The defense team for a suspect implicated in the murders of four students from University of Idaho is petitioning a judge to invalidate the majority of the evidence presently held against their client. They argue that this evidence was collected in violation of the constitution, via a method of genetic examination alleged to be unconstitutional. The primary defendant, Bryan Kohberger, has been indicted on charges relating directly to the students’ deaths. His lawyers also assert that police impropriety has impacted the credibility of the search warrants involved in the case. Enforcement authorities will present their counterarguments at a two-day hearing from Thursday, some of which will not be publicly accessible.
Should the defense be successful in their statement, it could significantly discombobulate the upcoming trial in August. They are set to dispute the charges against Kohberger, who stands accused of the murders of Ethan Chapin, Xana Kernodle, Madison Mogen, and Kaylee Goncalves. The tragic incident took place in the early hours of November 13, 2022, in a rented accommodation near the university campus located in Moscow, Idaho.
Kohberger was requested to declare his plea in the previous year however, he maintained his silence. Consequently, a plea of ‘not guilty’ was entered on his behalf by the presiding judge. It has been communicated by the prosecution that should Kohberger be found guilty of the charged crimes, they will pursue imposing the death penalty.
His legal representatives, Jay Weston Logsdon and Ann Taylor, are arguing passionately about an intrusion on Kohberger’s constitutional protections. They contend that the use of a procedure known as ‘Investigative Genetic Genealogy’ (IGG) to pinpoint potential perpetrators is a violation of his rights.
The rationale behind their stance is that without an initial constitutional breach, Kohberger would never have become a subject of interest in the investigation. According to them, the IGG scrutiny was the catalyst that drove the events that followed. Things such as obtaining his phone records, putting his parents’ home under surveillance, and collecting DNA samples from the garbage outside their residence all hinge on the IGG inquiry.
Typically, IGG procedures are employed when a DNA sample collected at a crime scene fails to match any entries in the standard law enforcement databases. In such instances, investigators would sift through the entire set of variations, also known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP), present in the DNA sample.
In the case of Bryan Kohberger, authorities discovered trace DNA, or ‘touch DNA’, on the protective casing of a knife that was left at the location where the students had been killed. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) applied the IGG procedure to this DNA sample, which ended in pointing towards Kohberger as a potential suspect.
However, the prosecution team, led by Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, asserts that the utilization of the IGG process is strictly constitutional. They emphasize that Kohberger’s relatives willingly submitted their own DNA for genetic genealogical examination. They argue that the IGG process’s usage in this case does not undermine Kohberger’s constitutional rights.
In further defense of their methods, the prosecution holds that clear legal precedent dictates that a suspect does not have legitimate privacy rights over DNA left at a crime scene. They are steadfast in their belief that the IGG process, and the application therein, is not a constitutional violation.
Alongside these points of contention, the defense alleges that following the identification of Kohberger as a person of interest, law enforcement officials deliberately, or neglectfully, misrepresented or failed to convey vital information in their applications for search warrants. These warrants included those for Kohberger’s residence, his parents’ house, his vehicle, his mobile phone, and his personal DNA. The defense is actively seeking to exclude any evidence obtained through these warrants from the trial proceedings.
The specifics of the claimed misbehavior by the police are currently concealed from public consumption. Portions of the upcoming hearing set for Thursday will be conducted privately. The presiding judge has expressed his desire in protecting the potential jurors from early exposure to evidence that may not be permissible in the actual trial.
A firm stand was taken by the judge against any change in the approach towards the safeguarding of the jury pool. He justified this decision by referring to the intense media focus on the case, and he expressed his concerns about sourcing a jury that hasn’t been excessively exposed to the details of the case. Specifically, he mentioned his desire to shield potential jurors from any evidence not permitted to be presented during the trial.
The judge has made a ruling that no parties other than those directly involved will be permitted entry into the courtroom. He clarified, however, that the open segments of the hearing would be accessible via live streaming. This will catering to the interests of transparency and public information, while ensuring that undue influence on the potential jury is minimized.