Attorneys representing a man accused of murdering four University of Idaho students are requesting a judge to dismiss a significant amount of evidence in the case. They argue that the evidence primarily stems from an unconstitutional genetic investigation procedure. The defense team for Bryan Kohberger is also claiming that the search warrants utilized during the investigation were compromised due to misconduct by police. A two-day hearing regarding these issues commenced on Thursday, with much of it closed to the public. Should the defense succeed, it could significantly undermine the prosecution’s case before the trial, set to begin in August.
Kohberger faces four counts of murder in connection with the deaths of Ethan Chapin, Xana Kernodle, Madison Mogen, and Kaylee Goncalves, who were tragically killed early on November 13, 2022, in a rental house situated near the campus in Moscow, Idaho. During a plea hearing last year, Kohberger chose to remain silent, leading a judge to enter a not-guilty plea on his behalf. The prosecution has indicated their intention to pursue the death penalty if Kohberger is found guilty.
The defense argues that law enforcement breached Kohberger’s constitutional rights by employing a method known as Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) to narrow down potential suspects. Defense attorney Anne Taylor emphasized to the judge that the IGG identification should be banned from evidence, claiming that no warrants were issued for various phases of the investigation that contributed to the IGG work. She insisted that warrants were necessary at each of those stages.
The IGG process typically initiates when DNA collected from a crime scene does not yield identifiable suspects through conventional law enforcement databases. Investigators then examine the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) present in the DNA sample, which are subsequently uploaded to genealogical databases such as GEDmatch or FamilyTreeDNA to identify potential familial connections.
In this specific case, authorities reported discovering “touch DNA,” or trace DNA, on a knife sheath located in the home where the students were murdered. The FBI subsequently utilized the IGG process on this DNA, ultimately identifying Kohberger as a potential suspect. Taylor contended that police never obtained warrants necessary for analyzing the DNA found at the crime scene, nor did they seek warrants for examining the DNA of potential relatives uploaded to genealogical databases. Moreover, she argued that the FBI violated its own interim policies governing IGG by processing the data through an unauthorized database.
On the other hand, Deputy Attorney General Jeff Nye, representing the prosecution, countered that the use of IGG is not unconstitutional. Kohberger did not assert that he submitted his DNA to a genealogy site and that it was misappropriated, Nye stated. He added that defendants have no privacy rights concerning DNA left at crime scenes. He also remarked that even if the FBI’s use of an online genealogy database not sanctioned by the policy were a violation, it would be more of a terms-of-service issue rather than a rights violation concerning Kohberger.
Nye expressed that Kohberger has been inconsistent regarding the DNA issue. He pointed out that Kohberger is trying to claim ownership over the DNA while simultaneously stating the state cannot establish its connection to him, which, according to Nye, is contradictory to how privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment operate.
The defense further alleged that once Kohberger was identified as a suspect, police intentionally misrepresented facts and omitted essential information when requesting search warrants for his apartment, his parents’ residence, his vehicle, his cellular phone, and for his DNA. Taylor argued that this evidence should be excluded from the trial. She highlighted a witness who, after consuming alcohol, could not clarify her memories of perceiving others moving around the house during the night of the murders. This witness later indicated to investigators that her memories could have been dreams, but this critical detail was omitted from police affidavits, thereby strengthening their case unjustly.
Taylor noted that additional facts – such as the direction in which Kohberger’s car was facing in surveillance footage or the times when his cellphone pinged off nearby towers – were inaccurately presented in the warrant applications. Instead of providing a truthful account, these affidavits depicted Kohberger as closely monitoring the residence, which Taylor asserts is inaccurate, claiming he was never stationary around the house and his phone records support this assertion.
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Ashley Jennings defended the actions of law enforcement, stating that they used the most current information available to obtain the search warrants, which is standard procedure. Jennings expressed that the defense has failed to substantiate claims of reckless and deliberate misinformation by law enforcement, insisting that the inability to do so illustrates the weakness of their arguments.
The hearing is set to resume on Friday and will be accessible via live stream on the court’s official YouTube channel, allowing the public to follow the proceedings closely.
