Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Bryan Kohberger Fights to Delay Trial And Probe Other Suspects

Episode Date: June 17, 2025

Bryan Kohberger will be back in court Wednesday as his lawyers argue for a continuance ahead of his August trial for the murders of four University of Idaho students. Kohberger’s lawyers say they need more time to investigate other possible suspects for his defense and they claim a “Dateline” special has complicated jury selection. Prosecutors are fighting the delay. Law&Crime’s Angenette Levy looks at what could happen in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If you received Depo-Provera birth control shots and were later diagnosed with a brain or spinal tumor called meningioma, you may be eligible for a lawsuit. Visit https://forthepeople.com/lcdepo to start a claim now! Host:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest: Joe GiacaloneProducer: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. Brian Coburger prepares to return to court for a hearing that will determine whether his trial indeed starts in August and whether he'll be allowed to point the finger at other suspects to defend himself. I look at what Coburger wants, the evidence we know about so far, and the drama that's been unfolding behind the scenes.

Welcome to Crime Fix. I'm Anjana Levy. Jury selection in Brian Coburger's quadruple murder trial, it's scheduled to begin at the end of July, and voir dire, that's the questioning of potential jurors, is scheduled to begin August 4th. It's not far off, but Coburger's lawyers, they hope that Judge Stephen Hippler

will give them a continuance. Coburger's lead attorney, Ann Taylor, she says she's simply not ready for trial, despite turning over expert reports for both the trial phase and a possible penalty phase. That's where jurors would consider sentencing Coburger to death or life in prison if he's found guilty. Coburger's lawyers say he maintains his innocence in the brutal stabbing deaths of Maddie Mogan,

Kaylee Goncalves, Ethan Chapin, and Zana Curnodle at the house on King Road in Moscow, Idaho. The murders carried out in the early morning hours of November 13th, 2022, absolutely rocked the community and the small college town. And the murders shattered the lives of the four victims' families and friends. Now, I've told you many times, many, many times, that police and prosecutors say that they linked Brian Coburger to the murders by identifying a single source of male DNA found on this part of the inner snap of a K-Bar knife sheath,

similar to this one, very, very similar, just like this one. Prosecutors say Coburger bought a K-Bar knife sheath and sharpener on Amazon in March of 2022, eight months before the murders. Coburger was arrested more than six weeks after the murders at his parents' home in Pennsylvania. And a lawyer representing him at the time

said that Coburger told him that he was eager to be exonerated. Now the trial is scheduled to begin in August in Ada County, Idaho. That's where Boise is located. But Coburger's lawyer, Ann Taylor, she says she's simply not ready and she needs more time to review Discovery

and prepare a defense. Taylor wrote in her request for a continuance, "'Cutting off this review before counsel can complete it with significantly prejudiced Mr. Coburger. The state's case is circumstantial. Mr. Coburger was not identified as a person of interest until weeks after the crime and after he was identified, law enforcement ceased investigating all other possibilities. While counsel can explain this in trial, every experienced trial lawyer knows that trials

are essentially story battles, high stakes duels where the prosecution and defense each tell competing narratives about the same set of events. Ultimately, the jury decides which story feels more true and more coherent. Even though the burden of proof rests with the prosecution and the defense bears no burden at all, humans are driven by narratives. That reality forces the defense to counteract the state's narrative with another compelling story. Adding to Taylor's request was the Dateline special that aired last month. That special unveiled evidence that had not been revealed and included video from a house on King Road that showed suspect vehicle one. It also revealed Brian Coburger's Google searches and selfies of

Coburger wearing a black hoodie and claims that he was searching serial killer Ted Bundy. Bundy went to college in Washington state and killed women across the country, including sorority sisters. Judge Hippler was furious about the special and made it clear last month he wants the source of the leak ferreted out. 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, counsel. And as I indicated, I would be open to a request for an 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. 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. This is another law and crime legal alert. If you received Depo-Provera birth control shots and were later diagnosed with a brain or spinal tumor

called meningioma, you may be eligible to take part in a lawsuit. Morgan & Morgan is investigating claims that patients were not properly warned about this risk. It's free to check. It takes just a few minutes and you don't pay unless they win. So scan the QR code on your screen, click the link below, or go to forthepeople.com slash LC depot to see if you qualify. Hippler said he believes the leak came from the prosecution side. The Dateline special is now part of Coburger's requests for a delay. Anne Taylor wrote, In some, the two hour Dateline episode is uniquely prejudicial in both tone and content. It constructs a speculative narrative around motive and guilt,

features emotionally manipulative production elements, and amplifies unsupported theories through self-styled expert commentary, all time to air just weeks before trial, when juror impressions are most vulnerable and voir dire least equipped to neutralize such deep-seated biases. But prosecutors are pushing back on the defense request for a continuance. They wrote,

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 reported mitigation materials, listing 55 penalty phase witnesses, and identifying 132 exhibits he may introduce during the penalty phase of trial. Prosecutors are also pushing back on Taylor's claim that the defense needs more time to complete a social history investigation. They claim Coburger's lawyers have had plenty of time

to uncover information about a car accident Coburger was involved in as a child, which is listed under trauma history, along with any history of neglect or maltreatment, which prosecutors say there's no evidence of that is relevant. Coburger's struggles with addiction are also expected to come up if there is a penalty phase. Prosecutors are also pouring cold water on Taylor's argument about the Dateline special and pretrial publicity. 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. I spoke with defense attorney Philip DuBey

about what both sides are saying. We don't win trials by ambush. Counsel 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. So what's going to happen at this hearing? Well, the part about the continuance will be open to the public. We'll get to see that in both the prosecution and the defense, they'll be allowed to present their arguments for and against a delay in the start of the trial. But then there will be a closed portion of the hearing where Coburger's lawyers will fight for their request to present evidence of alternate suspects at trial. Prosecutors are opposed to that, but Ann Taylor has said she's investigating a lead.

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 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. Now, prosecutors have said there's only one suspect in this case and it's Brian Koberger. But the defense plans to argue at trial that these murders could not have been carried out in a matter of minutes by one person. Your Honor, we have produced an expert that believes that it's likely that there were two people, two weapons. That doesn't- That doesn't testimony about the degree of intoxication goes to the, what I'm assuming was given that degree of intoxication goes to the, uh, what I'm assuming was given that degree of intoxication, the ability to fight back in, in, in, 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. Um, 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. That last part had to do with prosecutors saying that they have an expert who will say that Maddie Mogin was simply too intoxicated to fight back. Now, also playing into the defense's alternate perpetrator theory, there were two unknown sources of male DNA found at the King Road house.

Ann Taylor has said that one is a spot of blood found on a railing in the house. Another was on a glove outside. Judge Hipler has granted a defense request to test evidence, but the motion in order for that was sealed, so we don't know what evidence is being tested or analyzed, or whether that could delay the trial.

All right, so to talk about the very latest in this case, I want to bring in Joe Jackalone. He's a retired cold case sergeant with the NYPD. He's also the host of True Crime with the Sarge on YouTube. So check out his YouTube channel. Joe, there's a lot going on in this case lately. First off, let's talk about the defense request for a continuance. They say they need more time.

They say the dateline leak has caused a lot of problems, prejudicial, pretrial publicity, the prosecution's pushing back and saying, no, we don't need a delay. So let's unpack all of that. What are your thoughts on the request for a continuance by the defense, first off? How are you doing, Anjanette?

Yes, I mean, at this point, I find it a little ridiculous at this point to keep on asking for a continuous. I mean, we're going on, what, close to three years soon. This case has gone through the grain, gone through all of the discovery, all the different things that could hold up a case. It's been true already. So at this point, you know, yeah, so we had the leaks, I understand that. It's not going to be so detrimental to the case.

As far as I'm concerned, you also have an opportunity that you still have a larger, much larger pool now in Ada County to pick a jury. I know that's part of her complaint that, you know, the jury pool is going to be tainted and everything. But I mean, at this point, I mean, let's move on with this case because the longer this goes, the worse things could get. And to me, it's just a delayed tactic. That's interesting because the prosecution basically says the same thing that you're saying. I know that you were a cop for many years, obviously. So you kind of still think

like a cop. But what I love about you is that I feel like you're very good at looking at it from both sides, but you're saying it could get worse. And you know, the more time that passes, there could be even more leaks or more prejudicial publicity that comes out. Well, specifically the James Patterson book, right? Where it specifically says in the upcoming thing about having law enforcement access about different parts of the case. So that is another, that's a concern of mine also as this goes forward. That's why I think if we can get the jury seated and get them into the courtroom before it hits or anything else could come out, I think it's an important aspect of this.

Because listen, everybody is, has that due process part. And yes, as being a police officer, you know, for a long time, I will tend to side with the, you know, prosecution in certain aspects, but you know what? If the shoe was on the other foot, the defense would be saying, that my client for speedy trial,

this is going on for three years, right? So it's always depends on the argument about what side you're on in this case now that the defense is trying to make this even longer. Jennifer McNeil-Miller, MPH, MPH I have to though, ask you, Joe, let's say you were the supervisor, you're Sergeant Joe Jackalone, and you're supervising this case, and you're sitting at home on a Friday night watching Dateline, and you're supervising this case and you're sitting at home on a Friday night watching Dateline and you see all this stuff that has not been public out there. The Ted Bundy searches, the Google searches, all this information from Brian Coburger's phone, the selfies, the next door neighbors, video of suspect vehicle one.

You know, it's all out there. The fact that he's following the news about this and saving clippings about it on his phone. Oh my gosh, what would you be thinking as the supervisor on this case. Well, I'll watch my words carefully here, but I'd be really upset about exactly what transpired with that. And specifically even with the James Patterson book. Law enforcement, their job is to build a prosecutable case. And part of that prosecutable case

is keeping your secret secret, which we often refer to as operational security or OPSEC for short. Because you don't want to give away everything that you have specifically into the media because you run the risk of exactly what's happening now. So having a quality investigation is also keeping a lid on things. I mean, if you look at some of the big cases out there, we're not seeing these kind of

leaks that have come out of Idaho. Yes, it's a very small place, which to me makes it easier to find out who's actually the leaker. I mean, if you're trying to find somebody in New York City, you know, where you're talking about a police department of 30, 40,000 people, it's more difficult than somebody when you have, you know, 20 or 30, you know, half a dozen, you know, FBI agents and stuff and such. So yeah, listen, it is a not is not a good look. And, you know, I call it like I see it. If the police do a good job, I say it. If they do a bad job, like in this case, there are several things that I've been outspoken about. And this has just been one of them.

Do you think, just from your view of it, looking at this, do you think it was one person leaking? Do you think it was more than one person? You know, the judge obviously thinks it's somebody on the law enforcement side of things. He said that essentially in his order to both sides to preserve the records. The judge believes that it's the prosecution side and so do I. I mean, there is just certain things that would just scream that this came from, you know, the law enforcement side. It bolsters their case. I know some saying, oh, it's defense so they can get all these different, you know, things. I'm like, yeah, no, because it's very damaging as far as I'm concerned to the defenses case that their client

is not responsible for this. All roads lead to Rome. So the issue, I think it's more than one person. I think that you have different aspects in the timeline, right? From the video surveillance to the internet searches and all these things, these happen at different times. Imagine that it's more than one person. And the prosecutors kind of allude to that in their response, that they say they're committed to upholding the non-dissemination order and to finding the source or sources of the leak. So they're saying it could be, they sound like they think it could be more than one person as well, and that they're committing to helping the court figure out who did this.

If you're supervising this, Joe, do you think right now there is something active going on? The judge signaled he wanted an investigation into this or that he was open to a special prosecutor looking into this. We haven't heard whether or not that's going on, whether or not that's happened, an appointment of a special prosecutor. Do you believe right now there's an active investigation into the source of these leaks? Yes, and I think the judge opened the door to the having a special prosecutor. Didn't say he was going to do it immediately.

I think he just dumped it into the prosecutor's lap and say, this is your problem, you fix it, or I'm going to have to. That's how I interpreted the remarks by the judge I mean this this judge is a speak softly carry a big stick guy And I think he's he's willing to use it and from the prosecution standpoint I think it behooves them to do an active investigation to be able to try to identify the leaks to show everybody say listen We do not agree to what happened here.

And we're upset about this too. And this is what we've done up on it. Now we've had some new developments over the last week or so that have been pretty interesting. Judge Hippler was all for like keeping things open. He had told both sides a while back, quit sealing things. It's become the norm in this case. You know, you can redact things, but these records need to be public. Now we're back to sealing things. Maybe the Dateline thing really sent a chill down his spine. Maybe it's because we're so close to jury selection, but now we're back to sealing everything. The defense requested independent analysis of evidence, and he granted that we can tell that from the title of these things that are sealed. We don't know what that evidence is. I think to myself, if we're

talking about the sheath, if we're talking about this, that should have been done in 2022. You know, if we're talking about what was found here on the DNA of the sheath or whatever, that should have been done a long time ago. So I find it hard to believe it could be that, but that doesn't mean that it's not. Maybe somebody reaches out to the defense and says, Hey, I'm an expert and I think I could look at this or, you know, things come up. Reading the tea leaves and I'm asking you to speculate here, Joe, looking at all of this, what do you think it is?

I mean, it could be any number of things. It doesn't have to be the sheath. It could be those unknown male DNA, you know, blood spots, the one on the railing, the thing outside. I mean, it could be any number of things, but I have to think it has to do with, you know, physical evidence. Yes, and I do too. And also that physical evidence to me, if you're going to attack anything, you go after the direct evidence, because everything else in this case is circumstantial. And the fact that you can't have a case entirely built on circumstantial evidence is a false

narrative for a lot of people say, oh, you can't have a case. Most cases are circumstantial evidence. So to me, the most damaging part of this case is direct evidence. Now we also don't know of all the other evidence that is in this case. There could be other evidence that they're now going to try to challenge. So, to me, that would be the most prudent thing to do if I'm the defense. Go after something that points specifically to my client and saying that this person is excluded from all others, specifically when I'm trying to introduce a third party into

this as a possible suspect. Do you think that the defense says they need more time? They're like, we just need more time. They feel rushed. They feel like they've had to meet all of these deadlines and there's all this stuff to go through. They're still doing their mitigation investigation. They've got this third party perpetrator stuff. They said they came across this tip in April. They're still investigating that. They've presented evidence to the court, you know, the judge this week, there's going to be a sealed hearing. We're not going to know who they're wanting to point the finger

at during the trial. But the state is opposing that. You know, they're saying there's only one suspect in this case and he's the guy charged. So what do you think the judge may do with that? I mean, we're not going to be privy to what they're talking about. But I mean, the guys got to be able to present a defense, you know, Brian Coburger's got to be allowed to present a defense. But at the same time, there's case law dictating a bar that the defense has to meet to be able to say, you know, these other these other dudes did it. Well, and not only that, I mean, we're dealing with a death penalty case, which, you know,

kind of underlines where the defense is going with this, that they need more time because of that. And you don't want to open yourself up to, you know, making a possible appeal out of something, saying that we weren't given enough time because of the defense, you know, was going to turn around and say, see, if you would have given us more time, we would have been able to do this. But remember, this is also the same defense team that held up the, you know, the alibi for so long to remember that the the judge even had to say, well, you have now this date to get out the alibi to so they have been, you know, kind of pushing the envelope as far as I'm concerned the entire time. And I think that they just ultimately, I think that the judge carries that big stick, he's going to come down on them and say, no, this is what you need to do. And I think that they just, ultimately, I think that the judge carries that big stick, he's going to come down on them and say, no, this is what you need to do. And this is how

much time you have left to do it. But I feel like the alibi and some of these things kind of tie together too. At this point, the judge is basically saying, he's seen nothing. He's saying he's inclined to not give the alibi instruction. He's seen nothing that meets the alibi standard. No witness named corroborating the alibi or saying, I saw Brian Coburger here. All he's seeing is stuff about a park and possible cell phone data. So right now the judge has signaled Brian Coburger has no alibi. He didn't meet it. The alibi didn't meet the standards set by Idaho law.

We know that for sure. Yeah. I mean, when you so that and remember they they postpone that that alibi to it took him a long time to get it out there. And then of course, as soon as you know, this came out, you know, all the other information came out about it being cloudy night and he stargazing and all the other information came out about it being cloudy night and stargazing and all the other stuff that goes along with it. So like I said, I think that the judge is going to be like, okay, I think I've had enough of this. Ultimately, I think the judge

decides to press forward. Yeah. So you think that was going to be my very next question to you, Joe. So we've got this hearing. No, no, it's great. I feel like we're vibing here, you know, we're on the same wavelength. So, that's my question. You think he's going to deny the defense request for a continuance, it sounds like. So, you don't think there will be any delay, not even like a month, maybe, you know, no huge delay. Like, so you think August 4th, we're pressing forward with the, with the jury selection. Yes, I think August 4th, we start the jury selection. And when you know, when you just

look at the different populations from where they were in Latah County to where they are in Ada County, I mean, we're talking about, I think, lots of county has 41,000 people in it, as per the last census. And now we're dealing with Ada County with over a half a million people. So there's a much bigger jury pool to pick out. But just to put that in count up in Levittown, New York on Long Island, just one town in Nassau County, we had over 50,000 people that live in that one town, just to put it into perspective. You know, I live in a county with over 1.4 million people. So we're talking about still a very small place, but I still think they can be able to find 12 people in four or five alternate jurors. I would

honestly, you know, see, I'd like to see them pick a lot of, pick the maximum amount allowable by law for alternate jurors in this case, just because of all the social media aspect of it and everything else that goes along with it because the possibility of somebody being tainted or somebody posting something is high on the list now. It is a much larger jury pool and Ada County, the demographics are different. The judge apparently has a very strict process that he has laid out for this jury selection. There's a questionnaire that he's devised and we're not even allowed to have a copy of it.

Usually in big cases, you sometimes get a blank copy of the questionnaire. Yeah. No way, not in this one. So it's all being kept under lock and key. The jurors will fill out the questionnaires. They'll go through them, toss the people that they obviously are not going to find suitable right off the bat. So it sounds like they think they can even get a death qualified jury selected within that five days, Joe. Obviously, you might think that's possible. I think that's going

to be a tall task, but you think it's doable? It's going to be a tall task and I don't think they're going to, I think they'll stretch it beyond the time limits in regards to how long the day goes for, right? So whatever it's nine to five kind of thing, I think it will be starting at nine o'clock, they'll be ending at five. I don't think there's going to be any early days, you know, letting people out. And the first day is always a mess on jury selection, even in small cases. Right. So there's a lot of clutter and a lot of things that go on. People trying to get out. I

got kids issues and I got work issues and all the other things that go on. So the first day is going to be the best. But yeah, four days, it's going to be, because I always look at it as the first day, you can't count because there's just so much going on. But four days, it's going to be tough, but I still think they can pull it off. It'll be interesting. Joe Jacqueline, thank you so much. Thanks for having me. 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.