Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Mega Edition: Bryan Kohberger And The 3rd Motion To Compel Discovery (8/25/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Bryan Kohberger And The 3rd Motion To Compel Discovery (8/25/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. In this episode,
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: we're going to dive right back into those core documents,
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: and we're going to start with the defendant second motion
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: to compel Discovery Case number c R twenty nine DASH
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: twenty two DASH zero zero zero two eight zero five
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: the State of Idaho plaintiff versus Brian C.
• 0:22
  Speaker 2: Coburger.
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: The defendant comes now Brian C. Coburger buy and, through
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: his attorney and C. Taylor, public defender, and pursuant to
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: Idaho Criminal Rule sixteen F, hereby moves the Court to
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: order the State to comply with the defendants first and
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: second supplemental requests for discovery and Exhibit A and Exhibit
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: B attached to the requests. The State has provided a
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: significant amount of discovery materials and has provided written responses
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: to the discovery requests. However, certain requests remain outstanding. As such,
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: mister Hoburger requests in order for the State to disclose
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: the following items included in defendants first and second supplemental
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: Requests for Discovery. Number one Request one investigative reports and
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: conclusions from all cell phone analysis, including but not limited to,
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: any analysis conducted by police agencies, FBI, Cast Team.
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: Or other Idaho authorities.
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: The state has responded by listing page numbers and audio
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: video file names of information and data provided to the
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: defense in discovery. As of June thirteenth, twenty twenty three,
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: Council for Mister Coberger has not received any investigative reports
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: and conclusions of the analysis of this data conducted by
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: police agencies. Two Request number four All footage provided to
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: forensic examiners with FBI used to identify make and model
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: of the vehicle. A, All reports generated related to the
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: identification of the white Lantra. B All reports, communication and
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: documentation related to the change in year of the white
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: Alantra that was sought c CV of credentials of forensic examiners.
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: The state has responded by listing various page numbers and
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: file names of recordings.
• 2:25
  Speaker 2: They have previously provided.
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: However, they do not provide any reports generated, communications and
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: documents relating to the change in year of the white
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: Lantra or the CV or identity of the forensic examiner
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: who identified this as the make and model of the vehicle.
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: Three Request number seventeen. Please see Exhibit A to defendants.
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: First Supplemental discovery request for specifics. The State has responded
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: that they are attempting to obtain this information. If it exists.
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: The State will comply with this request upon receipt. As
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: of June fourteenth, twenty twenty three, Council for mister Coberger
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: has not received this information. Number four Request twenty three
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: Please see Exhibit A. To defendant's first supplemental discovery request
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: for specifics, the State responded that they have provided AV
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: zero zero zero one two three discovered on the thirtieth
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: of March twenty twenty three. However, the provided recording is
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: an in person interview with FBI agents rather than the
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: phone interview done by Moscow Police. Five Request one oh
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: nine identity of FBI special agent that is a member
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: of the Cellular Analysis Survey team that was consulted with
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: to determine the locations of the cell phone from eleven
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: twelve and eleven thirteen, and all cast certification records and
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: training records for the involved agents. The State objected to
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: this request for the reason that this is outside the
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: scope of I dot seed dot R dot sixteen. To
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: the extent that the State intends to offer expert testimony,
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: it will comply with I dot seed dot R sixteen
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: Part B, Section seven. Mister Kolberger disagrees, as this information
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: was largely relied upon in various warrants, including the arrest warrant.
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: Information relied upon to secure search and arrest warrants is
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: necessary to conduct analysis of the Fourth Amendment issues. Further,
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: the entirety of the information could include materials required under Brady,
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: Idaho Criminal Rule sixteen covers broader area than the evidentiary
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: rules of admissibility. Six Requests one twenty and one forty
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: all tips received by law enforcement relating to this case.
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: The state has provided various tips throughout discovery. However, they
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: are scattered in pieces throughout the discovery. A complete and
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: chronological list of all tips has not been proved. Seven
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: Request one thirty six all audio recordings relating to all
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: search warrants obtained in this matter. The state has responded
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: that they are attempting to obtain this information. If it exists.
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: The state will comply with this request upon receipt. The
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: defense has been provided with all photograph of a DVD
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: entered into evidence as item four thirty five twenty three
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: M zero zero eight five labeled as sw audio There
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: is also notation that this DVD was copied to County
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: on one thirteen, twenty three, Number eight Request one sixty
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: four body cam recordings, notes, photographs and all information collected
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: at the autopsies by Tolasin, Vargas and Gunnerson. The State
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: responded that they do not have these items in its possession.
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: Clarification is needed on if they exist and are still
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: in the possession of another agency. Council requests that this
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: motion be set for hearing in order to present oral argument, evidence,
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: and or testimony in support thereof. Requested time is twenty minutes.
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: This was dated on June fifteenth of twenty twenty three
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: and was signed by Ann Taylor. The next document we
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: have is the objection to the motion to stay proceedings
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: by the State of Idaho. Case number c R twenty
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: nine DASH twenty two DASH twenty eight oh five. Objection
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: to motion to state proceedings State of Idaho Plaintiff versus
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: Brian Colberger. The defendant comes now the State of Idaho,
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: by and through the Layta County Prosecuting Attorney, and objects
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: to Defendant's motion to state proceedings for the following reasons.
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: Defendant's motion should be denied background. On May sixteenth, twenty
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: twenty three, defendant was indicted by a Leayta County grand
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: jury of four counts of first degree murder and one
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: count of burglary. Three days later, on May nineteenth, defendant
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: filed the motion requesting release of grand jury materials under
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: qualified protected order, motion to enlarge time to file pre
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: trial motions, and motion to make available the record of
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: all proceedings of the grand jury. On May twenty sixth,
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: the state filed its response to Defendant's motion to enlarge time.
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: The state noted that it did not object to Defendant's
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: motion to enlarged time and went a step further by
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: concurring in his request for additional time. On May thirtieth,
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: the state filed its response to Defendant's motions regarding grand
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: jury record and transcript and a proposed order for preparation
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: and release of transcript and record of grand jury proceedings
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: with conditions as noted in that response. The state had
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: also provided a proposed stipulation to Defendant's council on May
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: twenty fifth, after the parties were unabled to reach an
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: agreement as to the scope of grand jury materials that
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: would be subject to release. The State submitted its supplemental
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: response to Defendant's motions regarding grand jury record and transcript
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: on June sixth. On June thirteenth, the defendant filed a
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: reply to state supplemental response to Defendant's motions regarding grand
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: jury record and transcript, addressing the substantive legal arguments that
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: State set forth in its June sixth supplemental response. Also
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: on June thirteenth, the defendant filed a motion to stay proceedings.
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: Defendant asserts that he intends to contest the indictment defense
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: motion to stay Page two, and ask this court to
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: stay the matter so that he may discover the grounds
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: upon which to file a motion to dismiss related to
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: the how the grand jury was selected Idaho at two
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: and three. In his motion to stay, Defendant relies solely
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: on Idaho Code Section two dash two thirteen.
• 9:00
  Speaker 2: Argument.
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: Defendant's reliance on Idaho Code Section two thirteen is misplaced.
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: The statute provides that a party can request a stay
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: in proceedings where there has been a substantial failure to
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: comply with the applicable law in selecting the grand jury
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: or trial jury. Idaho Code two dash two thirteen, Section one.
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: Under section two two thirteen, a motion to stay must
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: contain a sworn statement of facts which, if true, would
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: constitute a substantial failure to comply with this chapter Idaho Code,
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: Section two to thirteen. Only after the court determines that
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: a substantial failure to comply has occurred can the matter
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: be stayed upon the motion filed under the sub section
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: one of the section containing a sworn statement of facts which,
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: if true, would constitute a substantial failure to comply with
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: this chapter. The moving party is entitled to present in
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: support of the motion the testimony of the jury commissioner
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: or the clerk, any relevant records in papers not public
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: or otherwise available used by the jury commissioner or the clerk,
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: and any of the relevant evidence. If the Court determines that,
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: in selecting either a grand jury or a trial jury,
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: there has been a substantial failure to comply with this chapter,
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: the Court shall stay the proceedings pending the selection of
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: the jury in conformity with this chapter, quash an indictment,
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: or grant other appropriate relief. As the plain language of
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: the statute makes clear, a moving party must make a
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: factual showing of substantial failure to comply with the statute,
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: and only after a court makes a finding that such
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: failure to comply occurred can the court stay the matter.
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: Defendant's motion is deficient because he did not include a
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: sworn statement of facts, which, if true, would constitute a
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: substantial failure to comply with this chapter. Rather than include
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: a sworn statement with this motion, defended asserts in a
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: footnote that mister Coberger will comply with filing a sworn
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: statement of facts in accordance with I dot ce dot
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: two Dash two thirteen, as soon as he has the
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: grand jury record. By including this promise to file a
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: sworn statement in the future, Defendant implicitly concedes that his
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: motion is deficient at the present because defendant has failed
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: to comply with this key requirement of Idaho Code section
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: two Dash two thirteen, his motion should be denied. Conclusion,
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: Defendant asks this court to put the cart before the horse.
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: Stay the case now, and Defendant will give the court
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: a basis for this day later. The Court should decline
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: to adopt this backward reading of the requirements of Idaho
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: Code section two Dash two thirteen. Defendant's motion should be denied,
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: respectfully submitted this fifteenth day of June, and this was
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: signed by William Thompson. All Right, folks, that's going to
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: do it for this one. All of the information that
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: goes with the episode can be found in the description box.
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: this episode, we're gonna jump right back into those court
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: documents and we're going to take a look at some
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: of the new filings to hit the docket. The first
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: filing we're going to look at is the defendant's third
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: motion to compel discovery, Case number CR twenty nine DASH
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: twenty two DASH zero zero zero two eight zero five,
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: State of Idaho, Plaintiff versus Brian C.
• 12:33
  Speaker 2: Coberger.
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: The defendant comes now Brian C. Coberger, buying through his
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: attorney and C. Taylor, public defender, and pursueant to Idaho
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: Criminal Rule sixteen f. Hereby moves the Court to order
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: the State to comply with the defendants third supplemental Requests
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: for Discovery, filed herein on or about May second, twenty
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: twenty three. Mister Coberger requests and order for the State
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: to disclose the following items included in the Defendant's third
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: supplemental requests for discovery standard lab discovery three profiles uploaded
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: to a DNA database. In the event that the case
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: involves the upload of a DNA profile to either a local,
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: state or national database, please provide all documentation maintained by
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: the testing laboratory, including documentation maintained by Combined DNA Index
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: System CODIS personnel within the laboratory, including profiles that have
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: been identified as unknown males not the defendant. Three dot
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: one documentation of all uploads, including interpretation, end or deconvolutions
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: of mixed profiles, handwritten notes, spreadsheets, match estimator results, upload
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: and code IS search forms.
• 14:03
  Speaker 2: Three dot two. For each hit, Please provide match.
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: Detail reports and long form candidate match reports for the hits,
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: including partial hits and hits that are dispositioned to be
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: non matching, even if the laboratory has dispositioned a profile
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: as a hit. Three dot three any state manuals regarding
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: the use of the SDIS and NDIS database systems. Three
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: dot four Any hits made to any profile uploaded, even
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: if they hit on individuals not the defendant and deemed
• 14:40
  Speaker 1: to not be candidate matches, including hits to any unknown
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: males identified via testing. The state has provided information related
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: to this request for the DNA on the snap of
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: the knife sheath only. The defense has requested all DNA profiles,
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: including additional pro files developed during the course of law
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: enforcement investigation. See Declarations of Council for mister Coburger, Bicka Barlow,
• 15:09
  Speaker 1: and Steve Mercer, filed simultaneously. Number six Communications. Please provide
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: a copy of all communications between the laboratory personnel and
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: any other party with regard to biological testing in this case,
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: including letters, memos, emails, texts, and records of telephone conversations.
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: These materials should include communications with regard to outsourcing of
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: DNA testing, statistical calculations, and DNA profiles uploaded to a database.
• 15:44
  Speaker 1: All emails, text messages, electronic messages or other messages have
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: not been provided. See Declarations of Council for Mister Colberger,
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: bick A, Barlow, and Steve Mercer, filed simultaneously. Unexpected Results
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: and Corrective Actions for each laboratory that performed DNA testing
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: in this case, please provide copies of the laboratory's logs
• 16:12
  Speaker 1: of unexpected results and corrective actions. The logs should be
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: provided for the time period beginning six months before the
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: start of testing and ending six months after the completion
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: of testing. Documentation should be provided for unexpected result events
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: that arose due to mechanical, chemical, and or analyst operations,
• 16:36
  Speaker 1: including contamination, the presence of extraneous DNA sample handling errors,
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: or any other reason. The logs should be provided for
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: all laboratory personnel, not just the analysts who perform the
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: testing in this case. Please note this is a request
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: for the logs themselves, not just for the entries within
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: the logs that pertain to this case. Unexpected results and
• 17:02
  Speaker 1: corrective actions were requested for the six months before and
• 17:06
  Speaker 1: six months after testing related to the case. Only entries
• 17:10
  Speaker 1: relating to the lab personnel in this case were provided.
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: See Declarations of Council for mister Koberger, Bicka, Barlow, and
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: Steve Mercer filed simultaneously. Genetic Genealogy Testing and Search. One
• 17:26
  Speaker 1: all reports generated by any lab that conducted SNP testing
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: on any sample in the case, including from samples where
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: unknown mails not the defendant were identified. Two copies of
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: all communications between laboratory personnel and any other person or
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: organization with regard to the instant case, including letters memos, emails,
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: internet posts, press releases, and records of other communications, including
• 17:57
  Speaker 1: communications with regard to any DNA profile uploaded to any
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: public or private DNA database.
• 18:05
  Speaker 2: Three.
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: All documentation associated with any database search, including but not
• 18:11
  Speaker 1: limited to, codis, NDIS, gd match, family tree, DNA and
• 18:17
  Speaker 1: or fell in databases, case simple databases, missing persons databases,
• 18:23
  Speaker 1: and internal quality assurance databases. The documentation should include, but
• 18:29
  Speaker 1: is not limited to, the input profile, the input search parameters,
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: the search output, all reports, all correspondents, and any follow
• 18:38
  Speaker 1: up actions. Number four All documents related to any genetic
• 18:43
  Speaker 1: genealogy search, including but not limited to, the creation of
• 18:48
  Speaker 1: a user profile, accounts, or account information, automated search results,
• 18:53
  Speaker 1: uploading of data, all queries and search results from any
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: private or public day data bank or data banks, family
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: tree information, and all other documents, reports, notes, or other
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: communications pertaining to genealogy, DNA database searches.
• 19:13
  Speaker 2: Five.
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: All documents related to any genetic genealogy investigation, including but
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: not limited to, additional collection and door testing of DNA samples,
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: notes of any interviews, documents obtained related to ancestry, and
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: or recommendations for further testing. Number six All documents related
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: to the comparison of any DNA samples collected during the
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: genealogy investigation to crime scene evidence seven. The name and
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: address of all persons found to have sufficient sharing sent
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: a Morgans with the subject profile to be identified as
• 19:54
  Speaker 1: a match in the report created. In this case, the
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: State is objected to this discovery re request. Further, the
• 20:01
  Speaker 1: State is file the motion for a protective order. Mister
• 20:05
  Speaker 1: Coberger incorporates herein his objection to the State's motion for
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: protective order, as well as declarations of council for mister Coberger,
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: Picko Barlowe and Steve Mercer in support of Defendant's motion
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: to compel. Council requests at this motion be set for
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: hearing in order to present oral argument, evidence, and or
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: testimony in support thereof. The requested time is ten to
• 20:33
  Speaker 1: twenty minutes. This was dated on the twenty second of
• 20:37
  Speaker 1: June of twenty twenty three and it was signed by
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: Ann Taylor. The next document we have is the order
• 20:44
  Speaker 1: to file defense counsels first sworn statement of facts in
• 20:48
  Speaker 1: support of motion to state proceedings under seal. Try and
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: say that three times fast State of Idaho Plaintiff versus
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: Brian C. Coberger, the defendant. You made this the Court
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: having before it the Defendant's motion defile Defense Council's first
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: sworn statement of facts in support of motion to stay
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: proceedings under seal and good cause appearing now. Therefore, it
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: is hereby ordered that Defense Councils first sworn statement of
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: facts in support of motion to stay proceedings shall be
• 21:20
  Speaker 1: filed under seal pursuant to I Dot seed dot a
• 21:24
  Speaker 1: dot R thirty two I one. This document was signed
• 21:28
  Speaker 1: by Judge Judge and it was dated June twenty third
• 21:32
  Speaker 1: of twenty twenty three. And the final document we have
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: is the motion to temporarily seal Exhibit A of the
• 21:40
  Speaker 1: proposed Order for preparation and release of transcript and Record
• 21:45
  Speaker 1: of grand jury Proceedings with conditions. State of Idaho Plaintiff
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: versus Brian Christopher Coberger, the defendant. The State of Idaho
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: buy and, through the Leata County Prosecuting Attorney, respectfully moves
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: the Court pursue into Idaho Court Administrative Rule thirty two
• 22:03
  Speaker 1: G one, Idaho Criminal Rule six, and Idaho Code nineteen
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: Dash eleven twelve and seventy four Dash one twenty four
• 22:13
  Speaker 1: for a temporary order sealing Exhibit A attached to the Order
• 22:18
  Speaker 1: for Preparation and Release of Transcript and Record of grand
• 22:21
  Speaker 1: Jury Proceedings, with conditions herein to protect the confidentiality of
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: the grand jury, and because release or disclosure would one
• 22:32
  Speaker 1: interfere with enforcement proceedings, two deprive a person of a
• 22:37
  Speaker 1: right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication, two constitute
• 22:42
  Speaker 1: an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, three disclose the identity
• 22:47
  Speaker 1: of a confidential source, and or four disclose investigative techniques
• 22:52
  Speaker 1: and procedures. The state seeks its protection pending a hearing
• 22:56
  Speaker 1: on the matter. Wherefore, the State respectfully praise that the
• 23:00
  Speaker 1: Court seal from public disclosure Exhibit A attached to the
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: Order for Preparation and Release of Transcript and Record of
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: grand Jury Proceedings, with conditions herein, under the provisions of
• 23:13
  Speaker 1: Idaho Court Administrative Rule thirty two G one and Idaho
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: Criminal Rule six end Idaho Code nineteen Dash eleven twelve
• 23:22
  Speaker 1: D seventy four Dash one twenty four. Respectfully submitted this
• 23:27
  Speaker 1: twenty third day of June twenty twenty three, and this
• 23:30
  Speaker 1: was signed by William Thompson. All Right, folks, that's going
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: to do it for this one. All of the information
• 23:36
  Speaker 1: that goes with the episode can be found in the
• 23:39
  Speaker 1: description box. What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program.
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: In this episode, we're going to dive right back into
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: those core documents and we're going to take a look
• 23:51
  Speaker 1: at an C. Taylor's declaration in support of defendants third
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: Motion to Compel Case number c r T twenty nine
• 24:00
  Speaker 1: DASH twenty two DASH zero zero zero two eight zero five.
• 24:05
  Speaker 1: State of Idaho Plaintiff first Brian C. Coberger, the defendant
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: I and C. Taylor do state and declare one. Council
• 24:14
  Speaker 1: for mister Colberger filed a specific request for discovery related
• 24:19
  Speaker 1: to the DNA in this case, titled Defendant's third Supplemental
• 24:23
  Speaker 1: Request for Discovery two. The State filed a specific response
• 24:29
  Speaker 1: to that request. After reviewing the materials provided, the following
• 24:33
  Speaker 1: remains to be discovered. A requests three profiles uploaded to
• 24:38
  Speaker 1: a DNA database. The State has provided information related to
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: this request for the seized item, the knife sheath only.
• 24:47
  Speaker 1: The defense has requested all DNA profiles, including three additional
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: unidentified mail DNA profiles developed during the course of law
• 24:58
  Speaker 1: enforcements investigation. This information has not been supplied. B Request
• 25:05
  Speaker 1: six Communications. The State has not provided all emails, text messages,
• 25:11
  Speaker 1: electronic messages or other messages and conversations regarding biological testing
• 25:17
  Speaker 1: in this investigation. C Requests nine to ten unexpected results
• 25:24
  Speaker 1: and corrective actions. This request has been partially complied with. However,
• 25:29
  Speaker 1: the response lacks the full scope of the request. Six
• 25:33
  Speaker 1: months before and six months after testing related to this investigation,
• 25:38
  Speaker 1: Further information relating to all lab personnel has not been provided.
• 25:44
  Speaker 2: Three.
• 25:45
  Speaker 1: Part of the third supplemental discovery request was for materials
• 25:49
  Speaker 1: related to genetic genealogy testing A. The State is objected
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: to this request in its entirety and has filed a
• 25:59
  Speaker 1: mon for a protective order. Counsel for mister Colberger requests
• 26:04
  Speaker 1: this Court consider the contemporaneous objection to the State's motion
• 26:09
  Speaker 1: and declaration in support of the motion to compel. The
• 26:13
  Speaker 1: requested discovery is properly sought. Pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule sixteen.
• 26:20
  Speaker 1: This discovery is necessary to the preparation of mister Coberger's defense.
• 26:25
  Speaker 2: One.
• 26:26
  Speaker 1: Council for mister Colberger has reviewed the materials provided in
• 26:29
  Speaker 1: the case regarding the DNA testing laboratory reports, Bench notes
• 26:35
  Speaker 1: and photographs. Further, experts in the field of genetic genealogy
• 26:39
  Speaker 1: and DNA have consulted and offered information and guidance. The
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: State acknowledges it used genetic genealogy testing in this case,
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: but claims it does not have to produce the records.
• 26:53
  Speaker 1: In the specific request for discovery. The defense disagrees two
• 26:59
  Speaker 1: Council has learned through consultation with experts and sources reference below,
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: that the use of genetic genealogy databases does not necessarily
• 27:08
  Speaker 1: lead to a single individual as a potential suspect, and
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: that reports of these searches often reference multiple individuals for
• 27:17
  Speaker 1: further investigation and DNA testing. In fact, the state acknowledges
• 27:23
  Speaker 1: such in its motion for protective order when it acknowledges
• 27:27
  Speaker 1: hundreds of relatives Page five Motion for Protection Order. The
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: testing conducted by a private lab is completely different in
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: nature than the testing done by forensic labs. Genetic genealogy
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: labs do not generate a profile in the same way
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: that forensic labs do, and there cannot be a direct
• 27:47
  Speaker 1: comparison between the data obtained in this case by the
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: Idaho State Forensic Crime Lab and the private lab. The
• 27:55
  Speaker 1: tests used by a private lab are either SNP single
• 28:00
  Speaker 1: nucleotide polymorphisms or whole genome sequencing. These tests are similar
• 28:06
  Speaker 1: to the methods used by commercial services such as twenty
• 28:10
  Speaker 1: three and meters and ancestry dot com. Now you see
• 28:14
  Speaker 1: why I added the beginner's Guide to DNA for people
• 28:18
  Speaker 1: who might not have any idea what we're talking about.
• 28:20
  Speaker 1: That'll give you a bit of a reference point.
• 28:24
  Speaker 2: Three.
• 28:25
  Speaker 1: Based upon information from experts in the field, I have
• 28:28
  Speaker 1: learned that once a genetic genealogy profile is created and
• 28:32
  Speaker 1: the testing by the private lab is completed, the profile
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: is uploaded to a database that contains similar data from
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: other individuals. Once the genetic genealogy profile is uploaded, the
• 28:45
  Speaker 1: profile is compared within that database and relatives are identified.
• 28:51
  Speaker 1: Number four. It is my understanding that once possible relatives
• 28:56
  Speaker 1: have been identified, their identities are used to construct a
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: family tree to identify possible suspects, using public records and
• 29:06
  Speaker 1: in some instances contacting individuals for further family information. This
• 29:12
  Speaker 1: process leads to a pool of individuals rather than one
• 29:15
  Speaker 1: specific individual. The possibility of other relatives who might be
• 29:20
  Speaker 1: similar to mister Colberger is extremely important to the defense
• 29:24
  Speaker 1: in this case. The processes used in this method of
• 29:28
  Speaker 1: identification may be extremely important to mister Colberger's defense. The
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: timing and steps utilized are extremely important to mister Colberger's
• 29:38
  Speaker 1: investigation and defense.
• 29:40
  Speaker 2: Five.
• 29:41
  Speaker 1: I have reviewed a copy of an Idaho State Police
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: announcement dated July twenty eighth, twenty twenty one that the
• 29:48
  Speaker 1: Idaho State Police Forensic Service Laboratory secured a grant the
• 29:53
  Speaker 1: fung genetic genealogy testing for unsolved Idaho cases. See attached
• 29:58
  Speaker 1: exhibit A. ISPFS contracted with Authroom Laboratories in Texas. The
• 30:05
  Speaker 1: bad news for the defense here. Authroom is one of
• 30:08
  Speaker 1: the premier laboratories in the business, and IFMS getting the
• 30:12
  Speaker 1: results they're getting, chances are your client's cooked. Number six.
• 30:18
  Speaker 1: The US Department of Justice issued its Interim Policy for
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: Forensic Genetic Genealogical DNA Analysis and Search in twenty nineteen.
• 30:29
  Speaker 1: The policy describes the process that law enforcement engages in
• 30:33
  Speaker 1: during these searches and the results. In limitations of the method,
• 30:38
  Speaker 1: the identified individuals are one or more genetic associations. That
• 30:43
  Speaker 1: means that the door of the forensic or reference sample
• 30:48
  Speaker 1: may be related to a service user emphasis added, which
• 30:52
  Speaker 1: may require additional investigative work and testing. If a suspect
• 30:56
  Speaker 1: is identified, the agency is required to retain all FGG profiles,
• 31:02
  Speaker 1: account information, and data for potential use during prosecution and
• 31:07
  Speaker 1: subsequent judicial proceedings. See attached Exhibit B number seven. A
• 31:14
  Speaker 1: new collaborative, National Technology Validation and Implementation Collaborative was established
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: in twenty twenty two. Its purpose is to collaborate and
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: formulate methods and policy for labs and law enforcement to
• 31:29
  Speaker 1: establish forensic investigative genetic genealogy programs. The collaborative contributed to
• 31:36
  Speaker 1: a forensic science journal. The publication includes contributors from Idaho
• 31:41
  Speaker 1: Rileyan nauln, Idaho State Police Forensic Services, and Alanaminton, Office
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: of the Attorney General, State of Idaho. This publication includes
• 31:51
  Speaker 1: reference to the aforementioned US Department of Justice interim policy.
• 31:57
  Speaker 1: Of particular note is the policy of release of information
• 32:01
  Speaker 1: in accordance with rules of discovery. See attached Exhibit C
• 32:06
  Speaker 1: number eight. I am aware of specific news reports in
• 32:09
  Speaker 1: this case regarding mister Coberger's DNA, as published by the
• 32:14
  Speaker 1: New York Times on June eleventh, twenty twenty three, that
• 32:18
  Speaker 1: FBI personnel work with the profile that ATAM had produced.
• 32:22
  Speaker 1: Spending days building out a family tree that began with
• 32:27
  Speaker 1: distant relatives. Number nine, The New York Times source have
• 32:32
  Speaker 1: more information than the State has disclosed to the defense.
• 32:36
  Speaker 1: This New York Times article generated intense media coverage and interest,
• 32:41
  Speaker 1: the scope of which is explained in the true Scope
• 32:44
  Speaker 1: report attached as Exhibit D Number ten. In addition, mister
• 32:50
  Speaker 1: Coberger's defense team has discussed the use of stats in
• 32:54
  Speaker 1: this type of case with experts who have informed me
• 32:58
  Speaker 1: that the manner of identifying mister Coburger via this type
• 33:02
  Speaker 1: of search may have significant impacts on the statistical analysis
• 33:06
  Speaker 1: of the CODIS profile generated by the Idaho State Police Lab.
• 33:12
  Speaker 2: Without access to the actual.
• 33:13
  Speaker 1: Genetic genealogy search methods and results, it is impossible for
• 33:18
  Speaker 1: qualified experts to address these issues. Number eleven. Council for
• 33:24
  Speaker 1: mister Colberger notes that the state utilized a statistical analysis
• 33:28
  Speaker 1: number to claim a high likelihood of a match between
• 33:32
  Speaker 1: the DNA on the sheath and that of mister Coburger.
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: The State, by its own admission, has taken a number
• 33:38
  Speaker 1: of steps to identify mister Coberger as a match. The
• 33:43
  Speaker 1: statistical probability is not an absolute. The size of comparison
• 33:47
  Speaker 1: sample and the nature of the search are important to
• 33:50
  Speaker 1: ascertain conclusion bias. And finally, number twelve, mister Coberger has
• 33:56
  Speaker 1: a right to effective assistance of council. He has a
• 33:59
  Speaker 1: right to front evidence. Counsel must undertake a thorough investigation
• 34:04
  Speaker 1: of all parts of the case the state brings against
• 34:07
  Speaker 1: mister Coberger. As such, the genetic genealogy investigation and process
• 34:13
  Speaker 1: is necessary for the defense team to do its job.
• 34:17
  Speaker 1: I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is
• 34:20
  Speaker 1: true and correct, and that those matters stated upon information
• 34:25
  Speaker 1: and belief are true to the best of my knowledge.
• 34:29
  Speaker 1: Dated this twenty second day of June and signed by
• 34:32
  Speaker 1: Anne Taylor. All right, folks, that's gonna do it for
• 34:35
  Speaker 1: this one. All of the information that goes with this
• 34:38
  Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box. Hello, what's
• 34:43
  Speaker 1: up everyone, and welcome back to the program. In this episode,
• 34:47
  Speaker 1: we're going to dive back into the Murder in Moscow
• 34:50
  Speaker 1: court documents and take a look at some of the
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: orders and various filings from the past few days. So
• 34:58
  Speaker 1: let's just dive right in and get started. The first
• 35:02
  Speaker 1: document that we have is the State supplemental response to
• 35:06
  Speaker 1: defendants fourth Supplemental request for discovery Case number c R
• 35:11
  Speaker 1: twenty nine DASH twenty two DASH twenty eight oh five
• 35:15
  Speaker 1: State of Idaho Plaintiff first Brian C. Coberger, the defendant
• 35:21
  Speaker 1: to the defendant Brian Christopher Coburger and Council and Taylor
• 35:26
  Speaker 1: comes now the State of Idaho buy and through the
• 35:29
  Speaker 1: Lata County Prosecuting Attorney, and submits the following supplemental response
• 35:34
  Speaker 1: to the defendant's fourth supplemental requests for discovery filed on
• 35:39
  Speaker 1: June sixteenth, twenty twenty three, which is attached as Exhibit one.
• 35:44
  Speaker 1: The State incorporates its January twenty third, twenty twenty three.
• 35:48
  Speaker 1: State's response to request for discovery dated February twenty first,
• 35:53
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty three. State's response to defendant's first supplemental request
• 35:58
  Speaker 1: for discovery dated March twenty ninth, twenty twenty three. State
• 36:02
  Speaker 1: response to Defendant's second supplemental requests for discovery dated May twelfth,
• 36:08
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty three. State's response to Defendant's third supplemental request
• 36:12
  Speaker 1: for discovery dated May twelfth, twenty twenty three. State's response
• 36:17
  Speaker 1: to Defendant's motion to compel discovery dated June eighth, twenty
• 36:21
  Speaker 1: twenty three. State supplemental response to defendants first, second, and
• 36:25
  Speaker 1: third supplemental requests for discovery dated June sixteenth, twenty twenty three,
• 36:31
  Speaker 1: and State response to defendants fourth supplemental requests for discovery
• 36:35
  Speaker 1: as if fully set fourth. At this point, the State
• 36:39
  Speaker 1: has and will continue to provide discovery in accordance with
• 36:43
  Speaker 1: Idaho Criminal Rule sixteen and applicable law. This was signed
• 36:48
  Speaker 1: by Ashley Jennings. The next document we have is the
• 36:53
  Speaker 1: Order Clarifying meaning of Agents and revised a Mended non
• 36:57
  Speaker 1: Dissemination Order, Case number twenty nine Dashed twenty two DASH
• 37:03
  Speaker 1: twenty eight oh five, State of Daho Plaintiff first Brian C. Coberger,
• 37:08
  Speaker 1: the defendant. On June twenty third, twenty twenty three, the
• 37:12
  Speaker 1: Court issued or revised Amended non Dissemination Order revised Order.
• 37:16
  Speaker 1: Accompanying the revised order were two lengthy opinions, Order denying
• 37:21
  Speaker 1: Shannon Gray's request to be exempt from the amended non
• 37:25
  Speaker 1: dissemination Order and granting request that the order be clarified,
• 37:29
  Speaker 1: and Order denying the Associated Press's motion to vacate the
• 37:34
  Speaker 1: amended non dissemination Order. In this Court's view, those opinions
• 37:38
  Speaker 1: made clear that agents of attorneys involved in the case,
• 37:42
  Speaker 1: including law enforcement, could have and would have their speech
• 37:45
  Speaker 1: regulated under the revised Amended Non Dissemination Order. However, following
• 37:51
  Speaker 1: the issuance of this decision and the revised order, the
• 37:55
  Speaker 1: Court took judicial notice of some news articles stating that
• 37:58
  Speaker 1: law enforcement were no longer bound by the revised order.
• 38:03
  Speaker 1: In an effort to clarify that misunderstanding, this Court issues
• 38:07
  Speaker 1: the following guidance. The revised order applies to the prosecuting attorneys,
• 38:12
  Speaker 1: defense attorneys, any agents of the prosecuting attorneys and defense attorneys,
• 38:18
  Speaker 1: and any attorneys representing witnesses, victims, or the victim's families.
• 38:23
  Speaker 1: These individuals are not completely barred from speaking about the case,
• 38:27
  Speaker 1: but must adhere to the restrictions on their speech imposed
• 38:31
  Speaker 1: by the revised order. Agent is defined as someone who
• 38:35
  Speaker 1: is authorized to act for or in place of another,
• 38:38
  Speaker 1: a representative agent. Black Laws Dictionary, eleventh edition, twenty nineteen.
• 38:44
  Speaker 1: Agents of the prosecuting attorneys include law enforcement working on
• 38:48
  Speaker 1: this case or privy to confidential information involving the case.
• 38:54
  Speaker 1: Investigators hired by the defense are agents of the defense.
• 38:58
  Speaker 1: This is because those indo visuals are working at the
• 39:01
  Speaker 1: direction of the attorneys to investigate the case, interview witnesses,
• 39:06
  Speaker 1: and gather evidence. Stated differently, law enforcement and defense investigators
• 39:12
  Speaker 1: are acting representatives of the attorneys. The attorneys have the
• 39:16
  Speaker 1: authority to direct certain actions of those individuals when it
• 39:20
  Speaker 1: comes to building their case for trial. Other agents include
• 39:24
  Speaker 1: staff in the prosecutors and defense attorney's offices and expert witnesses.
• 39:30
  Speaker 1: This order does not change anything in the revised order,
• 39:33
  Speaker 1: but merely helps to further clarify who the revised order
• 39:37
  Speaker 1: applies to. This was signed by Judge Judge and it
• 39:40
  Speaker 1: was dated June twenty ninth of twenty twenty three. The
• 39:44
  Speaker 1: next document we have is the Order on Defendants Second
• 39:48
  Speaker 1: Motion to Compel Discovery Case number CR twenty nine DASH
• 39:53
  Speaker 1: twenty two DASH twenty eight oh five, State of Idaho
• 39:56
  Speaker 1: plaintiff versus Brian C. Coberger, the defendant. On June fifteenth,
• 40:01
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, defendant Bryan C. Coburger filed defendant second
• 40:06
  Speaker 1: motion to compel discovery. Oral argument on the motion was
• 40:10
  Speaker 1: heard on June twenty seventh, twenty twenty three. Coburger was
• 40:14
  Speaker 1: represented by Ann Taylor and Jay Logsden, Cootney County Public
• 40:18
  Speaker 1: Defender's Office and Alissa maysof. The State was represented by
• 40:23
  Speaker 1: William Thompson Junior and Ashley Jennings Letai County Prosecutor's Office,
• 40:29
  Speaker 1: and Ingrid Beatty and Jeff Nye, Office of the Attorney General.
• 40:33
  Speaker 1: At the outset of the hearing, the parties informed the
• 40:36
  Speaker 1: court that they had reached agreements on all issues except
• 40:39
  Speaker 1: Requests one four and one oh nine. During the hearing,
• 40:43
  Speaker 1: the State represented that they are working with the FBI
• 40:46
  Speaker 1: to obtain the information requested and would provide it to
• 40:50
  Speaker 1: the defense once it was received and reviewed. The defense
• 40:54
  Speaker 1: moved the court to impose a deadline for the materials
• 40:57
  Speaker 1: to be turned over to the court, and the parties
• 41:00
  Speaker 1: agreed that July fourteenth, twenty twenty three was reasonable. Therefore,
• 41:05
  Speaker 1: the court order is the following. The State shall provide
• 41:08
  Speaker 1: the Defense the materials requested in Requests one four and
• 41:13
  Speaker 1: one oh nine of defendant second Motion to compel Discovery
• 41:17
  Speaker 1: no later than July fourteenth, twenty twenty three, unless the
• 41:21
  Speaker 1: State demonstrates good cause for an extension of time to
• 41:25
  Speaker 1: turn over the requested material. Dated this twenty ninth day
• 41:29
  Speaker 1: of June twenty twenty three and signed by Judge Judge.
• 41:35
  Speaker 2: Moving on to the next document.
• 41:37
  Speaker 1: We have the order on Defendant's motion to compel discovery
• 41:41
  Speaker 1: Case number c R twenty nine DASH twenty two DASH
• 41:45
  Speaker 1: twenty eight oh five, State of Idaho Plaintiff versus Bryan C. Coburger,
• 41:50
  Speaker 1: the defendant. On May fourth, twenty twenty three, Defendant Bryan C.
• 41:55
  Speaker 1: Coburger filed a motion to compel discovery stemming from defendant
• 41:59
  Speaker 1: twos second supplemental requests for discovery filed on March twenty fourth,
• 42:04
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty three. Oral arguments on the motion was heard
• 42:08
  Speaker 1: on June twenty seventh, twenty twenty three. Colberger was represented
• 42:13
  Speaker 1: by Ann Taylor and Jay Logsden Cootney County Public Defender's
• 42:17
  Speaker 1: Office and Alyssa Masov. The State was represented by William
• 42:21
  Speaker 1: Thompson Junior and Ashley Jennings Leta County Prosecutor's Office, and
• 42:26
  Speaker 1: Ingrid Beatty and Jeff nine, Office of the Attorney General.
• 42:31
  Speaker 1: At the outset of the hearing, the parties informed the
• 42:34
  Speaker 1: court that they had reached agreements on all issues except
• 42:37
  Speaker 1: Request one sixty. Requests one sixty asked the state to
• 42:41
  Speaker 1: provide the defendant training records of three specific law enforcement
• 42:45
  Speaker 1: officers Idaho criminal Rule sixteen B four states that papers
• 42:50
  Speaker 1: and documents that are material to the preparation of the
• 42:53
  Speaker 1: defense that are in the possession, custody, or control of
• 42:58
  Speaker 1: the prosecuting attorney are discoverable. Additionally, Rule sixteen B ten
• 43:04
  Speaker 1: allows the court to order material and information be made
• 43:08
  Speaker 1: available to a defendant where the defendant shows substantial need
• 43:13
  Speaker 1: and preparation of the defendant's case for additional material or
• 43:17
  Speaker 1: information not otherwise covered by Rule sixteen, and that the
• 43:22
  Speaker 1: defendant is unable without undue hardship, to obtain the substantial
• 43:26
  Speaker 1: equivalent by other means. During oral argument, the defense argued
• 43:31
  Speaker 1: that it needs the training records for the three specific
• 43:34
  Speaker 1: officers identified in their request to understand the processes and
• 43:40
  Speaker 1: methods the officers utilize. Specifically, the defense wants to see
• 43:44
  Speaker 1: what training these officers have received in interviewing witnesses and
• 43:49
  Speaker 1: collecting and evaluating evidence. The defense argued that the three
• 43:54
  Speaker 1: officers identified each played a critical role in the investigation
• 43:59
  Speaker 1: of this case. One officer interviewed witnesses at the scene
• 44:03
  Speaker 1: of the crime and worked on the search for a
• 44:06
  Speaker 1: specific car of interest. The second officer interviewed key witnesses
• 44:10
  Speaker 1: expected to testify at trial. The defense expects to subpoena
• 44:15
  Speaker 1: this officer for trial. Finally, the third officer conducted multiple
• 44:19
  Speaker 1: interviews of key witnesses after Coberger was arrested, attended the
• 44:24
  Speaker 1: victims' autopsies, and made decisions about what tips provided to
• 44:28
  Speaker 1: law enforcement warranted further investigation. The state argued that the
• 44:34
  Speaker 1: three officers identified are not material to the state's case
• 44:38
  Speaker 1: and will not be called a trial. Further, the state
• 44:41
  Speaker 1: argued that the defense has not shown a substantial need
• 44:45
  Speaker 1: for the information requested. In State vs. Coohagen, one sixty
• 44:50
  Speaker 1: two Idaho seven seventeen seven twenty five four h four
• 44:55
  Speaker 1: page dot three D six fifty nine six sixty seven,
• 44:58
  Speaker 1: twenty seventyen, the Idaho Supreme Court, in applying the attenuation doctrine,
• 45:05
  Speaker 1: discussed how the training that law enforcement officers received regarding
• 45:10
  Speaker 1: law of search and seizure should play a role in
• 45:13
  Speaker 1: evaluating the flagrancy of their behavior. Similarly, courts have required
• 45:19
  Speaker 1: the government to disclose relevant canine training and certification records
• 45:24
  Speaker 1: to allow defendants to assess the canine's reliability and effectively
• 45:28
  Speaker 1: cross examined the dogs handler c. United States Verse Right,
• 45:32
  Speaker 1: number two zero eight dash cr dash five dash zero
• 45:37
  Speaker 1: two two zero zero eight w L eight seven nine
• 45:42
  Speaker 1: seven eight four one at three D DOT, Vermont, November three,
• 45:47
  Speaker 1: two thousand and eight, citing United States at Verse Sadano
• 45:51
  Speaker 1: Ariano three thirty two f Dot three D five sixty
• 45:55
  Speaker 1: eight five seventy one, Ninth Circuit, two thousand and three,
• 45:59
  Speaker 1: by the way of this Court's one experience. When testifying
• 46:02
  Speaker 1: at pre trial hearings or a trial, officers often based
• 46:06
  Speaker 1: their testimony on their training and experience. Here, the three
• 46:10
  Speaker 1: officers training records requested by the defense are material to
• 46:15
  Speaker 1: the preparation of the defense, and Coberger has established a
• 46:19
  Speaker 1: substantial need for the material in the preparation of his case. First,
• 46:25
  Speaker 1: the defense adequately articulated the role each of these officers
• 46:29
  Speaker 1: played in interviewing witnesses and finding and collecting potential evidence. Second,
• 46:34
  Speaker 1: the training records of these officers are potentially relevant to
• 46:38
  Speaker 1: a suppression issue like in Kohagen, or to challenge the
• 46:42
  Speaker 1: credibility of the officers and the reliability of their methods,
• 46:46
  Speaker 1: similar to the training records of canine officers. Other potential
• 46:50
  Speaker 1: uses for the training records include to help prepare the
• 46:54
  Speaker 1: defense for examination or cross examination of the officers at trial,
• 46:59
  Speaker 1: or to help established or challenge a foundation for admissibility
• 47:04
  Speaker 1: of evidence gathered by those officers at trial. While generally
• 47:09
  Speaker 1: all personnel records of a current or a former public
• 47:12
  Speaker 1: official are exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act
• 47:16
  Speaker 1: I dot C. Section seventy four Tosh one oh six,
• 47:20
  Speaker 1: public disclosure of the personnel records sought here can be
• 47:24
  Speaker 1: prevented by the issuance of a protective order stipulated by
• 47:28
  Speaker 1: all parties. Therefore, the court order is the following. The
• 47:32
  Speaker 1: State shall provide the defense the training records requested in
• 47:36
  Speaker 1: Request one sixty of defendant second Supplemental Requests for Discovery
• 47:41
  Speaker 1: and Motion to compel discovery no later than July fourteenth,
• 47:45
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, unless the State demonstrates good cause for
• 47:48
  Speaker 1: an extension of time to turn over the requested material. Further,
• 47:52
  Speaker 1: the parties shall provide the court with a stipulation for
• 47:56
  Speaker 1: a protective order and a proposed protective order for the
• 48:00
  Speaker 1: training records. This was dated on June thirtieth, twenty twenty three,
• 48:05
  Speaker 1: and it was signed by Judge Judge. All Right, folks,
• 48:08
  Speaker 1: that's going to do it for this one. All of
• 48:10
  Speaker 1: the information that goes with the episode can be found
• 48:13
  Speaker 1: in the description box.