

as part of their request for a delay, but prosecutors say it's not necessary. They write, there is no doubt that the publicity surrounding this case, including but not limited to a recent Dateline TV show containing non-public evidence, poses challenges for the court and both parties. The state reaffirms its commitment to comply with the court's non-dissemination order to do everything in its power to prevent leaks and to assist in determining which person

or persons provided non-public information to Dateline. However, defendants' reliance on the Dateline episode to support his motion is misplaced for several reasons. Judge Hepler made it clear last month that he wants to know who leaked that information to Dateline. In the closed session this morning, I indicated to you I'm going to be entering an order requiring the retention of records by the state, and I'm going to write another one extending that

to the defense as it relates to violations of the non-dissemination order. I'm going to give you a copy of what that order is going to look like that I will execute likely over the lunch hour. It does require some action on your part council. And as I indicated, I would be open to a request for a appointment of a special prosecutor and that special prosecutor

to ask for a magistrate inquiry so they have the power of subpoena and the power to question witnesses under oath, as well as the power to grant immunity. as well as the power to grant immunity. So I will be looking for that from you. And that one just deals with the state. I will get you one that deals with your side to preserve records, all right? So I wanna bring in Philip DuBey.

He worked as court appointed counsel in Los Angeles County for years. He could have represented somebody like Brian Coburg or somebody in his shoes. He worked as court appointed counsel in Los Angeles County for years. He could have represented somebody like Brian Coburg or somebody in his shoes. First off, you know, Philip, you believe that the defense should be given a little bit of a continuance, but now the prosecution is saying, no, no, no, no, no, no. The time to try this case is now. Let's get the train.

The train is on the tracks. Keep it moving. Your response to that. We don't win trials by ambush. Council for the defense is saying that they are not ready and they have good cause for needing to put it over. Then so be it. You don't get a leg up in winning a prosecution merely because your opponent is not prepared. That's not how we try cases, particularly in a capital case. Again, we're not talking about somebody passing a bad check, joy riding a car, or a simple assault and battery. We're talking about a quadruple homicide.

They're seeking the death penalty. And if counsel is saying, I need more time for the following reasons, and they have good cause, the court is obliged under not just Idaho law, but under United States Supreme Court precedent to grant that request. There was case law that came down from the high court, I think it was in the 60s in the context

of a criminal contempt proceeding where the court did not want to grant a continuance. And the standard is, was the denial just arbitrary? You know, if it's arbitrary, well then that's grounds to reverse a conviction and it could go back to the trial court. And I seriously doubt the judge assigned to the case is going to want to retry a behemoth four count homicide. Idaho law is in accord with US Supreme Court precedent, but also adds that you have to show prejudice from the denial of your continuance.

And here, if Ms. Taylor needs time to work up a defense, to get records, to provide additional materials for an expert so that they can prepare or put on or even rule out a defense, that's why we have continuances. We don't do it to give either side a leg up and just sort of win by ambush. It's simply not the law. I was a little surprised to see the prosecution say the defense has had plenty of time to work up their case. You know, it's interesting to me that they would say that. I mean, I

guess they are entitled to say whatever they feel or whatever they think. They say, they've produced all of this stuff. They've given us their mitigation experts. They've produced all of this material to us. They're ready to go. They're fine. But if the defense feels truly, and they are representing somebody and this is a capital case, that they do maybe need a little more time and they haven't specified an amount of time, maybe 30 or, give them 30 or 60 more days, I don't know. You said 90 the last time we talked about this and to keep her on a short lease, Lee Shantaylor, I mean, it kind of is like, it is a death penalty case. This is a big case. So if we're looking at it from,

you know, the standpoint of fairness, like then maybe what is the big deal if you push it to like January, you know, like what would be the big deal? So were you a little surprised to see the prosecution be so bold and say, and I understand for the victims families, this is horrific, like they want this over, but for them to just say, oh, they're ready, they've had plenty of time. Well, as far as I'm concerned, prosecutors have no standing to say when their opponent is ready. Just like we have no standing on the defense side

to say when prosecutors are ready. You need to be ready by tomorrow. Otherwise, we're gonna ask that this case be dismissed. It's like, halt, not so fast. You don't get to dictate the rules. You don't get to dictate when either side is ready. And you don't get to dictate when either side needs more time. And I think we talked about in a prior episode how it'd be one thing if counsel is saying,

look, my family and I have a prepaid vacation, or my dear sorority sister is having a destination wedding in Vienna, and I promise that I would be there. You know, or, you know, we're going on a cruise that was planned two years ago for a family reunion. No, we're talking about ongoing preparatory work in a four count capital murder prosecution. And she laid out with some pretty specific detail why she needs more time

without getting into her actual work product and certainly without getting into attorney client privilege type conversations. So now the burden shifts really to the court and the court or the balls in the courts park to make a ruling and make a decision. And it should not be arbitrary and it should not prejudice the defense in any way. And if we're honest, how would the prosecution be harmed?

They're going to get all the evidence. They'll get all the time that they need to look at it. And meanwhile, you kind of get past the summertime when people might have pre-planned vacations, kids are out of school, you wanna spend time with your kids, and you certainly want it to run past the holidays so you're all not under the mistletoe together during a capital murder trial, trying to get home to put up a tree,

spin the dreidel for Hanukkah, light the Shabbos and the Hanukkah candles, all that kind of stuff. You don't want any type of capital murder trial to get in the way of the high holy days. So what do you do? You put it over, give everybody ample time to work it up so that it is a fair, fair prosecution.

Now let's get, well, let's talk about the Dateline special because that's kind of thrown a big bomb into the middle of all of this. The state is basically saying to the judge, now they're saying the Dateline special has kind of mucked everything up as well and created all this prejudicial pre-trial publicity. The state says, you know, we are committed to upholding this non-dissemination order and helping the court in figuring out who did this, who leaked this stuff, whether it's one person or more than one person.

But they're saying, you know, if we delay this, that still just gives more time for more leaks. There's going to be a book coming out right before jury selection, Philip. So there's going to be publicity surrounding that. They're concerned about that. What do you say to the prosecution's argument about the Dateline stuff when basically Judge Hipler is like, I think it came from your side? The reason why the prosecution is concerned, and I'm not saying that they had a hand in this, but if those leaks came from the DA's office or from law enforcement, what it does

is it puts forth or gives rise to the remedies that the defense has to either get the case dismissed, maybe to get counts kicked, maybe to get the death penalty off the table, and certainly it would be grounds for a continuance to look into it. And I think what counsel is trying to do is cut the time so short that they could not be affected by a judicially crafted remedy as a sanction for any type of law enforcement or prosecutorial leaks. And I understand that. I'm not saying that's what's happening, but that's certainly sort of the message. And if we're all honest, it does look pretty suspicious.

What is the harm in giving the defense another 90 days just to get up to speed? It takes you past the summertime, hopefully gets you past the holidays, so everybody is on equal footing to get to the truth right after the New Year holiday. Phillip, let's now get to the sealed stuff, the stuff that's kind of secret right now. There's a defense motion for independent testing of evidence. We don't know what that evidence is, but the judge granted it. And it could be something to do with the sheath. We don't know that. But this, I would think any testing of the sheath or analysis of the sheath should have been done a long time ago. So it could be physical evidence. I'm wondering, does it have anything to do with the unidentified male DNA found inside the house and outside the house? We just don't know. So could that possibly delay the trial if there's independent analysis of evidence going on?

Well, a couple of points. I'm really glad that this judge sealed that. The rationale behind the rules of sealing court and public documents in the state of Idaho, despite their sunshine laws, is to ensure a fair trial. You certainly you don't want more leaks. You don't want a lot of speculation in the jury or future jury pools out there as to what, if anything, they have on this man. So from that standpoint, I'm glad right now that it is not made public. Now, having said that, we don't really know

what it is that they're seeking to have tested, but common sense dictates that it has something to do with that knife sheath. For all we know, it is possible that new technology has come out in the DNA world since the arrest and since the last testing of the evidence against him that could be a little more sophisticated and shed light on perhaps an alternative perpetrator

that they could lay their hands on for purposes of a defense. And if that's the case, I think the judge is obliged to give them more time because the standard is good cause. Do they have good cause? Are they really making diligent efforts to test evidence that's being held against their client? And if that's the case, I think the judge is obliged to give them the testing time that

they need, the time to get a report generated, and certainly time to get it to the prosecution so that they can rebut it. What I have done throughout my career, Anjanette, and I'm sure a lot of defense attorneys have done this, is that when they ask for more time, they will agree and stipulate to a reasonable continuance of the proceedings for the prosecution so that they have ample time to review and look at

and test and retest and analyze the additional defense discovery. That's typically how you cure it. So you show that it's not really antagonistic, but you're kind of working synergistically to get to the truth. And now we've got an order sealing a stayed order. I mean, and there was an emergency order,

a motion for an emergency order. So there's a lot going on that's sealed, going on behind the scenes, Phillip. So is the judge just sealing all of this? He was all for everything being unsealed or at least things being redacted and not sealed. Is he doing this because it is so close to trial and because of the Dateline leak and he's just like,

I just can't let everything get more messed up than it already is. Well, the clue that I look for in terms of interpreting his reasoning is the rule itself about sealing court documents. And there's three main buckets of records that people tend to want to have sealed. Number one, anything personal and confidential

about a litigant or a witness or a victim. Maybe psychiatric histories, who knows, maybe a lonesome disease of some sort, maybe a criminal past. You don't want certain things to be made public that are otherwise non-public. There could be financial type records in the file, and I'm not saying that that's the case. The world doesn't have the right to know how much I have in my checking account, how much I might have in a mutual fund portfolio. That is confidential. But third, the most important of all the categories for considering whether or not to seal

is whether or not it can in any way compromise getting a fair trial. And because of the leaks that have come out through this deadline episode, the court wants to be extra circumspect in making sure that nothing is leaked to the public that could in any way, shape or form compromise Brian Koberger's right to a fair and speedy resolution of his case. So he's just being careful and he's invoking that rule and I actually respect it.

Now I mentioned to know what's in there and I know you are and so is the rest of the true crime world. But you know, our interest in wanting to know has to be balanced against that right to a fair trial. And I think that right to a fair trial is going to trump our nosiness, frankly. Of course. Well, we will see what happens next week, especially with the continuance. Philip Dube, thank you so much. Have a great one. And that's it for this episode of Crime Fix. I'm Ann Jeanette Levy. Thanks so much for being with me. I'll see you back here next time.