Kohberger still on track for October trial, but several looming deadlines will need to be met in next six weeks

MOSCOW – The man accused of slaying four University of Idaho students last fall is set for trial in six weeks despite tight deadlines and disagreements between the prosecution and defense.

Court dates and several motions about Bryan Kohberger’s grand jury indictment, DNA evidence and other matters were discussed during a roughly five-hour court hearing Friday at the Latah County Courthouse.

Kohberger, who wore a dark suit jacket and striped tie during Friday’s proceedings, is charged with four counts of first-degree murder in the Nov. 13 stabbings of Maddie Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Ethan Chapin and Xana Kernodle at the women’s King Road home just off the university’s campus. He is also charged with felony burglary.

District Judge John Judge set deadlines for completion of discovery by Sept. 1; expert witnesses disclosures, alibi and pretrial motions on Sept. 8; and responses to motions, proposed jury questionnaires, proposed witnesses and sentencing disclosures on Sept. 15.

Motions are set for Sept. 22, with jury selection Sept. 25-27. A pretrial conference is scheduled Sept. 29, and the trial Oct. 2.

Judge said the trial is expected to be four weeks and sentencing is anticipated to take two weeks. Judge said he expected to bring in about 1,000 potential jurors for jury selection, “but at this point, I’m not sure that’s enough.”

“This is a tight schedule,” Judge said. “We all know it, but we can do it. That’s what everyone wants.”

Kohberger’s attorney, Kootenai County Chief Public Defender Anne Taylor, said she will file a motion to dismiss Kohberger’s grand jury indictment. Judge set a deadline to file by Wednesday, and Latah County Prosecuting Attorney Bill Thompson and his team will have until Aug. 30 to respond to the proposed motion.

Judge set a status hearing for 2:15 p.m. Wednesday.

Much of Friday’s hearing centered on testimony from four witnesses who talked about DNA evidence and genetic genealogy. They were Stephen Mercer, a Maryland criminal defense attorney who specializes in DNA and forensic litigation; Leah Larkin, a California genetic genealogist; Gabriella Vargas, a California investigative genetic genealogist; and Bicka Barlow, a San Francisco attorney who works on cases involving DNA evidence.

Taylor used the witnesses’ testimony to argue the prosecution needed to hand over all DNA evidence it has from the case, including text messages, emails and other communications between laboratory personnel and others regarding biological testing.

She said there were two DNA profiles found inside the King Road home and one outside that do not belong to Kohberger and have not been disclosed to the defense.

DNA was found on the snap button of a tan leather knife sheath left on the bed where the bodies of Mogen and Goncalves were discovered, according to court records. Police believe the genetic material links Kohberger, a former Washington State University criminal justice graduate student, to the killings based on another DNA sample obtained from his family’s trash in Pennsylvania on Dec. 27.

Dozens of Pennsylvania police in tactical gear broke windows and broke down doors to enter the Kohberger family home early Dec. 30 to arrest Kohberger. The DNA found in the Kohbergers’ trash matches with more than a 99.99% likelihood to be the father of the person whose DNA was found on the knife sheath, court documents say.

Thompson said he and his team provided everything they received from the lab to the defense. He said he is awaiting one forensics lab report that he will disclose once he receives it.

“We have given them everything we know to exist,” Thompson said.

Elisa Massoth, another attorney for Kohberger, said the evidence it is requesting is “critical” for the defense’s case.

“Cumulatively, it is overwhelming that we must have this evidence to do our work,” she said.

Taylor also took issue with “irregularities” in the grand jury process. Kohberger was indicted by a grand jury in May.

For example, Taylor said a judge ordered 45 jurors be brought in for the jury process, but only 32 were.

“That’s quite a few shorter than the court ordered,” Taylor said.

She asked Judge to issue a stay in the case and set an evidentiary hearing to determine the impact, if any, in the convening of the grand jury.

Judge said he was not persuaded there was a “substantial failure” in the jury process and denied the motion.

“It’s not unusual for the number of jurors we ask to show up don’t show up,” Judge said. “I don’t think it’s that unusual.”