In Boise, Idaho, state prosecutors are striving to restrict the manner in which Bryan Kohberger, charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students, can present his defense. They argue that for an alibi defense to be valid, Kohberger must personally testify during his trial later this year.
The request was made by Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, who urged a judge to limit any alternative evidence that Kohberger’s defense might present, including psychiatric evaluations or theories suggesting another individual committed the crime.
Kohberger faces four counts of murder related to the tragic deaths of Ethan Chapin, Xana Kernodle, Madison Mogen, and Kaylee Goncalves, who were found dead in a rental home near the University of Idaho campus in Moscow, Idaho, on November 13, 2022. At a prior court appearance, Kohberger remained silent when asked to plead, resulting in a judge entering a plea of not guilty on his behalf. Prosecutors have made it clear that they will pursue a death penalty sentence should Kohberger be convicted.
The case has amassed thousands of pages in court documents as both the defense and prosecution attempt to delineate what will be admissible during the upcoming three-month trial scheduled to begin on August 11. Last year, Kohberger’s defense had filed a document claiming that he was out driving in the early morning hours of November 13 for hiking, running, or stargazing. They aim to provide expert testimony on cellphone tracking data to confirm Kohberger’s whereabouts during that time.
However, Thompson argues that the defense has failed to provide precise details regarding Kohberger’s location and did not adhere to the disclosure deadlines set by the court. Because of this, he insisted, “It would be unrealistic at this late date to expect the State to effectively investigate and respond to any new or additional alibi-related disclosures,” thereby requesting that any alibi evidence must originate directly from Kohberger’s testimony.
Moreover, Thompson wants restrictions on the defense from proposing alternate perpetrator theories unless such evidence is first deemed relevant and admissible. He highlighted that “literally thousands of tips regarding possible perpetrators” were submitted to law enforcement, but none held ground except those concerning the defendant. Furthermore, Thompson also seeks to eliminate some neuropsychological and psychiatric evaluations from being presented, citing negligence of state rules.
On the defense side, attorney Anne Taylor has asked the court to approve filing a comprehensive document detailing a range of motions, including challenges to improperly disclosed expert testimonies, instances involving “touch” and “contact” DNA, and eyewitness identification based on “bushy eyebrows.” Judge Steven Hippler has granted Taylor’s request to file this extensive document, although it still awaits public release.
