Defense lawyers representing the man accused of the murder of four students from the University of Idaho have called for the dismissal of a significant portion of the evidence in the case. They argue that the collection of this evidence was centered around what they deem as an intrusive genetic investigation technique, which they consider to be in violation of constitutional rights. These attorneys represent Bryan Kohberger, who is facing murder charges related to the case. They also allege that the search warrants leading to the evidence were procured through police fudging the truth. The defence’s stance on this matter will be brought forward during a two-day hearing, some sessions of which will not be open to the public.
The success of these arguments could potentially cause a significant setback in the prosecution’s strategy, particularly as the trial is set to start in August. Kohberger is facing charges for the murders of Ethan Chapin, Xana Kernodle, Madison Mogen, and Kaylee Goncalves. These students were found dead in the early hours of November 13, 2022, in a rented property close to the university campus situated in Moscow, Idaho.
When requested to submit a plea last year, Kohberger chose to remain quiet, which led to the judge entering a plea of not guilty on his behalf. The prosecuting team has indicated that they have intentions of calling for the death penalty if Kohberger is ultimately found guilty of the offenses.
The defense lawyers argue that Kohberger’s constitutional rights were breached when the law enforcement investigators used a technique known as Investigative Genetic Genealogy, abbreviated IGG, to identify probable suspects. In a court submission, they maintained that this constitutional infringement was the initial trigger for all investigations leveled against him.
They further expounded that, ‘Without the use of IGG, there wouldn’t have been a case against him, or even a request for his phone records, or the surveillance of his parent’s house, and no DNA would have been collected from the garbage disposed outside.’ The argue that since the IGG analysis was the basis of the entire investigation, all details mentioned in the affidavit should be discarded.
IGG is normally employed when DNA found at a crime scene doesn’t match any records within standard law enforcement databases. Under such circumstances, investigators scrutinize the variations, known as single nucleotide polymorphisms, present within the DNA sample. In this particular case, investigators claim they came across ‘touch DNA’ or trace DNA on a knife sheath that was unearthed in the students’ residence. This knife is believed to be the murder weapon.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted an IGG analysis on this DNA, which led to the identification of Kohberger as a plausible suspect. However, the prosecution, led by Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, maintains there isn’t anything unconstitutional about using IGG. They point out that Kohberger’s family willingly contributed their own DNA to a genetic genealogy service, hence there was no infringement of any rights.
The prosecution has further countered in their court submissions, stating that legal precedents have made it clear that defendants have no implicit privacy rights over DNA that is abandoned at a crime scene.
The defense lawyers raise another contention, stating that once Kohberger was flagged as a potential suspect, the law enforcement officers deliberately or carelessly misstated or omitted critical details when they requested the court to issue search warrants. These warrants covered his apartment, his parents’ home, his vehicle, his mobile phone, and even his own DNA. They are seeking to have all of that evidence excluded from the trial.
Details surrounding the alleged misconduct by police officers have not been disclosed to the public. Portions of the two-day hearing that commences on Thursday will be conducted behind closed doors. The judge has explained this decision by stating the need to prevent potential jurors from being ‘tainted’ due to exposure to evidence that might be ruled inadmissible at trial.
Despite these arguments, the judge appeared unmoved. He stated, ‘Given the current high level of media coverage surrounding this case, it is crucial we protect the jury pool. We aim to select a jury that hasn’t been extensively exposed to pre-trial coverage, specifically exposure to evidence that may be ruled out of the trial.’
He further disclosed that no individual will be allowed access to the courtroom during the private sections of the hearing. However, the judge confirmed that the portions of the hearing that are open to the public will be available to watch via livestream.