Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Mega Edition: Bryan Kohberger Looks To Exclude Testimony From Expert Rylene Nowlin (8/14/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Bryan Kohberger Looks To Exclude Testimony From Expert Rylene Nowlin (8/14/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: this episode, we're gonna spin right back up to Moscow,
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: and we're gonna keep on keeping on. And this time
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: I have the motion in le mean number six, which
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: is ry Lean Nowlen and reference to touch and contact DNA.
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: Case number CR zero one DASH twenty four DASH thirty
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: one six sixty five, State of Idaho, Plaintiff versus Brian C. Coberger.
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: The defendant comes now Brian C. Coberger, buying through his
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: attorneys of record and pursuant to the Idaho Rules of Evidence,
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: moves this Honorable Court for an order in le mean
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: excluding the testimony of ry Lean Nowln and any testimony
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: one referencing the terms touch or contact DNA or two
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: purporting to be an opinion of the means or a
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: mechanism for DNA being placed on the sheath by any
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: witness called to testify about DNA. Both the term touch
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: or contact DNA or any opinion regarding how DNA ends
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: up on an ey item is misleading in that it
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: assumes facts that must be proven would be confusing to
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: the jury and waste substantial time in the bunking. The
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: testimony of an expert that's outside the purview of the
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: field of expertise and qualifications. Furthermore, the opinions of this
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: expert have not been disclosed to mister Colberger. As set
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: fourth below, the how, when, and why of DNA arrives
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: on an object cannot scientifically be determined and is not
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: the proper subject of expert testimony. The use of the
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: language confuses and misleads the finder of fact and is
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: barred by the rules four two four oh three, as
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: well as due process in that the evidence is overly prejudicial.
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: The erroneous admission of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence will offend
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: due process when it renders a trial fundamentally unfair. A
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: stell Vers Maguire five oh two US sixty two seventy
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: Relevant Facts. A knife sheath was recovered tucked under the
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: covers next to Miss Mogan at a seven twenty two
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: King Road, Moscow, Idaho, on November thirteenth, twenty twenty two.
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: The sheath was tested using standard DNA str methods by
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: the Idaho State Police Item Q one DOT one. A
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: swab from the sheath resulted in a single source MAL profile.
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: This profile was uploaded to the code is DNA database
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: and resulted in no hits to known offenders. In its disclosures,
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: the government has indicated that Rylean Nowlyn from the ISP
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: Lab will testify as follows. Miss now Lyn will also
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: testify to touch DNA and transfer DNA. Specifically, now Lynn
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: will testify to the characteristics in nature of touch DNA,
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: including how it's deposited and transferred to an item of evidence,
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: the methods used to collect and preserve touch DNA samples
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: from items of evidence, the procedures and protocols used by
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: forensic scientists to extract and analyze touch DNA, the manner
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: in which results from touch DNA samples are interpreted, and
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: the reliability of touch DNA analysis and its susceptibility in
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: the field of forensic science. Now Lynn will also testify
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: to the potential for DNA transfer between an individual and
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: an object, including the distinction between primary and secondary transfer
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: and the factors influencing the likelihood of transfer. On February seventeenth,
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty five, the state produced a second round of disclosures,
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: including one from Riley Nolln. As with the first disclosure,
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: the focus of the second disclosure is touch contact DNA
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: and direct versus indirect transfer. Although conceding that currently DNA
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: technology cannot conclusively answer the question, the state offers the
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: following opinion. Many complicated factors can influence the likelihood of
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: transfer of DNA and the persistence of the transfer DNA
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: after deposition. Current DNA technology cannot conclusively answer the question
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: of when DNA was deposited on an item detected on
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: M two zero two U two dash four eight four
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: to three item one dot one resulted from secondary transfer. However,
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: based on now lens training and experience, its r opinion.
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: Given the quantity of DNA detected on M two zero
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: two two four eight four to three item one dot one,
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: and given the DNA profile obtained its single source, it's
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: more than likely the result of a direct transfer. Argument
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: introduction to the concept of touch DNA and transfer opinions.
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: The terms touch and contact DNA came into use as
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: the forensic community shifted from the testing of obvious identifiable
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: stains such as blood or semen, to samples that cannot
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: be identified via a biological test. Based on the increasing
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: sensitivity of DNA tests, samples such as swabs from steering
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: wheels of a carjack vehicle or a window. Jams and
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: a burglary were collected and tested on the theory that
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: a person would have had contact with the object and
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: left DNA behind in the form of skin or other cells,
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: hence the term touch or contact. The forensic community began
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: to conduct research into the question of how DNA in
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: the form of biological material moves in the environment, and
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: this research led to the conclusion that it is impossible
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: to determine how a particular deposit of DNA came to
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: be on an object. In twenty thirteen, an article which
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: reviewed the state of the research at the time made
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: the following conclusions. Full DNA profiles can be recovered from
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: items that have not been touched, but have been in
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: the vicinity of someone speaking or coughing. It's not possible
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: to establish from the amount of DNA recovered from a
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: surface whether the DNA was deposited by a single touch
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: or by regular use. It is not possible to use
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: the amount of DNA recovered from an item of interest
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: to inform whether the DNA was deposited by direct contact
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: or indirect transfer. It's impossible to know from the quality
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: of das DNA profile obtained whether the DNA was deposited
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: by direct contact or indirect transfer g Meekin a Jamison
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: DNA Transfer Review and Implications for Casework Forensic Science for
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: thirty four and four to forty three, the authors introduced
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: the concept of trace DNA, defined DNA that cannot yet
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: be attributed to an identifiable body fluid. The authors rejected
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: the term touched DNA as misleading, as such a term
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: infers that the DNA recovered from a surface got there
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: via that surface being touched, but that is usually not known.
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: The review was followed by a similar review article by
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: a different group of scientists six years later, which reached
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: similar conclusions. Appropriately trained forensic practitioners are best placed to
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: provide opinion and guidance on the interpretation of profiles at
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: the activity level. However, those requested to provide expert opinion
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: on DNA related activity level issues are often insufficiently trained
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: to do so. Advocate recognition of DNA activity associated expertise
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: to be distinct from the expertise associated with the identification
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: of individuals. This is to be supported by dedicated training,
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: competency testing, authorization, and regular fit for purpose proficiency testing.
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: The term activity level refers to the question of the
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: when and how of what happened, such how did the
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: DNA come to be on the object and how long
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: had it been there. Examples of indirect transfer of what
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: might be characterized as touch or contact DNA are numerous
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: and are summarized in the two review articles described above.
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: Than or Chat discuss the use of the term touch
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: DNA as one that can be misleading, as it implicates
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: a specific mode of action and to some degree also
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: a type of biological source. Using a less descriptive terms
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: such as trace DNA is a more appropriate term to
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: be used in casework when the source and mode of
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: deposition are unknown. The article is an illustration of how
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: extremely common complex the question of how and when is
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: given the identification of a sample that has no biological
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: source such as blood. Van Orschot summarized the routes of
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: transfer considered it in the body of research and the
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: illustration below. Despite this wealth of information and scientific study,
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: the authors conclude that more work is necessary and that
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: the expertise to offer activity level opinions the how and
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: when is beyond the expertise of the crime lab analysts. Then,
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: in twenty twenty four, NIST, the National Institute of Standards
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: published a document entitled Forensic DNA Interpretation the Human Factors
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: Improving Practice through a System's Approach. This document was the
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: result of extensive work in years of public review and comment.
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: The Expert Working Group EWG on Human Factors in Forensic
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: DNA Interpretation began work in twenty twenty with the goal
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: of recommending strategies for improving the production, evaluation, and communicationation
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: of DNA results. The EWG consisted of experts in the
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: field of forensic DNA and was subject to repeated rounds
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: of public comment from the greater forensic community, most notably
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: for this court. The EWG addressed the question of transfer
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: and the ability of experts to profer opinions. The EWG
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: addressed the following question, but a further important question is
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: that activities led to the presence of that DNA. With
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: the increased sensitivity of DNA techniques and sophisticated software, a
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: DNA profile may be developed even when the contributor of
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: the DNA never touched the item or area where that
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: was swabbed. Alternatively, a person's DNA may be present when
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: they were not involved in the crime. Therefore, Considering how
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: or when the DNA may have been deposited or why
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: it was not recovered can be vital except in ground
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: truth known experiments, where an individual is observed to have
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: been in contact with a service location, it's not possible
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: to know whether the transfer was direct or indirect. The
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: assessment of what is called TPPR transfer persistence, prevalence, and
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: recovery is a separate skill, distinct from standard DNA profiling
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: and interpretation. There are not adequate educational opportunities to inform
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: these types of issues within the United States. The EWG
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: concluded that an expert rarely, if ever, has all of
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: the information needed to perform robust, balanced, and transparent evaluations
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: of biological results regarding transfer or specific activities on the
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: witness stand. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap this one
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: up right here, and in the next episode we're gonna
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: pick up where we left off. All of the information
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: that goes with this episode can be found in the
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: of the Moscow Murders and more. In this episode, we're
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: going to dive right back in to the defense motion
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: to try and keep Riy lean. Now Lynd's testimony out
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: of the trial, most notably for this court, the EWG
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: addressed the question of transfer and the ability of experts
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: to profer opinions. The EWG addressed the following question, but
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: a further important question is what activities led to the
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: presence of that DNA. With the increased sensitivity of DNA
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: techniques and sophisticated software, a DNA profile may be developed
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: even when the contributor of that DNA never touched the
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: item or area that was swabbed. Alternatively, a person's DNA
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: may be present when they were not involved in the crime. Therefore,
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: considering how or when the DNA may have been deposited
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: or why it was not recovered can be vital. Except
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: in ground truth known experiments, where an individual is observed
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: to have been in contact with a surface or location,
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: it's not possible to know whether the transfer was direct
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: or indirect. The assessment of what is called TPPR transfer persistence, prevalence,
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: and recovery is a separate skill, distinct from standard DNA
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: profiling and interpretation. There are not adequate educational opportunities to
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: inform these types of issues within the United States. The
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: EWG concluded that an expert rarely, if ever, has all
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: the information needed to perform a robust, balanced, and transparent
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: evaluation of biological results regarding transfer or specific activities. On
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: the witness stand, the EWG offered proposed responses to questions
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: of how and when DNA arrived on an object, none
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: of which include a statement of how. Examples of questions
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: posed to DNA experts. In your opinion, is direct transfer
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: more likely than indirect DNA analysis does not allow a
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: scientist to directly answer how the DNA was deposited direct
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: or indirect transfer. The DNA results presented in my report
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: regard the comparison of DNA profiles and can only help
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: answer questions about whose DNA may be present or not.
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: My testimony about the value of the DNA comparison is
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: only meaningful to help the jury determine who the source
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: of the DNA was. The testimony does not provide any
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: information that addresses the issues of how or when question
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: could this alleged activity have happened. Offering an opinion on
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: this question would amount to speculating on what is alleged.
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: It's not my role as a scientist to speculate about
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: or determine what has happened. Question, is it possible that
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: the DNA was deposited when the person of interest POI
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: engage in an activity at the scene of prior to
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: or after the alleged event. It's not my role to
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: discuss the possibility of the alleged event or any other event.
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: My expertise is based upon DNA profile comparisons, which can
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: only assist in helping you answer questions about whose DNA
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: is present or not. Agreeing that something is possible is
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: not the same as offering an opinion about the probability
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: of the results in the context of the case specific circumstances.
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: Discussing whether something is possible does not help me convey
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: the significance of the results in the context of this case.
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: For example, getting struck by lightning or flipping a coin
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: and getting heads are both possible but have very different probabilities. Question,
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: are there other explanations for the presence or absence of
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: this DNA? Answer? It would be an appropriate and speculative
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: for me to discuss why the DNA was or was
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: not detected. Answering this question would not allow me to
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: convey a balanced assessment of the findings. In the context
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: of this case, the only way I can evaluate the
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: results is by considering at least two opposing views. The
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: only conclusion that this Court can draw is the opinions
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: regarding the means and manner which DNA was deposited on
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: an item is not considered a proper topic of expert
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: opinion for a DNA analyst and likely to lead to
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: undue prejudice to mister Colberger, and would render his trial
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: fundamentally unfair. B. This Court must exclude the opinion of
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: Riileen Nolan. As set forth above, an expert cannot offer
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: opinion within their expertise. The expertise of a typical lab
• 15:06
  Speaker 1: analyst is not sufficient to allow them to be considered
• 15:09
  Speaker 1: an expert in the area and mechanisms of DNA transfer.
• 15:13
  Speaker 1: Nallyn's disclosure concedes as much, in that she acknowledges the
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: current methods cannot conclusively offer an answer to the question
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: of when and how. Now Lyn cannot be allowed to
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: substitute or judgment in the face of the weight of
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: the forensic community's agreement that the science and literature does
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: not support any analyst testifying about the when and how
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: of transfer. This opinion falls outside the norm of forensic
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: DNA experts and would be highly speculative. Given the nature
• 15:44
  Speaker 1: of the opinion proffered and the recommendations in the nis
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: to human Factors report, this opinion would be highly speculative.
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: In addition, it would have a tendency to mislead and
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: confuse the jury and would require undue consumption of time
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: to refute with the science typic articles and reports that
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: clearly conflict with a proffer testimony. See this is disclosure
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: is not proper rebuttal testimony. Now Len's disclosure contains no
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: opinion that is not rebuttable, but appears to be the
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: state's theory of the case that the DNA from mister
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: Colberger arrived on the knife sheath via direct contact. A
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: close reading of the disclosure from mister Colberger's DNA witness,
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: doctor Ruth Ballard, does not contain any opinion regarding the
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: how and when the DNA arrived on the sheath. This
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: testimony should be excluded. D This court must exclude the
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: use of terms touch or contact DNA. Under IRI four
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: oh three. This court may exclude the use of the
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: term's touch or contact DNA if its probative value is
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: the following unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury,
• 16:56
  Speaker 1: undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting humulative evidencedence. Ire
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: four o three. This rule requires the court to balance
• 17:04
  Speaker 1: the probative value of the evidence against the danger that
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: the evidence may be unfairly prejudicial Idaho twenty twenty four,
• 17:12
  Speaker 1: Stay verus Johnson. See also Ire four oh three. Here
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: the terms touch in contact or misleading in that the
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: forensic community has determined through empirical research that it's not
• 17:22
  Speaker 1: possible for a DNA expert to testify as to how
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: the DNA was deposited on an item. The two terms
• 17:29
  Speaker 1: insinuate that the deposit must have come from direct contact
• 17:33
  Speaker 1: with an object, rather than a myriad other possible means
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: of transfer documented in the literature. Furthermore, allowing testimony regarding
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: the manner in which the DNA was deposited on the
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: sheath would implicate the same concerns that the use of
• 17:47
  Speaker 1: the two terms touch in contact invoke. The forensic community
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: consensus and an extensive body of research shows that how
• 17:54
  Speaker 1: and when opinions in DNA testing far exceed the expertise
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: of a DNA analyst and are not founded in science.
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: In this case, the only DNA evidence that implicates mister
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: Colberger is the DNA found on the sheath found in
• 18:08
  Speaker 1: the residence. From the lab reports and notes, as well
• 18:11
  Speaker 1: as recent testimony by Rylean Naulin, it appears that at
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: the sample Q one one was a swabbing of the
• 18:17
  Speaker 1: leather strap on the sheath as well as the interior
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: of the snap, not the outer snap surface, which apparently
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: was not sampled in order to preserve the surface for fingerprinting.
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: No seriological testing was done on the area swab for
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: Q one one to identify any biological material. An area
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: identified as Q one dot four swabs of stains on
• 18:40
  Speaker 1: back of the sheath tested presumptively positive for blood and
• 18:43
  Speaker 1: was DNA tested. Mister Colberger was excluded from this particular sample,
• 18:48
  Speaker 1: which was identified as a mixture ISP LAB report M
• 18:51
  Speaker 1: two zero two two DASH four eight four three number four. Thus,
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: the government has the burden to prove the when and
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: how of the DNA identified in Q one one. Allowing
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: the use of these two terms would mislead the jury
• 19:06
  Speaker 1: to believe that there was evidence to support the conclusion
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: of direct contact, when in fact there is no direct evidence.
• 19:13
  Speaker 1: The admission of these terms would lead to substantial waste
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: of time in what it would require not only extensive
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: cross examination of the government's witness on the topic, but
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: also rebuttal testimony from defense experts on the question. Furthermore,
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: the use of this language would unfairly prejudice mister Colberger.
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: Unfair prejudice is prejudice that tends to suggest the decision
• 19:37
  Speaker 1: on an improper basis Johnson, five to forty four, page three,
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: dot d at seven, seventy four, citing State vers d
• 19:44
  Speaker 1: As one seventy Idaho seventy nine, twenty twenty two. If
• 19:49
  Speaker 1: the language is used, the jury might well believe, through
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: expert testimony, as opposed to factual testimony, that mister Colberger
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: left his DNA on the sheath via direct content, a
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: fact the government must prove. As a consequence, there is
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: a danger that the jury would reach a decision on
• 20:07
  Speaker 1: an improper basis due to evidence that is unfairly prejudicial conclusion.
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: As we set forth above, the forensic community has come
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: to a consensus that DNA analysts do not have the
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: expertise to render opinions on how and when a DNA
• 20:22
  Speaker 1: sample arrived on an object. In addition to being misleading
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: and inaccurate, allowing such testimony would result an undue consumption
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: of time. This type of opinion testimony would not satisfy
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: Ire seven oh three in that the expert cannot be
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: qualified to profer such an opinion because it falls outside
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: the expert specialized knowledge. The question of how and when
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: is not for a lab analyst, and as the EWG
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: points out, there's no training program in the US that
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: would provide expertise for such an opinion. Mister Kolberger respectfully
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: requests this Court grant his motion in Lemonae to exclude
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: any use of the language touch and contact and the
• 21:04
  Speaker 1: context of the DNA testing of the sheath, and any
• 21:07
  Speaker 1: opinion of how and when the DNA on the sheath
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: was deposited. This document was dated February twenty fourth, twenty
• 21:16
  Speaker 1: twenty five, and it was signed by Bicco Barlow. If
• 21:20
  Speaker 1: you'd like to contact me, you can do that at
• 21:21
  Speaker 1: Bobby Kopuchi at ProtonMail dot com. That's Bobby c ap
• 21:26
  Speaker 1: u Cci at ProtonMail dot com, or if you prefer
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: You can find me on x at Bobby Underscore cap Ucci.
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: All of the links that go with this episode can
• 21:38
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box.