Defendant Response to State Motion to Limit Testimony

Close

Court Filing

PDF Defendant Response to State Motion to Limit TestimonyTestimony Limitation Response
court Court Filing Idaho 4

Named in this document

  • Bryan Kohberger Person
  • Jay Logsdon Person
  • Anne Taylor Person
  • Elsa G. Massoth Person
  • Jay Lessder Person
  • Julie Fry Person
  • Tamzen Reeves Person
Electronically Filed
5/10/2024 3:01 PM

Second Judicial District, Latah County Julie Fry, Clerk of the Court
By: Tamzen Reeves, Deputy Clerk Anne C. Taylor, Public Defender Kootenai County Public Defender PO Box 9000 Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816
Phone: (208) 446-1700; Fax: (208) 446-1701
Bar Number: 5836 iCourt Email: pdfax@kcgov.us Elisa G. Massoth, PLLC Attorney at Law P.O. Box 1003 Payette, ID 83661 208-642-3797 Assigned Attorney:
Anne C. Taylor, Public Defender, Bar Number: 5836 Jay Weston Logsdon, Chief Deputy Litigation, Bar Number: 8759 Elisa G. Massoth, Bar Number: 5647
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE
STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LATAН

STATE OF IDAHO CASE NUMBER CR29-22-0002805

Plaintiff,
V. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO STATE'S

MOTION TO LIMIT TESTIMONY

BRYAN C. KOHBERGER,

Defendant.

COMES NOW, Bryan C. Kohberger, by and through his attorneys of record, and hereby submits the following Response to the State's Motion to Limit Testimony filed May 10, 2024.

In the State's Motion, the State contends that the Affidavit of Probable Cause is “ irrelevant at this stage ”. State's Motion at 4. The State cites no authority for this claim. Mr.

Kohberger has the ability to challenge the probable cause affidavits in this matter that were used to procure warrants. See, e.g., State v. Thompson, 114 Idaho 746, 753 (1988) (finding informer's DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO STATE'S MOTION TO LIMIT TESTIMONY Page-1

reliability a relevant issue as it related to probable cause for a wiretap); State v. Hosey, 132 Idaho 117, 120 (1988) (finding informer's reliability a relevant issue as it related to probable cause for a search); State v. Hosey, 134 Idaho 883, 888 (2000) (same); State v. Pendleton, 172 Idaho 825 (2023) (finding field-performance of drug dog properly discoverable as relevant to probable cause inquiry).

The finding of an Indictment does not preclude a Defendant from seeking to gain through discovery information relevant to the probable cause provided to the Court.

DATED this 10 day of May, 2024.

ANNE C. TAYLOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER

ΚΟΟΤΕΝΑI COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER

Jay Lessderr
BY:

JAY WESTON LOGSDON

CHIEF DEPUTY LITIGATION

ASSIGNED ATTORNEY

CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was personally served as indicated below on the 10 day of May, 2024 addressed to:
Latah County Prosecuting Attorney –via Email: paservice@latahcountyid.gov Elisa Massoth – via Email: legalassistant@kmrs.net Dul DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO STATE'S MOTION TO LIMIT TESTIMONY Page-2