BOISE, Idaho — The legal team representing a man facing murder charges linked to the deaths of four students from the University of Idaho is petitioning the court to dismiss a substantial amount of evidence. They argue that the evidence is largely based on an unconstitutional method of genetic investigation.
The defense for Bryan Kohberger asserts that the search warrants utilized in the cases are tainted by alleged misconduct on the part of law enforcement. A two-day hearing is slated to begin Thursday morning, with parts of it closed to the public. If the defense is successful in their arguments, it could severely hinder the prosecution’s ability to present their case when the trial begins in August.
Kohberger faces four counts of murder following the tragic deaths of Ethan Chapin, Xana Kernodle, Madison Mogen, and Kaylee Goncalves, who were violently killed early on November 13, 2022, at a rental property near the Moscow campus. In a previous court appearance, when asked to enter a plea, Kohberger remained silent, resulting in the judge entering a not-guilty plea on his behalf. The prosecution plans to pursue the death penalty if he is found guilty.
The defense claims that law enforcement’s utilization of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) to identify suspects violated Kohberger’s constitutional rights. Attorneys Jay Weston Logsdon and Ann Taylor argued in a recent court filing that the investigation would not have occurred without this alleged constitutional violation. “Without IGG, there is no case, no request for his phone records, surveillance of his parents’ home, no DNA collected from the trash outside,” they stated. They contend that since IGG is the foundation of the investigation, all related evidence should be excluded from the proceedings.
IGG is typically employed when DNA samples collected at a crime scene do not yield results in standard law enforcement databases. Investigators then analyze the variations present in the DNA sample and upload them to genealogy databases, such as GEDmatch or FamilyTreeDNA, to identify potential relatives of the DNA source. In this specific case, investigators discovered “touch DNA” on a knife sheath located in the home where the murders took place. The FBI’s application of IGG to this DNA led them to Kohberger as a possible suspect.
However, Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson asserts that the use of IGG is entirely constitutional, pointing out that some of Kohberger’s relatives voluntarily contributed their DNA to a genetic genealogy service. The prosecution has also maintained in court filings that legal precedents demonstrate that defendants do not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding DNA that is found at a crime scene.
Additionally, the defense team argues that once Kohberger emerged as a suspect, law enforcement officers either intentionally misled or recklessly excluded crucial details when seeking search warrants for his apartment, his family residence, his vehicle, his cell phone, and even for his DNA. They are requesting that all this evidence be excluded from the trial as well.
However, specific instances of the alleged police misconduct remain confidential, as 4th District Judge Steven Hippler has kept most court filings, along with documents related to the IGG evidence, sealed. A portion of the upcoming hearing will be conducted behind closed doors, as the judge expressed concerns about tainting potential jurors with evidence that might ultimately not be admissible at trial.
On Wednesday, a group of news organizations urged the judge to reconsider the decision to keep certain information private. The attorney representing these groups, Wendy Olson, emphasized during a hearing the public’s right to know whether law enforcement officers, who are meant to uphold the truth, provided reckless or false declarations during the investigation. She cited U.S. Supreme Court rulings affirming the First Amendment right to open court proceedings and the necessity for transparency to protect the rights of defendants.
Despite these arguments, the judge remained unconvinced. “I don’t think the situation has changed regarding the need to protect the jury pool, given the significant media attention this case has received,” stated Hippler. He noted that securing an impartial jury would be immensely challenging due to the extensive coverage, especially regarding evidence that might not be introduced in the trial. The court has decided against public attendance during certain segments of the hearing but will provide a livestream of the accessible parts via the court’s YouTube page.
