Idaho Prosecutors Seek to Limit Defense’s "Alternative Perpetrator" Theory in Kohberger Murder Trial
The upcoming trial of Bryan Kohberger, accused of the brutal murders of four University of Idaho students, is shaping up to be a contentious battleground, with prosecutors seeking to preemptively restrict the defense’s ability to introduce evidence suggesting an "alternative perpetrator." At the heart of this dispute lies the discovery of unidentified blood samples at the crime scene, samples that the defense argues could cast reasonable doubt on Kohberger’s guilt.
The quadruple homicide, which took place in a six-bedroom house near the University of Idaho campus in Moscow, claimed the lives of Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin. Mogen and Goncalves, both 21, and Kernodle, 20, were housemates, while Chapin, 20, was Kernodle’s boyfriend and a resident of the nearby Sigma Chi fraternity house. All four victims were found to have suffered multiple stab wounds.
In the aftermath of the murders, investigators collected various pieces of evidence from the crime scene, including blood samples found on a handrail inside the house and on a glove located outside. Forensic analysis revealed that these samples originated from two unidentified men, distinct from each other and, crucially, distinct from Bryan Kohberger.
The defense team, led by attorney Anne Taylor, intends to argue that the presence of this unidentified blood suggests that someone other than Kohberger may have been responsible for the murders. However, prosecutors are seeking to prevent the defense from presenting this "alternative perpetrator" theory to the jury unless they can first demonstrate its relevance to the case under Idaho’s rules of evidence.
Latah County Prosecuting Attorney Bill Thompson, in a recent court filing, argued that the defense should be precluded from "offering or arguing alternative perpetrator evidence without first meeting the relevance and admissibility thresholds of [Idaho Rules of Evidence] 401, 402 and 403." These rules govern the admissibility of evidence, ensuring that it is relevant, probative, and not unduly prejudicial.
Thompson cited a prior Idaho Supreme Court decision that affirmed the trial court’s discretion to deem evidence inadmissible if it "merely tends to mislead the jury that another person committed the crime, or the evidence is not relevant because it does not tend to make the defendant’s involvement more probable or less probable." In essence, the prosecution is arguing that the mere possibility that another person could have committed the crime is not sufficient to warrant the admission of evidence suggesting their involvement.
The prosecution’s strategy hinges on the argument that the unidentified blood samples are less significant than other pieces of evidence linking Kohberger to the crime. Notably, prosecutors have emphasized the discovery of a knife sheath found under Mogen’s body, which they allege contained Kohberger’s DNA on the snap.
The defense, however, contends that the presence of unidentified blood at the crime scene cannot be dismissed so easily. Attorney Anne Taylor argued that it could raise reasonable doubt about Kohberger’s involvement, suggesting that he may not be connected to the crime at all. According to sources it could mean Kohberger, 30, is not related to the crime at all.
Edwina Elcox, a Boise-based defense attorney following the case, believes the defense will use the unidentified blood evidence to "muddy the waters" and create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.
The judge’s decision on this matter will have a significant impact on the course of the trial. If the judge sides with the prosecution, the defense will be severely limited in its ability to present an alternative perpetrator theory. Conversely, if the judge allows the defense to introduce the evidence, it could raise questions about the thoroughness of the investigation and potentially sway the jury.
The trial, scheduled to begin on August 11, is highly anticipated and promises to be a complex and emotionally charged affair. Kohberger faces the possibility of the death penalty if convicted.
Prior to a change of venue being granted, Latah County Judge John Judge entered not guilty pleas on Kohberger’s behalf at his arraignment in May 2023, setting the stage for the legal battle that is now unfolding. The case has garnered significant attention due to the horrific nature of the crime, the young age of the victims, and the intense media coverage surrounding the investigation.
The debate over the unidentified blood samples is just one of many legal challenges that are expected to arise during the trial. The defense is likely to challenge the admissibility of other pieces of evidence, including the DNA evidence found on the knife sheath. They may also raise questions about the reliability of witness testimony and the integrity of the investigation.
As the trial approaches, both the prosecution and the defense are preparing to present their respective cases to the jury. The prosecution will attempt to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Kohberger is guilty of the murders, while the defense will seek to raise doubts about the evidence and suggest that another person may have been responsible.
The outcome of the trial will depend on the strength of the evidence presented by both sides, as well as the ability of the attorneys to persuade the jury. Regardless of the verdict, the trial is sure to be a difficult and emotional experience for the families of the victims and the entire community.
