Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Bryan Kohberger Gets Major Blow Ahead of Idaho Murder Trial

Episode Date: February 21, 2025

Bryan Kohberger's requests to suppress most of the evidence in his quadruple murder trial were denied this week by Judge Steven Hippler. Judge Hippler also denied Kohberger's request for a Franks hearing to show police lied in affidavits. Hippler's orders also revealed new details about the case and the night of Kohberger's arrest. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy goes through all of it in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Download the FREE Upside App at https://upside.app.link/crimefix to get an extra 25 cents back for every gallon on your first tank of gas.Host:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest: Philip Dubé  https://x.com/PhilipCDubeCRIME 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/lawandcrimenetworkSee 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. This isn't like DNA and blood on the wall from Mr. Koberger. That that's not there. Brian Koberger's attorneys had hoped to get evidence thrown out in his quadruple murder case. Instead, they suffer a crushing defeat months ahead of trial. I have the judge's orders and the new details about the case the judge included. Welcome to Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. Brian Koberger's lawyers spent two days questioning witnesses and arguing in front of the judge to get

evidence in his case suppressed. That means thrown out. Koberger argued the investigative genetic genealogy used to identify him as a suspect violated his rights, along with the search of his parents' trash in Pennsylvania. He also wanted the searches of his many, many email accounts, his Apple and Google accounts, his cell phone and Amazon accounts thrown out, along with anything he said during his arrest. But Judge Stephen

Hippler said it all can come in and that police did not violate Koberger's rights. Judge Hippler also denied Koberger's request for a Franks hearing, where Koberger's lawyers wanted to show that law enforcement either lied to obtain search warrants or were reckless in giving false information. In the judge's orders, Hippler released new details about the case that we didn't know previously. Koberger faces the possibility of the death penalty if he's convicted of murdering University of Idaho students Maddie Mogan, Kaylee Gonsalves, Ethan Chapin, and Zanna Kurnodal in a house in Moscow, Idaho in November of 2022. Koberger maintains he didn't commit the murders.

Let's start with the Franks hearing. That's where Koberger's lawyers wanted to question officers about their belief that they provided false information in affidavits to get search warrants. Judge Hippler discussed the standard at a hearing last month. I mean, I guess from a Franks perspective, though, the question is, is there a material, intentional misstatement or a reckless misstatement? Koberger claimed 17 affidavits for search warrants contained false statements or exculpatory information. That's information that could exonerate Brian Koberger. Koberger's

lawyers pointed to statements police used from a surviving roommate identified as DM in affidavits. They also don't tell the magistrate that this witness has claimed memory problems, that this witness has claimed that she's not sure what she heard or saw was real or whether it was at a dream. There are two references to not remembering. A couple of days later, there's a third interview, and there's references to not remembering, being drunk, a statement, I don't know any of it, like half this stuff. I don't know if it's a dream or if it's real. That's at page 399.

At page 406, I don't know if this was real or in my mind was just like playing with me, but from what I think I heard, someone was crying in the bathroom. These are definite statements that were not given to the magistrate and in fact were brushed over and credibility is really, really important when that person is relied on in the investigation. A Franks hearing would be required if false or omitted information was necessary to a finding of probable cause. Judge Hippler found that neither occurred and denied the request for the Franks hearing. Hippler wrote, while defendant's challenge may be fodder for cross-examination, it is not the proper subject of a Franks motion.

Defendant's own proffer establishes that DM's accounts were remarkably consistent throughout her multiple interviews with law enforcement. And further, the probable cause affidavits are very consistent with her accounts. Second, DM's interview statements that her memories were fuzzy and dreamlike and may have been affected by being tired or under the influence of alcohol do not call into question her reliability to the extent Frank's would require disclosure. Finally, DM's failure to recognize the photo of defendant is of no consequence given that the intruder she saw was masked. Judge Hippler wrote that DM's description of the man she saw in the house

was remarkably consistent. You heard that. A white male with a lean body type, slightly taller than her, about 5'10", with a mask covering his nose, mouth, and forehead. At the last hearing, Koberger's lawyers said police should have written in their affidavit that DM couldn't identify Brian Koberger when she was shown his mugshot after his arrest. But Hipler said that didn't matter and it wasn't exculpatory. Hipler quoted DM as saying in an interview, I have no clue. From what I remember, I just remember seeing this figure that was more of like the skinnier tone build and some mask on. I don't know if it was covering his mouth, his nose, or below his mouth and nose. I just remember he was white, but I don't know if it was covering his mouth, his nose, or below his mouth and nose.

I just remember he was white, but I didn't know how he was white. I just knew he was. And I knew he looked at me because of the bushy eyebrows. I want to tell you about a free app I've tried. It's called Upside, and you can get real cash back on things you use each day like gas groceries and takeout. Upside is real money that you transfer from the app straight into your bank account. When I pump gas or go to Dunkin' Donuts for a drink, I use Upside and I've even used it

when grabbing an ice cream cone. Download the app, claim an offer for whatever you're trying to buy on Upside, pay as usual using a debit or credit card and follow the steps and get paid. To find out how much you could earn, click the link in the description to download Upside or scan the QR code on your screen and use our promo code CRIMEFIX to get an extra 25 cents back on every gallon on your first tank of gas. That's promo

code CRIMEFIX for an extra 25 cents back on your first gallon of gas. DM saying the man looked at me is terrifying. Another interesting piece of information we hadn't heard until Hippler's order, DM said the man carried a vacuum-type object as he walked toward the sliding glass door. Is this something the killer took from the home? We don't know. Hippler also denied the request for a Franks hearing based on Koberger's claim that police didn't disclose in affidavits that the victim's blood and DNA had not been found in Koberger's apartment or car. Koberger's attorney, Ann Taylor, had made other arguments for a Frank's hearing when it came to information she said the police did not

include in the affidavits. You know the identification to this sheath that maybe seems like it would be really good. You don't really even know how that happened and you don't know how it got there. This isn't like DNA and blood on the wall from Mr. Koberger. That's not there. That doesn't exist in this scene. You're talking about an item that the question of how should be, especially when you know about the other male DNA in this scene. You're talking about an item that the question of how should be, especially when you know about the other male DNA in the house, and especially when you know about the lack of DNA connections. There's also no connection between the people in the house and Mr. Koberger based on their

cell phones, based on social media accounts. There's just no connection. Part of Taylor's argument had to do with the investigative genetic genealogy and the lack of connection between Koberger and the victims. But Judge Hipler said Taylor's argument didn't meet the bar. Now to Koberger's request to suppress his arrest at his parents' home in Pennsylvania. Koberger had argued that police violated his rights when they broke down the door to his parents' home in the early morning hours of November 30th of 2022. At a hearing last month, Detective Payne talked about where they found Koberger's car during the arrest.

Where was Mr. Koberger's car parked at the time of his arrest? It was in the garage. Was it later seized pursuant to a search warrant from that garage? Yes, ma'am. The police planned to arrest Koberger by knocking and announcing, but switched to a no-knock warrant. Judge Hipler's order denying Koberger's motion explains why. Hipler wrote, at 12.33 a.m., snipers observed a kitchen light turn on and saw a taller, young white male wearing a black hoodie standing near the glass sliding door leading out to the deck. At 12.40 a.m., the same person was seen again. This time, officers were able to positively identify the person as defendant. At 12.55 a.m., the light turned on in the garage, where defendant's vehicle was believed to be

parked. At 1.03 a.m., lights flashed in the garage, as if the vehicle was being locked or unlocked by a key fob. At 1.09 a.m., defendant was seen in the kitchen of the home, this time wearing rubber gloves and handling a plastic baggie. Based on these observations, law enforcement believed defendant was potentially destroying evidence from the vehicle that was related to the homicides. Law enforcement was also aware that defendant possessed a Glock handgun, prompting a concern over officer safety due to the defendant's heightened mental state of awareness or threat level of police possibly tracking him. These are called exigent circumstances and that allows law enforcement to arrest someone using a no-knock warrant. Hippler went on to write,

the executing officer's new defendant, based on compelling evidence, was believed to have orchestrated an unprovoked and exceptionally brutal quadruple homicide with a knife. They had information he was in possession of a Glock handgun. They knew he was in the residence, awake, potentially aware of law enforcement's presence, and potentially destroying evidence or perhaps retrieving his gun or a weapon from the vehicle. His vehicle was in the garage nearby, thus giving him a means of quick escape. Judge Hipler wrote that Brian Koberger was taken into custody in a bedroom and a.22 caliber Glock handgun was found in his bedroom. Koberger also wanted any statements he made to law enforcement suppressed, arguing they were the fruit of the

poisonous tree from the arrest that he claimed violated his rights. His attorneys acknowledged officers had read Koberger's rights twice. Were you present when Detective Gilbert Mirandai's Mr. Koberger at the station? Detective Gilbertson? Gilbertson, sorry, yes. Yes, ma'am. And that took place after Mr. Koberger was first seized in his home, right? Correct. That also took place after he was transported in the back of a police car to the station, right? You noted in your report that Detective Gilbertson had a recorder in his pocket at the time of the interview? I believe so. Were there any recordings that took place at the Koberger home

when entry was made into the house? I do not know. Judge Hippler wrote that Koberger told officers that he had that handgun and engaged in small talk with them after his arrest. He said that officers asked them what was going on with his arrest as they drove him to the police barracks. Hipler wrote, the state does not dispute defendant was in custody when first detained. However, there is no evidence before the court that defendant was interrogated at any point from his arrest to the time he was formally interviewed by Detective Payne, at which point he was Mirandized. The sole evidence is that defendant engaged in small talk with officers, with the only exception being when he briefly asked about his arrest and was told that investigators were going to speak to him at the station about the situation. Voluntary or spontaneous statements or questions, unprompted by interrogation, fall outside the scope of Miranda.

Next, Hippler's order denying Koberger's request to suppress the DNA evidence in the case because of the genetic genealogy work used to identify Brian Koberger as a suspect. A male DNA profile was found on a K-bar knife sheath found next to Maddie Mogan's body. The crime lab named that DNA profile Q1.1. Hipler wrote, the Idaho State Police delivered Q1.1 to Othram on November 22, 2022. Othram developed a SNP profile from Q1.1 and searched family tree DNA and GEDmatch Pro. This work revealed four brothers of interest, all of whom were low matches to Q1.1. A footnote states, these brothers did not share defendant's last name. So that was an interesting bit of information right there. Early in the investigation, Othram came up with four

brothers determined to be low matches. Then the FBI got involved. And this is where Koberger argued his rights were violated. Koberger said the FBI ran the profile through MyHeritage and GEDmatch, two databases that do not allow law enforcement to access their databases. Only Family Tree DNA and GEDmatch Pro allow law enforcement access. Koberger argued that agents accessing MyHeritage and GEDmatch violated a DOJ policy, but Hipler said the policy was simply guidance and didn't place any legal restrictions on law enforcement. Koberger had legal restrictions on law enforcement. Koberger had also argued that law enforcement needed a warrant for the work. Your Honor, our position is that the court should suppress the IGG identification and

everything that flows from that. This is supported by Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, due process Article 1, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. There was no warrant for several phases of the search that led to the IgG work, investigative genetic genealogy. And we think every single one of those stages, a warrant was required, none was given, and so this must be suppressed. Hippler disagreed, writing, the state denies that the testing of the DNA from the sheath was a search, pointing out the DNA was lawfully seized evidence from the scene of the crime. The state further contends defendant has not demonstrated he had a reasonable expectation

of privacy in this DNA because he had abandoned it and or because he has not shown the existence of a reasonable privacy interest society is willing to recognize. Judge Hipler said he found no violation of Brian Koberger's Fourth Amendment rights. I want to bring in Philip Dubé. He's kind of been on this journey with me through these motions to suppress since the very beginning, and he's been right on all of these issues. He's court appointed counsel. He is based in Los Angeles. So Philip, with the investigative genetic genealogy motion to suppress, I mean, all of these motions to suppress were denied, but you believed that this would be denied because you didn't believe that Brian Koberger had a privacy right to other people's DNA uploaded

to a public database. And the judge found there was no Fourth Amendment violation here. That's correct. He had no standing, as we call it in the law. And the U.S. Supreme Court revolutionized the standing rule back in the 60s in a case called Katz, K-A-T-Z versus United States. And what a defendant has to show just preliminarily to suppress a search warrant or a search is that he or she has a subjective expectation of privacy. And objectively, it has to be the type of interest in privacy that society is willing to embrace. The court found no, he had neither. He didn't have a subjective or objective expectation of privacy.

Instead, everybody else maybe who was in the database that uploaded their DNA did. And the right to suppress evidence is not only personal to a defendant, but the item that you're seeking to suppress has to be personal to that defendant as well. So, for example, had the family of Brian Koberger been charged, that might be a different conversation because his heirs DNA was uploaded into these private data banks and they have their own privacy and contractual interests in the specimens that were uploaded. But as to Brian, the judge got it right. Yeah. And I thought there was some interesting stuff in here as well. Like Ann Taylor was arguing that the DNA on the sheath, that single source male profile that they're now calling Q1.1, that they needed a warrant, that the cops needed a warrant when that was sent to the crime lab to even like test that DNA or search that DNA. I was like, that sounds bizarro to me because that seems like as

long as you had a warrant to get the sheath or to seize the sheath from the crime scene, of course, you're going to send that thing off to the lab and swab it and see if there's anything on there that could lead you to a suspect. It's a major piece of evidence. So I thought that was a pretty interesting case she was trying to make, especially because if it is indeed Brian Koberger's knife sheath and he leaves it at the crime scene because he screws up in the commission of a crime, oh, well, you screwed up. You can't just say, oh, well, I mean,

he's saying it's not his sheath anyway. So how can you try to say you needed a warrant to test the DNA? You can't, which is why Judge Hipler got it right. You got to understand something. He disclaimed all possessory and ownership interest in that sheath, assuming it was him who left it there. It would be one thing if he was saying, yeah, that's my knife sheath. What are you doing with it? You shouldn't have it. Well, then there's an argument to be made that maybe they do need a search warrant, but he's not claiming any interest in it. So what does the law say? The law says it's deemed abandoned. It's deemed disclaimed.

And if that's the case, the police can collect it, test it and do whatever they want with it and book it into evidence. And that's what they did. He just doesn't like the fact that he got sloppy at that crime scene and left it there. But he gave up any Fourth Amendment interest in it by leaving it there. It's an interesting thing. And then the whole argument about the trash at the parents' house, too. I thought that was interesting because that to me seems like a well-settled thing. Even if there's a local ordinance that says only the trash company can pick up the trash. Like once you put your stuff in the trash and you set it out at the curb or it's in your trash can, even on your driveway or whatever. I, you know, I always thought that was fair game and the,

and the judge felt the same. Yeah, no, the judge was absolutely correct. Mere violation of a local ordinance does not mean that it violates the constitution. There are separate bodies of law. It might mean that the homeowner, for example, won't get cited by the city if they don't follow local ordinances or that they forfeit their garbage pickup a certain number of days, a month, that kind of thing. result of this that you can impute a violation of a local ordinance regarding trash pickup to law enforcement and trying to work up a homicide, it's actually laughable. So the court found no, even a violation of that local ordinance does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Yeah, they're definitely pulling on every thread, though. They're trying to get creative here. One thing I want to move on to now is this whole argument about the Google warrants, the Amazon warrants, Apple,

all of these warrants. And there was an interesting bit of information that the judge included in his ruling. And it seems to me that, and I think there's been mention of Brian Koberger having somewhere in the neighborhood of nine email addresses or something like that. And one of these email addresses that the cops uncovered is called username, but it's spelled it's not spelled that way. It's spelled with a Y username at Gmail dot com. had occurred on that account at 4.49 a.m. on November 13th, 2022, soon after the homicides occurred through what was likely a VPN server. And he stated, the detective stated his request for the warrant was to establish Brian Koberger's previous contacts, locations, correspondences, purchases, and any other information which could aid the investigation into the homicides of the

four victims. Aside from the argument about them wanting to suppress this, which was denied, wow, pretty interesting that Brian Koberger, right after the cops are saying this murder occurred, these homicides occurred, 4.49 a.m., right after his phone reconnects to the network or whatever, he says he's out at some park, according to some other documents, doing whatever he's doing at a park, connects through a VPN possibly to some weird recovery email. Is that a really bad fact for the defense? Is that maybe a reason why they wanted to suppress this information yeah anytime the defense files a motion to suppress or to traverse a warrant it means they're trying to chip away at the evidence against the client i mean obviously that would be the only

reason why you would do it otherwise what what's the point it's you know you don't just file motions just so you can rack up billable hours and get paid by the court. There has to be some legal benefit for your client. And in that particular case, the timeline kind of sinks him where if at certain times he's doing certain entries, sending certain things, it could kind of poke holes in his precious alibi and it could show some form of consciousness of guilt given the timing of when this stuff was entered and sent. So yes, that's precisely why Ms. Taylor filed that motion. And unfortunately, it lacked merit. The defense was arguing that basically these

warrants weren't specific enough, the affidavits weren't specific enough, and that the Apple, Amazon, Google, all of these warrants violated his rights and his rights to privacy. The judge says otherwise. Yeah. Look, the law does not require certainty when you prepare an affidavit of probable cause, the standard is probable cause, not absolute certainty, not definitiveness. As long as under the totality of the circumstances, you are looking for evidence that probably points to the commission of a crime and probably points to him being the defendant, being the perpetrator, under the totality of the circumstances, you know, the court can deny that motion because in its totality, everything corroborates each piece that was part of that puzzle. And the court found that there was no flagrant misconduct, no intentional knowing lies or any type of outrageous government conduct. Everything was based on approximations and something rooted in probability rather than certainty. And that's

enough constitutionally. I want to get now to the Franks hearing and him denying the request for the Franks hearing. He found that these law enforcement officers, in his estimation, he found them credible. He didn't feel like they were making reckless or intentional misstatements. And he didn't feel really, this is really important because a lot of people were like, oh my God, after the last hearing and Ann Taylor was saying that, you know, DM, the surviving roommate was saying she couldn't tell if she was, you know, what she saw was a dream and she was kind of doubting herself and she was intoxicated that night. The judge is coming out and saying, look, her statements, her three interviews were remarkably consistent And she's saying these things, but they didn't need to provide that

as exculpatory information in an affidavit. They basically were honest in these affidavits, according to what he believes. So he's saying just because she couldn't identify him in a lineup or through his mugshot because he was wearing a mask, he's like, of course she couldn't identify him in a lineup or through his mugshot because he was wearing a mask, he's like, of course she couldn't identify him. He was wearing a mask, the guy that she saw. That's of no consequence. So your thoughts on him denying the request for a Franks hearing, because they really, the defense really kind of went after DM and said, look, they should have said she's saying she didn't know if this was a dream or not. But he's saying her interviews were consistent with law enforcement, all of those interviews. Well, there are two important legal points.

Number one, whatever inconsistent statement she gave or whatever fuzziness there may have been in her recollections are great fodder for cross-examination should she testify at trial. And you can impeach her credibility with her drunkenness at the time, or maybe she was hung over after the fact, that kind of thing. But most important and constitutionally, that if you sever all the statements that law enforcement relayed in the affidavit of probable cause about what, if anything, she relayed, there was still enough in the affidavit to show probable cause. And the court found that even assuming there were inconsistencies or falsities, if you will, as to what she may have said, it didn't rise to the level of constitutional outrageousness to say that this was knowing and intentionally reckless. So the court found, no, you didn't meet your burden under the totality of the circumstances.

There is ample probable cause. And finally, they wanted to throw out, you know, the arrest in Pennsylvania at his parents' house because they decided at the last minute to do kind of a no knock warrant. You know, they drove the Bearcat into the driveway that they were in the armored vehicle. They kind of announced they were there and then boom, they bash in the door and they go in and they grab him out of a bedroom. And then they wanted to suppress any statements that he made, even though he had been Mirandized because they were saying, oh, that's fruit of the poisonous tree because you rammed in his door when you didn't have to. Judge Hipler's saying, nah, I don't think so. This was fine. And they're saying, you know, Judge Hipler's saying he's walking around the house.

He's got a hoodie on at night, late at night. He may have realized he was being surveilled by law enforcement. His car is parked in his parents' garage and he's going out there late at night with a plastic baggie and he's got the key fob, maybe unlocking it and locking the door. They think he's destroying evidence. And then he's walking around with plastic gloves on. So Andy had a handgun in his bedroom. So there were all these things that kind of made them think we got to just bust in there and get this guy. Well, two points. Number one, the Constitution no longer requires suppression of evidence under the exclusionary rule. If you fail to just as a a courtesy, knock and announce your presence. Remember, they had a search warrant or an arrest warrant. They went there already armed with the documents that they

need to take him into custody. And merely knocking on the door is a courtesy. Constitutionally, they did away with that requirement for purposes of suppression, I think back in 2012 in a case called Hudson versus Michigan. But even assuming that the right to knock and announce survives, your remedy is purely civil, meaning you might have a civil rights lawsuit against the cops for bulldozing their way through and damaging things and seizing things, that type of situation. But most important what the court found is that even in that scenario, the police can dispense with knocking and announcing their presence in an exigent situation. So if you have an emergency type situation where, first of all, you're there because of a violent crime, not some petty offense

like somebody passing bad checks or joyriding a car, but you're there on a four-count homicide. That's number one. And number two, there's fear that this person could still be armed. And number three, that this person might try to escape. You can dispense with knocking and announcing your presence and just go in and take him in and seize whatever is in plain sight. And the court was not going to kick a four count murder just for failing to knock on the door. Wait a few extra seconds in a situation where the police actually went and got a search and an arrest warrant signed by a magistrate based on probable cause. It just wasn't there. And suppression is no longer the remedy. Yeah, it was some interesting reading, Philip. We learned a lot. We learned a lot of new information. And I'm not sure that the judge's rulings were unexpected. I think some people thought,

oh, maybe there's something there with the IGD arguments. But the judge said, no way. So stay tuned. I mean, this did not go well for Brian Koberger. If you're Brian Koberger's lawyer, what is your next step? Because they've kind of said in the past, this is going to trial. I mean, what do you do? Do you explore any options? All this stuff is coming in? Do you explore any options? Like all this stuff is coming in.

Do you explore any options? Like you go to the prosecutor and say, hey, would you would you take the death penalty off the table if he just agrees to life without parole? Precisely. You work up the mitigation now because I think he really is sunk in the guilt phase. They have ample evidence to get a conviction. The real question now is, do the aggravators outweigh the mitigators? What can you show the prosecution by way of psych reports, accomplishments, the lack of a record, and your client's willingness to maybe plead out and take a deal for a life without parole in exchange for taking what I call the wall off the table, the wall meaning the firing squad,

or certainly the needle, lethal injection. And that would be a tremendous victory in a case like this, because if history is any clue, an Idaho jury is not afraid to sentence people to death. And we saw this with Chad Daybell not too long ago. They had no problem sending him to death row. So he is now condemned awaiting a death warrant. And it would not surprise me in the least if the same thing happened to Brian Kober. So the question now is, what can we do to save his life, not to walk him? And that's what I would do. I would work up mitigation now to plead it out. Yeah, it's four kids slaughtered in the middle of the night for no reason at all. None. Just horrific. Philip Dubé, thank you so much. Take care now. Kaylee Gonsalves' family issued a statement after the judge's orders became public.

It reads, praise the Lord. All the motions to suppress and Frank's motion have been denied. It's always a double-edged sword waiting. You want the right decisions to be made, but you also want them to be made quickly. We are thankful to the court for a timely decision and appreciate the work prosecution has put in thus far. In the big picture of life, justice is just moments away. Thanks again for all of your support and love for our family. And that's it for this episode of Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. Thanks so much for being with me. I'll see you back here next time.