The defense lawyers representing a man from Pennsylvania, who is facing murder charges in relation to the deaths of four University of Idaho students, are requesting the court to dismiss a significant portion of the evidence presented in the case. Their argument is centered around the claim that the evidence heavily relies on an unconstitutional genetic investigation procedure.
Bryan Kohberger’s defense team argues that the search warrants in the case were compromised due to police misconduct. They presented their arguments during a two-day hearing that began on Thursday morning, with a portion of the proceedings being closed to the public. If they succeed, it could significantly disrupt the prosecution’s case before the trial commences in August.
Kohberger was raised in Monroe County and pursued his education at Northampton Community College in Bethlehem Township. He furthered his studies at DeSales University in Upper Saucon Township, where he obtained both a bachelor’s and master’s degree.
The defendant faces four charges of murder for causing the deaths of Ethan Chapin, Xana Kernodle, Madison Mogen, and Kaylee Goncalves. These tragic incidents occurred in the early hours of November 13, 2022, at a rental home near the campus in Moscow, Idaho. During the plea hearing, Kohberger chose to remain silent, resulting in the judge entering a not-guilty plea on his behalf. Prosecutors have expressed their intention to pursue the death penalty in the event that Kohberger is found guilty.
According to Kohberger’s attorneys, his constitutional rights were violated when law enforcement utilized Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) to determine potential suspects.
“There would be no investigation into him without that original constitutional violation,” attorneys Jay Weston Logsdon and Ann Taylor wrote in a court filing. They later continued, “Without IGG, there is no case, no request for his phone records, surveillance of his parents’ home, no DNA taken from the garbage out front. Because the IGG analysis is the origin of this matter, everything in the affidavit should be excised.”
The process of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) typically begins when standard law enforcement databases fail to produce any matches from DNA evidence collected at a crime scene. In such cases, investigators may turn to examining the variations in the DNA sample, known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). These SNPs are then uploaded to genealogy databases like GEDmatch or FamilyTreeDNA, where potential relatives of the individual whose DNA was found at the scene can be identified.
Investigators discovered trace DNA, known as “touch DNA,” on the sheath of a knife found at the crime scene where the students were tragically stabbed. By utilizing the IGG process, the FBI was able to analyze this DNA and determine that Kohberger could potentially be a suspect.
Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson and the prosecution team maintain that the use of IGG is constitutional. They point out that Kohberger’s family members willingly submitted their DNA to a genetic genealogy service. In court documents, they argue that established case law unequivocally establishes that defendants do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.
The defense team argues that when Kohberger was suspected as a potential culprit, law enforcement officers deliberately or negligently provided false information or withheld important details while obtaining search warrants for his apartment, his parents’ house, his car, his cellphone, and even his DNA. They are urging the court to exclude all of this evidence from the trial.
Details regarding the alleged police misconduct are being kept confidential from the public. Judge Steven Hippler of the 4th District has chosen to seal most of the court filings related to this case, as well as the court documents regarding the evidence from the IGG. During the upcoming hearing, a portion of the proceedings will be conducted in private. The judge’s reasoning behind this decision is to prevent potential jurors from being influenced by any evidence that might not be admissible during the trial.
