I just found the footage of oral arguments in Idaho in the matter of Bryan Kohberger’s motion to suppress the evidence against him. Most of the hearing was sealed, but the public portion begins at 5:20:
The first issue, the IGG identification suppression, seems to me dead on arrival. The defense argues that a warrant was needed to obtain the DNA evidence from the knife, move the DNA snippet to the lab, transfer it to the FBI, and search the trash. CA v. Greenwood disposes of all these issues quite neatly: anything you discharge is fair game. The defense complains about the absence of transparency regarding the chain of evidence, but that’s a confrontation issue, not an admissibility issue.
The second issue, the Franks motion, is worth explaining. A Franks motion seeks to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant that was itself obtained through false information. The defense argues that the one eyewitness who saw the perpetrator gave a statement that included admissions of confusion and sleepiness, which were removed from the affidavit. The defense also argues that the identification of the car was presented as more definite than what it actually was (including some uncertainty on the part of the FBI regarding the estimated year of the car). The prosecution responded that the level of detail the defense expected was not necessary for a determination of probable cause.
No comment yet, add your voice below!