A judge in Idaho is set to weigh critical arguments surrounding the admissibility of evidence in the case against Bryan Kohberger, who is accused of killing four University of Idaho students. The two-day hearing, beginning Thursday, will address defense claims that the investigation relied on unconstitutional methods, including the use of genetic genealogy.
Kohberger, charged with the murders of Ethan Chapin, Xana Kernodle, Madison Mogen, and Kaylee Goncalves, could face the death penalty if convicted. The four students were fatally stabbed on November 13, 2022, at a rental home near the university’s Moscow campus.
Defense Challenges Investigative Genetic Genealogy
Kohberger’s defense team argues that the investigation improperly used Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) to identify him as a suspect. This technique matches DNA from crime scenes with genealogy databases to locate potential relatives. In this case, investigators used “touch DNA” found on a knife sheath at the crime scene, leading them to Kohberger.
In court filings, Kohberger’s attorneys asserted that the IGG process violated his constitutional rights, as it formed the basis for further evidence collection. “Without IGG, there is no case,” defense attorneys Jay Weston Logsdon and Ann Taylor wrote. They claim this method set off a chain reaction that included obtaining his phone records, surveillance footage, and DNA from his parents’ garbage.
Prosecution Defends Use of DNA Evidence
Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson and his team maintain that IGG is a lawful investigative tool. They argue that Kohberger’s relatives voluntarily submitted their DNA to genealogy databases, negating any privacy concerns. Prosecutors cite established legal precedent that defendants cannot claim a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.
Search Warrants and Alleged Police Misconduct
In addition to questioning the IGG process, Kohberger’s defense alleges police misconduct in securing search warrants for his apartment, parents’ house, vehicle, cellphone, and DNA. They claim law enforcement officers either misrepresented or omitted critical information when seeking judicial approval for the searches.
While details of the alleged misconduct remain sealed, the defense has requested that evidence obtained through these warrants be excluded from the trial.
Secrecy and Media Access Challenges
Fourth District Judge Steven Hippler has kept much of the case’s documentation under seal to protect potential jurors from being influenced by evidence that might later be deemed inadmissible. Part of the upcoming hearing will be held behind closed doors for the same reason.
A coalition of media organizations, including the Associated Press, has objected to the secrecy, arguing that transparency is essential to maintaining public trust. Wendy Olson, the media group’s attorney, emphasized the public’s right to know whether law enforcement acted improperly.
Despite these objections, Judge Hippler ruled to maintain confidentiality, citing concerns over the intense media scrutiny and its potential impact on jury selection. “We will be challenged under the best of circumstances in obtaining a jury that has not been overly exposed to this,” Hippler said.