Defense Seeks to Limit DNA Evidence in Idaho Student Murders Trial

The upcoming trial of Bryan Kohberger, accused of the brutal murders of four University of Idaho students in November 2022, is shaping up to be a battleground over forensic evidence, particularly DNA findings. At the heart of the dispute is the DNA discovered under the fingernails of victim Madison Mogen, a 21-year-old marketing major from Coeur d’Alene.

Mogen, along with her close friend Kaylee Goncalves, also 21, and housemates Xana Kernodle, 20, and Kernodle’s boyfriend Ethan Chapin, 20, were found stabbed to death in an off-campus rental home in Moscow, Idaho. The crime sent shockwaves through the university community and beyond, sparking a massive investigation that ultimately led to Kohberger’s arrest.

According to court filings, investigators discovered a mixture of DNA from at least three individuals under Mogen’s fingernails. The prosecution is expected to present this evidence as an indication that Mogen fought back against her attacker, potentially collecting DNA in the process. However, the defense team, now bolstered by the addition of attorney Bicka Barlow, a specialist in challenging DNA evidence, is seeking to limit the testimony surrounding these fingernail scrapings.

Barlow argues that the DNA evidence is inconclusive and could mislead the jury. She asserts that independent testing conducted by the defense has ruled out Kohberger as a contributor to the DNA found under Mogen’s nails. In redacted motions, Barlow contends that focusing on an "inconclusive" likelihood ratio (LR) for Kohberger would unfairly suggest that his DNA might be present in the sample, when, according to her, the opposite is true. She highlights that Kohberger’s inconclusive LR is similar to that of "almost every other person" for whom an LR was generated, implying a lack of specific connection to the crime scene.

Barlow specifically targets the testimony of Jade Miller, who discussed the samples recovered from under a nail on Mogen’s left hand. While the precise details of Miller’s testimony remain redacted in publicly available filings, Barlow argues that it is misleading and therefore inadmissible under state law.

The defense’s strategy appears to be multifaceted. Firstly, they are attempting to cast doubt on the strength of the DNA evidence linking Kohberger to the crime. By emphasizing the inconclusive nature of the findings and highlighting the possibility of alternative interpretations, they hope to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.

Secondly, the defense is suggesting the possibility of an "alternative perpetrator" or perpetrators. The presence of unknown DNA under Mogen’s fingernails, along with previously raised questions about blood samples found on a handrail and a glove outside the house, fuels the theory that other individuals were involved in the murders.

Joseph Giacalone, a retired NYPD sergeant and cold case investigator, supports this line of reasoning, stating that the presence of unknown DNA "could play in the defense very well that there was more than one person at the location in order to control that many people." This argument implies that the crime was too complex for a single individual to execute effectively, suggesting the need for accomplices.

The prosecution, however, is likely to argue that the DNA evidence, even if not definitively conclusive on its own, is part of a larger body of evidence that points to Kohberger’s guilt. They may emphasize the presence of a knife sheath found near Mogen’s body, which allegedly contained DNA evidence that helped identify Kohberger as a suspect.

Furthermore, police allege that Kohberger had a pattern of visiting the area around the victims’ home prior to the murders. They cite cellphone records and video footage of a white Hyundai Elantra, similar to the one Kohberger owned and was pulled over in on multiple occasions, as evidence supporting this claim. These details aim to establish a pattern of behavior consistent with premeditation and stalking.

The trial, now overseen by Judge Steven Hippler in Boise, is scheduled to begin on August 11. Kohberger has been charged with four counts of first-degree murder, and prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. Kohberger’s initial arraignment saw Judge John Judge entering not guilty pleas on his behalf in May 2023.

The legal battles surrounding the admissibility of DNA evidence are likely to be contentious and play a crucial role in the outcome of the trial. The defense’s efforts to limit testimony and suggest alternative scenarios are aimed at weakening the prosecution’s case and creating reasonable doubt. The prosecution, in turn, will seek to present a compelling narrative that connects Kohberger to the crime scene and establishes his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Beyond the specific DNA evidence, the case has already faced scrutiny regarding the handling of information and public access. An initial period of "pervasive" secret filings, restricting public access to information, was eventually curtailed by a judge, highlighting the tension between protecting the integrity of the investigation and ensuring transparency in the legal process.

As the trial date approaches, the focus will increasingly shift to the courtroom, where the competing arguments and evidence will be presented to a jury tasked with the weighty responsibility of determining Kohberger’s fate. The battle over DNA evidence, the potential for alternative perpetrator theories, and the broader context of the investigation will all contribute to the narrative that unfolds in the coming weeks. The outcome of the trial will undoubtedly have a lasting impact on the families of the victims, the university community, and the wider public.