Law&Crime Sidebar - Idaho Student Murders: Bryan Kohberger’s Defense Still Wants Case Thrown Out

Episode Date: January 25, 2024

Attorneys for suspected quadruple murderer Bryan Kohberger are asking an Idaho judge to reconsider his decision not to throw out the indictment of their client. Two hearings will be held on Friday to address multiple motions. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber debates the possibilities with criminal defense attorney Andrea Burkhart.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:Get your first visit for only five dollars at https://www.apostrophe.com/pod/SIDEBAR when you use our code: SIDEBARHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerScript Writing & Producing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY 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 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. More updates and hearings in the case of Brian Koberger means more back and forth with criminal defense attorney Andrea Burkart. We get into the defense asking the judge to reconsider their arguments to dismiss the case. Koberger's team now having access to DNA records and whether any shady stuff happened with the grand jury. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber.

So we had such a great response to our first Brian Coburger debate back and forth, whatever you want to call it. It's an episode we did, and we figured, why not have another one? And I'm not sure where it's going to go, but it's going to be interesting. I mean, so much to talk about in the Brian Coburger case, the Washington State University grad student and accused of murdering four University of Idaho students back in November of 2022. Authorities say Madison Mogan, Zana Kurnodal, Ethan Chapin, Kaley Gonzalez. They were all found stabbed to death in an off-campus rental home.

Brian Koberger, a then 28-year-old Ph.D. Criminology grad student was arrested, indicted on murder and burglary charges. He faces the death penalty. And prosecutors have tied him to the crime through cell phone data, DNA on a knife sheet, left at the scene, a potential eyewitness surveillance footage of a white Hyundai Allantra that investigators say was at or near the house on King Road, the night of the killings, and on previous occasions. But now there are some new developments, and I want to debate it out, maybe, with Andrea Burckhardt, criminal defense attorney. You can check out her YouTube page at Burckhart Law. You can also go to her Twitter X profile.

It's the same handle. Andrea, thanks so much for coming on. Great to see you. Thanks, Jesse. It's great to be back. Great to have you. So let's start with the hearings that are going to happen this Friday. So let's break it down.

So the defense is trying once again to get the case thrown out. They have argued that the grand jury indictment cannot stand because evidence was withheld from the jurors, that there was a question of jurors impartiality, that there was insufficient evidence to support the charges against Brian Koeberger. Judge John Judge previously rejected all of these arguments. He wrote in a filing, quote, that the defense attorneys had failed to successfully challenge the indictment on grounds of juror bias, lack of sufficient admissible evidence or prosecutorial misconduct. Koberger, quote, was indicted by an impartial grand jury who had sufficient admissible evidence to find probable cause

to believe Koberger committed the crimes alleged by the state. And he wrote further, the state did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct in presenting their case to the jury. So, first, let me give her a caveat to everybody. We don't have a lot of information. This is under seal. Let's keep that clear. Having said that, Andrew, any reason why the judge would rule differently on this now? Well, there's generally two reasons why lawyers will pursue a motion for reconsideration, because speaking very frankly, judges don't typically change their mind.

If they've read the pleadings, they've heard the argument, they're familiar with the issue, and they had a reason for the decision that they made. So the reason for bringing a motion to reconsider, first can be because there's a specific issue that the defense thinks is important that the judge either did not address in the ruling or they want him to flesh out his reasoning for it. And the reason why they would want to do that gets to the second reason why you file a motion to reconsider, which is that you're positioning the case to ask for an appeal. So typically appeals, you have to wait until the case is

completely done and resolved before you're allowed to go to a higher court and ask them to find that a wrong decision was made. But there can be exceptions for that to be done while the case is still ongoing. Idaho has a specific rule for how this is done. And it appears to me that this is a big part of what the defense strategy is in bringing these motions in the first place. They're required to bring this motion to the court, ask for permission to appeal. So they would be potentially asking him to flesh out reasons for his decisions so that they can then present that to the Supreme Court as essentially the question they are asking the Supreme Court to rule on whether that decision was correctly made, whether the reasoning was correct or whether it was

not. And also to be clear, this hearing, we're not going to see. It's sealed. It's closed to the public because of the privacy of the grand jurors and the grand jury proceedings. Look, I'm of the opinion, I don't see much success here for the defense. I mean, you really laid it out well. I think it's a pretty high bar. It's not like there's been a change in the law. Maybe they have new circumstances, new evidence, maybe to say that to prevent an injustice, I think I agree with you that it seems more that they're trying to create a record here in order to appeal. I think we agree on this one. So maybe I'll move forward with this one. Let's move on. Let's move on this one. Okay, so this is the one that I thought was really interesting, and I really wanted your opinion on this, because I can't

quite get it. I want your opinion on the defense's argument to unseal their motion for the judge to reconsider, denying their motions to dismiss. I know that was complicated. Let me try to say that a little bit different. They want the public. They want everyone to know what happened with the grand jury. They want their arguments.

They were more, their motion for the judge to reconsider. They want the public to know this. They say, quote, Mr. Berger acknowledges the right of the public to be fully informed of the issues, the defense wrote in the filing. My argument is, and this is the way, it seems to me that, you know, the grand jury is a private process. I don't see how they justify the public as much as we would want to see it.

I don't see how they can win this argument. I don't see a justification for the public release of this information. It seems to me like they want to affect a potential jury pool, not pay, but affect a potential jury pool because they're fighting this not only in the court of law, but the court of public opinion. So much has been said about Brian Coburger. That's not allowed, though. I mean, what justification could they have to unseal this for everybody to see? Well, I first off, agree with you on this one as well. I don't think they're likely to win this one. For all the reasons you said, the grand jury process is highly protected. But the defense has been signaling for quite

some time that they want the public to know what the evidence is in this case. They wanted a public preliminary hearing. The state obviously is not required to do that. They chose to go with the secret grand jury process. So what they have against Ryan Kohnberger is still extremely opaque at this point in time beyond what was there in the probable cause affidavit. But even in the original hearing on these motions, Mr. Logsden, had made a comment to the effect that some number of the grand jurors had expressed concern that this is all there was to the state's case. They had wanted to see more. He was rapidly cut off from going further down that line by Judge Judge. But it seems pretty clear that the defense

thinks this is a thin case, and they want the public to be aware of that, in part because there's a need to balance the coverage that has been out there on this case. There is a lot of, that tends to presuppose guilt that has relied on a lot of information floating around that isn't necessarily accurate. We've seen a lot of inaccurate information being put out about this case for quite some time. So I think the defense does want to respond to some extent to that that media environment. But as you said, this is a this is a protected process. So the only way I could really see this being viable is if the defense was so careful, in how they crafted their motion, that they didn't discuss kind of the facts, the underlying actions that took place in the grand jury and simply kept it at the 10,000-foot abstract legal issues where it wouldn't be necessarily revealing anything the grand jury did, but just kind of talking about, you know, the principles of the issue. I still don't think that would get them there because, you know, if you're talking about principles of prosecutorial misconduct in different contexts,

well, then it's pretty clear there's a reason why you're talking about that, kind of showing the hand. I don't see it. And even if they were to release a document, it was going to be filled with redactions that we can't even see any. But, you know, they did raise an argument that they said, listen, the reason we only agreed for this to be sealed, the reason Mr. Coburger sought sealing of these filings was based on email communications with the Latak County Prosecutor's Office, because they wanted the filing sealed. We just did what they wanted. I don't know. That seems like a flimsy argument.

I mean, I agree. It doesn't seem like the strongest argument to me. I can understand procedurally why they would do it that way. But at the same time, I have to imagine that if their motion does detail facts and circumstances that occurred in the grand jury process, that the judge would have been extremely unhappy had they not move to unseal or move to seal it on their own initiative. So it does seem like perhaps a bit of an explanation that is convenient more than persuasive. Okay.

Well, again, and to be clear about this one, it's my understanding that the hearing on this issue will also be closed to the public to protect the privacy of the grand jury, Prasini. All right, so not much into debate yet. But this one, I feel like this is the one we might not agree. And by the way, we didn't come into the saying, you take this position, you take this position. This is just what we feel.

So if we debate, we debate if we don't, we don't. But another hearing that is also scheduled to hear arguments is on the order denying the motion to dismiss the indictment for inaccurate instructions given to the grand jury. And this hearing is open to the public. I find this one to be fascinating. So Ryan Koberger's team had argued that the jury, the grand jury, was instructed on the wrong standard

to return an indictment. They argue that the burden of proof should have been and only return an indictment if the evidence presented is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, our highest standard, the one we see at a trial, because they looked at the language of the Idaho statute, and they said, look, the standard for a grand jury is the standard as a trial jury. I'm going to read it. This is Idaho Criminal Procedure Rule 19-117. The grand jury ought to find an indictment when all the evidence before them taken together

if unexplained or uncontradicted would, in their judgment, warrant a condobeyed. conviction by a trial jury. So they say it's the same standard. Now, the judge, Judge John Judge said creative argument, interesting, can't do anything to change the law. My hands are tied at this point. The law has been settled in Idaho for decades. This is what the Idaho Supreme Court has held. It's always been return an indictment if there's probable cause. Any success there, Andrea, that they might win this? I don't think they're going to win this one with Judge, judge. But once again, I think this is a situation where they're setting it up for the Supreme Court to look at this question. I'm with you. I find this a fascinating argument. I actually think

this is quite clever, quite compelling from a defense standpoint. It has its grounding in the Idaho Constitution and the right to a grand jury that the Constitution provides. The argument is that the grand jury provision has to be based on some pre-existent. standard at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, because if it wasn't, then the legislature would be able to just legislate away your right to a grand jury indictment. So they're arguing that it was fixed at the time of the enactment of the Constitution, and the statute reads, as you're indicating, that it would have to warrant conviction by a trial jury, and that standard seems pretty clearly to be beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't convict somebody

of a crime on a lower burden of proof. It makes sense to me from a sort of functional standpoint because under this system, the grand jury process, the defense doesn't get a chance to present anything. They don't get a chance to challenge the state's case. They don't get a chance to present their own evidence. So it's basically requiring that if everything that the state presents goes unrebutted and goes unchallenged, would the jury be able to convict? So that would get you the grand jury indictment, then at trial, the defense then has the opportunity to be able to challenge the evidence put on their own case, and then we would establish if there is reasonable doubt or not. So from a practical standpoint, I think it's logical. Now, the state, of course,

has pointed out two things. One, no other state does this. Right, right. Jurisdictionally, it's pretty commonplace now that probable causes the standard for an indictment. And similarly, the Idaho Supreme Court has adopted the rule that establishes probable cause as a standard to return an indictment. That was the language that was relied on for the jury instructions. And that's why Judge Judge is essentially saying, look, my hands are tied. The Supreme Court has said this is what the standard is. And the defense has pointed out, but they haven't looked at this particular issue. They haven't considered this argument.

So it's entirely possible that they just weren't aware of these implications when they adopted. those rules. So it's a fascinating issue. The Supreme Court is the appropriate jurisdiction to be deciding it. And that's where I think this question is going to get very interesting. I agree. I think if they take it up, it would be very interesting. But this is where I disagree. So yes, you know, look, Idaho Supreme Court. And as John Judge said, I mean, nothing's going to change. This case is not going to decide it right now. I mean, this has been the law of the land for hundreds of years and this is how we've seen it. But I think from a practical point of view where I disagree with is that the grand jury has always supposed to be a screening test.

It's not about guilt. It's not about a trial. It's if there's enough evidence to go to a trial. And I would suggest to you that if you were to accept proof beyond a reasonable doubt, who raises a reasonable doubt? The defense raises a reasonable doubt. That's the purpose of a trial. Both sides get to do it. I don't think that that standard would make sense for a grand jury because it's not the prosecution raising the doubt.

It would be the defense attorney. It would be defense counsel. And so I think I've always believed, and even though it is a creative argument, because they're looking at the language of the statute, for me, practically, it would not make sense for the standard of proof for a grand jury to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It should always be probable cause. Is it reasonable that the evidence would lead someone to believe that this a crime was committed? That's what you have there.

It's a smaller burden. It's a lower burden. It's a screening test before you all. ultimately decide someone's guilt at a trial. So that's the part where I disagree. Well, I understand that. I would disagree with you on the position that it's kind of the defense's job to point to reasonable doubt.

The jury most likely would have been instructed and certainly will be at trial, that the defense has no burden of production whatsoever. The state's evidence has to be evaluated on its own merit. And so it's entirely possible and does happen that the state can go forward with evidence that fails to establish an essential. element of the charge with evidence that the jury simply finds not credible. There can be, for example, heavy reliance on a witness that, you know, if you believe this witness, there would be, there would be proof sufficient to go forward. But if the jury doesn't believe that witness, then there's

not enough to go forward with the prosecution. So the question I think is really, does Idaho have a reason for wanting there to be a higher standard for this screening in the first place? And I would argue it does make sense that there would be a different standard between the preliminary hearing where, again, the defense now is present, gets to challenge, gets to present their own evidence, and has a probable cause standard, as opposed to the grand jury proceeding where there's no defense involvement at all. It does make sense that you might want the state's evidence to be somewhat more vigorous to justify in taking somebody's liberty away and subjecting a criminal prosecution. I hear you on that, but I will also suggest

that sometimes, and I think you would agree, that when you are dealing with a case at the grand jury level versus the trial level, the evidence, prosecutors or investigators learn a lot more in that period. And they present more, obviously, during a trial and during a grand jury proceeding. And I would suggest that the danger, of course, is if you create such a high burden at the initial stage, you are essentially creating a possibility that people who committed crimes may get off. I mean, I mean, that's, if you're creating such a high standard at that point, that could be very concerning because we always talk about trials, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, jury of your peers, presentation of evidence, both by the prosecution and the defense, it's the time to decide. But if you're creating a situation where they have to decide proof beyond a reasonable doubt at this initial stage where you might not have all the evidence where the defense counsel can't present something, I just, I would be concerned that that would have a bad effect. well and i would argue that the counter to that concern would be have a preliminary hearing instead of going to the grand jury and then you get the probable cause standard yes but there would be but there would be times that a preliminary hearing wouldn't work so well i'll give you an example

so with coburger right i think one of the issues concerned um the surviving roommate dm right and if this was a preliminary hearing by all accounts she would have probably had to testify This was a grand jury private secret proceeding. The evidence that's presented is very different than in an open public forum. And sometimes I would say it would be unfair. Now we're saying that everything has to be in the open if we're going to change the standard. There are advantages not just for the prosecution, but there's advantages both on a legal and a human level to having a grand jury secret proceeding versus a preliminary hearing. So I would say, you know, now going everything has to be public could be a problem.

Well, and that just comes down to, I think, a question of values that a particular state might have. Do you want to make it easy to charge people with crimes? Do you want to make it easy to shield the process, the reasonings, and the basis for a prosecution from the public? I can certainly see a reason why a state might conclude, no, we would err on the other side. We believe in liberty. We believe in freedom. We believe the state needs to have strong evidence before they're going to subject somebody to this kind of process to deprive them of their liberty. And the difference in the standards between the grand jury and the preliminary hearing would be a way to balance those types of considerations. Again, this is all just

theoretical. It's quickly to end up being up to the Supreme Court. But I do think that they are fascinating questions. I think it was one of the most creative arguments I've seen in quite some time. And I was really interested in from a legal perspective. Okay, we're going to get back to Brian Coburger in just a second. look, I know we are talking about some very serious subject matter right now, and I don't want to take away from that in any way, but I do get excited talking about our partners here on Cybar who help make these shows happen, and that includes apostrophe, which is something really cool, because when you think about the new year, it's always about a fresh start, right?

How can we look our best? How can we feel our best? You have to prioritize taking care of yourself no matter how busy you are. For me, I know, I'm on camera all the time. These lights, I'll tell you right now, they're not the most forgiving. All right, so I got to make sure I look like a human being. Getting clearer, healthier skin in 2024 is a pretty good resolution. And that is why we're excited to partner with Apostrophy.

So whether you're dealing with hormonal acne, breakouts, signs of aging, acne scarring, whatever it might be, apostrophe's mission is to empower you and help you feel confident and comfortable in your own skin. You see, apostrophe is an online platform, and it connects you with an expert dermatology team to get you customized acne treatment for your own unique skin. All you got to do is fill out an online consultation about your skin goals and medical history,

then you snap a few selfies, and a dermatology provider will create a customized treatment plan just for you. By the way, I've got to say, the unboxing experience, delightful. It included these adorable postcards, these personalized stickers on the prescription bottles. It was great. It was great.

So right now, we have a special deal for our audience. You can get your first visit for only $5 at apostrophe.com slash sidebar when you use our code sidebar that's a savings of $15 and this code is only available to our listeners so to get started just go to apostrophe.com slash sidebar click get started and use our code sidebar and sign up and you'll get your first visit for only $5 again thank you to apostrophe for sponsoring this episode if all right this part this is a new development I'm curious your opinion on this so one of the central issues in this case one of the key issues that you and I have both talked about. And the key pieces of evidence is DNA. So we know that DNA from a knife

sheath left behind at the crime scene has been linked to Brian Coburger. Authorities were able to make a familial match of the DNA to Coburger's father. They did this by collecting trash from outside the Coburger home in Pennsylvania. And then after Coburger was arrested, authorities took a cheap swab from him. And court documents have revealed that that was almost a statistical match, that the DNA from the sheath is almost a statistical match to Brian Coburg. Or is a statistical match to Brian Coburger. But we know that Coburger's defense team for months has been asking the prosecution, excuse me, to turn over DNA records. These materials held by the FBI and a private lab known as Othrum that apparently performed the DNA test in the case. The prosecution

fought back on this, saying first they didn't have access to the records because they were in the custody of the FBI that they never saw them. They even requested a protective order for the privacy of those individuals who were mentioned in the search results. But Judge John, Judge, reviewed the materials, and he has ordered the prosecution that they had to turn over to the defense some DNA records about investigative genetic genealogy used in this case, again, namely how the material was entered into a public genealogy database. The filing says, quote, the court has now completed its review of the information provided by the state and orders the state to discover to the defense a portion of the IGG information.

My opinion on this is, and I'll allow you to jump on that. First, before I give my opinion, let me turn it to you. Do you think that this is a big win for the defense, and do you think that this could be problematic for the prosecution? So I do think this is a win for the defense. There is not a whole lot of law out there yet about investigative genetic genealogy, and particularly its role in active investigations. It's been historically used for cold cases and for identifying Jane Doe's, John Doe's, who die and are unidentified. So this is quite a novel situation for it to come up in an active prosecution,

and there's not a whole lot of law about it. There also seem to be some kind of conflicting decisions and conflicting reasonings as these types of motions are beginning to work their way through courts all over the country. So I do think this is a win for the defense, for them to have access to some of this material for investigative purposes. Is it likely to be detrimental to the prosecution? Well, I think the defense is looking at two things. Number one, they already told us during the arguments on why they wanted this information,

what they think it's helpful for. They think that the FBI and law enforcement in this case essentially reverse and engineered their investigation. They didn't find the white vehicle and then match it to Coburger and then happen to get the DNA. No, they got the DNA first and they went backwards. And so then they identified a white car that gave them a time frame. And basically, it was not an organic development of suspicion. So that would then call into question the state's theory of how the murder was committed if there can be explanations, alternative explanations for why Brian Koberger's trace DNA would be on that knife sheath.

besides him touching it. So that can potentially be problematic to the prosecution. The other reason is because they're looking at, did the law enforcement follow the law when they engaged in this process? Is there potentially a reason for some of this evidence to be excluded? We know that this is a concern because number one,

it was called out in the probable cause affidavits supporting the search warrants that were issued in Whitman County. There was a disclaimer, I think I mentioned last time on your show that was quite extraordinary. I've never seen it in a warrant affidavit at all where they said, you know, we got this DNA, but just on the off chance, you know, any of this gets excluded. We want you to make your probable cause determination based on everything else, not considering this DNA.

That is quite extraordinary. So clearly law enforcement is concerned about the potential for suppression of some of this evidence. And second, we also know just from what we have seen from the probable cause affidavit that law enforcement did not follow. the Department of Justice policy for arresting an individual on the basis of investigative genetic genealogy research. That policy very specifically requires a confirmatory sample from the target. And so that's why they go and purloin the trash. Like they did it with the Golden State Killer, they did it with the Coburger residents in this particular case, but they did not confirm the target. As you indicated, they confirmed the target's father. So that doesn't

meet the standard that's set forth in the policy. Now, the policy isn't a constitutional standard. Just to jump on that, there are many times that investigators will have DNA. And once they have the suspect in custody, they take a further DNA swab of their cheek or the inside of their mouth. And that's how that adds to an extra point of confirmation. I mean, I saw it just recently. I was covering the George Birch case out in Wisconsin. It's not extraordinary for that to happen. And just to push back a little bit on this, you know, familial DNA is a tool, right? It's a means to an end. So it wasn't as if they got this DNA and then they secured a warrant to arrest Mr.

Koberger. It was a part of the overall investigation. And they used IGG to begin the process of developing a lead on who left the DNA on the knife. It pointed law enforcement towards Kovberger, but they didn't arrest them because then, remember, it was pretty soon on that they had the white card. They saw that this white car. They figured out it was registered. They looked at registered vehicles in Washington State University. Then they saw that it was Coburger.

Then they have the cell phone records. And so, you know, they found DNA. First of all, they found the DNA. They ran it through CODIS. They found no hits. There was nothing in the criminal database. But it's a part of the collection of the overall evidence. I would say, I would normally, I'd say they had the DNA and then they arrested him.

And then from there, they found everything else. I'd say it's a problem. But it didn't seem to be that. way. It was a lead, but I don't think it was necessarily the end-all, be-all. It was a tool, which I think is why I don't really see the defense going anywhere with it. Well, I think that's really going to be the question is how central did this type of investigation, how central was its role in the overall placing of suspicion and Brian Koberger ultimately leading to his arrest. As far as the confirmatory sample goes, that's just a question of,

Did the FBI follow their own rules? We have exclusionary rules that apply to evidence gathering in criminal courts. Typically, if the feds violate your constitutional rights, they don't get to capitalize on that and then present that evidence against you at trial. That evidence is excluded. So that's the type of thing that I think

the defense is going to be looking for. I don't know that a simple violation of the Department of Justice policy for investigative genetic genealogy investigations would meet that standard, but it might. Like we've said, this is a very novel issue that is being fleshed out. And so that would be a concern if the court said, yes, FBI broke their own rules. They were not justified in making this arrest of Brian Coburger because everything downstream of that is now fruit of the poisonous tree,

including that confirmatory swab that they got from his cheek. That would be the problem. So I agree with you, the likelihood is probably quite small, but the magnitude, the effect that that would have on the case would be quite significant. So that's why it's so important for the defense to focus on it. All right. Well, I tell you what, if people are like, wow, why don't you debate the rest of the evidence and whether or not if the DNA is excluded, you know, can he be convicted? Watch our previous debate episode between me and Andrea. But I did have one last, I don't even know if this is a debate, but I think it's a really interesting question. A trial date hasn't been set.

There's been talked by the prosecution that they're opening for a summer date. I was curious, and by the way, in terms of that's the timing, potential time. In terms of location, it seems there's been no, nothing to support the idea that there's going to be a change of venue. It seems that the judge here has scheduled this to happen in LATOC County. I am of the opinion, A, I think this should happen in the summer. One, who really wants to stand outside in the cold during the freezing months in Idaho. But two, you know, I think that would be helpful. But two, I don't necessarily believe in a change of venue.

I mean, you really have to suggest that he wouldn't get a fair trial in that county that he would be prejudiced. A, this case is known everywhere. It's going to be very difficult for people not to have known about Brian Koberger or heard something about it. But also, I think there's a difficulty in transporting witnesses and evidence to another county and presenting it somewhere else. I know there's been talking about Boise, Idaho. I would suggest that this was a crime that happened there. I actually think it's beneficial for people who are of that area to maybe understand. the landscape of what we're dealing with, you know, and so I am of the opinion this case

should remain in that county. And obviously, from my perspective, covering it the sooner the better, I would love to see it, have a conclusion to this case. Where do you stand on it? Well, so a couple of thoughts about this. First off, as far as where it's going to be held, I'm with you, Jesse. I am, we are very much against the mainstream opinion on this, that somehow this community can't be fair to Brian Coburger. The publicity has permeated the entire country, arguably the entire world. So it's not like moving it to Boise is going to solve that problem. I have been saying for quite some time, if I'm the defense attorney on this case,

there is no way I am moving to change the venue. Number one, the biggest reason is because you risk losing this judge. This judge is an absolute gem. He has come across as extremely fair. He is willing to consider defense positions. He's willing to, you know, frankly, follow the law when that's the direction where the law takes him. So it's possible that the judge could follow the case if it were transferred to another venue. Idaho does allow that, but it's discretionary with him.

And Judge Judge is the chief administrative judge for that judicial district in Idaho. He's got other responsibilities in that area. I could see him not wanting to, you know, abandon those responsibilities to take on this case in another county. So big risk that you lose the judge if you move and very unlikely that you're going to do better than him. The second reason is for the reasons that you've said, this is this community's case. This community who is who is affected by it, this community was traumatized by it. This community has the most interest. They're the ones who have the vested interest in seeing that the right person is caught,

that the evidence is sufficient to support that conviction, they have a much stronger interest than people in some other community who weren't personally affected by it. So I think that you're likely to get jurors who are going to be fair, who are going to be attentive, and who are going to consider the evidence very, very carefully in making their decision. So yeah, I'm with you. I don't think it's strategically wise to move for a change of venue. Now, having said that, when a change of venue is based upon things like pretrial publicity, it's very common for that motion to not be raised until you're essentially in the jury selection process because you have to see who shows up as your potential jurors and what the effect of that publicity has been on them. So we likely wouldn't

get that motion for quite some time anyway. All right. Well, when this trial happens, I'm sure we'll debate about some of the evidence as it comes out. Andrew Burkart, thank you so much. I hope everybody can check out her YouTube page at A. Burkhart Law and her Twitter X profile is the same handle. Thanks so much for coming on. Great seeing you. Thanks, Jesse. Good to be back. All right, so not much of a debate between

Andrea and I that much, but interesting to hear nonetheless the different issues that are going on. That's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us. And please subscribe on Apple Podcast, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcast. 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.