4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #95

[wendy44]

It is exceedingly troublesome that the prosecution won't turn over the discovery concerning the exact steps it took to retrieve and compare DNA samples.

I'm not sure this is the right characterization. The defense was requesting the exact steps the FBI used to come up with a name from the unknown dna left on the sheath using Investigative Genetic Genealogy. The FBI was resisting this discovery request, saying those steps fell under investigative techniques and were not subject to discovery.

This is completely different than the retrieval of the dna from the sheath and the match of that sample to BK. The defense hasn't disputed the dna on the sheath matches BK.
IMO

 

[acutename]

I haven't followed this case closely for awhile. I did a search and found a source for issues with discovery back in May.

Has that been resolved or is it still a current problem?

Key evidence focus of hearings in Idaho slayings; prosecutor denies defense claim state withholding records

BOISE, Idaho — Consequential pieces of evidence that may weigh heavily into the prosecution and defense of Bryan Kohberger are the focus of a pair of closed-door hearings this week as his high-profile

www.columbian.com

is this usual:

" The judge handling the case entered a plea of not guilty for Kohberger when he chose to stay silent at his arraignment last year."

 

[Swansee]

It's too late for me to edit my previous post, so I 'll continue here:
Today, September 6, is the deadline for the State to hand over whatever discovery they haven't yet given. Defense has until January 9 to show theirs.
Meanwhile, the defense will begin filing their motions to suppress. They have until November 14 to do so, and then there will be a back and forth of responses and replies.The hearing on this matter will only take place in February. I really doubt that one will be open to the public, considering the topic is the evidence itself.

• 09/04/2024 States Response and Supplemental Responses to Defendants Requests for Discovery
• 09/05/2024 Expert Witness Disclosure
• 09/05/2024 Motion & Memorandum in Support of Motion to Trifurcate the Proceedings & Apply Rules of Evidence
• 09/05/2024 Motion for Court Order
• 09/05/2024 Motion to Strike Felony Murder Aggravator
• 09/05/2024 Motion to Strike Future Dangerousness Aggravator
• 09/05/2024 Motion to Strike HAC Aggravator
• 09/05/2024 Motion to Strike Multiple Victims Aggravator
• 09/05/2024 Motion to Strike Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty (Failure to Present Aggravators)
• 09/05/2024 Motion to Strike Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty (Vagueness)
• 09/05/2024 Motion to Strike Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty (Contemporary Standards of Decency)
• 09/05/2024 Motion to Strike Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty (International Law)
• 09/05/2024 Motion to Strike State's Notice Pursuant to IC 18-4004A on Grounds of Arbitrariness
• 09/05/2024 Motion to Strike the Death Penalty
• 09/05/2024 Motion to Strike Utter Disregard Aggravator

Aha! There they are...thanks for sharing, @Nila Aella ! That's my weekend reading cut out for me!
It looks like it was mostly Lodsden who wrote these. I find his style tedious. Ugh. I'll power through them anyway in the hopes there's something to learn from them.

 

[GRT]

It is exceedingly troublesome that the prosecution won't turn over the discovery concerning the exact steps it took to retrieve and compare DNA samples.

Isn't this unusual? For some reason, I thought the prosecution and the defense typically turned over their evidence to the opposing team.

I'm not suggesting the prosecution did anything wrong in their steps, but I feel they should be open about it.

I mean, it's not going to change the outcome. Right?

 

[GRT]

It's too late for me to edit my previous post, so I 'll continue here:
Today, September 6, is the deadline for the State to hand over whatever discovery they haven't yet given. Defense has until January 9 to show theirs.

SBM for focus.

So, after today, the Defense should have all the discovery, including the steps taken to obtain and test the DNA?

But with the gag order, we still may not know.

 

[Swansee]

SBM for focus.

So, after today, the Defense should have all the discovery, including the steps taken to obtain and test the DNA?

But with the gag order, we still may not know.

Agreed: We most probably won't know.
In fact, this was one of the Prosecution's points during the last hearing when they were arguing for keeping the trial in Moscow: They will request future hearings regarding discovery and evidence in general to be closed so as to not (further) taint the potential jury pool.

 

[Nila Aella]

It's too late for me to edit my previous post, so I 'll continue here:
Today, September 6, is the deadline for the State to hand over whatever discovery they haven't yet given. Defense has until January 9 to show theirs.
Meanwhile, the defense will begin filing their motions to suppress. They have until November 14 to do so, and then there will be a back and forth of responses and replies.The hearing on this matter will only take place in February. I really doubt that one will be open to the public, considering the topic is the evidence itself.


Aha! There they are...thanks for sharing, @Nila Aella ! That's my weekend reading cut out for me!
It looks like it was mostly Lodsden who wrote these. I find his style tedious. Ugh. I'll power through them anyway in the hopes there's something to learn from them.

YW!

The P did provide exhibits in a supplemental response to defendants supplemental discovery requests on 9/4/24.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/090424-States-Response-Supplemental-Responses-Defendant-RFD.pdf

COMES NOW the State ofIdaho, by and through the Latah County Prosecuting Attormey, and submits the attached Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, and O in supplemental response to Defendant's Request for Discovery and Defendant's Supplemental Requests 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16. The State submits the attached Exhibit P in response to Defendant's 17" Supplemental Request for Discovery.

Except on supplemental requests 3 and 15:

The State notes it has previously complied with the Defendant's Discovery Request pursuant to the Court's Order related to Defendant's Supplemental Requests 3 and 15 (IGG related materials).

Request 3

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/050323+Defendants+3rd+Supplemental+Request+for+Discovery.pdf

States response to 3

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/051223+States+Response+to+Defendants+Third+Supplemental+Request+for+Discovery.pdf

Request 15

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/032824_Defendants_15th_Supplemental_Request_for_Discovery.pdf

States response to 15

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/2024/040424-States-Objection-Defendants-15thSRD.pdf

JMO

 

[jepop]

I'm not sure this is the right characterization. The defense was requesting the exact steps the FBI used to come up with a name from the unknown dna left on the sheath using Investigative Genetic Genealogy. The FBI was resisting this discovery request, saying those steps fell under investigative techniques and were not subject to discovery.

This is completely different than the retrieval of the dna from the sheath and the match of that sample to BK. The defense hasn't disputed the dna on the sheath matches BK.
IMO

Reposting above poster's interpretation of what we know and/or might reasonably infer regarding DNA discovery in this case. I share this poster's view based on following the various motions submitted by defense re the IGG, the state motion for protective order and resulting back and forth responses, and judge's order of Jan this year giving defense access to all IGG then in possession of the state ( all supporting docs available on Idaho Courts cases of interest page).

All exhibits are under seal and specific hearings re IGG process undertaken by FBI have been closed to protect sensitive information (family tree developed by FBI for eg). Moo

The characterisation that prosecution has withheld the "exact steps it took to retrieve and compare DNA samples" is the opinion or interpretation of some, but based on what I'm not sure. According to everything in the available court docs the steps taken by ISL to extract the sheathe sample, develop str profile, run that through Codis, employ Othram to develop the snp profile to commence IGG are all in discovery. All scientific reports. Ditto for the whole process of obtaining the trash DNA sample from suspect's' parent's home for comparison with suspect sample from sheathe. Ditto for lab report comparing BK buccal swab with sheathe sample post arrest. All those reports are in discovery according to the docs already mentioned above.

Defense is, or at this point probably was (*see most recent discovery docs posted just now), after details of process FBI undertook using IGG as an investigative tool to develop their tip (BK' s name) for LE back in Dec 2022 imo. All moo.

 

[girlhasnoname]

There are strict guidelines on how GGI is performed and maintained and how information is destroyed at certain points after tests are completed per privacy and agency protocol.

Attached is an interesting read document that explains the process in more detail, it was written in 2019 and I'm sure there have been changes made during the past 5 years.

https://www.justice.gov/olp/page/file/1204386/dl

MOO