Law&Crime Sidebar - Bryan Kohberger’s Next Hearing May Heavily Alter Idaho Student Murders Case

Episode Date: August 17, 2023

Accused student killer Bryan Kohberger is set to appear in court Friday for a hearing regarding several motions that may alter the course of the case. Kohberger stands accused of murdering four University of Idaho students at their off-campus home in November 2022. The Law&Crime Network’s Jesse Weber and Angenette Levy break down what impact this hearing may have in the Idaho student murders case and Kohberger’s upcoming trial.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:Save 10% on your entire POM Pepper Spray order by using code LAWCRIME10 at https://bit.ly/3rkw6gnLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergWriting & Video Editing - Michael DeiningerGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa Bein & Kiera BronsonSUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieThey Walk Among AmericaDevil In The DormThe Disturbing TruthSpeaking FreelyLAW&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 Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that will

keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. Mr. Koeberger, do you understand the charge in account one? Yes. Accused quadruple killer Brian Koberger has a big hearing coming up that, could change the course of this whole case. Law and Crime Networks and Jeanette Levy discusses what we can expect. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Introducing the next generation of pepper spray. Meet Palm, a new maximum strength self-defense product with a patented modular design, revolutionizing the self-defense industry. Whether you're

carrying the unit on your keys, snapping the unit on your backpack, your keychain, or carrying the unit in your pocket. Palm is the perfect everyday carry accessory. Palm's patented flip-top safety prevents any accidental misfire and its maximum strength formula provides you with the necessary range and capacity to bring peace of mind to you and your loved ones. Quality, safety, performance, peace of mind. Learn more at palmpeper spray.com.

So there is a big hearing about to happen in the Brian Coburger case that we want to talk to you about right now. This is, of course, the 28-year-old former criminology student who's charged with four counts of first-degree murder and burglary, in connection with the brutal slayings of four University of Idaho students back in November of 2022, Kaylee Gansavas, Madison Mogan, Zonar Kurnodl, and Ethan Chapin were all found stabbed to death in their off-campus home.

And prosecutors have indicated that if Koberger is found guilty, they're going to seek the death penalty. And in fact, in Idaho, he could be executed by a firing squad. Now, we believe that there are going to be several motions that are going to be argued by the defense and the prosecution at this hearing. Let's start with the defense. First, we believe there's going to be a motion to stay the trial, meaning basically pause it. I believe a tentative date has been set for October 2nd for now. Second motion for the defense will be a motion to compel the prosecution to turn over

evidence to them to the defense. Third, a motion to dismiss the indictment. Now, the state, we believe, has three motions as well. One, a motion for a protective order, basically is ensuring that they don't have to turn over certain material to the defense. Two, a motion to reconsider an order about staying time for a speedy trial. Again, when is this trial going to happen? And three, this is a boring one, motion for a scheduling order. We won't talk about that one. Not too exciting.

But there's a lot to talk about. And I want to bring in right now my co-host here on Sidebar, Law and Crime Network's very own, Angenette Levy. Good to see you. How are you? Hi, Jesse. I'm well. How are you?

I am good. I'm really excited for this hearing because from a legal point of view, I think it's going to be some interesting legal arguments, but also. from somebody who's been following this case, it's going to dictate what this trial is going to look like and when it's going to happen. So let's actually start with the motion for stay. I think it's going to be argued by both sides.

And the way that I understand it is there is a problem that the defense has with the grand jury selection process. What do we know about that? Definitely. Well, first of all, I think that the defense has a problem with the fact that the state went to a grand jury at all and didn't have a preliminary hearing. You and I have talked about this before that we believe that the defense really wanted that preliminary hearing, and they said as much in one of their responses to the state, when the state was demanding that they turn over alibi information should they decide to present an alibi at trial.

They basically said in one of their responses that they were deprived of the ability to cross-examine state's witnesses and get information about a possible alibi because there was no preliminary hearing. And we've learned in covering this case that prosecutors going to a grand jury in Idaho is somewhat rare. They typically go the preliminary hearing route, which allows the defense to cross-examine state's witnesses. They were looking forward to that. They didn't have that opportunity in this case. So they're saying, look, we are looking at these grand jury materials. We're looking at subpoenas, transcripts, instructions, et cetera. And they believe that there were flaws in this process, that improper instructions were given, possibly the questionnaire was flawed, and they're asking the judge to either toss out this indictment or send it back to a lower court for the preliminary hearing where they can then cross-examine witnesses.

And they were actually intending, Jesse, which I think is interesting, on presenting their own witnesses during the preliminary hearing. You don't see that very often. A couple of things to point out here. So obviously the preliminary hearing would be in front of a judge, not jurors, and they thought that might have been an advantage to them. You talk about some of the problems that defense has with the grand jury process. I was reading about this. They believe they've cited juror bias, improper statements that were made by the court, clerical errors about what was in the jury questionnaires. And I think the prosecution's response to that has been the defense is just trying to delay this.

And these are not issues that were so problematic. that would taint the grand jury process or they say the defense is misreading the grand jury statute. I think the whole grand jury issues are fascinating because we talked about a few weeks ago. The defense brought up this issue that I've never heard before that they said under Idaho law, the grand jury was instructed improperly that they believe it shouldn't have been all they need to find is probable cause to come forward with the indictment. They said the grand jury should have been instructed that the evidence has to show beyond a

reasonable doubt, our highest standard under the law. And they did this over a reading of an old Idaho law. I thought it was a fascinating aspect because I never heard that before. As far as we know, grand juries, all they need to do is find probable cause. And I don't think the prosecution has responded to that argument yet. Maybe they will in the hearing. No, I haven't seen that they've responded. And, you know, there's a lot of paper that flies around in this case.

So there's a lot. And we do our best to stay on top of it. But that was an interesting argument, Jesse, because the defense is saying, according to the Idaho Constitution, that the standard is much higher for preliminary hearing for probable cause or whatever. It's higher than probable cause. This is their claim, according to the Idaho Constitution. They're saying the Idaho Supreme Court then made some ruling about probable cause,

but they claim the Idaho Supreme Court didn't really have the jurisdiction or the ability to basically modify the state constitution. But it seems to me that probable cause really has been adopted as the standard for preliminary hearings. I will say, I looked at this, and apparently they were, I don't remember what news outlet it was, but they were interviewing Idaho attorneys about this. And what I got back was, this is ambiguous. No one's brought it up really before. I don't think the defense is probably going to win this battle because what if they've been having grand juries and criminal trials for centuries?

So it just for decades, it just seems to me that the defense is not going to win that, but it'll be interesting to see if they can try to a new grand jury polled or try to send this back. Now, let's talk more about the motion to compel. So the idea here that the defense feels that there's information that the state has that they haven't shared. What can you tell us about that? They are asking for a number of items, including information about the investigative genetic genealogy that the FBI used to identify Brian Koberger as a suspect. They want that information because really, and I think I can say this with some level of authority having covered this case. And I was out in Idaho in December of last year when they put out the information about the white Hyundai. They had nothing that first week of December.

They had unknown male DNA profile from a single source and a description of a white car. They weren't getting a hit in CODIS. So then they took the investigative genetic genealogy route because they needed to figure out who that DNA could have come from. who it could be related to. Again, my understanding is the way they did it, right, is they had, they took the DNA off of the knife sheath that was found at the crime scene. They put it through these genetic genealogy databases and it matched up to Brian Koberger's father.

That was the tip that they needed to go after Koberger. Then when they arrest him, they take his DNA and that's when it becomes, I think, a statistical match, Brian Kovberger's DNA directly to the DNA that was found at the crime scene. but you've looked at this, you've spoken to experts about this, and they say it's not so simple, right? I did. And I've spoken to people who work in the genetic genealogy field who perform this type of work. And they say that it is. They say, you know, this is pretty groundbreaking stuff that's happening with genetic genealogy because they are able to build these family trees. And they say that at some point, we're all kind of related. Most of us are related because families established communities in the United States. And so they're saying a lot of us share common traits within our DNA. And they say so that it's a pretty reliable way to identify somebody. However, the defense has retained their own genetic genealogy expert. Leah Larkin, she calls herself the DNA geek. She has her own website. And she said she's aware of some instances where the wrong profile was

passed along, where maybe the law enforcement authorities were accessing websites that they shouldn't have been or databases that they shouldn't have been to build the trees and find somebody. So the defense is claiming there can be flaws in this. And they want to see the roadmap. They want to see all of the information about how the FBI was led to Michael Coburger and therefore Brian Coburger. They want to know how they got there and whether or not there were any violations of terms of services of these databases and whatnot. Because this is what brought it all together. This is the linchpin of this case.

it'll be interesting to see if they are compelled, the state is compelled to turn over this information because typically they're not. In other cases, they haven't had to turn this stuff over. But this is such a big case and it's a death penalty case. So you would think possibly the judge might think, well, you know, you guys are seeking to put this guy to death for these awful homicides. Maybe the defense should get to take a peek at your work and see how you got to their guy. Yeah. And, You also interviewed C.C. Moore, who's very renowned in this field as well. And my understanding of C.C. Moore basically said genetic genealogy serves a purpose. Maybe not all the purposes that you need, right?

Correct. And she interviewed her back in January when we were first getting word that genetic genealogy was used. And she said, basically, this is a lead or a tip. You can't, it's just not, you can't lay everything on genetic genealogy. there's still investigative work that has to be done around that. So you would not or should not make an arrest based solely on genetic genealogy information. She calls it more of a tip or a lead, a DNA lead. And it takes you in a direction. You still have to do things around that. Let's talk about this final issue and expand upon a little bit more when this trial is actually going to happen. So you have the defense who's trying to stay it, pause it. Then the process has this motion to reconsider the order staying time for a speedy trial.

Briefly explain what both sides are arguing here and what we can expect is going to happen from the judge. Well, the prosecution is essentially saying you wanted a speedy trial, the time should be tolling. The clock should be ticking. The judge has paused that clock because of this issue over getting the grand jury testimony and things of that nature. Also, the investigative genetic genealogy material, they want that as well.

The prosecution says they should not be able to stay the time and stop the clock, if you will, because they want a speedy trial and they have everything. Prosecution has said, you have everything we have. We have turned over everything to you that we have, and we will be turning over other things that we get that you are entitled to. But the defense is saying, look, there's so much that we still don't have that we have requested, that we feel we are entitled to, that they don't think the clock should be ticking and the time should be told. as they wait for that material that they believe that they need. It just seems really fast, Jesse. This is a big case. We know that there have been at least 51 terabytes of information.

That's a lot of information turned over to the defense in this case. And I would think they would need more time. But Ann Taylor wrote in a motion, a response to one of the prosecution's motions a couple of weeks ago that the decision to go with a speedy trial is Brian Coburgers and Brian Coburgers alone. And I thought that was interesting because that's what Brian Koberger wants, it sounds like. But I'm wondering if the defense would like to pump the brakes a little bit, the attorneys, because it's a lot to go through. Well, he may feel that the prosecution isn't ready.

He may feel we're going to hold them to their burden. And I mean, maybe he feels so confident in the case. He wants to get it over and done with. I just can't imagine this trial happening in two months, less. Less than two months. I can't imagine it. It's a death penalty case. And by the way, when we say October, it's not like the opening statements are going

to happen in October. No. Jury selection in this case? How long is that going to take? Are we really having this trial in Lyttaw County, a county of 40,000 people? Moscow, there's like 25,000 people who live in the city of Moscow. Are we really picking a jury out of Laita County and not moving this trial to Ada County in Boise or someplace?

else where people don't know as much about it and weren't impacted as much by it. I find it somewhat crazy to think that, you know, defense attorneys, even though, let's say they're spending every waking minute of their day on this case, Ann Taylor is the public defender of Kootenai County. I find it crazy that they would be ready to go on October 2nd. And not only are they having to prepare for the evidence, you know, the evidentiary phase of this or the guilt phase, if you would, where they have to look at the evidence, evaluate it, and decide what they're going to do. They have to also prepare for possible mitigation in a sentencing phase. Jury selection, they're going to have to death qualify all of these jurors because it's a death penalty case.

So that's like another layer added to jury selection where you're going to have to get a pool of so many jurors who swear to you that, yes, we can follow the law and impose the death penalty if we find it to be an appropriate punishment. So that adds a whole other layer of complexity to this. And then you do that. And then you start again with other stuff of whittling it down to the 12 jurors and the alternates. So to me, I just can't even imagine that maybe the state will be ready, but I don't know. Are they really going to be ready? And the defense, are they really going to be ready?

I don't know. Well, the hearing will definitely tell us a lot about the trajectory of this case. We say it right now. No way this trial is going to happen. Come October, Antoinette's going to be there with her head, you know, her earmuffs on or gloves. She's like, I didn't think this was happening, but I'm here. You know, I would much rather we do this in the spring just for my own. I wonder why.

Yeah, it's quite cold there. Yeah, I mean, I'm just all kidding aside. This is a very serious case. It gets very cold there. But, I mean, October, yes. And it's supposed to be a six-week trial. I mean, I don't think, maybe you can do a death penalty case of this magnitude in six weeks. I'm not sure that you really can.

I don't think so. I don't. That's my take. I don't think so. But, hey, I could be proven wrong. I've been proven wrong before. And Jeanette Levy, great seeing you. Thanks so much for taking the time.

You too. Thanks, Jesse. And that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. Please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this long crime series, ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.