Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Murder In Moscow: The State Responds To A Flurry Of Kohberger's Motions

Transcript

Murder In Moscow: The State Responds To A Flurry Of Kohberger's Motions · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Everyone and welcome back to the program. Brian Koberger's legal
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: team has filed a request for the court to compel
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: discovery in his case. Well, now the state has responded
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: to those filings and according to the state, they've turned
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: over everything that they have in their possession. So in
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: this episode, we're going to take a look at a
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: couple of court documents that just hit the docket yesterday
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: and one of them is the state's response to defendant's
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: motion to compel discovery. And the second one is the
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: state's response to the defendant's third supplemental request for discovery.
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: All right, so our first document up is the state's
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: response to defendant's third supplemental request for discovery. Case number,
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: CR 29-22-2805. State of Idaho, plaintiff, Brian Christopher Koberger, defendant.
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: To the defendant, Brian Christopher Koberger, and counsel, Ann Taylor.
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: Comes now, the state of Idaho, by and through the
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: Latah County Prosecuting Attorney, and submits the following response to
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: defendant's third request for supplemental discovery. The state incorporates its
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: January 23, 2023 state's response to request for discovery, February 21, 2023,
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: state's response to defendant's first supplemental request for discovery, and
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: March 29, 2023, state's response to defendant's second supplemental request
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: for discovery, as if fully set forth at this point.
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: The state has and will continue to provide discovery in
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: accordance with I.C.R.16 and applicable law. In regard to the
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: specific request for standard lab discovery, the state has already
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: provided the defense with everything it has received from the
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: FBI lab. The state has also provided the defense with
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: approximately 30 reports from the Idaho State Police Lab. The
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: state has provided the Idaho State Police Lab with a
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: copy of the defense's standard lab discovery comprised of paragraphs
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: 1 through 10 and will supplement discovery as appropriate. The
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: state specifically objects to the request for personnel-related information as
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: outside of the scope of I.C.R.16, unless to the extent
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: that lab personnel will be offering expert testimony, which is
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: discoverable under I.C.R.16b and 10. And we saw that just
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: recently in the Lori Vallow trial. When they'd get one
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: of these experts up on the witness stand, what was
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: the first thing they did? They asked them about their qualifications.
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: Where'd you go to school? What jobs have you held?
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: What have you done in this field? That way they
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: can establish the credibility of their witness. But what the
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: state's saying here is that the request is a bit overbroad.
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: They're asking for the background of police officers who were
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: involved as well, and the state's saying that that's not
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: covered under the code in I.C.R. In regard to the
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: defense's request for genetic genealogy testing and search, the state
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: objects and intends to separately file a motion in Lamine
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: and Motion for Protective Order under I.C.R. 16, Section 1.
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: As will be more fully detailed in said motion, the
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: state believes that the defendant's requested discovery is outside the
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: scope of I.C.R. 16 in that it does not tend
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: to negate the guilt of the accused as to the
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: offense charged or tend to reduce punishment for the offenses
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: as contemplated by I.C.R. 16a. It is not relevant. It
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: is not material to the preparation of the defense. It
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: is not intended for use by the state as evidence
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: at trial, and none of the documentation being sought belongs
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: to the defendant as contemplated by I.C.R. 16b and 4.
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: Genetic genealogy research does not constitute reports of examination or
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: tests under I.C.R. 16B and 5, and any genetic genealogy
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: research is exempt from the disclosure under I.C.R. 16G2I. RE 509, 401, 402,
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: and 403, and applicable case law. This document was signed
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: by William H. Thompson. The next document we have is
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: the state's response to defendant's motion to compel discovery. State
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: of Idaho plaintiff versus Brian C. Koberger, the defendant. Comes now,
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: the state of Idaho, by and through the Latah County
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: prosecuting attorney, and submits the following response to the motion
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: to compel discovery filed by the defendant on May 4th, 2023.
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: By the way of background, as of the date of
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: this response today, the state has provided the following discovery
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: to the defendant. 1. Approximately 10,000 pages of reports and
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: other written materials. 2. Approximately 10,200 photographs. 3. Approximately 9,200 tips.
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: And 4. Approximately 51 terabytes of audio, video, media, and
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: digital materials. The defendant cites to i.c.r16f, in support of
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: its motion. However, that rule only refers to the procedure
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: for responding to discovery requests. I.C.R. 16B and 10NK apply
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: to request for discovery orders. With the above in mind,
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: the state respectfully submits the following specific responses to items
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: 1 through 6. 1. The state has disclosed all items
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: it is aware of relating to the search and arrest
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: of Brian Koberger in Pennsylvania. The state is unaware of
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: any body cam and dash cam footage beyond what has
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: been disclosed and, on information and belief, understands there is
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: no body cam footage. Recordings of interviews and the defendant's
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: transportation from the scene of the arrest have also been provided. Again,
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: the no body cam stuff is crazy to me. How
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: is it that they're making this big arrest, but there's
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: no body cam footage? Number two, numerous lab reports regarding
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: forensic evidence, collection, and analysis of items recovered from the
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: defendant's parents' home, trash cans, and other receptacles, and defendant's vehicle,
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: have been disclosed to the defendant. These reports include items
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: from the FBI laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, as well as
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: the Idaho State Police Lab. The defendant's attorneys and investigators
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: have also been given direct access to view and inspect
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: items seized from his parents' residence, including his vehicle. The
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: state will continue to disclose additional reports it receives that
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: are subject to discovery under I.C.R. 16 and applicable case law.
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: To the extent that the defense believes that certain reports
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: may contain exculpatory information, The state asks that the defense
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: specify what exculpatory information they are referring to and the
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: basis for their belief, so as to enable the state
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: to make any appropriate additional inquiries. Regarding the defendant's request
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: labeled 2A, in addition to the above response, The state
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: has inquired of the defense for clarification on ISP lab
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: reports by number since there is a question about some
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: duplicate numbering of the initial lab reports. ISP lab reports
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: are separately numbered by forensic biology, DNA, prints, and forensic
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: field services. The state has already been able to advise
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: defense counsel that there is an ISP lab report 25,
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: which has been discovered, and there is another ISP Lab
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: Report 11, which is pending review and approval at the lab.
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: To assist the parties, the state has initiated specific inquiries
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: about the status of all ISP Lab Reports and will
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: make discovery to defense as appropriate. 3. The state has
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: provided recordings of MPD Detective Payne's interview with Mr. Kohlberger
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: to the defense. The state will provide any related reports
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: and or notes as they are received and reviewed. So
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: there were some questions about Brian Kohlberger and Brett Payne,
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: and if Brett Payne had given Brian Kohlberger a bit
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: of an interrogation. And according to this filing, that definitely happened.
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: They at least had a conversation. And there's a recording
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: of that conversation that has been passed on now to
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: Brian Kohlberger's legal team. Number four. As with item 1 above,
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: state has provided the defense with reports, audio, video, and
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: other recordings relating to the defendant's arrest and incarceration in
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: Pennsylvania that have been received by the state. 5. The
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: state has provided a copy of the report memo referred
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: to as request number 161 to the defendant. The state
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: is unaware of any notes, recordings, or photographs. 6. The
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: state respectfully submits that training records of specific officers are
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: outside the scope of I.C.R. 16 unless and to the
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: extent that the officers will be offering expert testimony, which
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: is discoverable under I.C.R. 16. 16B and 10. The state
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: is willing to reconsider its position upon a proffer by
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: the defendant as to each officer under I.C.R. 16B showing
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: substantial need in the preparation of the defendant's case for
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: additional material or information not otherwise covered by this rule.
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: and that the defendant is unable, without undue hardship, to
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: obtain the substantial equivalent by other means. In the event
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: of such a showing, the state asks that the court
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: enter such protective orders as may be necessary and appropriate
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: to protect the confidentiality of the personnel records and any
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: other sensitive information. And they want this stuff because they
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: want to make sure that the people investigating this were
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: competent and well-trained. That way, when it's time for the
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: jury to hear what these folks have to say, the
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: defense can go up there and try and rip their
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: credibility to shreds. As the state has indicated in its
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: responses to prior discovery requests from the defense, the state
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: has and will continue to provide discovery in accordance with I.C.R.16
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: and applicable law. This was dated on May 12th and
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: it was signed by William Thompson. the prosecuting attorney. So
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: this is the response by the state after we saw
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: the filings by Brian Koberger and his legal team to
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: compel the state to turn over the rest of the
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: discovery material. Well, the state here is saying, look, we've
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: given you everything. We have nothing else to give you.
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: And as it becomes available, we'll hand it over. So
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: we'll keep an eye on this because it's very interesting
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: to see the back and forth. And obviously this is
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: our only look behind the scenes because of the gag order.
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: So all of these filings that are going on back
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: and forth are telling us the tale of where things
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: currently stand in this case. And as things continue to
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: get added to the docket, more and more we're going
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: to see a clearer picture of what's really going on.
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: Alright folks, that's going to do it for this one.
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with the episode can
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box.