Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Mega Edition: Bryan Kohberger's Motion To Suppress The Arrest Warrant And Denial (9/6/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Bryan Kohberger's Motion To Suppress The Arrest Warrant And Denial (9/6/26) · 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 going to get right back to the
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: court documents up in Moscow. And this time we're going
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: to take a look at Brian Kohlberger's motion to suppress
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: and memorandum in support of the arrest warrant. Case number 124-31665.
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: State of Idaho plaintiff versus Brian C. Kohlberger, the defendant.
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: Comes now. Brian C. Kohlberger buying through his attorneys of record.
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: and hereby submits the following memorandum in support of his
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: contemporaneously filed motion for an order suppressing all evidence gathered
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: by law enforcement as a result of his arrest. Issues 1.
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: This court should apply Idaho's exclusionary rule and law to
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: this search. 2. Affidavits submitted in support of the application
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: for the issued search warrant recklessly or intentionally omitted material information. Mr.
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: Kohlberger has filed a motion for a Franks hearing and
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: without repeating, incorporates that challenge to this search warrant. Three,
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: the affidavit submitted in support for the application for the
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: issued search warrant included information that must be excised. A,
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: all information in the affidavit was gathered because of law
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: enforcement's unconstitutional use of investigative genetic genealogy and thus nothing
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: in the warrant should remain. B, information about the client's
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: location taken from his phone must also be excised due
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: to being gathered from an invalid warrant. Facts. Due to
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: the haphazard way in which law enforcement, including the prosecutor's office,
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: has kept and disclosed records in this matter, the following
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: is a rough statement of facts as best the defense
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: can tell. On December 28, 2022, Trooper Larry of Pennsylvania
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: State Police became aware of the objective of arresting Mr.
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: Koberger via Moscow Police Corporal Payne. On December 29, 2022,
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: at 4.44 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, a magistrate in Pennsylvania
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: issued a search warrant for 119 Lambsden Drive, Chestnut Hill Township,
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: Monroe County, the home of Mr. Koberger's parents. On December 29, 2022,
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: at 2.22 p.m., the magistrate in this matter signed an
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: arrest warrant for Mr. Koberger in Latah County. The affidavit
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: for the warrant was signed by Moscow Police Department Corporal Payne.
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: The basic facts Corporal Payne used to support the arrest
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: are discussed in detail in a separately filed motion pursuant
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: to Franks v. Delaware. They're incorporated without repeating. At 2.43 p.m.
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: Pacific Standard Time on December 29, 2022, a criminal complaint
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: and probable cause order were filed in this matter. At
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: 10 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Pennsylvania SWAT began preparations to
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: arrest Mr. Koberger. Despite days of constant FBI surveillance, Pennsylvania
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: law enforcement did their own surveillance starting at 11.15 p.m.
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: And despite the fact that days of constant FBI surveillance
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: showed Mr. Kohlberger was unarmed and tended to go for
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: runs around his parents' neighborhood, police decided that forcefully entering Mr.
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: Kohlberger's parents' home was the best option. On December 30, 2022,
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: at 1.14 a.m., Pennsylvania SWAT raided Mr. Kohlberger's parents' home.
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: During the raid, law enforcement broke the door of the home,
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: held the entire family at gunpoint, and sees Mr. Kohlberger. Mr.
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: Kohlberger made statements to his arresting officers. He was transported
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: to a police station in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, and made statements
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: during transport. At the station, Mr. Kohlberger was processed during
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: which police collected information about his person. Finally, during interrogation,
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: before requesting an attorney, Mr. Kohlberger made statements to interrogators
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: from the Idaho State Police and Moscow Police Department. At
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: 4 a.m. Eastern Standard Time, On December 30, 2023, Pennsylvania
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: State Police filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Koberger. The argument. 1.
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: This court should apply Idaho's exclusionary rule and law to
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: this search. The first question this court must determine is
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: whether there is a conflict of laws in this matter, i.e.
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: whether Idaho law or Pennsylvania law controls the validity of
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: the arrest warrant for Mr. Koberger. Pennsylvania courts require a
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: warrant for a particular resident's To go after a person,
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: police are aware, has an arrest warrant. Commonwealth v. Romero, 2018.
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: The need for a warrant for a fugitive from another
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: state is codified in 42 Pennsylvania Code Section 9128 and 9129.
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: Without a governor's warrant, an officer can get a judicial
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: warrant to permit entry into a home. Without either type
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: of warrant, an officer lacks this authority. See 42 Pennsylvania
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: Code Section 9135. This understanding also comports with Peyton v.
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: New York, 1980. State warrants have no extraterritorial effect. State v. Bradley,
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: 106 Idaho, 1983. The use of an out-of-state warrant is
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: ipso facto a warrantless entry. Thus, law enforcement in Pennsylvania
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: cannot rely on the existence of the Idaho arrest warrant
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: to enter the home. Finally, it must be said that
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: there is very little daylight between the Idaho Constitution and
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: the Pennsylvania Constitution. Both apply exclusion to a failure to
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: knock and announce C-State v. Rausch, 99 Idaho, 1978. If anything,
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: Pennsylvania appears to have stricter warrant requirements for particularity, Commonwealth v. Grossman, Pennsylvania, 1989. 2.
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: The affidavit submitted in support of the application for the
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: issue's search warrant recklessly or intentionally omitted material information. The
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: Fourth Amendment states unambiguously that no warrant shall issue but
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: upon probable cause, supported by oath of affirmation, and particularly
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: describing the place to be searched and the persons or
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: things to be seized. Groh v. Ramirez, 540, 2004, quoting U.S.
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: Constitution Amendment 4, Probable cause exists when, given all the
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: circumstances set forth in the affidavit, there is a fair
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: found in a particular place, Illinois v. Gates, 1983. Because
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: the right of a man to retreat into his own
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: home and there to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: stands at the very core of the Fourth Amendment. Kylo v. U.S., 535, 2001.
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: Quoting Silverman, United States, 365, 1961. Courts have firmly established
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: the basic principle of Fourth Amendment law, that searches and
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: For a search warrant to be valid, the judge issuing
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: the warrant must rely on an affidavit or affidavits sworn
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: to before the judge or by testimony under oath and
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: recorded that establish the grounds for issuing the warrant. Any
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: discrepancy between the items for which there was probable cause
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: and their description in the search warrant requires suppression. Criminal
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: Procedure and Rights of Accused Section 887-2022 It's clear that
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: the issuing magistrate himself if he is to fulfill the
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: constitutionally mandated function of interposing an independent intelligence between the
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: law enforcement officer and the citizen, must actually, and in fact,
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: draw the inferences from the evidence presented to him. It
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: is for this reason that the courts have insisted that
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: the full facts from which inferences might be drawn and
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: information necessary to determine their reliability be placed before the
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: issuing magistrate. Finally, a criminal defendant may challenge the veracity
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: of an affidavit used to obtain such a warrant. Upon
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: a preliminary showing of a warrant's deficiency, the defendant must prove,
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: by a preponderance of evidence, that intentional or reckless falsehoods
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: were included in the warrant affidavit and were material to
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: the magistrate's finding of probable cause, or that material exculpatory
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: information was deliberately or recklessly omitted. An omission of exculpatory
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: facts is material or Only if there is a substantial
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: probability that the omitted information been presented, it would have
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: altered the magistrate's determination of probable cause. Whether an omission
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: was intentional or reckless might be inferred, in part, for
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: the relative importance of the information and its exculpatory power.
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: Idaho at 48, 981 at 1158. The challenge pursuant to
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: this section of the motion is separately laid out in Mr.
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: Koberger's motion for hearing under Franks. The motion and proffer
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: are incorporated, but not repeated herein. 3. The affidavit submitted,
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: in support of the application for the issued search warrant,
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: included information that must be excised. Where information in a
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: warrant was obtained via a violation of the Constitution, Idaho
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: courts excise that information. See State v. Johnson, 1986. State v. Bunting, 2006.
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: State v. Butterbaugh, 2002. A. All information in the affidavit
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: was gathered because of law enforcement's unconstitutional use of investigative
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: genetic genealogy, and thus nothing in the warrant should remain. Mr.
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: Kohlberger has argued in a separate motion that the genetic
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: genealogy investigation in this matter was done in violation of
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: the Constitution. Additionally, he has argued that there would be
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: no investigation into him without that original constitutional violation. It
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: is not that the results of the IGG sped up
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: the investigation. Instead, they focused the investigation on Mr. Kohlberger,
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: a person whose only connection to the case was his
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: mode of transportation and the shape of his eyebrows, two
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: identifications of little to no value, as previously argued. As
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: the Idaho Supreme Court has explained, while the initial burden
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: in showing a factual nexus between illegality and the evidence,
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: the state must show it would have been discovered anyway.
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: State v. Moss won v. Moss 171-2022 The state cannot
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: make this showing. Without IGG, there is no case, no
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: request for his phone records, surveillance of his parents' home,
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: no DNA taken from his garbage out front. Because the
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: IGG analysis is the origin of this matter, everything in
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: the affidavit should be excised. B. Information about the client's
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: locations taken from his phone must also be excised due
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: to being gathered from an invalid warrant. Separately, the information
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: gathered via the warrant from Mr. Kohlberger's AT & T
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: account and the pen trap and trace device warrant should
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: be excised for the reasons set out in the warrants.
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: Conclusion Mr. Kohlberger requests this court suppress all evidence obtained
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: by police via the warrant that permitted them to arrest Mr. Kohlberger.
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: As explained above, law enforcement... failed to knock and announce
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: before raiding the home, and the warrant lacked probable cause
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: as written, given its heavy reliance on conclusions reached by
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: law enforcement without the details necessary for the magistrate to
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: draw its own conclusions, and because the warrant omitted exculpatory
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: information and information that put into question the reliability of
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: the facts upon which it relies, and finally because the
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: affidavit relied on evidence gained in violation of the Constitution,
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: all in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Article 1,
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: Section 17. This document was dated November 13th, 2024, and
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: it was signed by Ann Taylor. All of the information
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: that goes with this episode, including my contact information, can
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: welcome back to the program. In this episode, we're going
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: to get right to those orders by Judge Hippler, and
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: we're going to start out first with the order on
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: defendant's motions to suppress... Arrest Warrants, Pennsylvania Warrants, Apartment Warrant,
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: and Idaho Warrant to Search Person. State of Idaho Plaintiff vs.
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: Brian C. Koberger, the Defendant Introduction Defendant is charged with
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: one count of burglary and four counts of murder in
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: the first degree in connection with the stabbing deaths of
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: four University of Idaho students in the early morning hours
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: of November 13, 2022. On December 30, 2022, he was
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: arrested pursuant to a warrant at his parents' home in Pennsylvania.
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: At the time of his arrest, Pennsylvania authorities executed search
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: warrants for defendant's person, his vehicle, and his parents' home.
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: Around the same time, a fifth warrant for a search
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: of defendant's Pullman, Washington apartment was issued by a Washington magistrate.
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: After defendant was transported back to Idaho, law enforcement obtained
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: a sixth warrant for a search of defendant's person. Through
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: six different motions, defendant seeks suppression of evidence gathered by
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: law enforcement through these warrants on several grounds. His argument
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: for motions have largely been disposed of through the court's
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: contemporaneously filed orders. Still remaining, however, is 1. Whether suppression
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: is warranted due to law enforcement's failure to knock and
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: announce in executing warrants at the Kohlberger residence. and two,
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: whether defendants' post-arrest statements are suppressible as fruit of the
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: poisonous tree and or due to Miranda violation. A suppression
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: hearing on the portion of defendants' motions at issue in
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: this order was held on January 24, 2025, during which
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: the court received testimony from Detective Corporal Brett Payne and
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: Detective Lawrence Mowry, both from the Moscow Police Department. The
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: court found both detectives to be credible and reliable. Following argument,
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: the court took the matter under advisement. The court finds
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: suppression is not warranted because 1. Exigent circumstances excuse the
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: abbreviated knock and announce and 2. Defendant has not established
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: a Miranda violation. 2. Standard. The standard review of a
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: motion to suppress is bifurcated. The power to assess the
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: credibility of witnesses, resolve factual conflicts, weigh evidence, and draw
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: factual inferences is invested in the trial court. State v.
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: Valdez Molina, 127, Idaho, 102, 106, 897, P. 2D, 993, 997, 1995.
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: combines the issue of law and fact, and the trial
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: court's factual findings will not be overturned unless they are
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: clearly erroneous. State v. Conant, 143, Idaho, 797, 799, 153, P. 3D, 477, 479-2007.
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: When a decision on a motion to suppress is challenged,
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: the application of constitutional principles to the facts found will
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: be freely reviewed. State v. Veneroso, 138 Idaho 925-928-71, p. 3d 1072-1075, 2003.
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: Finding a Fact On November 13, 2022, An officer from
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: the Moscow Police Department responded to a residence located at
• 15:09
  Speaker 1: 1122 King Road in Moscow, Idaho, where he discovered the
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: bodies of Madison Mogan, Kaylee Gonsalves, Ethan Chapin, and Zanna Kernodle.
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: Each appeared to have been stabbed to death. The investigation
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: that ensued was a multi-agency affair involving members of the
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: Moscow Police Department, the Idaho State Police, and the FBI,
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: among others. defendant who was a PhD student at Washington
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: State University in Pullman, Washington, emerged as a suspect in
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: the investigation. On or around December 16, 2022, defendant left
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: his Pullman apartment and drove to his parents' home located
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: at 119 Lambsden Drive in Albrightville, Pennsylvania, where he remained.
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: On or about December 28, 2022, the FBI and Moscow
• 15:55
  Speaker 1: Police Department requested assistance from the Pennsylvania State Police. in
• 15:59
  Speaker 1: their investigation, specifically in obtaining and executing warrants. As part
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: of this assistance, PSP reviewed reports and affidavits prepared by
• 16:09
  Speaker 1: the Moscow Police Department, including a probable cause statement prepared
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: by Detective Brett Payne outlining the circumstances of the crime
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: and the investigation to date. On December 29, 2022, a
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: criminal complaint and probable cause order were filed in this
• 16:26
  Speaker 1: action and the Latah County Magistrate issued a warrant for
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: defendant's arrest. See Defense Exhibit B to Lambsden's motion. The
• 16:36
  Speaker 1: same day, PSP applied for and obtained three search warrants
• 16:39
  Speaker 1: from a Pennsylvania magistrate, one for 119 Lambsden Drive, two
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: for a defendant's person, and three for a defendant's vehicle,
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: which was believed to be parked in the garage of
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: 1119 Lambsden Drive. The search warrants were supported by the
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: Affidavit of Probable Cause of Trooper Justin Larry, to which
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: was attached Detective Payne's probable cause statement. See Defense Exhibit
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: A to Lambsden Motion. Later that day, PSP received the
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: signed arrest warrant issued by the Latah County Magistrate. Late
• 17:12
  Speaker 1: in the evening on December 29, 2022, PSP and its
• 17:17
  Speaker 1: Special Emergency Response Team, CERT, prepared for the execution of
• 17:20
  Speaker 1: the warrants. Detective Payne was present briefly to observe the
• 17:24
  Speaker 1: final preparations, but then departed to prepare for defendant's arrival
• 17:28
  Speaker 1: at the PSP police station. It was Detective Payne's understanding
• 17:33
  Speaker 1: that PSP and CERT were preparing for a knock and
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: announce entry. During their final preparation, CERT snipers set an
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: umbrella around the residence to monitor any activity therein while
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: the helicopter monitored from overhead in the event defendant exited
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: the residence. At 1233 a.m., snipers observed a kitchen light
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: turn on and saw a taller, young, white male wearing
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: a black hoodie standing near the glass sliding door leading
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: out to the deck. At 1240 a.m., the same person
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: was seen again. This time, officers were able to positively
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: identify the person as defendant. At 1255 a.m., the light
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: turned on in the garage where defendant's vehicle was believed
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: to be parked. At 103 a.m., lights flashed in the
• 18:18
  Speaker 1: garage and as if the vehicle was being locked or
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: unlocked by a key fob. At 1.09 a.m., the defendant
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: was seen in the kitchen of the home, this time
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: wearing rubber gloves and handling a plastic baggie. Based on
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: these observations, law enforcement believed defendant was potentially destroying evidence
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: from the vehicle that was related to the homicides. Law
• 18:39
  Speaker 1: enforcement was also aware that defendant possessed a Glock handgun,
• 18:43
  Speaker 1: prompting a concern over officer safety due to the defendant's
• 18:46
  Speaker 1: heightened mental state of awareness. or threat level of police
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: possibly tracking them. Thus, law enforcement made the decision to
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: shorten the knock and announce when executing the warrants. At
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: approximately 1.14 a.m., Sirt made announcements from a bearcat parked
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: in the driveway of the residence. Immediately following announcements, Sirt
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: effectuated a forced entry into the residence. Defendant was arrested
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: without incident in a bedroom. His vehicle was located and
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: secured in the garage. Once apprehended, Defendant was handcuffed and
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: placed in a police vehicle. See state exhibit S6 to
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: lambs in objection. He was notified that he was in
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: a police vehicle and being audio and video recorded, which
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: he acknowledged. While awaiting transport, defendant informed law enforcement that
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: he unloaded the Glock 22 handgun in the residence by
• 19:37
  Speaker 1: his bed. During transport, defendant engaged in small talk with
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: the accompanying officers. When defendant expressed at one point that
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: he wanted to know what was going on with his arrest,
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: Law enforcement told him investigators were going to speak with
• 19:50
  Speaker 1: him at the station about the situation. The details of
• 19:54
  Speaker 1: the investigation were not discussed with Defendant. Once they arrived
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: at the station, Defendant was escorted into the processing room
• 20:01
  Speaker 1: to await interviews with Detective Payne, which occurred 10 minutes later.
• 20:05
  Speaker 1: Defendant was then informed of his Miranda rights and and
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: an interview subsequently began. Conclusions of Law There are two
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: issues before the court. One, whether law enforcement felt to
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: comply with the knock-and-announce rule in executing the warrants at
• 20:21
  Speaker 1: 119 Lambsden, and two, whether defendants' post-arrest statements are suppressible
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: as fruit of the poisonous tree and or due to
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: a Miranda violation. The state contends law enforcement abbreviated knock-and-announce
• 20:35
  Speaker 1: was justified by exigent circumstances, And further, defendant's statements are
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: not suppressible since there is no poison in his tree
• 20:43
  Speaker 1: and because he has not demonstrated any incriminating statements were
• 20:47
  Speaker 1: made while under interrogation. The state is correct. A. Law
• 20:51
  Speaker 1: enforcement did not violate defendant's rights in executing the Pennsylvania warrant.
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: Applicable Law Defendant contends that law enforcement's failure to fully
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: comply with the Knock and Announce Rule in executing the
• 21:04
  Speaker 1: Pennsylvania warrants violated his rights under the Pennsylvania and or
• 21:08
  Speaker 1: Idaho constitutions. While he contends Idaho law should be applied
• 21:12
  Speaker 1: to law enforcement's actions under a conflict of law analysis,
• 21:16
  Speaker 1: he recognizes at the same time that there is very
• 21:19
  Speaker 1: little daylight between Idaho and Pennsylvania law on the issue. Likewise,
• 21:24
  Speaker 1: the state notes that there is little difference between the
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: two on knock and announce and therefore does not take
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: a position on what law should apply. The court finds
• 21:34
  Speaker 1: it unnecessary to choose what law should apply given their
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: virtual identicality. Defendant is not asserting his Fourth Amendment rights
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: were violated. Though not cited by either party, this is
• 21:45
  Speaker 1: likely because the United States Supreme Court has held that
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: a violation of the Fourth Amendment's knock-and-announce requirement does not
• 21:52
  Speaker 1: require suppression of evidence. Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S., 586, 2006. Alright,
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up right here, and in the
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: next episode, we're going to finish this bad boy off.
• 22:04
  Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode can
• 22:06
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box. What's up everyone and
• 22:10
  Speaker 1: welcome back to the program. In this episode, we're picking
• 22:13
  Speaker 1: up where we left off with Judge Hipler's order on
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: the motion to suppress warrants from Pennsylvania and other searches.
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: Idaho's knock and announce statute requires police to announce their presence, purpose,
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: and authority before entering someone's home. I see section 19-4409
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: and 19-611. These requirements are also imposed by Article 1,
• 22:39
  Speaker 1: Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution, State v. Rauch 99,
• 22:43
  Speaker 1: Idaho 586, 593, 586p. 2d, 671, 678, 1978. In Rauch, however,
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: the Idaho Supreme Court adopted an exception to the rule
• 22:46
  Speaker 1: for exigent circumstances. While the court cautioned that such exigencies
• 23:01
  Speaker 1: are to be determined on a case-by-case basis, it did
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: set forth general circumstances under which exigent circumstances may be found,
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: including 1. reasonable belief that compliance with a NOC and
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: announced statute would result in destruction of evidence, or 2.
• 23:18
  Speaker 1: a reasonable relief that compliance would place the officer in peril.
• 23:22
  Speaker 1: In addition, the court set forth six factors to consider
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: when determining whether exigent circumstances exist. 1. The gravity or
• 23:31
  Speaker 1: violent nature of the offense with which the suspect is
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: to be charged. 2. Whether the suspect is reasonably believed
• 23:38
  Speaker 1: to be armed. 3. A clear showing of probable cause. 4.
• 23:43
  Speaker 1: A strong reason to believe the suspect is in the
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: premises to be entered. 5. The likelihood that the suspect
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: will escape if not swiftly apprehended. 6. The peaceful circumstances
• 23:54
  Speaker 1: of the entry. The court further explained that exigent circumstances
• 23:59
  Speaker 1: could include those immediate circumstances where a defendant may be armed,
• 24:03
  Speaker 1: where evidence may be easily and immediately destroyed, where a
• 24:07
  Speaker 1: defendant may escape, or where a defendant has engaged in
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: furtive conduct. Once it is determined defendant's rights have been
• 24:14
  Speaker 1: violated by police entry into a residence, suppression of evidence
• 24:18
  Speaker 1: resulting from the entry is required under Idaho's exclusionary rule.
• 24:23
  Speaker 1: Pennsylvania's knock-and-announce rule is set forth in its criminal rules,
• 24:27
  Speaker 1: and is imposed under Article 1, Section 8, of Pennsylvania's Constitution,
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: prohibiting unreasonable searches. The officer may break open an outer
• 24:38
  Speaker 1: or inner door or window of a house, or any
• 24:40
  Speaker 1: part of a house, or anything therein, to execute the warrant, if,
• 24:44
  Speaker 1: after notice of his authority and purpose, he has refused admittance.
• 24:49
  Speaker 1: IC Section 19-611 To make an arrest, if the offense
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: is a felony, a private person, If any public offense,
• 24:56
  Speaker 1: a peace officer may break open the door or window
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: of the house in which the person is to be
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: arrested or in which there is reasonable grounds for believing
• 25:04
  Speaker 1: him to be after having demanded admittance and explain the
• 25:08
  Speaker 1: purpose for which admittance is desired. Rule 207 P.A.R. Crim P.
• 25:15
  Speaker 1: A law enforcement officer executing a search warrant shall before
• 25:18
  Speaker 1: entry give or make reasonable effort to give a notice
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: of the officer's identity, authority, and purpose for any occupant
• 25:26
  Speaker 1: of the premises specified in the warrant unless exigent circumstances
• 25:30
  Speaker 1: require the officer's immediate forcible entry. Pennsylvania courts recognize four
• 25:36
  Speaker 1: exigent circumstances justifying dispensing with the rule. 1. The occupants
• 25:40
  Speaker 1: remain silent after repeated knocking and announcing. 2. The police
• 25:44
  Speaker 1: are virtually certain that the occupants of the premises already
• 25:47
  Speaker 1: know their purpose. 3. The police have reason to believe
• 25:51
  Speaker 1: that an announcement prior to entry would imperil their safety.
• 25:55
  Speaker 1: Or 4. The police have reason to believe that evidence
• 25:58
  Speaker 1: is about to be destroyed. Commonwealth v. Frederick PA Supreme
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: Court 2015 These circumstances are viewed under an objective standard,
• 26:09
  Speaker 1: looking only to the facts and circumstances with which the
• 26:12
  Speaker 1: officers are faced at the time they act on their
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: decision to dispense with the knock and announce. Commonwealth v.
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: Walker 874 A. 2d 667-673, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 2005. As in Idaho,
• 26:27
  Speaker 1: a violation of Pennsylvania's knock and announce requirements results in suppression.
• 26:33
  Speaker 1: As applied to the facts here, there are no substantive
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: differences between the knock and announce standards under Idaho law
• 26:40
  Speaker 1: and Pennsylvania law. Consequently, the court need not determine what
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: choice of law applies. It is undisputed that law enforcement
• 26:48
  Speaker 1: executed and abbreviated knock and announce prior to entry into
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: 119 Lambsden. According to the state, however, compliance was excused
• 26:57
  Speaker 1: by exigent circumstances, namely law enforcement's belief defendant was destroying
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: evidence of the crime and that compliance with knock and
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: announce would have placed officers' safety in jeopardy. The defendant
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: argues that these are not true exigencies. He notes that
• 27:13
  Speaker 1: he was surveilled by law enforcement prior to the execution
• 27:16
  Speaker 1: of the warrant and that there is no evidence he
• 27:18
  Speaker 1: is seen with weapons. Such officers shall wait or respond
• 27:23
  Speaker 1: for a reasonable period of time after his announcement of identity, authority,
• 27:27
  Speaker 1: and purpose unless exigent circumstances require the officer immediate forcible entry.
• 27:33
  Speaker 1: If the officer is not admitted after such reasonable period,
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: the officer may forcibly enter the premises and may use
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: as much physical force as to effect entry therein as
• 27:43
  Speaker 1: is necessary to execute the search. Defendant contends that in
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: the days prior to the execution of the warrants, law
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: enforcement had seen defendant go for runs around his parents' neighborhood.
• 27:55
  Speaker 1: Given these observations, defendant posits that there is no reason
• 27:59
  Speaker 1: to arrest him inside the house. Lambsden Motion, page 10. However,
• 28:03
  Speaker 1: defendants cited to no evidence of law enforcement's observation in
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: this regard. The only evidence this court could locate is
• 28:11
  Speaker 1: from the search warrant application for the Pennsylvania warrants, where
• 28:14
  Speaker 1: PSP trooper Larry states that the investigators began physical surveillance
• 28:19
  Speaker 1: of the property and area of 119 Lambsden Drive, Chestnut
• 28:23
  Speaker 1: Hill Township, and in the early morning hours of Tuesday,
• 28:26
  Speaker 1: December 27, 2022, observed Brian Kohlberger walking near his residence.
• 28:32
  Speaker 1: In furtherance of this argument, defendant cites to State v. Ramos,
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: where the Idaho Court of Appeals held that the executing
• 28:39
  Speaker 1: officer's belief that the home contained large amounts of marijuana
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: was not alone sufficient to justify the officer's breaking down
• 28:45
  Speaker 1: the door five seconds after knocking and announcing. Such a rule,
• 28:50
  Speaker 1: the court observed, would impermissibly create a blanket exception to
• 28:54
  Speaker 1: the knock-and-announce rule, which Rausch sought to avoid. The court
• 28:58
  Speaker 1: further found that the officer's exposure in approaching the home
• 29:01
  Speaker 1: did not justify the violation, observing that nearly all residential
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: homes have exposed front aspects. Defendant also relies on Commonwealth v. Kitchener,
• 29:11
  Speaker 1: where a Pennsylvania court found exigent circumstances where officers were
• 29:16
  Speaker 1: executing an arrest warrant upon a fugitive with a history
• 29:19
  Speaker 1: of violence, a propensity for fleeing from police, and who
• 29:22
  Speaker 1: was reputed to like guns, machine guns in particular. The
• 29:26
  Speaker 1: officers knocked and announced heard running footsteps within the residence
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: and believed the man was trying to escape or harm himself,
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: forcibly entered the home. The court found that given everything
• 29:36
  Speaker 1: the officers knew prior to executing the warrant, the forceful
• 29:39
  Speaker 1: entry was justified. The defendant points out that unlike in Kitchener,
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: law enforcement had no knowledge that defendant had a prior
• 29:47
  Speaker 1: criminal history, a reputation for violence, or was a gun aficionado.
• 29:51
  Speaker 1: They did not see him with a weapon and therefore
• 29:53
  Speaker 1: there was no reasonable basis to fear for their safety.
• 29:57
  Speaker 1: At most, he argues, law enforcement, had nondescript fears such
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: as those presented in Ramos. There are two infirmities in
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: defendant's argument, however. First, he entirely ignores the destruction of evidence,
• 30:09
  Speaker 1: which is what law enforcement relied upon greatly in dispensing
• 30:13
  Speaker 1: with the knock-and-announce requirement here. The evidence demonstrates that while
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: preparing to execute the warrants, law enforcement identified the defendant
• 30:21
  Speaker 1: in the early morning hours as he turned on a
• 30:23
  Speaker 1: light in the kitchen and then proceeded into the garage
• 30:26
  Speaker 1: where his vehicle was believed to be parked. Law enforcement
• 30:29
  Speaker 1: was aware that defendant was suspected of having driven that
• 30:33
  Speaker 1: vehicle during the commission of the homicides and knew it
• 30:36
  Speaker 1: could contain evidence. Law enforcement then saw the vehicle lights
• 30:40
  Speaker 1: flash in the garage as if a vehicle was being
• 30:42
  Speaker 1: unlocked or locked. Immediately afterwards, they saw defendant again in
• 30:47
  Speaker 1: the kitchen wearing rubber gloves and handling a plastic baggie. Further,
• 30:51
  Speaker 1: it was 109 a.m. in the morning, a time when
• 30:54
  Speaker 1: most people would not be removing items from their car
• 30:57
  Speaker 1: with rubber gloves. These observations gave rise to the reasonable
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: belief that perhaps aware of law enforcement surveillance defendant was
• 31:05
  Speaker 1: destroying or secreting evidence of the crimes. Second, compounding the
• 31:09
  Speaker 1: concern of the potential destruction of evidence, there was an
• 31:12
  Speaker 1: equally compelling concern that a knock and announce could pose
• 31:15
  Speaker 1: a serious danger to law enforcement. Law enforcement had reviewed
• 31:19
  Speaker 1: the investigation reports and probable cause statements provided by Idaho detectives,
• 31:25
  Speaker 1: the executing officer's new defendant, based on compelling evidence, was
• 31:29
  Speaker 1: believed to have orchestrated an unprovoked and exceptionally brutal quadruple
• 31:33
  Speaker 1: homicide with a knife. They had information he was in
• 31:36
  Speaker 1: possession of a Glock handgun. They knew he was in
• 31:39
  Speaker 1: the residence, awake, potentially aware of law enforcement's presence, and
• 31:43
  Speaker 1: potentially destroying evidence, or perhaps retrieving his gun or a
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: weapon from the vehicle. His vehicle was in the garage nearby,
• 31:52
  Speaker 1: thus giving him means of a quick escape, while prior
• 31:54
  Speaker 1: to allegedly killing four people defendant may not have had
• 31:57
  Speaker 1: an extensive criminal history or general reputation for violence, as
• 32:02
  Speaker 1: did the defendant in Kitchener. It does not mean law
• 32:04
  Speaker 1: enforcement's safety concerns were unreasonable, given what they knew. When
• 32:09
  Speaker 1: these circumstances are collectively considered, the court finds law enforcement
• 32:13
  Speaker 1: was well justified in making an abbreviated announcement and forced entry. Thus,
• 32:18
  Speaker 1: suppression is not warranted. B. Defendant has not established he
• 32:23
  Speaker 1: was interrogated when he made unidentified statements. Defendant next argues
• 32:28
  Speaker 1: any statements he made to law enforcement prior to being
• 32:31
  Speaker 1: Mirandized must be suppressed, either as fruits of the poisonous
• 32:35
  Speaker 1: tree or as Miranda violations. Having determined the execution of
• 32:39
  Speaker 1: the warrants at 119 Lambsden was valid, the question is
• 32:42
  Speaker 1: whether there was a Miranda violation. The court finds that
• 32:46
  Speaker 1: there was not. Pursuant to Miranda and its progeny, to
• 32:50
  Speaker 1: protect the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, police must
• 32:54
  Speaker 1: inform individuals of their right to remain silent and their
• 32:57
  Speaker 1: right to counsel, either retained or appointed, before undertaking a
• 33:01
  Speaker 1: custodial interrogation. The term interrogation includes not only express questioning,
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: but also its functional equivalent. The functional equivalent of interrogation
• 33:12
  Speaker 1: includes any words or actions on the part of the police,
• 33:15
  Speaker 1: other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody, that
• 33:19
  Speaker 1: the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an
• 33:22
  Speaker 1: incriminating response. Custody is determined by whether there is a
• 33:26
  Speaker 1: formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the
• 33:29
  Speaker 1: degree associated with a formal arrest. The state does not
• 33:33
  Speaker 1: dispute defendant was in custody when first detained. However, there
• 33:37
  Speaker 1: is no evidence before the court that defendant was interrogated
• 33:40
  Speaker 1: at any point from his arrest to the time he
• 33:42
  Speaker 1: was formally interviewed by Detective Payne, at which point he
• 33:46
  Speaker 1: was Mirandized. The sole evidence that the defendant engaged in
• 33:50
  Speaker 1: small talk with officers, with the only exception being when
• 33:53
  Speaker 1: he was briefly asked about his arrest, and was told
• 33:56
  Speaker 1: that investigators were going to speak to him at the
• 33:59
  Speaker 1: station about the situation. Voluntary or spontaneous statements or questions,
• 34:04
  Speaker 1: unprompted by interrogation, fall outside the scope of Miranda. Consequently,
• 34:09
  Speaker 1: there is no basis for suppression. Conclusion. Based on the foregoing,
• 34:14
  Speaker 1: the court denies the following. Defendant's motion to suppress Pennsylvania
• 34:18
  Speaker 1: warrant for 119 Lambsden Drive. Defendant's motion to suppress arrest
• 34:23
  Speaker 1: warrant November 14, 2024. Motion to suppress Pennsylvania's search warrant
• 34:28
  Speaker 1: for white Hyundai Elantra bearing VIN number 5NPDH4AE6FH79860, November 14th, 2024.
• 34:41
  Speaker 1: Defendant's motion to suppress Pennsylvania's search warrant for Mr. Kohlberger's person.
• 34:46
  Speaker 1: Defendant's motion to suppress search warrant for defendant's apartment. It's
• 34:50
  Speaker 1: so ordered, dated this 19th day of February, 2025, and
• 34:55
  Speaker 1: this was signed by Judge Hippler. And like I was
• 34:58
  Speaker 1: saying earlier, we have several more orders to dive into,
• 35:01
  Speaker 1: so we're going to get cracking on that as well.
• 35:04
  Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode can
• 35:07
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and
• 35:11
  Speaker 1: welcome back to the program. In this episode, we're headed
• 35:14
  Speaker 1: back up to Moscow, and we're going to take a
• 35:16
  Speaker 1: look at a few motions that were filed in Limineh
• 35:19
  Speaker 1: By the defense. And all of these motions have to
• 35:22
  Speaker 1: do with inflammatory evidence. Case number CR01-24-31665. State of Idaho Plaintiff.
• 35:32
  Speaker 1: First Brian C. Kohlberger, the defendant. Motion in limine number one.
• 35:38
  Speaker 1: Inflammatory evidence. Comes now. Brian C. Kohlberger by and through
• 35:42
  Speaker 1: as attorneys of record. And hereby moves the court for
• 35:45
  Speaker 1: an order preventing the prosecution from introducing irrelevant... and unfairly
• 35:50
  Speaker 1: prejudicial photographs, testimony, and other exhibits in violation of his
• 35:54
  Speaker 1: right to a fair trial protected through the 5th, 6th,
• 35:57
  Speaker 1: and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution and Section 1,
• 36:02
  Speaker 1: Article 13 of the Idaho Constitution. Such rights are protected
• 36:06
  Speaker 1: through application of Idaho criminal rules and Idaho rules of evidence. Mr.
• 36:11
  Speaker 1: Koberger respectfully requests this court order the state to not
• 36:15
  Speaker 1: try the case through eliciting testimony and other evidence that
• 36:19
  Speaker 1: is exceptionally inflammatory. Presenting the case in an emotional and
• 36:24
  Speaker 1: inflammatory way is unfairly prejudicial. Any probative value is less
• 36:28
  Speaker 1: than the danger. Additionally, the prosecution should not present the
• 36:32
  Speaker 1: same information in a variety of ways, which is misleading
• 36:36
  Speaker 1: or accumulative and a waste of time. IRE 403 states,
• 36:41
  Speaker 1: Although relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value
• 36:44
  Speaker 1: is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion
• 36:48
  Speaker 1: of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations
• 36:52
  Speaker 1: of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of
• 36:56
  Speaker 1: cumulative evidence. The case contains over 68 terabytes of data.
• 37:02
  Speaker 1: This data contains thousands of photographs. Many depict roughly the
• 37:06
  Speaker 1: same content. There are photographs that depict the deceased as
• 37:09
  Speaker 1: well as the same location without the deceased. Multiple officers
• 37:14
  Speaker 1: took photographs of the same areas. Additionally, there are many
• 37:18
  Speaker 1: hours of body-worn camera footage. Body-worn footage depicts the officers
• 37:23
  Speaker 1: moving throughout the house. There are hundreds of photographs of
• 37:26
  Speaker 1: autopsy proceedings. In addition to this evidence, over 100 officers
• 37:31
  Speaker 1: and investigators have been involved in the case and hundreds
• 37:34
  Speaker 1: of people that have been interviewed. Mr. Kohlberger seeks to
• 37:38
  Speaker 1: protect the integrity of this trial and requests an order
• 37:42
  Speaker 1: preventing inflammatory evidence, including testimonial evidence, to be excluded. Appeals
• 37:48
  Speaker 1: to emotion, passion, or prejudice of the jury through use
• 37:51
  Speaker 1: of inflammatory tactics are impermissible. State v. Phillips 144, Idaho 82, 87, 156, P. 3D, 583, 588.
• 37:56
  Speaker 1: See also State v. Babb 125, Idaho 934, 942, 877, P. 2D, 905, 913, 1994.
• 37:58
  Speaker 1: State v. Ellington 151, Idaho 53, Mr. Koberger acknowledges the
• 38:23
  Speaker 1: Idaho Supreme Court has held that a photograph cannot be
• 38:26
  Speaker 1: excluded merely on the basis of being gruesome. However, Mr.
• 38:35
  Speaker 1: Koberger is not making that motion. Rather, he is requesting
• 38:39
  Speaker 1: that the state be prevented from introducing inflammatory evidence. Multiple
• 38:44
  Speaker 1: studies have found that mock jurors are more likely to
• 38:47
  Speaker 1: convict when exposed to graphic photos. Kevin S. Douglas. The
• 38:51
  Speaker 1: impact of photographic evidence on mock jurors' decisions in a
• 38:55
  Speaker 1: murder trial. Probative or prejudicial. 21 Law and Human Behavior 485-501-1997.
• 39:05
  Speaker 1: Gruesome evidence and emotion. Anger blame and jury decision making.
• 39:10
  Speaker 1: Other studies have shown that judicial instructions to ignore such
• 39:13
  Speaker 1: evidence are ineffective, while some have actually found such instructions
• 39:17
  Speaker 1: cause jurors to place more emphasis on that evidence. Joel
• 39:22
  Speaker 1: Lieberman and Jamie Ampt understanding the limits of limiting instructions,
• 39:26
  Speaker 1: social psychological explanations for the failures of instructions, to Disregard
• 39:31
  Speaker 1: Pretrial Publicity, and Other Inadmissible Evidence. David A. Sklansky, Evidentiary
• 39:37
  Speaker 1: Instructions and the Jury as Others, 65 Standard, Review 407-2013.
• 39:44
  Speaker 1: Michelle Cox and Sarah Tanford, Effects of Evidence and Instructions
• 39:48
  Speaker 1: in Civil Trials. an experimental investigation of rules of admissibility.
• 39:54
  Speaker 1: Emily R. Edwards and Karen E. Motorella, preserving the right
• 39:59
  Speaker 1: to a fair trial, an examination of prejudicial value of
• 40:02
  Speaker 1: visual and auditory evidence. Saul M. Kasson and David A. Garfield,
• 40:08
  Speaker 1: blood and guts, general and trial-specific effects of videotaped crime
• 40:12
  Speaker 1: scenes on mock juror verdicts. Mr. Koberger's right to a
• 40:17
  Speaker 1: fair trial free from irrelevant evidence Cumulative and unfairly prejudicial evidence,
• 40:22
  Speaker 1: as guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Idaho
• 40:26
  Speaker 1: and the United States of America, would be violated to
• 40:28
  Speaker 1: allow exhibits depicting gruesome details or the emotional reactions of
• 40:33
  Speaker 1: the police officers at the scene or during their testimony
• 40:36
  Speaker 1: during trial. This document was dated February 24, 2025, and
• 40:40
  Speaker 1: it was signed by Ann Taylor. All right, moving on
• 40:45
  Speaker 1: to the next document. This one is motion in limine
• 40:48
  Speaker 1: number three, the use of the term murder. Case number 0124-31665.
• 40:53
  Speaker 1: State of Idaho plaintiff versus Brian C. Kohlberger, the defendant.
• 41:01
  Speaker 1: Comes now. Brian C. Kohlberger buying through his attorneys of
• 41:05
  Speaker 1: record and hereby moves the court for an order prohibiting
• 41:08
  Speaker 1: the use of the words murder, murderer, murdered, murder weapon,
• 41:12
  Speaker 1: and similar forms of the word murder applied to Brian
• 41:15
  Speaker 1: Kohlberger during the trial of this matter. This motion is
• 41:19
  Speaker 1: not seeking a prohibition on the use of the word
• 41:22
  Speaker 1: murder or its varying forms in the charging document or
• 41:25
  Speaker 1: jury instructions. This motion is made pursuant to ICR 47
• 41:29
  Speaker 1: IRE 403-701-702, the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments to the
• 41:31
  Speaker 1: United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 13 of the
• 41:34
  Speaker 1: Idaho Constitution. Whether the killing at issue are murder as
• 41:44
  Speaker 1: allegedly committed by Brian Koberger or by an alternate suspect
• 41:49
  Speaker 1: or someone still unknown is the ultimate issue. Each side
• 41:52
  Speaker 1: will present this very argument to the jury. It's a
• 41:56
  Speaker 1: matter of fact to be found by the jury after
• 41:58
  Speaker 1: the court instructs the jury with the applicable instructions to
• 42:02
  Speaker 1: label Mr. Koberger as a murderer, the alleged weapon consistent
• 42:06
  Speaker 1: with an empty sheath as a murder weapon, or to
• 42:09
  Speaker 1: assert that any of the four decedents was murdered by Mr.
• 42:13
  Speaker 1: Kohlberger denies his right to a fair trial and the
• 42:16
  Speaker 1: right to be presumed innocent. IRE 403 allows exclusion of
• 42:20
  Speaker 1: evidence that is unfairly prejudicial to a party. By analogy,
• 42:25
  Speaker 1: the same principle should apply to terminology that is unfairly prejudicial.
• 42:29
  Speaker 1: The use of the word murder during the course of
• 42:31
  Speaker 1: the trial is unfairly prejudicial in that it asserts a
• 42:35
  Speaker 1: factual and legal conclusion of the evidence, a determination, which
• 42:39
  Speaker 1: is left to the jury. The prosecutor, law enforcement, and
• 42:43
  Speaker 1: medical examiner are viewed with authority and respect by most jurors.
• 42:47
  Speaker 1: When persons with authority speak, laypeople tend to believe their
• 42:50
  Speaker 1: statements and conclusions. If the prosecution and or its witnesses
• 42:55
  Speaker 1: use these words in its case in chief, it would
• 42:58
  Speaker 1: improperly imply to the jury that it's the prosecutor or
• 43:01
  Speaker 1: witness's belief or opinion that the defendant is guilty of murder.
• 43:06
  Speaker 1: This is improper opinion testimony under IRE 701-704. It's improper
• 43:12
  Speaker 1: for the prosecution to express a personal belief unless the
• 43:15
  Speaker 1: comment is based solely on inference. Expert testimony that concerns
• 43:20
  Speaker 1: conclusions or opinions that the average juror is qualified to
• 43:24
  Speaker 1: draw from, the facts utilizing the juror's common sense and
• 43:27
  Speaker 1: normal experience is inadmissible. State v. Ellington 151 Idaho 53
• 43:33
  Speaker 1: 66 253 P. 3D- 727- 740- 2011. Mr. Koberger requests an order prohibiting the
• 43:43
  Speaker 1: lawyers and witnesses from using the words murder, murderer, murdered,
• 43:47
  Speaker 1: murder weapon, as well as a derivative form of the
• 43:50
  Speaker 1: word murder. This document was dated February 24th, 2025, and
• 43:56
  Speaker 1: this was also signed by Ann Taylor. All right, moving
• 44:00
  Speaker 1: on to our final document for this episode, we have
• 44:03
  Speaker 1: the motion in limine number four. using the term psychopath
• 44:12
  Speaker 1: or sociopath. Comes now. Brian C. Kohlberger buying through his
• 44:23
  Speaker 1: attorneys of record and hereby moves the court for an
• 44:26
  Speaker 1: order prohibiting the state from name-calling. Specifically, this motion seeks
• 44:31
  Speaker 1: to bar the use of the terms psychopath and sociopath.
• 44:36
  Speaker 1: This motion is made pursuant to ICR 47, IRE 403,
• 44:41
  Speaker 1: 701 through 704, the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments to
• 44:46
  Speaker 1: the United States Constitution, and Article 1, Section 13 of
• 44:50
  Speaker 1: the Idaho Constitution. IRE 403 allows exclusion of evidence that
• 44:55
  Speaker 1: is unfairly prejudicial to a party. By analogy, the same
• 44:59
  Speaker 1: principle should apply to the terminology that is unfairly prejudicial.
• 45:04
  Speaker 1: The use of the word psychopath or sociopath during the
• 45:06
  Speaker 1: course of the trial is unfairly prejudicial. See attached affidavit
• 45:11
  Speaker 1: of John Edens. This is improper opinion testimony under IRE 701-704.
• 45:18
  Speaker 1: Neither term is a proper diagnosis and is unequivocally unfairly prejudicial. Mr.
• 45:23
  Speaker 1: Kohlberger requests an order prohibiting the lawyers and witnesses from
• 45:27
  Speaker 1: using the words psychopath and sociopath. This document was dated
• 45:32
  Speaker 1: February 24th 2025, and this document was signed by Ann Taylor.
• 45:37
  Speaker 1: All right, folks, that's going to do it for this one.
• 45:40
  Speaker 1: All of the information, including my contact information, can be
• 45:44
  Speaker 1: found in the description box.