The University of Idaho Murders: The Strange Battle over Investigative Genetic Genealogy

Summary

Murder Sheet Podcast Summary
Episode Title: The University of Idaho Murders: The Strange Battle over Investigative Genetic Genealogy
Release Date: March 18, 2025
Hosts: Áine Cain (Journalist) & Kevin Greenlee (Attorney)
Produced by: Mystery Sheet LLC

---

Introduction

In this gripping episode of Murder Sheet, hosts Áine Cain and Kevin Greenlee delve deep into the perplexing case of the University of Idaho murders. This episode focuses on the intricate legal battles surrounding the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) in the prosecution of Brian Coburger, the accused perpetrator behind the quadruple homicide of four young students at the University of Idaho.

---

Case Background

On November 13, 2022, authorities discovered a knife sheath at the crime scene located at a residence on King Road in Moscow, Idaho. DNA analysis of the sheath yielded a profile that, when run through the Idaho State Police Laboratory's standard STR methods and uploaded to CODIS, resulted in no matches. This dead end prompted the investigation to pivot towards IGG, a relatively new technique in forensic science.

Áine Cain [04:38]: "The man who stands accused of that horrible crime is a man named Brian Coburger. He was a PhD student studying at Washington State University, not too far away."

---

Understanding Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG)

IGG leverages advancements in genetic testing and genealogy databases to identify potential suspects by constructing family trees based on partial DNA matches. In the Coburger case, Moscow Police Department collaborated with Othram Labs to convert the initial DNA profile into a Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) profile, which was then compared against various genealogy databases to locate possible relatives of the perpetrator.

Áine Cain [06:00]: "If you have a perpetrator leave behind a DNA profile at a scene, if investigators cannot find a match for that, perhaps the person's not in the system, they're not in CODIS. They can build out the family tree and say, oh, it looks like this guy would be cousins with these people."

---

Legal Filings and Motions

The crux of the episode revolves around a recent legal dispute involving a Motion in Limine filed by Coburger's defense team. A Motion in Limine seeks to exclude certain evidence from being presented at trial. In this instance, the defense requested the exclusion of IGG evidence, arguing that the omission of Othram's Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) constituted a Brady violation—a breach where the prosecution withholds exculpatory evidence that could benefit the defense.

Kevin Greenlee [04:52]: "A motion in limine is filed by one side or the other, asking the judge to make a preliminary ruling around some piece of evidence, like saying, definitely say this can be included. Definitely say this can be excluded."

---

Brady vs. Youngblood: Legal Standards Explained

The hosts break down the distinction between Brady and Youngblood violations:

• Brady Violation: Occurs when the prosecution withholds evidence favorable to the defense, regardless of intent. This evidence must have a reasonable probability of affecting the trial's outcome.

• Youngblood Violation: Pertains specifically to situations where the prosecution destroys or fails to preserve evidence, thereby requiring proof of bad faith to establish a violation.

Áine Cain [11:34]: "A Brady violation... the prosecution is intentionally withholding it."

The prosecution, led by William Thompson Jr., counters the defense's motion by clarifying that the omitted SOPs fall under Brady rather than Youngblood standards. They argue that the defense failed to demonstrate that the withheld SOPs were exculpatory or impeaching, thus not meeting the criteria for a Brady violation.

Kevin Greenlee [20:48]: "Yeah, that's lawyer talk for the state is right."

---

Prosecution's Response and Court Orders

Thompson emphasizes that the IGG evidence did not play a role in obtaining warrants and will not be introduced at trial, except as a vague tip to illustrate the investigative process. The state contends that the omission of the SOPs was inadvertent and falls outside the scope of material relevance to the case.

Áine Cain [20:48]: "The court found that... the state's argument that the IGG investigation is wholly irrelevant... was well supported."

Furthermore, the prosecution acknowledges that while some IGG-related documents inadvertently excluded SOPs were identified, these were protected under the court's protective order and deemed irrelevant to the trial's core focus: the DNA match between Coburger and the knife sheath.

---

Defense's Allegations and Prosecution's Rebuttal

The defense claims that the failure to disclose Othram's SOPs violates Coburger's constitutional rights, seeking to exclude IGG evidence altogether. However, the prosecution rebuts by asserting:

1. Relevance of IGG: The SOPs are procedural documents that do not directly impact the validity of the DNA match.
2. Timeliness of Disclosure: The omission was identified and rectified well in advance of the trial, negating claims of prejudice or undue surprise.
3. Lack of Exculpatory Nature: The SOPs neither exonerate Coburger nor undermine the prosecution's case.

Áine Cain [29:12]: "Mr. Coburger is now asking for the remedy of exclusion because at this late date, he will be unable to investigate the impact of the evidence itself..."

---

Hosts' Analysis and Perspectives

Áine and Kevin express skepticism towards the defense's strategy, likening it to over-focusing on procedural minutiae while potentially diverting attention from more substantive evidence. They debate the plausibility of the defense's narrative that Coburger's DNA was planted to frame him, pointing out the lack of concrete connections or motives presented thus far.

Áine Cain [38:04]: "If you want to vacation that's completely and totally host free? Make it a vrbo."
(Note: This seems out of context and likely part of an ad—appropriate to skip.)

Instead, they emphasize the importance of focusing on the DNA match and its direct relevance to the crime:

Kevin Greenlee [39:09]: "That's fair to say that... it's fair to say that the defense wants to distract from elements of the case it finds damaging to them."

The hosts advocate for an open-minded approach, acknowledging the complexity of legal arguments while maintaining that the core evidence against Coburger remains compelling.

---

Conclusion and Current Status

The episode concludes with the prosecution requesting the court to exclude IGG evidence from the trial, aside from its use as a general investigative tip. They argue that both parties agree on minimizing the role of IGG in the courtroom to maintain focus on the DNA evidence linking Coburger to the knife sheath.

Áine Cain [56:46]: "This court should thus enter an order excluding the IGG information at trial, other than as a generic tip, for the purpose of helping the jury understand how the investigation progressed."

Áine and Kevin reaffirm their commitment to follow the case closely as it progresses towards trial, promising to update listeners on further developments and filings.

---

Final Thoughts

Throughout the episode, Murder Sheet provides an insightful exploration of the legal intricacies involved in prosecuting a major crime using emerging forensic technologies. The hosts adeptly navigate the complexities of IGG, legal standards, and procedural motions, offering listeners a comprehensive understanding of the battle between defense and prosecution in the quest for justice.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps:

• Áine Cain [04:38]: Introduction of Brian Coburger and the case background.
• Áine Cain [06:00]: Explanation of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG).
• Kevin Greenlee [04:52]: Definition and purpose of a Motion in Limine.
• Kevin Greenlee [20:48]: Prosecution's stance on legal arguments.
• Áine Cain [29:12]: Defense's position on excluding IGG evidence.
• Áine Cain [56:46]: Prosecution's request to exclude IGG evidence at trial.

---

Note: This summary excludes all advertisement segments and non-content discussions to focus solely on the episode's true crime analysis.

Transcript

[Anya Cain]

The search for truth never ends. Introducing June's Journey, a hidden object mobile game with a captivating story. Connect with friends, explore the Roaring twenties and enjoy thrilling activities and challenges while supporting environmental causes. After seven years, the adventure continues with our Immersive Travels feature. Explore distant cultures and engage in exciting experiences. There's always something new to discover. Are you ready?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Download June's Journey now on Android or iOS.

[Anya Cain]

You deserve little luxuries, items and experiences that make your day special that lighten your mood. Well, if you want luxury that won't break the bank, you ought to check out our wonderful sponsor, Quince. Do not miss out.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Quint is a brand that's providing luxury products for all of us ordinary people. Silk shirts and dresses that are not only quality made but also washable. 14 karat gold jewelry for when you want something sparkly sweaters of Mongolian cashmere and organic cotton. Those are the kind of premium products that Quince offers at a great price.

[Anya Cain]

All Quint's items are 50% to 80% less costly than those of their competitors. Plus Murder Sheet listeners are going to get a great deal on shipping and returns, but Quints is able to do all of this by cutting out the middleman the savings pass on to you. And just remember, by supporting our sponsors, you're really supporting us.

[Kevin Greenlee]

We recently gifted ourselves some luxurious pieces from Quince. I got their suede bomber jacket and I love it. And whenever I wear it out I get lots of compliments, which of course I enjoy. It is also highly functional and comfortable and I've really appreciated it during this cold Indiana winter.

[Anya Cain]

Give yourself the luxury you deserve with quince. Go to quince.commsheet for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's quincee.commsheet to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.commsheet this message comes from Greenlight. Ready to start talking to your kids about financial literacy? Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app that teaches kids and teens how to earn, save, spend wisely and invest with your guardrails in place. With Greenlight, you can send money to kids quickly, set up chores, automate allowance and keep an eye on your kids spending with real time notifications. Join millions of parents and kids building healthy financial habits together on Greenlight. Get started risk [e-mail] wondery content warning this episode contains discussion of violence and murder. So today we're going back to Moscow, Idaho. Going to be covering the University of Idaho murders this, of course, is the murder, the quadruple homicide of four young students at the University of Idaho. The man who stands accused of that horrible crime is a man named Brian Coburger. He was a PhD student studying at Washington State University, not too far away. So this is a case that's gotten a lot of attention. This is a case that's had a lot of filings so far, long pre trial phase. And we're going to talk about some of the recent filings that have come out over investigative genetic genealogy and its use in this case and how even though the defense and the prosecution are fundamentally arguing different things, they come to a rather strangely similar conclusion. My name is Anya Cain. I'm a journalist.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney.

[Anya Cain]

And this is the Murder Sheet.

[Kevin Greenlee]

We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases. We're the Murder Sheet.

[Anya Cain]

And this is the University of Idaho. The Strange battle over investigative genetic genealogy.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So, Anya, what's the filing we're going to be discussing today in this case?

[Anya Cain]

Well, we're going to be discussing the state's response to defendants motion in lemonade number 11 regarding excluding investigative genetic genealogy evidence.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Can we start by maybe defining some terms? What's. When we talk about a motion in limonae? What is that?

[Anya Cain]

Why are you asking? You are the lawyer, sir, and I am going to be rambling on enough today. So why don't you tell us what a. Well, okay, I'll tell you what I think it is and then you correct me. Okay? A motion in limine is one of the parties in a case essentially saying, hey, can we not, can we not bring this into things? Can we exclude this?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Basically, before trial, a motion in limine is filed by one side or the other, asking the judge to make a preliminary to make a preliminary ruling around some piece of evidence, like saying, definitely say this can be included. Definitely say this can be excluded. So in this case, it was the defense asked that this IGG evidence be excluded. It's important to note that the rulings on motion eliminate are not necessarily final and that it can be changed if more evidence comes to light. The other thing, what's investigative genetic genealogy?

[Anya Cain]

Investigative. So investigative genetic genealogy is the process of. As advances in genetic testing and DNA have kind of come to the forefront. You have websites where people can upload their genetic information in order to create genealogy profiles and create family trees. So if I do that, I can see all my cousins potentially, or like, what families I might be related to. And there are certain ones that allow more for law enforcement sources for law enforcement searches. So what's happened is that law enforcement can sometimes use these genealogical records and the combination of those with the genetics to form family trees and find perpetrators. So if you have a perpetrator leave behind a DNA profile at a scene, if investigators cannot find a match for that, perhaps the person's not in the system, they're not in codis. They can build out the family tree and say, oh, it looks like this guy would be cousins with these people. So let's look at the available public records. Oh, well, their cousin lives in that town, so let's look at him as a suspect. So it's, it's essentially been used to crack a lot of cases. It's an investigative technique and it has certainly come up in this case. So let's, let's look at the facts here.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Let's do it.

[Anya Cain]

How does IGG come up in the Idaho case? Well, on November 13, 2022, police found a knife sheath at the crime scene at the house on King Road where the four victims were murdered in Moscow, Idaho. And they analyzed the sheath, they found a DNA profile. They put that through the typical STR methods through the Idaho State Police Laboratory and then uploaded it to codis. And no match, no offender, no known offender match the DNA. So then what they did was Moscow Police Department as well as the Idaho State Forensic Lab, they took that DNA and sent it to Othram Labs. Othram Labs is a company, a private lab that does a lot of this work. They're pretty well known within the true crime space. And they were the ones who worked on this one. So they, they translated that DNA into a SNP profile which allowed them to then be look at it in comparison with the different David databases to find relatives for this person. Now, we're not scientists. I don't know if anyone knows this. We're pretty clear that we're a journalist and a lawyer who also majored in history and English. So if you want some more information that you might find helpful about igg, how this works, all the different terms, I would strongly suggest that you listen to our episode with the wonderful ladies from Ignite DNA. They specialize in this. This is what they do. And they actually talk to us about the CO Burger case. So we talked to the founders, Nancy Landini, Lisa Needler. I'll link to that episode in our shownotes because it might be a good refresher as we're going through this. But they talked to us and how this kind of pertains to the. The murders of Ethan Chapin, Xander Kernodle, Madison Mogan and Kaylee Gonzalez. So that's the kind of background now and just a reminder of who we're talking about here. William Thompson Jr. Is the prosecuting attorney for Layta County. So he's kind of the leader of the prosecutors here. Ann Taylor is the lead defense counsel, so she's leading CO Burger's team. That's who we're dealing with. So it's funny, we're talking about Thompson's filing, but he's really responding to Taylor's filing.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So that's, you know, so this particular filing comes from the state. So as we go through it, it's important to remember that this means we're looking at things through the prism of the prosecution. This is their point of view.

[Anya Cain]

Exactly. And you know, it's one of these things is it's kind of like an ongoing conversation sometimes. So you kind of have to hear out both sides here. So let's see, let's go back to the background on the DNA though. So they, the, the Police use this IgG via the DNA from the knife sheath, they trace the DNA back to Coburger's family and then are able to get DNA from items from the trash at his parents Pennsylvania residence. That looks, you know, like, yes, this, you know, this would be a relative of the perpetrator of the offender. And then later they do, once they have him in custody, they do a buckle swab on him and that's how they kind of get that connection. So more on that later and how important IGG is within this process. But that's kind of the factual background here. So what the defense alleged will be, will become kind of clear as we talk about what the state's response to that is. But as just to put a pin in it, what, what essentially they're saying is that the state did not provide the court with a specific document from othram kind of explaining their standard operating procedures. And they're arguing, the defense is arguing that that is a Brady violation, which is something we hear again a lot about in true crime. Do you mind just kind of generally throwing out what a Brady violation is?

[Kevin Greenlee]

A Brady violation, just generally, I'm sure we'll go into this in more detail is there's some sort of information that the prosecution has that would help the defense's case and the prosecution is intentionally withholding it.

[Anya Cain]

Right, Right. So defense is arguing that they've argued you didn't give Us this AAM Standard Operating Procedures Information Brady violation. We want IGG excluded from the trial. So that's kind of where we are now. The def. Now the prosecution is responding to that, and they start off with some background on sort of the litigation around this issue, because there's been a lot of back and forth about IGG in this case. I believe we've covered some of it in the past. I mentioned our interview with the Ignite ladies, but there's also, you know, we. I think we've covered in a few episodes in the past. So they. They trace it back to June 2023, and that was when the state put out a protective order or a request for a protective order on the IGG in this case. What they essentially were doing in my analysis was saying, hey, the IGG just got us there. It's essentially like a tip. We don't need the defense bringing in every random person who's in his family tree who had nothing to do with this and was not important to this case. We don't need them having everything because it's immaterial. It's irrelevant to the case. All that matters, ultimately, all we care about at trial is that we took that buckle swab and we can say that matches the knife sheath. It doesn't matter how we got there. And more than that, they said that the IGG elements did not fall under Idaho Criminal Rule 16, which deals with discovery. They're saying, that's irrelevant here. This doesn't count within that scope. And we have. The only thing we want to do is have an investigator get up on the stand and say the IGG functioned as a tip and it directed us toward the defendant, got us there. The equivalent of someone calling from a pay phone and saying, hey, I think. I think I saw something. And here's what you know, here's what I saw. Ultimately, it matters that you have the evidence connecting someone. If the IGG had led there and then somehow there was something terribly wrong and the DNA didn't match, then obviously Coburger would not be in hot water right now. So the state's idea at this time was to have the court review all of the IGG elements in camera and figure out what they should. What the court would then determine what should be given to the defense. What on earth is in camera Are they doing a little photo shoot? What's going on here?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Lawyers love, like, Latin words, Latin terms. Lots of reasons for that, I guess. So in camera is. I'm no expert. I don't know if this is Literally a Latin term, or if it is somehow derived from a Latin term, but there is a Latin connection there. It basically means if something is done in camera, it's done outside the view of the public, perhaps in the judge's chamber, Reporters aren't there, the public isn't there, it's a private proceeding.

[Anya Cain]

It means the direct translation is in a chamber. So pretty literal. I say if the lawyers want to get a little fancy with their Latin, let them. That's great. So I think it's cool. But what were we talking about? Okay, so. So they say that in this filing, they say November 30, 2023, state hands over materials to the court. They give a whole, whole bunch of different, different things. So we have emails from isp, which in this case is Idaho, for all of our Indiana friends. Idaho State Police, not Indiana State Police. When we talk about ISP in these episodes, we have OTHRAM emails, we have Othram documents, we have stuff from the FBI, we have all these different. We have contracts. So in Idaho, State Police in OTHRAM had to sign some contractual documents talking about what they're going to do, what's going to happen. It sounds like there was some bidding. So maybe what I interpret this as is that there are maybe some different labs coming to the state police saying, hey, we'd like to do this work for you, or we'd like to work for you in some capacity. It's unclear to me whether this is like directly they're coming in because of the Moscow case or they had previously and they want to contract with them. So you'd see like proposals, different kind of information that they'd be giving somebody through a bidding procedure.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Is that it sounds right.

[Anya Cain]

Sounds right. Okay, that's how I interpret this. Let's talk about one of our favorite people who also happens to do one of our favorite podcasts. Obviously, I'm talking about Jason Blair and his show, the Silver Linings Handbook.

[Kevin Greenlee]

You probably recognize Jason's name because we've been on his show and he's been on ours to talk about true crime ethics and the media. He's always got thoughtful insights to share. Plus he's got all kinds of ideas on how to make true crime a more respectful and compassionate space.

[Anya Cain]

The Silver Linings Handbook is a weekly podcast that's totally interview centric, so you get to hear Jason's in depth conversations with all kinds of inspiring people. You'll hear discussions about, well being, mental health, the law and the criminal justice system, true crime, religion and marginalized communities and just about everything in between. For all you True Crime fans, he's had on the hosts of the Prosecutors, the Consult, and yours truly.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Jason is a wonderful person with a seemingly endless well of compassion and empathy for others that serves him quite well as an interviewer. We were really gripped by his recent conversations with the daughter of a murdered police detective, the sister of a missing native woman in Montana, and Gabby Petito's father. These were all humanistic and in depth talks that got to the heart of of topics like grief, advocacy and abuse.

[Anya Cain]

We've always enjoyed our conversations with Jason on the Silver Linings Handbook and behind the scenes, getting to listen to his show is a bit like dropping by for one of those talks.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Subscribe to the Silver Linings Handbook wherever you listen to podcasts.

[Anya Cain]

Stay Hydrated, Stay Healthy. When you podcast as much as we do, you learn that firsthand. We drink lots of water so we don't sound terrible and alienate all of you good people. It's also nice to feel hydrated and refreshed. The thing is though, I've always encouraged Kevin to drink more water, but he's always the guy that wants bottled water because he doesn't like the taste of tap water. Wow. So fancy. Turns out though, Kevin's pickiness may be right for a change. Exactly just this once. Research by the Environmental Working Group finds that many homes in America can have harmful contaminants in their tap water.

[Kevin Greenlee]

That's where Aqua True comes in. This four stage reverse osmosis water purification system will make your life so much easier and healthier and also help you save a lot of Money. Aquatru removes 15 times more contaminants than ordinary pitcher filters.

[Anya Cain]

They've got all kinds of water purifiers to fit your needs. Countertop purifiers that don't require a plumber. High capacity under the sink options Mineral boosting Purifiers One that connects to WI Fi. That's the one we have now. I love it. It's easy to use, plus it's got both of us drinking more water.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Murder Sheet listeners get a great deal.

[Anya Cain]

Aquatrue comes with a 30 day money back guarantee and even makes a great gift. Today my listeners receive 20% off any Aquatru purifier. Just go to aquatru.com that's a Q U a T r u dot com and enter code msheet at checkout. That's 20% off any Aqua Tru Water purifier when you go to aquatru.com and use promo code mshe et mochi health is here to help you start your weight loss journey with caring, personalized support. Meet one on one with board certified obesity doctors and registered dietitians who truly listen and understand your unique needs. Eligible patients can access affordable GLP1 medications delivered right to their door each month. No insurance, no problem. Mochi Health accepts FSA and HSA, making care accessible and affordable. And with 24. 7 customer service, you'll never feel alone on your path to better health. Get started with Mochi Health today. Take the free [e-mail] and use code AUDIO40 at checkout for $40 off your first month of membership. That's join mochi.com with promo code AUDIO40. And what ended up happening through this in camera procedure is that the court found that, quote, the states are, and this is from Thompson's document, quote, the state's argument that the IGG investigation is wholly irrelevant since it was not used in obtaining any warrants and will not be used at trial, is well supported, end quote. So they're saying they agree with the state.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, that's lawyer talk for the state is right.

[Anya Cain]

It's clearer than the Latin. So, but, you know, but, but the court did say that some of the IGG information may go to the defense. So they're saying, you know, it's a nuanced point of view, like largely, yeah, you're right, but some of this should go to them. Let's give that to them. And they, the court issued an order describing which pages of IGG could and should be disclosed to the defense. And what the state is saying that, quote, the courts in camera order and disclosure order made it clear that all IGG discovery was to be filtered through the court. So what they're, what they're saying is that the court says we're not just giving them, we're not just giving the defense whatever, you know, everything is filtering through the court first so they can determine what's appropriate to give over.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Okay, I understand.

[Anya Cain]

Then they note that the defense sent a lot of supplemental discovery requests. The state objected to these. The state said, we already gave all this stuff to the court about igg and the court already ordered what we're supposed to give over. So, you know, whatever. And then when the defense is coming back, we're like, well, we don't have this, this latex county prosecutor's office is going to aam, AAM saying, we already gave you everything to the state. So this is kind of a back and forth for a while. The defense is claiming the IGG evidence in general violates CO Burger's rights under the fourth Amendment. And, you know, there's a, There's a hearing at. On January 23, 2025, on a motion to suppress where Idaho State Police Lab Director Matthew G Testifies that Idaho State Police received OTHRAM standard operating procedures through the bidding process to, to kind of set up them doing this work. So the, the. What the state says is that the court gave the def. And this is in a footnote, the court gave the defense sort of a benefit of the doubt. Instead of assuming that the defense was trying to evade their protective order, they assumed that they were just asking for additional materials, not in the mix already, not known to the court. And so, okay, so this is so complicated. So what the state was doing was responding to, to one of this kind of back and forth, noting that in the, quote, the defense's interpretation that the court was saying none of the requested information existed at all is not consistent with the record they gave. The example of one of the defense requested the name, the names and CVS of all the various individuals who did work at OTHRAM on this case. And then the state kind of retorts a little bit, a little bit saucily, quote, obviously the state never represented to the court that the individuals who worked at OTHRAM did not have names or CVs. They're all named individuals. So, you know, they're kind of. There's some, there's some tension brewing over this. And then the state realizes that there is something they did not give over to the court.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Uh, oh.

[Anya Cain]

So the state figures out that OTHRAM gave Idaho State Police its document on standard operating procedures. Idaho State Police did not give that to the Lato County Prosecutor's Office to be disclosed to the court in response to the court's December 29, 2023 in camera order. And they kind of. They started to realize this on February 9, 2025. They find this form asking, they see this like it's a. The bidding process. The bidder is asked to submit standing and oper sops. Othram's response shows that they uploaded it as a specific file and then they looked at. Did we include that file to the court? No. So they said that two days after this, they gave the defense the file, filed with the court and, and kind of explained what was going on. So then they note that two weeks. They also said that the SOPs were covered by the protective order because the court did not require disclosure of any, quote, bidding Documents other than a memorandum of understanding. So they're saying what I, what I take them to be saying is essentially, even if we'd included these, they were not on the list at all of things that would have been handed over anyway because in the documents. So this is what they say. Actually, quote, the court did not require. Sorry, not, not X out that quote, they're saying that basically there were documents that revealed the existence of the SOPs, and the court did not order those disclosed because, quote, the remaining contract documents are not relevant to any issue in the case, end quote. So they're saying, you know, these wouldn't have been included anyway. Is that how you interpret that?

[Kevin Greenlee]

I think so.

[Anya Cain]

So then.

[Kevin Greenlee]

But obviously, as a defense attorney, I would want to get my hands on that standard operating procedure because I would want to be able to compare what they say, here's how we do it. I'd want that information so I could compare it to what was actually done in this particular case.

[Anya Cain]

It's understandable. It's also, I think, understandable from the state where they say, none of this matters. This is not relevant. This is immaterial to the entire case. So I can see from both sides too. Two weeks after all of this, the defense files a motion in limine. They asked for the IGG evidence to be excluded because the state violated Brady. So this is from the defense's motion in lemonade that I just referred to. Quote, most troubling is the last statement in the state's February 11, 2025 objection that while the materials provided to the court for review contained references to the SOPs, the SOPs were inadvertently excluded from the materials. Consequently, the court was misled about the materials reviewed in camera and resulting in deprivation of clearly discoverable documentation. The state objects to the production of materials that it conceded in 2023 Mr. Coburger was entitled to, end quote.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So basically, we're really upset that these standard operating procedures were excluded from what we were given. I'm putting it in English.

[Anya Cain]

Thank you. You're a translator. So then they also break it down in a little helpful list about why they, you know, why this is bad. So. And sort of the whole, the whole gist of this here. So I'm going to read that quote, the Idaho Supreme Court recognized that non disclosure cases can be placed into three different categories. One, quote, the undisclosed evidence demonstrates that the prosecution's case includes perjured testimony and that the prosecution knew or should have known of the perjury. Two Brady type cases where the prosecution is put on notice of what is specifically desired. Thus, the prosecutor should be well aware of what evidence will be of assistance. Such notice should correspondingly raise the level of the prosecution's duty to disclose. And three, where no specific request for newly discovered and potentially exculpatory evidence was made by the defense. Separately, the problem of alleged loss or destruction by the state of allegedly exculpatory evidence raise additional difficulties, such as that of deciding how materially favorable the evidence is. The defendant's case in implementing an adequate remedy when justified. Usually the only remedy, usually the only feasible remedy is dismissal of the prosecution or suppression of evidence that would have been impeached, that would have been impeached by the lost or destroyed evidence. Mr. Coburger is now asking for the remedy of exclusion because at this late date, he will be unable to investigate the impact of the evidence itself as well as the consequences of withholding such evidence, even if the missing discovery is produced at this point. Mr. Coburger's right to receive and review this evidence is guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article One, Section 13 of the Idaho Constitution, end quote. So that's what they're saying.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Put that into plain English for us.

[Anya Cain]

I. Basically, the state messed up. They didn't include what they were supposed to include. And it's so badly damaged us that even if we get these SOPs right now, right on the dot, months before the trial, months and months before the trial, it is just a shattering injury to our case and we cannot proceed. So just throw all this out.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Well, I'm sure we've all been in situations where we get into an argument or something with something of the. Like with someone and they make some relatively minor mistake and we recognize our advantage and we just try to blow it up as big as possible.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah. Yep, that's true.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So, you know, so that's what my tendency to think this is. I don't think it's a huge deal. I think that they're entitled to the standards of operation or whatever it was.

[Anya Cain]

Standards of the standard operating procedures. Obviously, the prosecution made a mistake. This. The, the thing about what. What you have to look at in cases like this is, is not just was a mistake made, it's how important is it doesn't matter. And I. I would argue in this case, a mistake was made and it does not matter. It. It just doesn't.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And another thing to look at is was it a mistake at all or was there some bad actions done?

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, like, oh, gotta hand the hide those sops that. That doesn' if they were doing that, it was kind of stupid to include other documentation that referred to the SOPs.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah.

[Anya Cain]

So it's also. I mean, the way. The reason I'm saying it's not important is because the judge already ruled, essentially, you know, looking at the documents that mention the SOPs and looking at all the bidding information that only the memorandum of understanding was truly important. So what the state's document here, what the state's filing is doing, is mostly fighting with the defense over their interpretation of things. So we heard what the defense is saying, what they want.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Does the state feel that the defense characterized the events in the record fully and accurately in the proper context?

[Anya Cain]

No. So what the state says is, hey, we didn't act in bad faith. The defense is citing cases that don't even make any sense here. They specifically reference a case, the Youngblood case, which they say is not even. They say. They call it, quote, legally erroneous and.

[Kevin Greenlee]

But a pretty good song.

[Anya Cain]

What?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Go on.

[Anya Cain]

Ridiculous. So they. They also say that, you know, they bring up Brady, and that's fair to bring up Brady here because that makes more sense than Youngblood, but they don't legally or factually substantiate the claims of a Brady violation. So let's go through some of their points where they kind of are take. Taking this to task and. And talking about it. So first, they start off with, the defense's motion is based on the wrong legal standard. So, quote, the defense's motion relies on the wrong legal standard. By confusing Brady and Youngblood, the Brady standard asked that the state withheld exculpatory evidence that had a reasonably reasonable probability of changing the outcome of the proceeding and applies irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. Brady applies when the state possesses but fails to disclose allegedly exculpatory evidence. In that circumstance, the Youngblood standard asks whether the state acted in bad faith. Says Youngblood applies only to situations where the state failed to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence. Uh, they also go on to say, quote, determining which legal standard applies is as easy as it sounds. For example, in a case where the state possessed but failed to disclose an allegedly exculpatory social media post, the Idaho supreme Court held Brady was the correct standard. But in a different case, when the state destroyed or deleted an allegedly exculpatory social media post, the court held that Youngblood applied here. Brady applies because the defense alleges the state failed to disclose othram standard operating procedures. Youngblood does not apply because the defense has not alleged that the State lost or destroyed othram's standard operating procedures because Brady applies rather than Youngblood. Whether the State acted in good faith or bad faith is irrelevant. Thus, the defense's motion, which rests entirely on its faulty accusations of bad faith, fails from the get go.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So let's talk about that. That was an awful lot of words.

[Anya Cain]

Many words.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Many, many words. So what they're saying here is there are two cases which are similar but crucially different, and each one has slightly different rules as to how to apply it. So in one is the State had something that could potentially help us. We didn't get it. It still exists. Maybe they acted in bad faith. And it sounds like that would be a Brady situation. Is that correct?

[Anya Cain]

And Brady would actually be good or bad faith. Either way, doesn't matter why you did it.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Doesn't even matter. The defendant is entitled to this stuff. It could help him. The State didn't turn it over. That's bad. Youngblood says that. Okay, what about if there's a case where the State has this information that would help the defendant and then they destroy it? They just get rid of it?

[Anya Cain]

Burn it down?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yes, they burn it down. And that actually what requires bad faith on the part of the State.

[Anya Cain]

That's what it sounds like from what they're saying.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So two different cases, similar, because in each, the defense isn't getting some information it's entitled to, but different in the details as to whether or not the evidence still exists or whether or not it was destroyed.

[Anya Cain]

But what's. What's funny is that then subsequently the State is saying, but actually we wish it was Youngblood, because you guys can't prove bad faith even if you wanted to. So they're. They're saying it's Brady. You're incorrectly arguing Youngblood, but we wish it was Youngblood, because then we could just kick this out the window even quicker. So that's kind of funny. They're saying that no reasonable, quote, no reasonable reading of the record supports a finding of bad faith. They quote another case talking about how bad faith is a very high bar. They say, quote, there was no calculated effort to circumvent Brady, to circumvent Brady, the State disclosed to the court the records it had received regarding the bidding process. Then, just two days after learning that the standard operating procedures themselves were inadvertently left out of the material provided for in camera review, the State notified the defense and the court. Still, six months before the trial, the State acted in good faith. And there's no reasonable basis to Conclude otherwise, end quote. What do you think of that?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, this goes back to what we were saying earlier, that they. They were notified of this months before the trial. So if this is. If this SOP is something that they want to investigate and use to try to determine, well, maybe the lab didn't do what they said they usually do when they were doing their tests on this evidence, they have time to do those tests. Now. If this was turned over to them six days before the trial, maybe we have a different story. I don't know. But six months is an awful long time.

[Anya Cain]

And we'll get to this. But they actually bring up another case where something was turned over actually pretty close to trial, where they were like, that still was considered okay in that circumstance. So this is. This is. Gosh, there's so much here. This is a situation where they. They talk about how the defense cannot prove a Brady violation either. So they're saying Brady is what applies here. That's the standard. But then let's look at what Brady. What. What are the ingredients of a Brady violation? They cite State v. Hall. They talk about how, one, evidence must be favorable to the accused, so it needs to be either exculpatory or impeaching. Can you explain what those two things are?

[Kevin Greenlee]

So, exculpatory evidence, that would be evidence that directly indicates that Kohberger was innocent. Maybe it's evidence he was somewhere else, something of that nature. Impeaching evidence would be evidence that would impugn or cast doubt on the credibility of someone who is testifying or offering evidence against Kohlberger.

[Anya Cain]

So one, evidence must be favorable to the accused by either being exculpatory or impeaching. Two, the evidence must be inadvertently or willfully suppressed by the State. Intent doesn't matter. It just has to happen. Three, prejudice must ensue. What the State here is arguing that the defense strikes out on all three of those things. They say that these SOPs are not exculpatory, nor are they impeaching. So they're saying this doesn't matter. This is just authors telling us how they do the work. And IGG's literally not going to be in the trial. This. What matters is that his DNA matches the knife sheath. You know, like, one thing that kind of is important to remember is this is a bit of a rabbit hole. We're falling down here. Like, we're getting very in the weeds of IgG, which is something that the State keeps contending and has contended from the beginning that, you know, this is kind of a distraction from the fact his DNA matches the knife sheath. I mean, is that fair to say?

[Kevin Greenlee]

That's fair to say that. That's absolutely fair to say. It's fair to say that the defense wants to distract from elements of the case it finds damaging to them, and the fact that his DNA is found on the knife sheath is damaging to them. So let's not talk about that. Let's get into these kind of.

[Anya Cain]

It's minutiae kind of.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Minutiae?

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, I would say it's very much minutia, but it's their job to do this, so I mean, they gotta do it. So here's the thing. Like it is, you mentioned, like you've been in an argument with someone, sometimes you find yourself in an argument with someone and there's a main point. There's a main thing that you're kind of trying to communicate with them about, and then suddenly you've tumbled off a cliff and are debating the finer points of some very specific thing that is only sort of marginally connected to the main point. That's what this reminds me of.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Right.

[Anya Cain]

We're so in the weeds right now. Um, I just think that's important because just because something's getting a lot of play in the press and just because something is. Is interesting does not make it important necessarily. And you have to kind of be able to like, look and kind of get that overall context and overall perspective to kind of maintain that. Because when I find myself getting so deep into these sometimes I'm just like, whoa, okay, like all this is going on. And then I'm like, wait a minute, this is kind of immaterial on some level. I mean, the defense wouldn't argue that, but I think that's sort of what, how this plays out. So. So what they're saying is, quote, in any event, the defense is wrong about the state's concession. The defense omitted from its motion in the beginning of the state's argument at the hearing, which demonstrates that the state maintained its position that none of the IGG information is relevant and that the state's references to the court's order referring to the in camera order regarding the state to turn IGG information over to the court, not the disclosure order requiring the state to turn some of the IGG information over to the defense, end quote. They talk about, they kind of cite some hearings they were in where they're kind of like clarifying that, and they talk about how not only the defense misread the transcript of those, but they also misread the state's motion for a protective order and is saying that, you know, they say, the defense is saying the state conceded in its motion that all information related to aam's work was relevant because the state agreed to provide it. And the state argues that, quote, the state dedicated an entire section of the motion to explaining why Rule 16B5 required only the disclosure of the scientific report and nothing else. So now the next point, they talk about the suppression. So that was all about whether it's exculpatory or not or impeaching or not. Now we're on to suppression. They're saying.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So this is like whether or not the prosecutor was intending to suppress this information.

[Anya Cain]

I don't know if intent matters. Just. Just talking about this is what they say. Quote, while AAM standard operating procedures were inadvertently left out of the material presented in camera, the materials that were provided were sufficient to obtain a ruling from the court that the information AAM provided to is as part of the bidding process was not relevant to the case. So what they're saying here is this doesn't matter because all of the documents of this category, the documents related to the bidding process with ISP were ruled by the judge, including documents that mentioned the SOPs revealing their existence and already.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Found to be irrelevant.

[Anya Cain]

Already found to be irrelevant. The only one was the memorandum of understanding that was the only one related to bidding that was real, you know, that judged. Okay. Other ones that had to do with this, other ones that mentioned SOPs were. Were thrown out. So, yeah, and let's see.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I guess here's something that jumps out at me. A quote, the defense was informed of the standard operating procedure six months before trial. The defense has not even attempted to articulate with any specificity how the standard operating procedures could make any difference in the jury's determination of guilt. And the state is not seeking to use the standard operating procedures or any of the IGG information at trial, end quote. So they're saying the defense got this six months before the trial. They haven't even explained why they think this would make a difference to the jury at all. And incidentally, we're not intending to bring any of this up in court. So.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, they also cite thumb, the thumb case. And they talk about how that in that the Idaho Supreme Court, quote, found disclosure of a fingerprint report just one week before trial did not violate Brady because the defense attorney had enough time to review the report and use its conclusions if she sought to do so. End quote. That sounds really. That sounds like a nightmare for that defense attorney.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Geez.

[Anya Cain]

I mean, that is really cool. That is really close to the start of trial. But what they're saying is, like, if that's okay, then this is definitely. This should be fine. You'll be fine.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, that sounds.

[Anya Cain]

That's a fingerprint report, which is. I mean, I would imagine, unless I'm totally off base here, I would imagine that that would be pretty important and likely used in a trial. And they've got a week to deal with it in this case, six months to deal with something that's not going to come up in court. You'll probably, you know, you probably survived that. So that's what they're saying. And then the third point, they talk about how the defense, quote, the defense has not shown prejudice, and the law and logic dictate that the defense cannot show prejudice with respect to OTHRAM standard operating procedures, end quote. And the reason for that, the reason they're saying they can't possibly show prejudice, is that IGG doesn't matter in this case. What they're saying is it's immaterial. This is how they describe it. Quote, it is undisputed that IGG is simply a means to generate potential leads as to who DNA found at a crime scene may belong. If one of those leads proves fruitful, law enforcement can conduct a confirmatory test as to whether the DNA belongs to the suspect using an STR comparison. The strength of the evidence against the defendant in terms of DNA evidence depends upon the confirmatory report from the STR DNA analysis between the defendant's DNA and the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Here, the IGG information is even less material, if that is possible, than it would otherwise have been because the defense has not disclosed any experts or evidence to challenge the confirmatory SDR comparison. The defense has disclosed an expert regarding, end quote. So, okay, we'll get in. We'll get into that in a minute. What the defense is planning to do, because that's what, of course, all the headlines ran with.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Right.

[Anya Cain]

So. Because that's more. That's. That's a little bit sexier than all this back and forth about Brady and Youngblood and whatnot. But, you know, but I think it's important to talk about all this, like, legally speaking, because it just. It can get. It can get confusing otherwise. And I think it's important to. For all of us to be empowered with some understanding of what everyone's saying, at least so we can interpret it better.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah. And I think, obviously, frankly, I'm a heck of a lot more interested in this bit about the defense going to claim that it was planted or what have you. But in deference to the defense, if we really want to try to come to a full understanding of this case and of how the defense intends to present its case, which we probably should, in fairness, we want to hear both sides, then we ought to try to sit down and hear the defense's point of view, hear what they think is important. And these filings that they're spending time on certainly indicate that they think these issues are important. And so if we want to understand the case, we want to understand the defense, we have to spend time in the weeds sometimes.

[Anya Cain]

Got to go in the weeds. So, yeah, so he kind of noted this. So this is what the. The state. This is the state's characterization of what the defense is actually planning to do with DNA. Quote, instead of challenging the conclusion that the DNA on the knife sheath belonged to defendant, the defense's expert disclosures reveal that the defense plans to argue the DNA on the knife sheath does not prove defendant was ever at the crime scene. And the knife sheath itself could have been planted by the real perpetrator. End quote.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So that's interesting because certainly one thing that could have been argued is there was a mistake in the test. It's not his DNA on there.

[Anya Cain]

They goofed it up.

[Kevin Greenlee]

They goofed it up. Or the sample size was too small. Apparently, that's not the claim.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So I would be interested into. Well, I guess initially, why would someone plant Coburger's DNA there? And I would be also interested. Do they have a suspect in mind who they believe did the crimes? And can they come up with an explanation for why this other suspect would have a knife sheath with Coburger's DNA on it? Is there a connection between Coburger and whoever it is they. They believe did this crime? What is their theory?

[Anya Cain]

Right. If you kind of can conjure up a specific scenario, let's say you have a fall guy, you have a murder victim, and you have the real perpetrator. Maybe the fall guy has. Maybe the. The real victim dumped the perpetrator and started dating the fall guy. So the perpetrator wants to kill the real victim, the victim, and then destroy the fall guy. So they steal something from the fall guy, plant it at the scene, kill the victim, and then it looks like the fall guy is the. Is the murderer. Right. That would be motive, because you're out for revenge. This guy stole my girl. I'm gonna kill her and frame him. So that's a scenario. I'm like, you know, I don't think anyone's arguing that here. Coburger does not seem to have any sort of. There's been a lot of media reports about possible loose connections to the victims. Like something more of like, he went to places where they worked or. I've heard, you know, there's been rumors about social media contact, but really nothing concrete. So nobody seems to be alleging he is an ex boyfriend of anyone or a current boyfriend of anyone or.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So, yeah, I would be curious taking their theory seriously. I would be curious why they believe the real perpetrator would select Coburger as their fall guy. I would be curious to hear how they believe the real perpetrator somehow gained access to the DNA of Mr. Kohberger.

[Anya Cain]

And here's a question, too. It's interesting that they're. They were kind of very upset about one of the surviving roommates being able to testify about the bushy eyebrows. But they're also saying, oh, someone just came in totally unrelated to our guy and did this. So it's like, I don't know, it's kind of interesting. Like, we don't want someone to say anything that makes it sound like it's our guy, but it's, you know. But I'm sure it was someone else, right?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Someone else with defense attorneys doing the job.

[Anya Cain]

Somebody else with bushy eyebrows. Now, here's the thing about this. What I'm curious about is, is the argument going to be. The way I see it, there's been a lot of speculation where people have said, well, you know, and people have said this without my understanding is any sort of real indication. So I think it's a level of speculation. But, you know, are they going to say the police planted it? And what I'm reading here, from what the state is. And of course, we're getting this sort of secondhand because it's the state's description of what the defense. What they think the defense is supposed to. Hearsay. It's hearsay.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Not really.

[Anya Cain]

Not really. But they're saying that they're not indicating anything about, like, a police conspiracy here. They're talking about the real perpetrator.

[Kevin Greenlee]

It could have been planted by the real perpetrator. So that seems to suggest they believe the real perpetrator, who. They believe someone other than Kohberger had access to Kohberger's DNA and his knife sheath and intentionally left it. It's a crime scene in, I guess, what would be an attempt to implicate Mr. Coburger.

[Anya Cain]

Did he also inspire Mr. Coburger to go stargazing and running around with his. With his car that night.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I. I would also, if I was trying to frame somebody, I might leave behind more stuff than just. I believe the amount of DNA on this knife sheath was very small.

[Anya Cain]

Well, yeah. And I mean, it's just one thing, right?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah.

[Anya Cain]

You know. Yeah. It seems my feeling, this is my personal opinion, so you can disregard it if you want, but my personal opinion is that without hearing more information and more evidence, which we may get at some point, who knows? That sounds extremely outlandish and far fetched.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I would agree with that. But I would add an obvious point that sometimes things that are true sound outlandish when you hear them described in a certain way. Because attorneys can describe things in a way to make them sound ridiculous. Maybe when the defense explains this theory, they will do so in a way that will make it seem more logical. We shouldn't really come to too much of a conclusion other than to say at face value, I have a lot of questions. Maybe the defense attorneys are prepared to answer them in the trial.

[Anya Cain]

That we always have to hold that possibility in our minds and hearts that they will be able to do that. My prediction is that they will not, because that's just what common sense would have me believe. But it's also possible that there's a common sense explanation that they're going to provide. So I think we all have to be open to that.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Many things sound stupid or outlandish or hard to believe. We don't have all the facts.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So.

[Anya Cain]

But also, sometimes things are what they appear to be.

[Kevin Greenlee]

That is. That is very true.

[Anya Cain]

I'd actually say they often are.

[Kevin Greenlee]

That is also very true. I concede. I'm skeptical too. But I think in the interest of fairness, we should keep an open mind and see what is presented in the trial itself.

[Anya Cain]

Ultimately, all the speculation on the Internet, all the speculation in our minds, all the speculation everywhere in all of our true crime hearts is not worth anything compared to what is actually put on the trial. That's why when I see we've ran into this in the Delphi murders case, actually you have people sort of after the fact, after trial, after all the evidence has been brought in and looked at and what, you know, this is included. This isn't included. Whatnot. People going back and saying, but what about this? Or this is what I heard in the video. And it's like, guess what? No one cares. Thanks for coming. Get out of here. Like it. Like it's not about the court of public opinion. It's not about anything else. It's about what they can do in trial. And if the defense can put on some razzle dazzle here and bring up something that's really plausible, then more power to them because that's, you know, that's what it's all about. So I think that's important to remember. You know, I think it's interesting to talk about this. I think it's good to talk about this. I think discussion and true crime has a, has a good purpose and raising awareness of just how the legal process works and what the different considerations are is good. But ultimately it's, that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be borne out or matter terribly if things turn out to be different at trial. How do you make an Airbnb a vrbo? Picture a vacation rental with a host. The host is dragging your family on a tour of the kitchen, the bathroom, the upstairs bathroom, the downstairs bedroom and the TV room, which surprise is where you can watch tv. Now imagine there's no host giving you a tour because there's never any hosts at all, ever. Voila. You've got yourself a vrbo. Want a vacation that's completely and totally host free? Make it a vrbo. So let's see, we, we've kind of gotten through the State's discussion. They talk about, quote, the defense erroneously asserts prejudice on the basis that it will not be able to use the standard operating procedures to cross examine the state's expert witness, David Mittleman, CEO of Othram. But the state disclosed Dr. Mittleman only as a rebuttal witness to respond to the two IGG experts the defense initially disclosed. Now that the defense has decided not to call their IGG experts, the state has no need to call Dr. Middleman, end quote. You mentioned this earlier. The SOP, the standard operating procedures could be called in to sort of make sure OTHRAM did what it was supposed to do in this. And that's a very good point. What, what they're contending here, what the state's contending here is we only were going to bring any of that up in response to the IGG witnesses of the defense. It sounds like they're no longer on the table. So we don't need to rebut things that are not going to be happening anymore.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Exactly.

[Anya Cain]

Middleman's gone. So, yeah, I think this is what they said. Quote, Even if Othram failed to follow every standard operating procedure, that does not change the facts that the IgG merely pointed law enforcement toward defendant as a potential owner of the DNA on the knife sheath, or that the unchallenged confirmatory STR comparison showed the DNA on the knife sheath matched defendant, end quote.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And apparently even the defense is conceding that the DNA on that knife sheath matches the defendant.

[Anya Cain]

Yes, we all agree. You know, you know, that meme of the, like, two guys shaking hands, like, and it's like, people post, like, you know, like, text over one of them to show different sides of an issue agreeing. It's like that. But for defense and prosecution in this case, it's Brian Cobers Coburger's DNA on the knife sheath. We agree. Our disagreement is what is the relevance to the crime that was done with a knife? You know, is this a case where somebody dropped their knife sheath and left it behind at the scene and that is evidence of them perpetrating this horrible killing, or is it a sign that somebody was trying to frame Coburger and committed the killing with his DNA on this knife sheath? So I think that's kind of, you know, that's what it comes down to. And if. If that's the case, and I think the state's contention that this, all this argument about IGG is ultimately pointless is. Is. Is pretty salient. So this is, this is kind of how they. They tie it all up. They write the Thompson writes, quote, the defense's factual allegations and legal arguments all fall flat. But perhaps the most perplexing portion of the defense's motion is the relief requested. In the ultimate concession of immateriality, the defense seeks only the exclusion at trial of the IGG information. Even though the State has consistently stated it does not plan to present the IGG information to the jury. This means the State finds itself in the unusual position of strongly disagreeing with the rationale for the defense's motion, but having no objection to the defense's requested relief. As the State has explained as far back as the beginning of the litigation over the IGG and as recently as its competing motion in limine filed contemporary rainously with the defense's motion. The State does not intend to introduce the IGG information at trial other than to help the jury understand how the information investigation progressed. They can do so by referring to the IGG as a generic tip without revealing the source or the substance of the tip. Investigator can simply testify that law enforcement received a tip and that based on the information received, law enforcement took the next step in the investigation, end quote. What do you make of that?

[Kevin Greenlee]

I think. I think it's a pretty compelling argument. What do you think of it, it's.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, I mean, like, it. We're kind of just back to square one after all this argument over IgG, and it's like, yes, just leave it out. Fine. You know, the defense is doing their jobs. They're having. They want to challenge everything. They want to bring up if anything's done improperly. All of that is. Is. Is what they should be doing. State's doing what they should be doing, which is saying, like, what the heck are we even talking about anymore? Just throw it out. We never wanted this. You're acting like we want this in here and we don't. And, you know, and I. I think the. The State's contention about IGG is correct. I think it is functioning more like a tip. Again, if something was horribly done in the laboratory and they come back and they. They go to the Coburger residence and they find DNA that definitely does not match anything related to their. Their profile of their suspect, then he wouldn't be in this situation. But that's. That's not what happened. The DNA matched. The defense concludes that the DNA matched. So, you know, we're kind of. We're kind of well past all this IGG wrangling at this point, I hope, because, you know, it's just been going on for a long time. So this is what the conclusion of the State is. Quote, the State did not act in bad faith, and the defense has failed to show the State violated its obligations under Brady. This. This court should deny the defense's motion to the extent that the defense requests sanctions against the State. The parties do seem to agree, however, that the IGG information should not be presented at trial. This court should thus enter an order excluding the IGG information at trial, other than as a generic tip, for the purpose of helping the jury understand how the investigation progressed, end quote. I imagine on some level the State must be thinking also, like, you know, igg. Like, you can kind of explain it to a degree, but maybe if someone gets confused, it might throw things off. So what matters is let's keep the focus when we're talking about DNA, let's keep the focus on the knife sheath and the knife sheath DNA that matches our defendant. I imagine they want that to be what the jury is thinking of when they're thinking of DNA. In this case. They don't want to be explaining how IGG works and having the defense come in and say, but did you do it right? You know, like, no. Streamline it. Whereas the defense, you know, that they're gonna. They're gonna contend something. So, I mean, as far as they should be concerned, if they're saying, yeah, that is his DNA, then the IGG got it right. And, you know, it's like, let's figure out how we can prove how this was actually a setup, you know, frame job, rather than, you know, what it. What it might look like on the surface. So, yeah, that's kind of where we are. It's kind of the an. I called it an unusual battle in the title of this episode, because I just think it's kind of amusing that on some level, there's been all this wrangling, all this hue and cry, all this, you know, vast badminton game back and forth of. Of. Of filings, and at the end, everybody's like, yeah, let's just get this. Get this IGG stuff out of here. Let's. I mean, the defense may be more asking for, like, you know, knocking the DNA out. Maybe they'll. Maybe they'll have some. Some plans for that later. But in the meantime. Yeah, that's where it. So did. Did any of that make any sense or have I just been rambling?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Well, I understood it all perfectly.

[Anya Cain]

Aw, thank you.

[Kevin Greenlee]

You articulated it wonderfully. You prepared this while I went out to Arby's.

[Anya Cain]

Wait, you were at Arby's?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yes.

[Anya Cain]

Well, I hope you had a nice time at Arby's while I'm slaving over this IGG information.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Everybody, the potato cakes are back.

[Anya Cain]

Guys, this is cruel and unusual punishment for a history major. Okay? I'm tied to. Every time I'm reading this stuff, I'm like. I. I literally was, like, transcribed our episode with the. The founders of Ignite DNA and was just trying to look over that to make sure I didn't say anything wrong, but I'm. I'm sure I did, so if so, I apologize. The mistake is mine, not Kevin's, and certainly not the Ignite DNA folks who. Who were kind enough to do an interview with us and. But, you know, it's. It's interesting, and I think ultimately this was actually a lot about the legal standards of Brady vs Youngblood than even necessarily such a discussion on IGG.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I have full faith in your accuracy and your comprehension. Just. I have faith in Arby's potato cakes. I. I do want to mention that one of the many, many things we love about our audience is how smart you are and how you are willing to reach out if you disagree with us or feel that we've gone too far in any direction. And after our last Idaho episode, We actually got some emails from people who had some comments to share that they thought that we went a bit too far in some of our statements about autism.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, so what people were saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, Kevin, but, you know, they were not. Some people agreed. And then some people with our criticisms of some of the defense's filings, feeling it was offensive towards people with autism spectrum disorder. Others noted, hey, well, you know, having autism spectrum disorders can have people, you know, be viewed as, you know, antisocial or having, you know, it could cause problems for a defendant at trial. They should bringing it up, you know.

[Kevin Greenlee]

It could, it could affect the ability of the lawyers to interact with him in a meaningful way. And they felt that we understated that a bit. Some people suggested it was because perhaps our views are influenced by the fact that we love someone with autism. So it's fair. Just wanted to throw that out there for people to consider and evaluate. And we genuinely do appreciate it when people reach out. You don't have to agree with everything we say.

[Anya Cain]

No, you don't. We're not going to come to your house and yell at you again. I think when people state disagreements, I mean that we have blind spots just like everyone else. And also we, you know, especially when we're hearing from subject matter experts or people with those lived experiences, it's helpful to say, hey, well, I went a little far on that one, or no, I totally disagree. That's not exactly my experience. So I think, you know, that's something where we appreciate that we appreciate people who are willing to list out this reach out, educate us, debate, you know.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Love it when you agree with us. It's also the murder sheet.

[Anya Cain]

Love it when you agree with us.

[Kevin Greenlee]

But it's also great. I love having an intelligent, articulate audience. And part of that means is that often people don't agree with us. And that is fine because we're all adults. We can agree, sometimes disagree other times.

[Anya Cain]

And sometimes we can learn things, too.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And sometimes we can learn things.

[Anya Cain]

We are limited by our experiences. We're limited by our, you know, our professional backgrounds. And so when, when, especially when it comes to complicated issues around, you know.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Subjects that all too often, especially on the Internet, sometimes in discussions of true crime, sometimes in other discussions, many other discussions, it's perceived that if someone says, oh, I disagree with you, that it's like picking a fight or it's some sort of insult. And that's just part of life. Sometimes people agree, sometimes they disagree. Not a big deal.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, I think it's just more important that everyone, you know, we all talk to each other like adults and respectfully. And that's, to me, more important than people having the same exact opinion as me, because that would be pretty boring in life if that's what happened. And, you know, or. And also, we're not always right. You know, we're going to overstate things. We're going to be influenced by our own personal opinions sometimes. And in this case, you know, it kind of got me thinking with the issue of ASD as it intersects with the criminal justice system.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Autism Spectrum disorder.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah. I feel like having jurors be educated about what that entails and what those symptoms could look like. What. What. How that could affect behavior, how that could affect behavior in a courtroom, how that could affect behavior when possibly testifying or just sitting there. You know, I think that that kind of. I mean, I think. I mean, autism diagnoses have risen, and that's largely due to just diagnoses becoming more accurate and the kind of definition expanding, frankly, you know, in. In recent years. But I think. So more people may know someone with autism, but that doesn't mean everyone on the jury will. And also, I. As people have pointed out, a lot of things in society can be stacked and biased against individuals with autism. So, you know, people might look at someone who's having trouble making eye contact and saying, look, he looks like he's guilty because he's not looking at us in the eye or he's not looking at this guy in the eye. And that's not. Because that's. That has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. It's just, you know, that. That can happen with. With individuals with autism. So having experts to explain that and just raising awareness about that I think is helpful. And also just trying to push out the scourge of overly looking into body language when we're talking about things on true crime. Because that is just the bane of my. I do not need some tiktoker telling me this guy looks fidgety. It's like, guess what? I probably look fidgety when I'm standing in line at the, you know, friggin target. It doesn't mean I murdered somebody. Jeez.

[Kevin Greenlee]

But it does re. But it does reveal other things about you.

[Anya Cain]

Interesting. Like, I got a. I'm so scared.

[Kevin Greenlee]

To make that joke. I was like, stumbling over my words. That also reveals something about us that was embarrassing for.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, it reveals that you're inarticulate.

[Kevin Greenlee]

As you can see, even Anj and I disagree with each other.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, I, I actually agree. I think you're very articulate. I just, I like to tease you when you, when you walk right into it. But anyways, thanks everyone for listening. We'll be covering more Idaho filings as they come out and, you know, interesting case to get into and hopefully you enjoy and you know, let us know, questions, thoughts, all that good stuff. And is there anything else that we wanted to get into?

[Kevin Greenlee]

I think that's it.

[Anya Cain]

All right. Well, we're recording this on St. Patrick's Day. You're probably going to be listening to it on the following day.

[Kevin Greenlee]

But for, for everyone else, St. Patrick's Boxing Day.

[Anya Cain]

What? Okay, I, I understand what you mean, but. No, and, but, yeah, happy St. Patrick's Day. But have a great one. Bye.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email [e-mail] if you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[Anya Cain]

If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www. Buymeacoffee.com murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the Murder Sheet and who you can find on the [e-mail] if you're looking to talk with.

[Anya Cain]

Other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Can we talk a little bit before we go about quints? A great new sponsor for us, I think in one of the ads that we've already done for them, we talked about the compliments I'm getting on my jacket. I know you're a very modest woman, but can we talk about the compliments you're getting on the quince products you wear?

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, I've got two of their Mongolian cashmere sweaters. They're a brand that just does this sort of luxurious products but without the crazy costs, really. Well, they are. They give you Italian leather handbags. They do like European linen sheets. You have a really cool suede jacket. And I really like the way I look in my sweaters. I like the way you look in your bomber jacket, it looks super cool.

[Kevin Greenlee]

You've gotten a lot of compliments when you go out wearing these sweaters.

[Anya Cain]

I think I have, yeah.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And deservedly so.

[Anya Cain]

Also, like, I'm one of those people. My skin is very like, you know, like I, I kind of sensitive. So when it comes to wearing sweaters, like, you know, sometimes it's something's too scratchy, like it really bothers me. These are so soft. They're just like very delicate and soft and make it. They're wearing them is lovely because they're super comfortable. You're not. You're not. It's not one of those things where you're like, you buy it and it looks great, but it doesn't feel that great. They look great. They feel great. Yeah. I really love them. And you got, you know, your cool jacket. I mean that's a little bit of a. You're, you're the guy who like wears the same thing all the time. So this is a bit of a, a gamble for you, a bit of a risk. You got something a bit different.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I do wash my clothes.

[Anya Cain]

I know you wash your clothes, but I mean, you're filthy.

[Kevin Greenlee]

You made me sound awful, so. No, I wash my clothes.

[Anya Cain]

But you don't really.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I launder them.

[Anya Cain]

You don't really experiment with fashion that much is what I'm saying. So this is a little bit out of the norm for you, but I think you really like it and it looks good.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Thank you. Great products, incredible prices.

[Anya Cain]

Quincy.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Com.

[Anya Cain]

There you go. So you can go to quince.com msheet and right now they're offering 365 day returns plus free shipping on your order. So that's quince.commsheet that's q u I n c e.comm s h E-E-T so.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Anja, before we let people go, I wanted to talk again about the Silver Linings handbook. And more specifically, I want to talk about Jason Blair. Because certainly there have been times when something happens, we don't know what to do. We're just out here rubbing two sticks together and we need to turn to somebody for advice. I'm sure everybody's had that experience. We need to turn to somebody for advice. And one of the people we turn to most often is Jason Blair. And he's always been there for us. He's always willing to give you time. He's always willing to give you great advice. And so now what's wonderful is that everybody within the sound of my voice has access to his insights and his compassion and his advice, because you can find all of that on his podcast.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, he's. This podcast is a bit like being able to sort of sit down and sort of hear some interesting insights. I always feel inspired by it. He's had on some really incredible guests recently, and they've had just such like, heartbreaking, real conversations with people like Jim Schmidt, who his daughter, Gabby Petito was murdered. Jim just came across just as such a real and empathetic and wonderful human being. He was even given one of Jason's friends kind of told him recently about some abuse she had suffered. Jim was giving advice. I mean, it was really incredible. I'm thinking of Kimberly Loring. Her sister went missing in Montana. It's another case involving a native woman. So raising awareness about that, talking to the woman who lost her father, who was a Los Angeles Police department detective. He was murdered so he couldn't testify at a robbery trial. Just like awful stuff. But ultimately really focusing on the compassion and allowing people the space to tell their stories. I think Jason shines as an interviewer because he has that natural empathy and curiosity too. Whenever I'm thinking of a question like, oh, I hope they get into this, he's asking it two seconds later. So it's a really enjoyable listening experience. And I feel like whenever we listen to it, you and I end up, like, discussing some deep stuff like religion or, you know, what we. What kind of like, positivity we want to share with the world. So I think if you're. If you're looking for that and you're looking to have those kind of thought provoking conversations in your life, this is the show for you, a hundred percent. So I would just say that if you're interested, subscribe to the Silver Linings Handbook. Wherever you listen to podcasts.