State Response to Motion in Limine 14

Filed: 03/17/2025 11:50:54 Fourth Judicial District, Ada County Trent Tripple, Clerk of the Court
By: Deputy Clerk-Waters, Renee
LATAH COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, JR., ISB No. 2613
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

JEFF NYE, ISB 9238

SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

Latah County Courthouse 522 S. Adams Street, Ste. 211 Moscow, ID 83843
Phone: (208) 883-2246 ISB No. 2613 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

V. DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN

LIMINE # 14

BRYAN C. KOHBERGER,

Defendant. RE: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS COMES NOW the State of Idaho, by and through the Latah County Prosecuting Attorney, and responds to Defendant's Motion in Limine regarding statistical analysis. Defendant asks this Court to exclude a specific question asked in the grand jury and other " questions and testimony such as that [question]. " (Mot. at 3.) The State will not ask the same question asked in the grand jury because, as the witness explained in response to the question, it is not a helpful way to discuss the likelihood ratio. (G.J. Tr., p.369, Ls.3-9 (“ Unfortunately, this likelihood ratio isn't really on par with talking about the population. ").) However, the State objects to Defendant's request for an
STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE # 14 RE: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
1

order vaguely excluding “ questions and testimony such as that ” question. (Mot. at 3.) The same witness who answered the challenged question described what she meant when she said likelihood ratio:
[A] likelihood ratio is basically – it's a statistic that compares the probability of the evidence – and when I say of the evidence, I mean of the DNA profile we obtained from the evidence, it's the probability of that evidence under two different hypothesis. And one in this case, when we're comparing Bryan Kohberger's reference sample is the hypothesis that he is the contributor, or the source of the DNA, versus the hypothesis that it came from an unknown, unrelated, randomly selected individual.

And when we compute that statistic, we, of course, in this case got that number, 5.37 octillion times more likely, which I also just described being – on a – on a range of – of scale of the numbers that you can see for statistics, that's extremely – it's a very high number.

So it's extremely strong support that shows inclusion of – of that of his DNA in that sample. So, you'd be that many times more likely to see that DNA profile if he was the source of the DNA.

(G.J. Tr., p.367, L.24 – p.368, L.19.) The State plans on eliciting testimony consistent with this explanation and the relevant lab reports.

For the reasons stated above, this Court should deny Defendant's motion.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 17th day of March 2025.

William W. Thompson, Jr. Jeff Nye Prosecuting Attorney Special Assistant Attorney General
STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE # 14 RE: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
2

CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY

I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE # 14 RE: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 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 Hand Delivered Dated this 17th day of March 2025.

STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE # 14 RE: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
3