Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Bryan Kohberger Mystery Witnesses Ordered to Court

Episode Date: June 25, 2025

A number of witnesses in Pennsylvania have been ordered to appear in court next week to show why they shouldn't have to testify in Bryan Kohberger's August murder trial. Some of the witnesses appear to be friends or former teachers of Kohberger's while the connection of other witnesses remains a mystery. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy looks at what we know about some the witnesses and more on a woman who claims to be the Door Dash driver in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If your child, under 21, has been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes or fatty liver disease, visit https://forthepeople.com/food to start a claim now!Host:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest: Philip Dubé https://x.com/PhilipCDubeProducer: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. The record is replete with notice that we are not prepared to go to trial in this case. The discovery is vast and we have not had a chance to review at all. As Brian Koberger fights to delay his August trial for the murders of four University of Idaho students, we're learning more about mystery witnesses who could be called to testify at trial, one who claims to be the DoorDash driver.

I'm a DoorDash driver. I saw Brian at the door. Yes. I'm trying to get some. But others are being summoned to court in Pennsylvania. I look at the new names added to that list. Welcome to CrimeFix. I'm Anjana Levy. There are a number of people in Monroe County, Pennsylvania, who are being told they must

show up in court next week to tell a judge why they shouldn't be forced to travel to Idaho in August to testify in Brian Coburger's quadruple murder trial. Now, as far as we can tell, some of these witnesses are people being subpoenaed by the defense, but there are two that may very well be prosecution witnesses, and I'll tell you why I think that in just a little bit. We're going to look at the list of people that Brian Coburger wants to testify on his behalf and piece together who they are and how they might fit into the case. And we'll also talk a little later about the woman who told police during a traffic stop in Washington last year that she

was the doordash driver who delivered food to Zana Cronodal minutes before police say Zana and her roommates were murdered. As you know Brian Coburger's attorneys say he maintains his innocence in the murders of Maddie Mogin, Keely Goncalves, Ethan Chapin and Zana Cronodal. Police say the four University of Idaho students were stabbed to death in that home on King Road just after 4 a.m. on November 13, 2022. The case was shocking and beyond sad. Four students murdered for no reason at all after spending an evening out partying after a football game.

Brian Coburger was charged more than six weeks later and arrested at his parents' home in the Poconos. Now, police say that Coburger's DNA was found on the inner snap of a K-Bar knife sheath, just like this one, that was left next to Maddie Mogin's leg. Prosecutors have said that Coburger bought a K-Bar knife, sheath, and sharpener from Amazon

eight months before the murders when he was still living in Pennsylvania. Coburger's lawyers may argue at trial that his DNA was somehow transferred onto the snap of the sheath, or they could argue that someone planted the sheath. The prosecution and defense have both made that suggestion in various court documents in the past. We just don't know at this point what exactly the defense will argue. But we do know that Coburger is asking a court in Pennsylvania to order that several witnesses in that state travel to Idaho to testify in his trial. Michelle Bulger, a former professor of Coburger's at DeSales University where he got his master's in criminology, was on the list, but her name was later removed. She told the Daily Mail after his arrest that he was one of the smartest students she'd

ever had. She called him brilliant. Now having Dr. Bulger's name taken off that list makes me wonder whether she agreed to voluntarily travel to Idaho. We just don't know because there's a gag order in this case and nobody's talking. I believe she'd be a possible witness in a penalty phase if the case got to that point. Also on the list is Brandon Andreola, who attended the same community college as Brian Coburger. He's a military veteran and he now works as a realtor. Anne Parham, a retired teacher and one-time academic advisor

to Coburger is also on the list along with Jesse Harris, who owned a boxing gym where Coburger trained. Ralph Vecchio is on the list and appears to work at a used car dealership. And the name Maggie Sanders is also on the list, but her connection to Brian Coburger isn't known. William Searphos has been summoned to court as well, and so has Anthony Soma. Fox News Digital reports that Searphos is a jail guard in Monroe County, where Coburger was held after his arrest. And Soma appears to be around the same age as Coburger.

Our content shows you just how important personal safety is, and that's especially true when it comes to protecting your privacy online. You would be absolutely shocked at how much of your personal information is out there, like your address and your phone number. Ever wonder why you get so many spam calls and emails? That's because this information, it's all public. That's where our sponsor, Incogni, comes in. It's a service that helps you take control of your online privacy by removing your personal data from data brokers.

Those are huge companies that sell and trade your info without your permission. Incogni actually found more than 50 brokers with my information, and here's the kicker. These data brokers, they have to remove you from their databases if you ask them to. Now you're probably thinking,

Anjanette, who in the heck has time to contact a data broker? Well, again, that is where Incogni comes in. They contact these companies for you to get your online safety back. You don't have to do a thing. And then they alert you after the request has been completed.

After signing up, I get virtually no spam now. So I highly recommend giving Incogni a try. Right now, anyone who uses the code crimefix at incogni.com slash crimefix gets 60% off. That's code crimefix at incogni.com slash crimefix for 60% off an annual incognito plan. All right. I want to bring in Philip Dubay. He worked as court appointed counsel in Los Angeles County for many, many years. Let's talk about these witnesses, Philip. So the

first five that I discussed earlier were clearly defense witnesses. The defense asked to bring these people in. One is a former professor of Brian Koberger's. One's an academic advisor. One's like a boxing. He used to own a boxing gym. These are people, I think, who are clearly witnesses in the mitigation phase or would be in a possible mitigation phase.

So just the fact that they've been subpoenaed like this, does this tell you that they're telling the defense, like, nah, I'm not just getting on a plane and coming out there for you. I don't wanna do this. Is that what this is saying? Well, first of all, there is a jurisdictional limit in the state of Idaho that any time you wanna subpoena

documents or an individual to court, the subpoena has to reach the individual or the company within a hundred miles of the court. If it's beyond a hundred miles, then the parties have to avail themselves to the Uniform Act to secure witnesses from out of state in a criminal case. It's a state law that's been adopted in every state where there's sort of this reciprocal cooperation, if you will, from the responding state to serve up any type of witness that might be needed in a state criminal court case.

So that's what they've done. The parties in this case, because they're going beyond the 100 mile limit, they're invoking the long arm reach of the Uniform Act. So what it does is in essence, it asks a judge in the responding state to summon the individuals into court and order them to cooperate with the requesting state.

And in fact, the judge out of state can even remand those people into custody if they're showing recalcitrance. It's pretty serious stuff. Now, the requesting state has to show that the testimony is material. In other words, you can't just issue a subpoena just to put someone's life on hold.

The requesting individual has to put in a declaration under oath how that testimony is crucial and essential. In other words, that it is necessary in the pursuit of justice. And in other words, we call that material. And assuming they can make that showing, the judge is obliged to order them to cooperate or they'll go into custody. The requesting state will pay all expenses, their travel, their lodgings, and I believe even meals, and I think there's even witness fees per day

that they're out of their home state. But that's pretty much how it works. So, well, the people, there's four witnesses, one of them, their hearing's been put off till July, Maggie Sanders. The other four witnesses, one of them, their hearing's been put off till July, Maggie Sanders. The other four witnesses, are they going to have to show up at court on Monday for this hearing with lawyers and maybe say, yeah, I don't want to go and this is why? And then a lawyer for the prosecution, a representative of the prosecution will say, well, we need

this person to testify and this is why they have to do it and Judge, you're just going to have to order them to do it. Is that basically what's going to happen then? Well, the purpose of the initial hearing, first of all, is for the court to make a showing of materiality. That is really a mixed question of law and fact. If the testimony is not material, the judge can quash the request and not participate, if you will, or force any of those witnesses to get on a plane and come out to California or on a Greyhound or on a train.

That's the end of it. But assuming they meet the minimal threshold of materiality, then the inquiry becomes, would it become an undue hardship for the witness? So let's say, for example, the witness is a caregiver for an elderly parent. Or let's say they have a one man type, one man band operation from an employment standpoint and they cannot get away. Then the court might say, look, I'm not going to order him or her to appear

or to cooperate with the requesting state. However, I may recommend that they do remote testimony. So for example, Zoom, Teams, Webex, those type of testimonial platforms. So there are creative ways to get around the transportation, assuming a hardship has been shown by the witness. But if there is no hardship and the testimony is crucial and essential, the judge is going to order that witness to cooperate and get them on a plane. If they refuse, they'll be remanded into custody and brought to Idaho in shackles.

Wow. Well, let's kind of hope that it doesn't go that far. I mean, that sounds very uncomfortable. Let's move on to these other two witnesses. These are the most recent witnesses who've been added to the list, if you will. And I get the feeling, and I know you get the feeling too, just when we were talking,

that these are witnesses for the state. William Searfoss is, according to Fox News, they're reporting a jail guard at the Monroe County jail where Brian Coburger was held for a short time after his arrest and then this Anthony Soma, who appears to be around the same age as Brian Coburger. So it appears that, you know, these could potentially be state's witnesses. You know, the other witnesses, we know they're defense witnesses because there was paperwork attached to their filings that said clearly they were defense witnesses.

There's no such thing with these two, but just the fact that one of them's a jail guard and the state's amended its witness list that's under seal, I think they're state's witnesses. I do too. And it's obvious that the reason why they want them is because of statements that Brian Koberger may have made to both or one of them. And I would be surprised if that first witness who works for the jail wouldn't just voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of Idaho, given that he's already a custodial or a peace officer in the state of Pennsylvania. I'm sure it's a condition of employment that they cooperate with sister jurisdictions in giving testimony. It's just part of a gig,

if you will. I seriously doubt that they're going to contest both hardship and materiality. Could any of these potential witnesses or witnesses just say, because Michelle Bulger, the former former professor of Brian Coburger, her name suddenly got removed from the list. She's no longer being told, you have to show up at this hearing as far as we know. Could these people suddenly say, okay, fine, I'll get on the plane and I'll come out there and then this hearing is no longer necessary? No, you never, ever, ever want to do that. Oh, okay.

And I'll tell you why. Let's pretend you take somebody on their word and they just no show. You have no jurisdiction over that individual to come and hold them in the court. So you have to go through that hearing. Exactly. Otherwise there's no jurisdiction to force them into court. If you just take people on their word and they don't perform, then you could end up proceeding without that witness or you might have to file a motion to continue the trial and just explain to the court what your good cause basis is and that is you have a defaulting witness whose word sort of, you know, was taken for granted and they betrayed you. And I could see a judge saying, sorry, you had your bite at the apple.

You don't just take witnesses at their word that they're going to cooperate and come in. You have to serve them with a subpoena. And if they don't show, then the court can take further action to compel their attendance in court. So why would Dr. Bulger's name have been removed from the website and the paperwork related to her. Could be several reasons.

There is a federal law, it's called FERPA. It has to deal with privacy in education. And if you don't have a complete waiver of the right to privacy in educational records, educational performance, educational credentials, all of that stuff, it could be a federal violation. Now, there is no private right of action to sue for a violation of it, but you can lodge complaints with the federal Department of Education and it could compromise the credential of those professors and those teachers, and it might not be worth it. It could also be that maybe the witness walked back on what they were gonna offer for the defense,

and if they're gonna do that, or if they're gonna waffle, and there's really no sort of certainty in what their testimony is going to be for your client, you don't wanna put them on, because it could end up hurting the case. All right, so let's talk now about the woman, Molly McMichael, who claims to be the DoorDash driver who delivered food to Zana Cronodal that morning. First, the timeline. Court documents state that DoorDash delivered food to 1122 King Road. At 3.59 a.m. on November 13th, 2022,

court records have also identified the Doordash driver as M.M. Now, that's a key point in the timeline because police believe Zana got her food delivery and was still awake at the time of the murders, just after 4 a.m. In September of last year, a woman named Molly McMichael was pulled over for suspicion of driving under the influence in Pullman, Washington. She'd admitted to taking hydrocodone for pain. Later, an officer interviewed her, trying to determine whether she needed help for substance abuse.

I have PTSD. I have depression. I have a stomach ache. My heart and my heart are in front of me. I have shot many times. I have a friend. Where did that happen? I lost him. We were shot many times. They were friends. Where did that happen? In Moscow. McMichael's husband was shot to death several years ago in Moscow, according to news stories online. Then she brings up being the door dash driver.

And now we have to testify. They burned me to death so yeah, because I're going to be accused, so yeah, because I'm the Door Dash driver, so yeah. You have to testify in which murder case? In my case, with college girls. Oh. I'm going to do it as a survivor. I'm going to suffer in that case.

I'm going to die next time. So Philip, there's been a lot of talk online about this woman who claims that she was the DoorDash driver who delivered Zana's food that morning at 3.59 a.m. right before these murders occurred and what she said during a traffic stop, you know, two years, nearly two years after the homicides. You know, she's saying after she's in the holding cell area of the police department, you know, I was the door dash driver, I saw Brian, I parked right next to him. So a lot of people have been like, oh my god, oh my god. You know, there's a second eyewitness. The prosecution has said in court filings there was only one living person who

saw the person that morning responsible for the homicides. So is too much being made of what this woman said in this arrest footage? Because what really matters is what she's going to testify to on the stand and what she's going to testify to on the stand and what she told police after the murders. Well, it's a double-edged sword, in my opinion. On the one hand, she is a percipient witness.

She would put Brian Koberger at that scene. If she gets on the stand and says, yes, that's the man I saw there when I was dropping off a meal delivery, it's almost as bad as Dylan's testimony that she saw the man with the bushy eyebrows in the house. So in a way, it's the second fact witness that puts him there. Now, on the other hand, the reason why I can cut both ways, it's a little ironic that two years after this crime, she's offering up testimony and it gives the impression that she's trying to get out of a DUI prosecution because it all came up right after she was picked up on a DUI, meaning driving under the influence of some type of prescription drug.

Now, ordinarily, DUI convictions would not come into evidence under Idaho law because it is not a crime involving moral turpitude. It's not that type of vile base type crime that goes to your readiness to do evil or show an act of dishonesty. Certainly it's poor judgment and it's not exactly the safest type activity, but it doesn't rise to that level to attack your honesty. However, if it can show your bias, you know, in giving that testimony in the hopes of maybe getting out of a DUI or getting the charge reduced, I think a

jury needs to hear that you're getting leniency for offering a testimony in a capital case to escape liability on a DUI that could carry six months to a year in jail. So I think it cuts both ways. It could hurt in that it's late discovery and there is bias on the part of the witness to get out of the DUI, but it also helps the state because it puts another eyewitness at the crime scene saying, Brian Kober was there, I saw him,

that's the man right there sitting at council table. Yeah, and it, but I'm more interested, Philip, in what she said after the homicides, what she told law enforcement then and what she's going to testify to, because she's saying this to some cops, you know, in this moment saying she has PTSD. And after the fact, you know, maybe she puts it all together. I mean, obviously, she had probably no clue who it was she saw. We don't know what she said she saw at that time when she first gave a statement to law enforcement. And no, but you know, law enforcement is not saying a word right now because of the gag order and the dateline leak that's compounded everything. I mean, they're not even verifying that this is the

Doordash driver. We have to be clear about that. But you know what matters is what she saw then. I mean it makes you think yeah she saw somebody right if she's saying I saw Brian. She saw a person but we don't know if she's actually identified him to law enforcement. Well, let's be honest. When you really look at the volume of these, you know, delivery people making drop-offs of meals and picking up stuff at restaurants and dropping off at houses, is it really reasonable to expect that driver two years later to remember a face? I mean, honestly, if you think about it, particularly at that hour, everybody that you're dropping off meals to is faceless.

And I cannot tell you, Anjanette, how often I've had meals dropped off of my own home. They don't even knock. They just leave it in a bag at the door, you know, and you're calling, wondering where your your food is and you open the door and it's been sitting there all along. So I think that this is all fodder for impeachment. And in the end, I really do think it could boomerang on the state because it's all going to look like she's looking for a deal to get out of a deuce, we call it in California, a DUI. And they want to bring that witness, bring them. But I actually think in the end, it probably does more harm than good. Most jurors have ordered from Uber, Postmates, Grubhub, DoorDash, all of these places to know that when you consider the volume of all the orders that are made and all the orders

that are dropped off, nobody is ever going to remember the face of one man at that hour. Well, and allegedly he was wearing a mask, according to the prosecution, a balaclava. Philip Dubay, thank you so much for your time, as always. Have a great one. 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.