The University of Idaho Murders: Texts, Tips, and Psychopaths

[00:00:00] Content warning, this episode contains discussion of murder and violence. So today we're going back to the University of Idaho murders. This of course is the tragic quadruple homicide of Ethan Chapin, Xanarkar Nodal, Madison Mogan, and Kaylee Gonsalves. These were four young people murdered in a house in Moscow, Idaho, where the University of Idaho is based. They were all students there. A PhD student, a grad student named Brian Koberger has been charged.

[00:00:30] with their murders. He was a PhD student studying criminology at Washington State University not far away. And there's been a lot of pretrial motions and back and forth. It's one of those cases that's definitely generating a lot of filings. We can actually hardly keep up right now. So we are trying to cover as many as possible in depth, and then we'll probably revisit more that we didn't get to, you know, the next time. So just we're trying to keep up. It's a firehose.

[00:01:00] My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist. And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is The Murder Sheet. We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases. We're The Murder Sheet. And this is the University of Idaho Murders. Texts, tips, and psychopaths.

[00:01:20] You know, Anya, I remember the other day, and I believe one of our Patreon lives, the topic of baseball came up. And I'm reminded of the fact that baseball is a game that I think most of us understand the basic fundamentals.

[00:02:22] But people who are really, really into baseball like to get into the finer statistics and the finer strategies and start like picking nits about this or that and coming up with those sorts of different statistics that maybe the more casual baseball fan may find boring.

[00:02:42] And I say that because there are some issues in some of these filings that I think may not seem super interesting at first blush. But they are interesting because ultimately they could affect the outcome of the game, for lack of a better word.

[00:03:02] There were, for instance, a couple of motions filed recently in which the defense and the prosecution are arguing about the text messages that the survivors of this quadruple homicide sent amongst themselves and also the 911 call that they made which summoned emergency people to the scene of the murders.

[00:03:29] And they're arguing about it because these are unsworn statements. And by unsworn, I mean these aren't statements that people came into court and took an oath to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and then they made the 911 call. These are unsworn statements just made in the course of life. And typically these things, unsworn statements, are known as hearsay. And often they're not admissible in court.

[00:03:55] There are exceptions, and some of the exceptions are an excited utterance or a present sense impression. This means if I'm discussing something with Anya that is happening as I'm discussing it with her, I don't have the time to make up a lie. So it's probably true.

[00:04:18] If something really shocked me and I discuss it with Anya very, very quickly, well, I'm still kind of in a sense of shock about it. Again, because of the emotional impact of it, I probably haven't had a chance to cook up a lie. So maybe we should lend that a bit more weight. So these are a couple of the exceptions to hearsay. Does that make sense?

[00:04:39] Yeah, and we already discussed this on a previous episode covering the University of Idaho murders because we recently heard from the prosecution side discussing these specifically around the text and the 911 calls. But it sounds like we're hearing back from the defense now. Yeah, and I just want to make sure we're all on the same page before we get into this. So the defense is they don't want this stuff to come in. No. Which means they think it's damaging to them, basically. Yeah.

[00:05:07] And so they're trying to say, no, these texts and 911 calls, these aren't excited utterance or present sense impressions. And one of the arguments they make goes back to another thing we've discussed recently, which is the rule of completeness, which essentially means that if you're going to admit statements into court, you can't just cherry pick. You have to admit the whole thing.

[00:05:31] And they say, well, if you look at all of the text messages that were sent, there were a lot more sent than what appeared in the previous motion from the state. And they list them all. There are a lot more online activities. They don't all seem terribly relevant to what had happened to the House that night. No.

[00:05:58] And so they're using this to say, these are not excited utterances. They're not present sense impressions because they had time to do all these other things too. And so because of that, that should be enough to not allow these things to be admitted. So that is their argument. What's your take on that? I don't, that does, I don't, I'm not a lawyer.

[00:06:26] So I'd be curious about what your take on that is. Does that seem reasonable? I mean, to me, it's like they're saying, well, they, they went on, what, like Instagram or something. Obviously they didn't know that their roommates had been murdered. I mean, it's, I mean, when I look at this transcript of activities, it seems like two of the girls were creeped out by seeing, or one of them saw this guy in a ski mask. They're creeped out by that. They discuss it, but they assume everything's fine.

[00:06:53] And maybe one or both of them are a bit intoxicated and just kind of, no one wants to be the person who calls police and gets everyone in trouble for being drunk just because you saw some guy who was visiting one of your friends in your house. Right. So it's like, I don't know, but I, I'm, I'm not a lawyer. So do you think this additional context makes a difference? I, I, I don't really think it does. I, I think though they're valid arguments.

[00:07:20] Defense attorneys have to make every argument they can for the sake of their client and also to preserve things for their record. I, I don't find these arguments to be compelling, if that makes sense. But at the same time, I don't find them to be outlandish. I think there's a certain sense to them, a certain logic to them. I think they're right to make them. What do you think? Yeah, obviously.

[00:07:45] I mean, finding something not particularly compelling is not the same thing as condemning one side for making the argument. As you said, it's their jobs. They have to do it. I just, you know, I think it's a bit, uh, I don't really get it and I think it's weak. Shall we move on? Yes. The next one is alternative perpetrator evidence. And this is certainly something that is familiar to those of us who have been following the Delphi case.

[00:08:14] Namely, uh, Mr. Kohlberger and his defense team want to bring in evidence that they claim would tend to suggest that someone other than Mr. Kohlberger committed this crime. Uh, they say that, uh, the defense says that over 45,000 tips have been disclosed. Tips continue to come in daily.

[00:08:38] And they want to be able to discuss some of these alternative, uh, issues in court, uh, for the benefit of their client. And they don't think that the judge should make any blanket ruling on this until they have an opportunity to make, uh, offers of proof. So that would be more or not with an eye for an appeal as opposed to in front of the jury. Yeah.

[00:09:05] And in this context, would an offer of proof allow them to also present it before a jury? Or they're basically saying like, we want this for appeal. I mean, I guess I'm just, I know in Delphi offer of proof was like, let's put this in the record for the appeal. Yeah. That's basically what it is. So they're not trying to do the whole, like we're bringing in a third party suspect thing necessarily. Well, they want to make an offer of proof to the judge and it's, it's possible that the judge may say, oh, maybe let's admit that. Yeah.

[00:09:34] Like that's strong enough to admit. Okay. That makes sense. Next I think is the state's response to defendants motion to preclude the death penalty and adopt other necessary procedures. Is that right? Yes. So this is one, we've seen a lot of discussion around the death penalty around this case. And I believe our friend and fellow podcaster, Jason Blair, check out a silver linings handbook, his show. Great show. He, we were talking the other day, I think we were talking on one of our Patreon lives.

[00:10:03] And he said that his view and Taylor's essentially seemingly doing a lot to try to get the death penalty taken off the table for Koberger, which makes a lot of sense because he's facing the death penalty. That's perhaps, you know, the most serious thing they can be up against. So in a way, not surprising. I thought that was an astute observation. She's trying many different prongs to try to get that out of here. So this is one of those things.

[00:10:32] Kind of, it also shows, again, a more macro sense, like death penalty for both sides is going to take up a lot of time and energy. Right? Right. She's putting resources into this. If there was no death penalty on the table, maybe she would be putting resources into something else. Same with the state. Right? So also shows why it can be a tool for the state because, you know, like it's pretty dire.

[00:10:56] So the state comes in and responds to her saying the death penalty needs to be off the table. Well, what this boils down to, as far as my reading, is the defense was saying that the state should take the death penalty off the table because of Brady violations. We've already talked a lot on this show about Brady violations in this case, what the defense has alleged, what the state has argued.

[00:11:25] And this boils down to is should they lose the death penalty because of alleged Brady violations and discovery issues with the state? The state points out in this filing, first of all, we did not violate any, like we didn't do anything wrong. Like we didn't do anything wrong with the discovery. We've been doing everything properly according to Idaho criminal rules.

[00:11:47] And in addition to that, we didn't, you know, the defense is having a misreading of Brady, of the Brady obligations. And they note, you know, the following quote from State B. Hall, quote, there are three components of a true Brady violation. The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it's exculpatory or because it's impeaching. That evidence must have been suppressed by the state, either willfully or inadvertently, and prejudice must have ensued, end quote.

[00:12:15] So as a reminder, exculpatory means it points away from someone's guilt. So evidence that someone else may have done it. Impeaching means essentially it could kind of knock down a witness on the stand. Is that right? Right. So if you if you can impeach a witness, you can sort of show the jury that maybe they shouldn't take what they say very seriously. So, you know, they're they're asking for that sanction.

[00:12:44] And this is what the state had to say, quote, this court should reject the defendant's request to strike the death penalty as a sanction for a discovery violation that does not exist. Even those courts that have utilized that sanction recognize that it was extreme and only utilized because no other remedy was sufficient. For example, in Idaho v. Lori Vallow Daybell, the state failed to timely disclose conversations between the defendant and co-defendant. State disclosed discovery on February 27th, 2023.

[00:13:13] On this date, the state discovered jailhouse recordings, phone calls and video visits. In addition, on March 13th, 2023, the state discovered several more hours of jailhouse recordings. Over 100 hours of audio and video were disclosed after the discovery deadline. The defendant submitted an affidavit from her mitigation expert detailing the prejudice due to the late disclosures. These disclosures were two weeks before jury selection was set to begin on March 27th, 2023. The court noted the problem here is a timing problem.

[00:13:43] The defendant's trial was set to begin April 3rd, 2023, and the defendant had not waived her right to a speedy trial. The court noted that if the disclosures had been made prior to the discovery deadline, it would be difficult for the court to determine that prejudice would arise. End quote. They note that this is nothing like the Vallow case. That was a case where, as described, 100 hours of late disclosed jail calls right before jury selection. In this case, the state says the defendant does not have anything like that to point to.

[00:14:13] And also, you know, she had not waived her right to a speedy trial. In this case, Koberger has waived his right to a speedy trial. So, what they say, what they conclude is, quote, Even if this court finds the state violated its Brady obligation for failing to provide unspecified evidence, the court can fashion more appropriate remedies in this case. End quote. So, we didn't do anything wrong. Even if you find that we did for some reason, that's not the way to do it.

[00:14:43] That's an argument, by the way, you will often hear lawyers make. You will hear them say, hey, we did not do anything wrong. But, even if we did. Go easy on us. You know how it is. Yes, it's classic lawyer behavior. Classic lawyer nonsense. No, I mean, it's fair. I mean, I think they want to, the first and foremost thing is that they're saying, we did not do anything wrong.

[00:15:08] But, in some imaginary world, if we did, what they're asking for is still off the rails. So. You do that, you're not being two-faced when you do that. You want to make the best argument you can. And if you believe you've done nothing wrong, you make that argument. But, you have to be aware, you have to be realistic that often in this life, people disagree with you. So, even if you make your best argument that, no, this doesn't even apply to us, we didn't do anything wrong,

[00:15:36] it's possible that the judge will disagree. And so, if the judge does disagree, you want to continue to make another argument. Exactly. And that's perfectly acceptable. The next filing in Idaho that caught my eye was from the laboratory manager of the Idaho State Police Forensic Services Laboratory in Meridian, Idaho. This is Riley Nolan. I apologize if I'm not saying her name correctly.

[00:16:03] This is a person who was employed there since 2002, so a long time, and has served as lab manager there since September 2014. First qualified as a DNA analyst in May 2005.

[00:16:21] So, I thought this affidavit from Ms. Nolan was interesting because it seems to be getting at some debate within the forensic DNA community. And that seems to be having a bearing on the trial. What they're arguing about is effectively whether or not DNA lab analysts should opine about DNA transfer, persistence, prevalence, and recovery.

[00:16:51] So, that's kind of a complicated argument. I'd be curious to hear from actual people who work in this field. But there are two factions within that community. Some people think they should not. Some people think they should. There's been recommendations. But it seems like what she's saying here is that this is a robust, ongoing debate about whether it's okay, whether it's ethical, whether that's going on today. So, she's noting that.

[00:17:19] But the other thing that really jumped out to me was this is what she said. Quote, The phrase touch DNA is widely used in the forensic DNA community and was used in Dr. Ruth Ballard's expert witness disclosure for this case when referring to the DNA on the knife sheet. It is typically used to describe DNA collected from items of evidence in areas on the item that would most likely be touched by the user of that item. The term trace DNA implies amount.

[00:17:44] The word trace is defined as a very small amount and is used in the scientific literature when describing evidence samples with low amounts of DNA that do not yield a profile or only a partial profile. I would not be willing to use that term. And it would be inappropriate to apply that term to the DNA on the knife sheath because a trace amount of DNA is not what I detected on the item. And referring to it as trace DNA would be misleading to the trier of fact. End quote. End quote. So, there's some debate about how this should be referred to.

[00:18:13] Sounds like in her mind, touch DNA is more appropriate than trace DNA because there was a lot of DNA, according to her, on this knife sheath. It was not a trace of it. It was a substantial amount. So, there you go. That's what she has to say. Now, we're going into the defendant's objection to the state's notice of intent to use IRE-404B evidence. So, what the heck is this? Well, it concerns Indiana.

[00:18:44] Yay! We're coming back to the Hoosier State. Hoosier State. Back home again in Indiana. But instead of candlelight that shines so bright through the sycamore, we're going to talk about a traffic stop instead. So, people who have been following this case for a while probably recall that Koberger and his father were stopped in the state of Indiana in a traffic stop that occurred prior to his arrest.

[00:19:09] This was all released and whatnot and people were talking about it. And this occurred on August 21st, 2022. But before we go any further, Kevin, I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about Rule 404B. Well, Rule 404B is essentially pertaining to character.

[00:19:34] And what I mean by that is there are rules as to what you can bring in about the defendant. You can't just say, oh, we know that this person is guilty of this particular crime because he's a bad person. Look at these other things he did. In other words, you can't say, oh, Brian Koberger was pulled over by the police for a traffic stop. Therefore, he doesn't respect the law and he must be a murderer.

[00:20:02] So, you can't just bring in evidence of acts that support your contention that a person has bad character in order to prove the crime. Does that make sense? Correct. What the defense in this filing alleges is that the state, which filed the state's notice of intent to use IRE 404B evidence,

[00:20:23] was that they were going to show video of the traffic stop to prove Koberger's vehicle identity, address, phone number, things like that, because that's all recorded in this traffic stop. And they're saying, no, this should be excluded from evidence because the traffic stop bears no resemblance to the crime. So, I guess what they're saying is, like, if there was video of Koberger being arrested for, like, a similar massacre in a home, that would be all right.

[00:20:53] But this is just a traffic stop, so you can't do it. I guess one thing that confused me about this filing, Kevin, is that it doesn't seem like the state's trying to say that he got a traffic stop, so therefore he's a murderer. It seems like they're more just using it to say, hey, this is what the information about him at the time, and here's what his car looked like, and what he drove, and whatnot. Yeah, that's the state's contention, that we're not trying to bring in the traffic stop for the traffic stop. We're trying to bring it in for this other reason.

[00:21:24] And I guess the defense's contention is, oh, they're just saying that. It seems so bad. And the real reason is this traffic stop. And a lot of people get pulled over for traffic stops, including one of the co-hosts of this program. And I don't think it doesn't mean a person has bad character. And if they were, in fact, trying to use this as evidence of Mr. Koberger's bad character, that would not be allowed.

[00:21:53] It would probably be allowed if the prosecution is, in fact, just using it for identity purposes. I was just trying to get us to a Kagan-Klein hearing. Sorry for being diligent about trying to be there on time, Mr. Punctuality over here. But, yeah, it's a situation where they're just trying to get it thrown out.

[00:22:14] And they cite a bunch of reasons for that, including, you know, it talks about basically it's a violation of his due process because it's irrelevant character evidence. I don't really see how it's character evidence because, again, a lot of people get pulled over on traffic stops. It's not really that big of a deal. If it was something like he was harassing somebody or doing something like that, I could understand it a little bit more. But it just seems kind of like a stretch.

[00:22:43] But they got to try it because at this stage of the game, the defense, the more they get thrown out, if they get anything thrown out, the better their chances are. So they got to try. You can't just not try. And also, you also have to keep in mind that if the defense makes an argument in one of these motions and they lose, and I'll be blunt, I think most of these are going to lose most of these, that's not really the end of the story.

[00:23:09] Because then, if the trial happens and Mr. Kohlberger is convicted, the appellate attorneys can go back through all of this and they can say, oh, look, even before the trial, his attorneys were saying, oh, this might be an issue, this might be an issue. And we think it was. And we're going to present this argument again to the appellate court. So that's what a lot of this is about.

[00:23:33] It's about protecting and creating potential issues for the appellate court to consider if and when there is an appeal. Precisely. So now we have a couple of responses to motions in limine filed by Kohlberger's team. First one concerns inflammatory evidence. I love this one had a bit of an amusing opening.

[00:23:53] They say that comes now the state of Idaho by and through the Latow County prosecuting attorney and submits the following response to the defendant's motion to eliminate number one re-inflammatory evidence filed on February 24th, 2025. Unfortunately, the defendant does not specify what potential evidence he is objecting to as exceptionally inflammatory, nor does the defendant define exceptionally inflammatory. That said, this is an appropriate opportunity to review the applicable standards. End quote.

[00:24:22] So the prosecutor is taking us all to law school. I just thought, we don't know what he's talking about, but let's discuss. So they go on to discuss a case which was the state versus leave it. And it's quote progeny. Talk about the use of color photographs of the dead body of a victim in that case. Those were admitted into evidence.

[00:24:50] And they talk about like that would be a situation where that could be considered inflammatory. You're seeing a dead body. It's horrifying. It could really upset people. And the concern in a situation like that is people are reacting emotionally. This woman, you know, this person was horribly murdered. I'm seeing their body. I'm going to just convict because I'm upset about that rather than really thinking about the case. Right.

[00:25:18] But with that said, if you're on a case involving someone being murdered horribly, it may very well be that you need to look at pictures of that nature in order to have a full understanding of the crime. This is what the Idaho Supreme Court said addressing that leave it case. They talked about the defendant next asserts that the trial court erred in three evidentiary rulings.

[00:25:46] Defendant first asserts that the error was committed when certain color photographs of the victim's corpse in an advanced state of decomposition were admitted in evidence. Defendant cites State v. Martinez as authority for his assertion of error. There in the court dealt with the need to balance the probative value and relevance of such evidence against resulting prejudice to the defendant. We agree with the Martinez balancing rule.

[00:26:08] However, in the instant case, though the photographs were admittedly gruesome in nature, clearly they were necessary to show the nature of the crime and the type of wounds inflicted upon the body. The jury is entitled to have an accurate picture of all the circumstances. And although such information may be gruesome in nature, it is necessary to make an intelligent fact-finding decision. Since the photographic evidence is relevant, there's no objection on the basis that it could be presented in a somehow less graphic form. The state is not obligated to present evidence, which has a lesser impact.

[00:26:40] And then they talk about State v. Rolo describes the applicable balancing test. The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following. Unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. End quote.

[00:27:06] So it obviously seems like it kind of leans on the side of transparency for the jury and relevant information, typically. I mean, does that... Yeah. You want the jury to be able to look at the pictures or whatever so they can have a fair sense of what the actual crime is so they can make an intelligent determination about whether or not Mr. Kohlberger was capable of committing the crime, whether or not he did commit the crime.

[00:27:36] If I recall correctly, the defense was arguing that Mr. Kohlberger had a physical condition that would limit his ability to commit these murders. So if that is the case, that's another reason for the jury to really look at these pictures, see what the killer did to these victims, and then determine whether or not Mr. Kohlberger was capable of that. Let me talk about something that would be inflammatory and shouldn't be used.

[00:28:05] Let's say Anya, as she so often is, is on trial for stealing cereal. And the prosecutor says, I have evidence that shows Anya really, really likes cereal. And the evidence is a videotape of Anya going to an orphanage and seeing a lot of starving children eating cereal and going and just grabbing all of their bowls and pouring them into a huge bowl for herself.

[00:28:34] That would clearly establish that would clearly establish that would clearly establish that Anya loves cereal. But it would also create an unfair prejudice because it also is raising other issues like how Anya treats these poor orphans. It confuses the issues because this doesn't even apply to the actual cereal theft. It would mislead the jury. It would waste time. So that would be an example of something that would be inflammatory, even though you could argue it does help illustrate something.

[00:29:04] Does that make sense? It does. So there'd be certain instances where the defense would be correct here, potentially. But it's also difficult to say in this situation because it seems like there's not really clarity from the defense on what they're worried about as being overly inflammatory. Right. So next, motion limine number two regarding vague and undisclosed expert testimony. This is the state's response to a motion limine from the defense.

[00:29:33] And as a reminder, motions in limine are essentially a motion saying, hey, let's cut this out. Let's not let it in trial. Right? Yeah, basically a motion limine is when an attorney for either side is asking the judge to make a determination about whether or not certain evidence should or should not be allowed in a trial prior to the trial itself happening. And one thing to remember is motion in limines are not written in stone.

[00:30:02] So even if one side wins or loses a particular motion in limine, that doesn't mean that that ruling is permanent and that victory or loss is permanent. So this is, again, vague and undisclosed expert testimony. What is happening is the defendant is trying to either limit or exclude testimony from 22 expert witnesses from the state. Get them out of there.

[00:30:30] So the prosecution is saying these aren't vague and undisclosed. This is, they're relevant and here's, you know, kind of why they should be allowed in. But I think it's more interesting to actually look at who these people are just to get a bit of a sneak preview of what the state has planned. So first up is Jenny Ayers. This is a crime scene discipline lead and forensic scientist with the Idaho State Police.

[00:30:56] There is a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. That's Nicholas Balance. He is part of the Cellular Analyst Survey Team or CAST. And that team focuses on cell phone data and sort of like figuring out locations of people based on that. And if his name is familiar to people who follow Idaho cases, he also worked on the Daybell Vallow case. There are the Barnhart's, Heather and Jared Barnhart.

[00:31:26] These are two people, a married couple, I believe, that work at Celebrite. And he is a digital intelligence specialist and she is a senior director of forensic research. So this is, again, cell phone stuff. This is interesting as a former retail reporter. You have Shane Cox, a litigation and regulatory manager and law enforcement response person for Amazon.com.

[00:31:54] So I would assume that would pertain to some of the Amazon click evidence and some of the evidence of what Mr. Kohlberger bought on Amazon, what he was looking for on Amazon and things of that nature. I would imagine. You have a forensic accountant with the FBI, Michael Douglas. He also worked on the Daybell Vallow case.

[00:32:14] You have for the Idaho State Police several lab witnesses, Catherine White, Taylor Maycheck, Tara Martinez, Jade Miller, Ann Nord, Tina Walthall, Stephanie Wilt, and Haley Youngling. And, of course, we already heard about Ryleen Nolan, who is the director or the manager of the Meridian Lab. Eric Seat is another forensic scientist with the Idaho State Police.

[00:32:38] You have forensic detectives, Lawrence Morery, Jeff Tenzola, Neil Urig, and Idaho State Police Detective Darren Gilbertson.

[00:32:50] And this is interesting because Detective Gilbertson is someone who is going to be able to testify to the – basically what they did was they ran time trials to see if you could kill four people in the time allotted to do so by the evidence. So, you know, can one person kill four people in, like, basically 13 minutes in this house?

[00:33:16] And that's obviously crucial because if you determine that it is impossible for one person to have committed these crimes, then that would be a pretty big blow to the case against Mr. Kohlberger, who the state is alleging acted alone. Correct. And, you know, off the top of my head, that sounds pretty quick, right? That's a quick time frame to do it. But what's in my head or what I would imagine it being is not necessarily always the reality. I think it's always important for us to remember that.

[00:33:44] Just because it sounds daunting to us does not mean it's impossible. The only way you find out is to experiment and test it out. And that's what Gilbertson and his colleagues seemingly did. They went to the house at 1122 King Road, and they carried this out, and this is what they found. Quote, the result of these timed runs indicated that one assailant could have carried out the four homicides in the suggested time frame. End quote. So, yeah.

[00:34:12] I'm guessing we're probably going to hear a lot about that at the trial, and I imagine that when these people are cross-examined about this, that the defense will do everything they can to poke holes in those trials. Correct. We've got a toxicologist, Dr. Gary Dawson. He'll be talking about specifically, actually, I'll just read the quote. Quote, Dr. Dawson will opine that the victim's intoxication levels would have impaired their ability to resist. And for certain victims, as detailed in his report,

[00:34:41] it would have prevented them from putting up any resistance. End quote. This is interesting to me. So this is another factor where you have people saying, well, how could someone attack all those people and get away that quickly? Well, if you have a toxicologist saying that some of them were basically blacked out or unable to respond or their responses would have been highly ineffective, you know, why wasn't there a ton of screaming? Why wasn't there a big ruckus?

[00:35:09] Well, this would be a pretty good indication of why. And if anyone's ever, you know, been in college, drank too much, fell asleep afterwards, you know, getting up in the morning is not, you know, the easiest thing after that. And certainly being ambushed at night would be a disaster because you would. I mean, I think anyone who's been through that can understand that that would be something that would make you very vulnerable indeed. So kind of just bolsters the case there.

[00:35:39] They mentioned David Middleman. He's with author, of course, but it sounds like he's not going to be in there anyways because he was sort of a rebuttal witness. Or if he is, I guess maybe I don't know. So he's listed. And also, I guess in the defense's motion, they suggested that the state was sort of playing games. And this is what the prosecutors have to say, quote,

[00:36:03] to suggest that the state gambled with disclosure of expert testimony in order to reap a tactical advantage is unsupported and outrageous. End quote. Getting a little salty there. These are my, these are, this, this coming up, one of these is my favorite motions in Limon-A. And this is. Of all time. Yeah. The state's response to defendant's motion in Limon-A number three, reuse of the term murder.

[00:36:28] Defendant asks this court to prohibit the lawyers or witnesses from using the word murder or any form of the word murder. The court should deny the motion. End quote. End quote. So, at the murder trial, you're not supposed to mention the word murder, at least as far as the defense wants. That's just stupid. It's worth a try. I'm sorry. That's just not, that's dumb.

[00:36:56] But, you know, I mean, I guess you miss all the shots you don't take, right? Right. Right. This is, they talk about how, it's not going to, you know, quote, here the state's use of the word murder will not unfairly prejudice the defendant. Indictment charges defendant with four counts of murder in the first degree. And the jury will be told as much immediately after the trial begins. Jury will also be instructed as to the presumption of innocence.

[00:37:24] And told their decision must be based on the evidence. And instructed that arguments and statements of the attorneys are not evidence. End quote. So, this seems pretty basic. I mean, if the prosecutor says, well, this guy's a murderer in his closing argument, you know, the jury's going to be informed that, hey, this, you know. They're aware of what he's charged with. Yes. Why don't we do one more and call it an episode? Well, this is, yeah. And this is, I mean, this is what they say.

[00:37:52] Quote, defendant is not arguing self-defense or a lesser included form of homicide. End quote. Said, oh, all of these sleeping kids in their house. I wandered in and then had to defend myself against all four of them, even though they were in bed and I was breaking in. So, it's not like they're saying, well, it was self-defense. That would maybe make a bit of a difference. Because then if you're using the word murder, you're signaling to the jury, we don't accept this defense. Yes. But in this case, no. There's no self-defense argument.

[00:38:21] Let's do one more. And this is. Call it an Idaho episode. This is another motion to eliminate. And this is regarding the terms psychopath or sociopath. Defendant asks this court to exclude the use of the word psychopath and sociopath during the trial. The state has no plans to use the word psychopath or sociopath during the trial based on the current record. End quote.

[00:38:44] So, psychopath and sociopath, if you talk to mental health professionals, they will tell you those are not really official terms anymore. Those are not really what's used. The language and the thinking on some of these issues have evolved is my understanding. So, it would make sense for this defense to say, let's not be using weird, outdated stuff like that. I would think. Now, that's not all the state has to say, though.

[00:39:14] Quote, The state notes, however, the defense recently put defendant's mental health at issue. As a result, the state may move to have defendant examined by its own expert. If such an examination takes place and reveals any additional information about defendant's mental health or the defense asserts additional information regarding defendant's mental health, the state reserves the right to use that information to the extent that it is relevant and admissible on the issues of guilt or punishment. End quote.

[00:39:41] So, what they're saying there is we're not going to call him a sociopath or a psychopath, but, you know, we... If you guys open up a door... We're coming through. So, they're, you know, that's the risk. I think, you know, makes sense from the defendant's perspective to try to get information about his, you know, possible diagnoses or whatnot out there. At the same time, do we know, you know, that might have an impact on what the prosecution's able to do? And if they're somehow able to...

[00:40:09] I mean, do they automatically get to have their own expert examine him or can he refuse to participate in that? I would imagine he could refuse. Yeah. But... So, it probably won't go anywhere, but I imagine they might be, like, throwing into question... If there have been recent diagnoses done by defense experts, they might be throwing that into question. Well, we are going to keep an eye on this. I'm not sure if we're going to be covering every single filing, but there's a bunch of them.

[00:40:39] I think we're going to try to focus on the ones that we find most interesting or ones that we feel would have the most relevance on the trial itself and how that occurs. Absolutely. And in the meantime, thanks for listening. Appreciate you guys listening to our Idaho episodes. And certainly let us know if there's questions you have, angles you want us to get into, and we'll kind of keep on expanding upon our coverage as we go along. Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet.

[00:41:09] If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheet at gmail dot com. If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities. If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murdersheet.

[00:41:36] If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support. Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for The Murder Sheet, and who you can find on the web at kevintg.com.

[00:42:00] If you're looking to talk with 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.

[00:42:24] Can we talk a little bit before we go about Quince, 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? 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.

[00:42:53] 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. You've gotten a lot of compliments when you go out wearing these sweaters. I think I have, yeah. And deservedly so. Also, I'm one of those people, my skin is very sensitive.

[00:43:18] So when it comes to wearing sweaters, sometimes something's too scratchy. It really bothers me. These are so soft. They're just very delicate and soft. Wearing them is lovely because they're super comfortable. It's not one of those things where you buy it and it looks great, but it doesn't feel that great. They look great. They feel great. But yeah, I really love them. And you've got your cool jacket. I mean, that's a little bit of a – you're the guy who wears the same thing all the time. So this was a bit of a gamble for you, a bit of a risk.

[00:43:48] You got something a bit different. I do wash my clothes. I know you wash your clothes, but I mean – You're filthy. You just made me sound awful. So no, I wash my clothes. But you don't really – I launder them. 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. Thank you. Great products. Incredible prices. Absolutely. Quince.com. There you go. So you can go to quince.com slash msheet.

[00:44:15] And right now they're offering 365-day returns plus free shipping on your order. So it's quince.com slash msheet. That's quince.com slash msheet. Before we go, we just wanted to say another few words about Vaya. This is really a wonderful product. I think it's really helped both of us get a lot better rest. Vaya is pretty much, I guess you'd say, the only lifestyle hemp brand out there. So what does that mean?

[00:44:43] It means that they're all about crafting different products to elicit different moods. Kevin and I really like their non-THC CBD products. Specifically, Zen really helps me fall asleep. Some Zen can really just kind of help me get more into that state where I can relax and fall asleep pretty easily. And they've been such a wonderful support to us. They're a longtime sponsor. We really love working with them. And they really make this show possible. I'm going to say this. You may not realize this, but when you support our sponsors, you're supporting us.

[00:45:13] And it kind of makes it possible for us to do this show. So if you or one of your loved ones is interested in trying some of this stuff, you're going to get a great deal. It's very high quality, high value. Anya, if I wanted to give this discount you speak of, what do I do? Okay, if you're 21 and older, head to Viahemp.com and use the code MSHEET to receive 15% off. And if you're new to Viah, get a free gift of your choice. That's Viahemp.com and use code MSHEET at checkout.

[00:45:42] Spell the code. M-S-H-E-E-T. And after you purchase, they're going to ask you, hey, where did you hear about us? Say the murder sheet because then it lets them know that our ads are effective and it really helps us out.