State Response to Motion in Limine 10

Electronically Filed
3/10/2025 4:00 PM

Fourth Judicial District, Ada County Trent Tripple, Clerk of the Court
By: Jennifer Keyes, Deputy Clerk
LATAH COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, JR., ISB 2613

PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

ASHLEY S. JENNINGS, ISB 8491

SENIOR DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

Latah County Courthouse 522 S. Adams Street, Ste. 211 Moscow, ID 83843
Phone: (208) 883-2246 paservice@latahcountyid.gov
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE
STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ADA

STATE OF IDAHO, Case No. CR01-24-31665 Plaintiff,
STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S

V. MOTION IN LIMINE # 10

BRYAN C. KOHBERGER RE: IMPROPER EXPERT OPINION

Defendant. TESTIMONY-MITTELMAN COMES NOW the State of Idaho, by and through the Latah County Prosecuting Attorney, and responds to the Defendant's “ Motion in Limine # 10 RE: Improper Expert Opinion Testimony Mittelman " filed on February 24, 2025, as follows:
The State's disclosure regarding Dr. Mittelman was in response and rebuttal to the Defendant listing Leah Larkin and Daniel Hellwig as expert witnesses, in regard to IGG matters, and demonstrates his superior quantifications by education, research and direct experience with Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG). However, now that the Defendant has indicated that he will no longer seek to offer evidence related to IGG (see Defendant's February 24, 2025, " Motion in Limine # 11 RE: Exclude IGG Evidence ”), including not calling Ms. Larkin or Mr.

STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE # 10

RE: IMPROPER EXPERT OPINION TESTIMONY-MITTELMAN 1

Hellwig, the State has no current intention of calling Dr. Mittelman to testify in rebuttal. The State notes that its February 24, 2025, “ State's Motion in Limine RE: Investigative Genetic Genealogy " seeking, among other things, an order in limine “ describing the extent to which the parties can refer at trial to investigative genetic genealogy (“ IGG ”) used in this case... ” is still pending. In light of the Defendant's position that he will not be raising any issues related to IGG evidence, the State is willing to agree and now gives notice to Court and Counsel that it will only seek to introduce evidence / testimony that law enforcement received a “ tip ”, without mention of the source or substance of the tip, and that law enforcement then followed up and identified the Defendant. See “ State's Response to ‘ Defendant's Motion in Limine # 11 RE: Exclude IGG Evidence. " RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 10th day of March 2025.

William W. Thompson, Jr.

Prosecuting Attorney
STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE # 10

RE: IMPROPER EXPERT OPINION TESTIMONY-MITTELMAN 2

CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY

I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the STATE'S RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE # 10 RE: IMPROPER EXPERT OPINION TESTIMONY
- MITTELMAN were served on the following in the manner indicated below:
Anne Taylor Mailed Attorney at Law E-filed & Served / E-mailed PO Box 2347 Faxed Coeur D Alene, ID 83816 info@annetaylorlaw.com Hand Delivered Dated this 10th day of March 2025.

S

Jacie
STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE # 10

RE: IMPROPER EXPERT OPINION TESTIMONY-MITTELMAN 3