Court Filing
Filed: 10/16/2025 19:28:10 Fourth Judicial District, Ada County Trent Tripple, Clerk of the Court By: Deputy Clerk-Waters, Renee IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ADA STATE OF IDAHO, Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665 Plaintiff, V. ORDER UNSEALING, REDACTING AND / OR MAINTAINING SEALED BRYAN C. KOHBERGER, STATUS OF SECOND DOCUMENT SET Defendant. On September 3, 2025, the Court issued an order seeking the parties ' position regarding the unsealing of the second set of documents identified therein.¹ The Court has reviewed the parties ' respective responses and rules as follows: A. Documents to UNSEAL With regard to the following documents, the Court received no objection by either party to their unsealing and the Court finds no further justification under I.C.A.R 32 (i) (3) (A) to warrant their continued sealed status: 44) 05/30/2025-Parties Proposed Stipulated Jury Instruction 45) 05/28/2025-State's Proposed Supplemental Jury Instruction 51) 05/23/2025-Objection to the Court's Request for the Defense to Submit a Redacted Copy of Ex Parte Filing to the State 52) 05/22/2025-Exhibit F to Defendant's 6th Supplemental Response to Discovery 53) 05/22/2025-Defendant's 6th Supplemental Response to Discovery 54) 05/21/2025-Defendant's Objections to the Juror Questionnaire 55) 05/21/2025-Court Minutes-Closed Session 58) 05/14/2025-2nd Notice of Filing Defendant's Proposed Jury Instructions 59) 05/14/2025-Notice of State's Amended Exhibit List and Motion to Seal 61) 05/09/2025-Parties ' Joint Proposed Jury Instruction Regarding Tip Leading to Investigation of the Defendant 72) 04/21/2025-Defendant's Objections to the State's Requested Jury Instructions See, Second Order Seeking Parties ' Position Regarding Sealed Documents (Sept. 3, 2025). 1 73) 04/20/2025-State's Response to Defendant's Proposed Jury Instructions 75) 04/15/2025-Defendant's 2nd Response to State's First Supplemental Request for Discovery 77) 04/15/2025-Defendant's 5th Supplemental Response to Discovery 78) 04/14/2025-State's Requested Jury Instructions 79) 04/14/2025-State's Requested Jury Instructions (Duplicate) 82) 04/14/2025-Defendant's Proposed Jury Instructions 84) 04/08/2025-Exhibit 4 in Support of Defendant's Objection to State's Motion in Limine RE: AT & T Timing Advance With regard to the following documents, the Court received objection by one or both parties to their unsealing. However, after considering the objection (s), the Court finds no further justification under I.C.A.R 32 (i) (3) (A) to warrant their continued sealed status: 47) 05/27/2025-Exhibit S-2 to State's Supplemental Rebuttal Disclosure RE: Penalty Phase Experts 49) 05/27/2025-State's Supplemental Rebuttal Disclosure RE: Penalty Phase Expert 60) 05/13/2025-Exhibit S-1 to State's Motion to Reclaim Exhibits² 63) 05/05/2025-Court Minutes (SEALED) ³ 64) 05/01/2025-Reply in Support of State's Motion for Examination of Defendant Pursuant to I.C. 18-207 and for an Extension of Time 65) 04/29/2025-Defendant's Objection to State's Motion for Examination of Defendant Pursuant to Idaho Code 18-207 and for an Extension of Time 67) 04/25/2025-Gage Declaration in Support of Motion for Examination 68) 04/25/2025-State's Motion for Examination of Defendant Pursuant to I.C. 18-207 and for an Extension of Time 2 While the State objects pursuant to ICAR 32 (g) (7), which exempts from disclosure records of grand jury proceedings and the identity of jurors of grand juries, this document simply identifies some of the grand jury exhibits. It does not reveal testimony. 3 Both parties object to the unsealing of this document pursuant to I.C.A.R 32 (g) (1), I.C. § 74-106 (13) and I.C.A.R 32 (i) (3) (A) (1) on grounds that reference is made to Defendant's mental health diagnoses. However, the references to Defendant's mental health are scant and, more importantly, his diagnoses (i.e., Autism Spectrum Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Attention Deficit Disorder) have already been made public as a result of Defendant raising them as a defense in this case, thus waiving any privilege he has in such information. The Court finds that Defendant's limited privacy interests in this information are outweighed by the public's right to access to the same. This same rationale applies to # 64, 65, 67, 68 and 74. 2 70) 04/21/2025-State's Exhibit List 71) 04/21/2025-State's Witness List 74) 04/15/2025-Defendant's 2nd Response to Exhibit S-1 to State's First Supplemental Request for Discovery 76) 04/15/2025-Exhibit E to Defendant's 5th Supplemental Response to Discovery 80) 04/14/2025-State's Trial Brief 81) 04/14/2025-Defendant's Trial Brief 83) 04/11/2025-Defendant's Response to State's First Supplemental Request for Discovery RE: Transfer of Test Materials 87) 04/02/2025-Exhibit S-1 to State's First Supplemental Request for Discovery Disclosure B. Documents to MAINTAIN SEALED STATUS With regard to the following documents, the Court received objection by one or both parties to their unsealing. Having considered the objection (s), the Court agrees that their sealed status shall be maintained pursuant to I.C.A.R 32 (i) (3) (A): 48) 05/27/2025-Exhibit S-1 to State's Supplemental Rebuttal Disclosure RE: Penalty Phase Experts: This document contains sensitive and detailed confidential mental health information of Defendant and other individuals that has not been publicly disclosed. The release of this information into the public realm would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person, which outweighs the public's right to access. Thus, they shall remain sealed pursuant to I.C.A.R. 32 (i) (3) (A) (1). 50) 05/23/2025-Defendant's Evidence in Support of Offer of Proof RE: Alternate Perpetrators: This document contains numerous references to the names and other personal identifying information of proffered alternate perpetrators that could be used to identify them, the publication of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person. To preserve their privacy, continued sealing is appropriate under I.C.A.R. 32 (i) (3) (A) (1), (7). 56) 05/15/2025-Court Minutes-Closed Session: This document references discussions between the Court and the parties regarding the potential leak of information in this case, which subsequently resulted in an investigation. This information is exempt from disclosure under I.C.A.R 32 (g) (1) and I.C. § 74-124 (a). 3 57) 05/14/2025-Defendant's Offer of Proof RE: Alternate Perpetrators: This document is replete with personal, intimate information about proffered alternate perpetrators that could be used to identify them and the publication of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person. To preserve their privacy, the Court finds sealing appropriate under I.C.A.R. 32 (i) (3) (A) (1) and (7). 85) 04/08/2025-Exhibit D to Defendant's 4th Supplemental Response to Discovery: This document identifies medical records for individuals other than Defendant. The release of this information into the public realm would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person, which outweighs the public's right to access. Thus, they shall remain sealed pursuant to I.C.A.R. 32 (i) (3) (A) (1). 86) 04/04/2025-Notice RE: Defense Expert Disclosure-Exhibit D7-B: This document identifies certain mental health information that is private and protected under I.C. § 74- 106 (13) and, therefore, exempt from disclosure under I.C.A R. 32 (g) (1). Further, the release of this information would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person and shall remain sealed. I.C.A.R. 32 (i) (3) (A) (1). C. Documents to UNSEAL and REDACT With regard to the following documents, the Court received objection by one or both parties to their unsealing. Having considered the objection (s), the Court finds no further justification under I.C.A.R 32 (i) (3) (A) to warrant their continued sealed status, but redactions are necessary to balance the public's right to access with the privacy concerns implicated: 46) 05/28/2025-Defendant's Amended Phase Two-Mitigation Witness List: This document identifies the names and addresses of mitigation witnesses identified by Defendant. The primary concern voiced by both parties is fear that these witnesses will fact threats or harassment if their names are publicly revealed. However, the majority of these witnesses whose names have been publicly identified have reported no threats or harassment as a result and the few that have are largely individuals who had a prominent role the case. There have been no reported episodes of threats or harassment that have placed a witness's life or safety in danger. Consequently, the Court does not find that being identified on Defendant's witness list will lead to threats or harassment of such a degree to outweigh the public's right to access, particularly given the time that has passed and the corresponding reduction in public furor. The public now has direct access to the 4 most relevant evidence in the case; thus, the need to chase down all potential leads is alleviated. While some of the listed witnesses may be contacted by the media and potentially harassed or threatened, this remote potential does not justify the continued sealing of the record. However, due to the fact that her health conditions may render her particularly susceptible to adverse effects from the potential of threats and harassment, the Court orders that the name of the witness with the initials " C.E. " be redacted in favor of her initials. In addition, the Court will redact the addresses of each witness pursuant to I.C.A.R. 32 (i) (3) (A) (7). 62) 05/05/2025-Defendant's Phase Two-Mitigation Witness List: This document will be redacted consistent with # 46, supra. 66) 04/25/2025-Hurwit Declaration in Support of Motion for Examination: Exhibits S-3 and S-4 to this document are reports issued by Defendant's mental health experts containing confidential mental health information of Defendant and other individuals that has not been publicly disclosed. The release of this information into the public realm would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person, which outweighs the public's right to access. Thus, these two exhibits shall be redacted in full pursuant to I.C.A.R. 32 (i) (3) (A) (1). 69) 04/21/2025-Defendant's Phase One Lay Witness List: This document will be redacted consistent with # 46, supra. ORDERED and DATED this ☑day of October, 2025. St Steven Hippler District Judge 4 In addition, there is little chance the reputational harm will arise by the fact that the individuals were named as a mitigation witness given that the vast majority of the individuals did not agree to voluntarily appear and sought to distance themselves from any association with Defendant. 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on 10/16/2025 I served a true and correct copy of the ORDER UNSEALING, REDACTING AND / OR MAINTAINING SEALED STATUS OF SECOND DOCUMENT SET to: WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, JR. PROSECUTING ATTORNEY VIA EMAIL: paservice@latahcountyid.gov ASHLEY JENNINGS SENIOR DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY VIA EMAIL: paservice@latahcountyid.gov JOSHUA D. HURWIT SPECIAL DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY VIA EMAIL: paservice@latahcountyid.gov JEFFERY D. NYE SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL VIA EMAIL: jeff.nye@ag.idaho.gov MADISON ALLEN SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL VIA EMAIL: Madison.allen@ag.idaho.gov ANNE TAYLOR LAW, PLLC ANNE C. TAYLOR VIA EMAIL: info@annetaylorlaw.com ELISA G. MASSOTH, PLLC ELISA G. MASSOTH VIA EMAIL: emassoth@kmrs.net IDAHO STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE FIRST DISTRICT PUBLIC DEFENDER JAY W. LOGSDON VIA EMAIL: jay.logsdon@spd.idaho.gov BICKA BARLOW Pro Hac Vice VIA EMAIL: bickabarlow@sbcglobal.net TRENT TRIPPLE Clerk of the Court By: Ben Wat Deputy Clerk 10/16/2025 7:31:24 PM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE