State Trial Brief - Ada

Filed: 04/14/2025 09:45:07 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

ASHLEY S. JENNINGS, ISB No. 8491
SENIOR DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

JOSHUA D. HURWIT, ISB. No. 9527
SPECIAL 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 DISTRICT OF THE

STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ADA

STATE OF IDAHO, Case No. CR01-24-31665 Plaintiff,
STATE'S TRIAL BRIEF

V.

BRYAN C. KOHBERGER,

Defendant.

TO: THE DEFENDANT, BRYAN CHRISTOPHER KOHBERGER,

AND COUNSEL

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned, pursuant to the Court's Scheduling Order in this case, submits this Trial Brief in anticipation of trial, which begins July 21, 2025, with jury selection.

STATE'S TRIAL BRIEF 1

INTRODUCTION

In the early morning hours on November 13, 2022, Defendant, Bryan C. Kohberger, a Ph.D. student in Criminology at Washington State University (WSU), drove his car approximately ten miles from his apartment complex in Pullman, Washington, to the campus of the University of Idaho (UI) in Moscow, Idaho. Defendant circled a house near the UI campus at 1122 King Road several times before he parked his car, entered that house, and used a military style knife to stab to death the following UI students: Ethan Chapin, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, and Madison Mogen. For this, Defendant is charged with burglary and four counts of first-degree murder. The State is seeking the death penalty if Defendant is convicted of any of the first-degree murder counts.

The trial in this case will tell the story of Defendant's crimes and the investigation that led to his arrest. The evidence will prove to the jury not only that Defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all crimes charged in the Indictment, but also that, given all relevant facts and circumstances, Defendant's crimes warrant the death penalty.

THE CHARGES AND DEATH PENALTY

The Grand Jury returned an Indictment that charges Defendant with the following crimes:
• Count I: burglary in violation of Idaho Code § 18-1401 and 1403 for entering 1122 King Road with the intent to commit murder;
• Count II: first degree murder in violation of Idaho Code § 18-4001–4004 for the killing of Madison Mogen;
• Count III: first degree murder in violation of Idaho Code § 18-4001–4004 for the killing of Kaylee Goncalves;
• Count IV: first degree murder in violation of Idaho Code § 18-4001–4004 for the killing of Xana Kernodle; and
STATE'S TRIAL BRIEF 2

• Count V: first degree murder in violation of Idaho Code § 18-4001–4004 for the killing of Ethan Chapin.

The elements of these crimes are well-established under Idaho law and are presented in the State's Requested Jury Instructions.

The State has provided notice of intent to seek the death penalty based on four aggravating circumstances under Idaho Code § 19-2515 (9):
• at the time the murder was committed Defendant also committed another murder (§ 19- 2515 (9) (b)); and / or
• the murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel, manifesting exceptional depravity (§ 19-2515 (9) (e)); and / or
• by the murder, or circumstances surrounding its commission, Defendant exhibited utter disregard for human life (§ 19-2515 (9) (f)); and / or
• Defendant, by his conduct, whether such conduct was before, during or after the commission of the murder at hand, has exhibited a propensity to commit murder which will probably constitute a continuing threat to society (§ 19-2515 (9) (i)).

The State's Requested Jury Instructions also cover the penalty phase.

THE STATE'S CASE-IN-CHIEF

I. Opening Statement As detailed below, the State's case-in-chief will involve presenting significant amounts of evidence over the course of many weeks, if not months. During opening statements, the State intends to show the jury certain selected exhibits and certain jury instructions to facilitate the State's overview of the evidence.

Pursuant to the Court's Redacted Order Governing Further Criminal Proceedings and Notice of Trial Setting dated October 9, 2024 (hereinafter, the “ Scheduling Order "), the parties are required to file a log of objections to exhibits by May 14, 2025. Accordingly, the State should
STATE'S TRIAL BRIEF 3

know whether Defendant objects to the exhibits it intends to show during its opening statement and will alert the Court — through motions in limine or other mechanism preferred by the Court— of potential disputes so that the Court can have the opportunity to resolve them prior to trial.

II. Witness Testimony The State is currently finalizing its Witness List and will be as inclusive as possible to ensure that it is prepared to establish proper foundation for all testimony and exhibits. The State may not need to call all of the witnesses on the forthcoming Witness List as it learns of Defendant's evidentiary objections and the Court has the opportunity to resolve any disputes.

A. Categories of Witnesses The State's witnesses generally can be organized into the following categories:
1. Roommates, Friends, Acquaintances, and Contacts of Murder Victims The State intends to call members of the UI and Moscow community who knew or had contact with the murder victims at relevant times, including on the night of the murders. Such witnesses will include the victims ' surviving roommates — who are victims of Defendant's burglary offense — and friends who responded to the house around noon on November 13, 2022.

The State will also call other individuals who had contact with the victims on the preceding days up to the night of the murders to establish the timeline of events.

2. Law Enforcement Officers and Investigators The State will call law enforcement officers who first responded to 1122 King Road. The State will also call investigators who were responsible for and participated in the extensive investigation that led to the charges in this case. These witnesses will include (i) officers and detectives with the Moscow Police Department (MPD), (ii) investigators with the Idaho State
STATE'S TRIAL BRIEF 4

Police (ISP), (iii) agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and (iv) law enforcement officers who had contact with Defendant at relevant times, including upon his arrest in Pennsylvania.

3. Forensic Analysts / Experts The State will call law enforcement specialists who, collectively, conducted the forensic investigations in this case. These include those who possess specialized knowledge, skills, experience, training, and education in the following fields: (i) electronic device review and data extraction, (ii) cellular data analytics, (iii) DNA testing and analysis, and (iv) financial records forensics. These witnesses are primarily employed by MPD, ISP, or the FBI. To the extent necessary, the State previously disclosed these witnesses through its expert witness disclosures.

4. Family Members of Defendant The State intends to call family members of Defendant for the purpose of establishing certain facts before Defendant moved to Pullman in late summer 2022, as well as facts about Defendant's conduct when he returned home to Pennsylvania in December 2022. The nature of this testimony has been disclosed through reports of interviews.

5. Foundational Witnesses The State will be prepared to call all witnesses necessary to authenticate the exhibits it will introduce at trial. This will include calling witnesses who can attest to the chain of custody for physical exhibits and those who can establish that certain documents are business records (and therefore not subject to exclusion as hearsay). Depending on any objections that Defendant makes to the State's exhibits, the State may raise authentication and / or foundation disputes with the Court in an attempt to streamline the number of necessary foundational witnesses.

STATE'S TRIAL BRIEF 5

B. Considerations and Requests Regarding Individual Witnesses
1. Privacy for Testifying Victim-Witnesses The State will call two roommates of the murder victims who were present in the 1122 King Road house during the murders. These witnesses were nineteen years old at the time of the murders. They have been understandably traumatized by what transpired and are victims of the burglary offense. They have received death threats, have been the subject of conspiracy theories, and have been harassed online in ways that continue to affect their privacy interests and well-being. The State is concerned that, if video of these witnesses ' testimony is broadcast on the livestream, individuals outside of court could screen capture images of them and circulate them on the internet in harmful ways. Accordingly, the State requests that the Court pause the video livestream (but not the audio, if possible) during the testimony of these victim-witnesses to protect their privacy to the extent possible.

The Court should grant the State's request pursuant to Idaho Court Administrative Rule 32 and Rule 611 (a) of the Idaho Rules of Evidence. The former grants courts the discretion to adopt trial procedures that provide public access to court proceedings while “ minimiz [ing] the risk of injury to individuals ” and “ protect [ing] individual privacy rights and interests. ” I.C.A.R.

32 (a) (5) - (6); see State v. Gurney, 272 P.3d 474, 476 (Idaho 2012). Rule 611 (a) provides:
The court should exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence so as to:
(1) make those procedures effective for determining the truth;
(2) avoid wasting time; and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.

I.R.E. 611 (a) (emphasis added).

STATE'S TRIAL BRIEF 6

As an initial matter, the State's request does not prevent public access to the witnesses ' testimony. The public will be able to hear their testimony, and members of the public who are present in the courtroom will be able to see the witnesses as they testify. This is consistent with the vast majority of trials in the State of Idaho, which are not livestreamed.

Effectively, the State's request simply prevents the images of the witnesses from being re-recorded and disseminated in potentially harmful ways. The witnesses ' voices and the content of their testimony will still be available on the livestream. As such, the State's request presents " the least restrictive exception from disclosure ” and is consistent with the policies underlying Rule 32.¹ See I.C.A.R. 32 (i) (3).

2. Support for Victim-Witnesses, Victims, and Young Witnesses Several witnesses — namely, the surviving roommates and other friends of the victimsare young people whose lives have been upended by the trauma of the murders and the aftermath caused by the intense media attention on this case. Some are represented by counsel and most have family members who intend to attend the trial to support them when they testify.

Anticipating that courtroom seating may be scarce, the State asks that the Court allow for counsel and family members of these witnesses to be seated in the courtroom when the witnesses testify. The State will provide advance notice to the Court and its staff.

3. Lead Case Investigators at Counsel Table The State is designating Moscow Police Department (MPD) Corporal Brett Payne and ISP Sergeant Darren Gilbertson as its advisory witnesses. See Idaho R. Evid. 615 (a) (2) - (3). Pursuant 1 As applied to sealing or redacting of “ court records, ” Rule 32 contemplates a motion and a finding by a court. The State stands ready to make a formal motion if the Court prefers.

STATE'S TRIAL BRIEF 7

to a stipulation, the parties agree that these investigators may be present in the courtroom during all witness testimony. Accordingly, the State intends for these investigators to be present at counsel table to advise the prosecutors and assist in trial logistics.

4. Segmented Testimony by Investigators and Witnesses The State intends to present the testimony of investigators and other witnesses in segments to assist the State in presenting its chosen narrative of the evidence. This will also assist the jury in understanding the progression of the investigation at issue. Pursuant to Idaho Rule of Evidence 611 (a), the Court should allow this procedure to “ make the interrogation and presentation [of witnesses] effective for the ascertainment of the truth. ” There will be no prejudice to Defendant because each time one of these witnesses testifies, they will be subject to cross examination at that time on the subjects covered in the portion of their testimony just presented. Certain witnesses may also be called out of order to accommodate travel schedules or to allow them to subsequently be present in the courtroom after their testimony.

5. Exchange of Witness Schedule The parties are discussing a procedure by which the State would notify Defendant as to the anticipated timing and the order of witnesses it intends to call as the State presents its casein-chief. The State is willing to work with Defendant in this way but will request that the same procedure apply during Defendant's case.

III. Exhibits to be Introduced The State is currently finalizing its Exhibit List and will be as inclusive as possible to ensure that it meets its burden of proof as to each element of each charged offense. The State may not need to introduce all exhibits on the forthcoming Exhibit List as it learns of Defendant's
STATE'S TRIAL BRIEF 8

evidentiary objections and the Court has the opportunity to resolve any disputes.

A. Categories of Exhibits The State's exhibits generally can be organized into the following categories:
1. Physical Items The State will introduce physical items obtained throughout the investigation, including (but not limited to) items taken from 1122 King Road, Defendant's apartment in Washington, Defendant's parents ' residence in Pennsylvania, and evidence gathered from Defendant upon his arrest. The State also will be prepared to introduce, as necessary, physical samples that were tested by the law enforcement forensic laboratories.

2. Photographs, Maps, and Diagrams The State will introduce photographs of (1) the initial crime scene and related searches of the crime scene; (2) the victims ' autopsies; (3) the search of Defendant's residence in Pullman; (4) the search of Defendant's parents ' residence in Pennsylvania; and (5) the search of Defendant's vehicle and person. The State will also introduce maps generated from satellite images to show relevant locations and Defendant's path of travel at relevant times. The State will also introduce diagrams of the 1122 King Road house and the crime scene.

3. Audio and Video Files The State will introduce the audio of the 911 telephone call that alerted authorities to the crime scene. In addition, the State will introduce (1) body camera footage for law enforcement officers responding to the scene; (2) body camera footage of a traffic stop of Defendant several months prior to night of the murders; (3) surveillance of a white sedan around the area of the crime scene and path of travel following the murders. The State may elect to introduce only
STATE'S TRIAL BRIEF 9

portions of the video files for purposes of efficiency.

4. Background Records The State will introduce various records to establish evidentiary facts such as identity, residency, education, and other background characteristics for Defendant and victims.

5. Forensic Data The State will introduce data generated by law enforcement forensic analysts who processed evidence in the case. Such exhibits will be used as foundation for these witnesses ' testimony as to their findings.

6. Summary Exhibits The State will introduce summaries of voluminous evidence, e.g., financial records, phone records, etc. which are admissible under Rule 1006 of the Idaho Rules of Evidence.

B. Considerations and Request Regarding Specific Exhibits
1. In Life Photos of Victims The State intends to introduce one photograph of each of the deceased victims in this case while they were still living (“ in life ” photos) to prove the obvious but necessary fact that they were human beings. See Idaho Criminal Jury Instructions 701 (Murder Defined). In State v.

Garcia, 462 P.3d 1125 (Idaho 2019), the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the State to introduce “ in life ” photographs of a murder victim because the photographs were relevant to prove that the victim was a human being and to establish identity. Id. at 1135. It did not matter that the evidence was not disputed it was still material and relevant. Id.

The State is cognizant, however, of the Garcia Court's finding that the prosecution in its
STATE'S TRIAL BRIEF 10

case-in-chief presented testimony that went beyond relevant background information and called for a witness to describe the positive attributes of the victim. Id. at 1136-37. During the guilt phase, the State will endeavor to quickly introduce background facts about the deceased victims, including the in life photos without eliciting opinions about them.

2. Physical Items The State will present various physical items as exhibits, including items from the crime scene, items seized from Defendant, and items that were the basis of forensic examinations (e.g., electronic devices and swabs and samples of biological materials that were tested). To expedite the trial, the State intends to use photographs of these physical items as much as possible, subject to the Court's rulings on any objections from Defendant as to authenticity, chain of custody, or foundation. The State will endeavor to raise such issues with the Court in advance of trial after it receives Defendant's objections to the Exhibit List.

2. Graphic Photographs The State necessarily will have to show graphic and disturbing images of the crime scene and of the deceased victims ' bodies. The State will be selective in doing so and will not present unduly cumulative exhibits. Prior to calling a witness through which graphic photographs will be introduced, the State will provide advance warning to the Court and to the families of the deceased victims so that family members can decide whether to leave the courtroom.

The State also requests that the Court pause the video of the livestream and turn off the public courtroom monitors when graphic exhibits are published to the jury. Again, as with the testimony of the surviving housemates, the State is concerned that individuals could capture these images and distribute them in harmful ways. The Court has the discretion to grant this
STATE'S TRIAL BRIEF 11

request under Idaho Court Administrative Rule 32 (a) (5) - (6). The State understands at least one court has adopted a similar procedure in another capital murder case that was livestreamed.

3. Self-Authenticating Records Many of the State's exhibits are self-authenticating records. Where applicable, the State is gathering records certifications to support the admission of these exhibits pursuant to Rule 902 of the Idaho Rules of Evidence and will disclose these certifications to Defendant. To the extent that Defendant still lodges objections to these exhibits based on authentication or foundation, the State will seek to raise them with the Court prior to trial to avoid using trial time to resolve such disputes.

4. Demonstrative Exhibits The State anticipates some of its witnesses will use demonstrative exhibits to assist the jury in understanding their testimony and the evidence. The State understands that demonstrative exhibits do not need to be disclosed as part of the Exhibit List but, at the Court's discretion, will be prepared to disclose demonstrative aids before they are used by a witness.

Accordingly, the State asks that Defendant also disclose any demon