POPULARITY
11 episodes with Exclude
4 episodes with Exclude
5 episodes with Exclude
6 episodes with Exclude
5 episodes with Exclude
3 episodes with Exclude
2 episodes with Exclude
3 episodes with Exclude
2 episodes with Exclude
What if the barriers to success weren't personal but structural, intentional, and decades in the making? In this episode of Immigrantly, host Saadia Khan sits down with demographers Jennifer Hook and James Bachmeier, authors of a groundbreaking new book, Texas-Style Exclusion: Mexican Americans and the Legacy of Limited Opportunity, that traces how Mexican immigrant families in Texas were systematically excluded from public education and opportunity throughout the 20th century—and how those policies still resonate today. We unpack why Texas created systems to exploit labor while blocking social mobility, how educational inequality was baked into policy, not culture, what comparing Mexican and European immigrant outcomes means, and the quiet generational cost of being born in the wrong place with the wrong identity. This conversation reframes the myth of meritocracy and compels us to confront the uncomfortable truth: success in America has always depended on who you are, where you're from, and what you are allowed to access. We invite you to join us in creating new intellectual engagement for our audience. For more information, visit http://immigrantlypod.com. Please share the love and leave us a review on Apple Podcasts & Spotify to help more people find us! You can connect with Saadia on Twitter @swkkhan Email: saadia@immigrantlypod.com Host & Producer: Saadia Khan I Content Writer: Saadia Khan I Editorial review: Shei Yu I Sound Designer & Editor: Lou Raskin I Immigrantly Theme Music: Simon Hutchinson | Other Music: Epidemic Sound Immigrantly podcast is an Immigrantly Media Production. For advertising inquiries, you can contact us at info@immigrantlypod.com Remember to subscribe to our Apple podcast channel for insightful podcasts. You can also follow us on social media for updates and behind-the-scenes content. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In Case Number CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan C. Kohberger has filed a reply to the State's objection concerning his Motion in Limine #6, which seeks to exclude specific opinions of forensic analyst Rylene Nowlin and the use of the terms "touch DNA" and "contact DNA" during trial. Kohberger's defense argues that these terms are misleading and could confuse the jury by implying a certainty about the method of DNA transfer that is not scientifically substantiated. They emphasize that Nowlin's own disclosures acknowledge the complexity of DNA transfer mechanisms and the current inability of DNA technology to conclusively determine how or when DNA was deposited on an item. Therefore, the defense contends that allowing such terminology and speculative testimony would prejudice the jury and should be excluded to ensure a fair trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:032425-Defendants-Reply-States-Objection-Defendants-MIL6-RE-Nowlin-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Send us a textIn this episode of the Sports Marketing Machine podcast, host Jeremy Neisser continues the Meta Ads 101 series with a practical deep dive into exclusion lists—one of the most underrated ways to stretch your ad dollars and reach the right fans.Jeremy walks through why every sports team should separate their audiences (like single-game buyers vs. season ticket holders) and how to use Meta's built-in tools to make sure you're not wasting money advertising to people who've already converted. Whether you're promoting mini-plans, season tickets, or group packages, this episode gives you a clear game plan to refine your targeting and boost your ad performance.If you've ever wondered how to avoid annoying your most loyal fans or throwing budget away on audiences that already bought—this one's for you.
In Case Number CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan C. Kohberger's legal team filed a notice on March 26, 2025, submitting an affidavit from expert Sy Ray in support of their Motion in Limine #2, which seeks to exclude vague and undisclosed expert testimony. The affidavit critiques the anticipated testimony of FBI Special Agent Nicholas Ballance, highlighting concerns about the lack of clarity and detail in his reports regarding the analysis of AT&T call detail records. Ray points out that Ballance's methodologies are either vaguely described or entirely absent, making it challenging to assess the validity of his conclusions. Additionally, Ray notes that Ballance's failure to analyze specific data, such as AT&T handoff information, has resulted in the omission of potentially exculpatory evidence. The defense argues that these deficiencies could mislead the jury and compromise Kohberger's right to a fair trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:032625+Defendants+Notice+of+Filing+Affidavit+iso+MIL+2+RE+Vague+Undisclosed+Expert+Testimony.pdf
In Case Number CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan C. Kohberger's legal team filed a notice on March 26, 2025, submitting an affidavit from expert Sy Ray in support of their Motion in Limine #2, which seeks to exclude vague and undisclosed expert testimony. The affidavit critiques the anticipated testimony of FBI Special Agent Nicholas Ballance, highlighting concerns about the lack of clarity and detail in his reports regarding the analysis of AT&T call detail records. Ray points out that Ballance's methodologies are either vaguely described or entirely absent, making it challenging to assess the validity of his conclusions. Additionally, Ray notes that Ballance's failure to analyze specific data, such as AT&T handoff information, has resulted in the omission of potentially exculpatory evidence. The defense argues that these deficiencies could mislead the jury and compromise Kohberger's right to a fair trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:032625+Defendants+Notice+of+Filing+Affidavit+iso+MIL+2+RE+Vague+Undisclosed+Expert+Testimony.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In Case Number CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan C. Kohberger has filed a reply to the State's objection concerning his Motion in Limine #6, which seeks to exclude specific opinions of forensic analyst Rylene Nowlin and the use of the terms "touch DNA" and "contact DNA" during trial. Kohberger's defense argues that these terms are misleading and could confuse the jury by implying a certainty about the method of DNA transfer that is not scientifically substantiated. They emphasize that Nowlin's own disclosures acknowledge the complexity of DNA transfer mechanisms and the current inability of DNA technology to conclusively determine how or when DNA was deposited on an item. Therefore, the defense contends that allowing such terminology and speculative testimony would prejudice the jury and should be excluded to ensure a fair trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:032425-Defendants-Reply-States-Objection-Defendants-MIL6-RE-Nowlin-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In Case Number CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan C. Kohberger's legal team filed a notice on March 26, 2025, submitting an affidavit from expert Sy Ray in support of their Motion in Limine #2, which seeks to exclude vague and undisclosed expert testimony. The affidavit critiques the anticipated testimony of FBI Special Agent Nicholas Ballance, highlighting concerns about the lack of clarity and detail in his reports regarding the analysis of AT&T call detail records. Ray points out that Ballance's methodologies are either vaguely described or entirely absent, making it challenging to assess the validity of his conclusions. Additionally, Ray notes that Ballance's failure to analyze specific data, such as AT&T handoff information, has resulted in the omission of potentially exculpatory evidence. The defense argues that these deficiencies could mislead the jury and compromise Kohberger's right to a fair trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:032625+Defendants+Notice+of+Filing+Affidavit+iso+MIL+2+RE+Vague+Undisclosed+Expert+Testimony.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the defense has submitted a response opposing the State's motion in limine, which seeks to exclude neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence from the trial. The defense intends to present expert testimony indicating that Mr. Kohberger exhibits behaviors consistent with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). They argue that these conditions explain certain behaviors, such as a flat affect, intense gaze, and repetitive speech patterns, which might otherwise be misinterpreted by the jury as indicative of guilt or lack of remorse. Additionally, the defense contends that these behaviors are neurological in nature, supported by neuroimaging evidence, and are crucial for the jury to understand Mr. Kohberger's demeanor and actions accurately.The State, represented by Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, has moved to prohibit the introduction of this evidence, arguing that it is inadmissible under Idaho rules. The prosecution asserts that the defense has not provided sufficient specific details about Mr. Kohberger's alleged conditions and that such evidence could unfairly prejudice the jury. They also contend that the defense failed to meet disclosure deadlines set by the court. The judge's decision on whether to allow the neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence will significantly impact the strategies employed by both parties in the upcoming trial, scheduled to begin on August 11, 2025.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ty A
In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the defense has submitted a response opposing the State's motion in limine, which seeks to exclude neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence from the trial. The defense intends to present expert testimony indicating that Mr. Kohberger exhibits behaviors consistent with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). They argue that these conditions explain certain behaviors, such as a flat affect, intense gaze, and repetitive speech patterns, which might otherwise be misinterpreted by the jury as indicative of guilt or lack of remorse. Additionally, the defense contends that these behaviors are neurological in nature, supported by neuroimaging evidence, and are crucial for the jury to understand Mr. Kohberger's demeanor and actions accurately.The State, represented by Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, has moved to prohibit the introduction of this evidence, arguing that it is inadmissible under Idaho rules. The prosecution asserts that the defense has not provided sufficient specific details about Mr. Kohberger's alleged conditions and that such evidence could unfairly prejudice the jury. They also contend that the defense failed to meet disclosure deadlines set by the court. The judge's decision on whether to allow the neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence will significantly impact the strategies employed by both parties in the upcoming trial, scheduled to begin on August 11, 2025.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ty A
In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the defense has submitted a response opposing the State's motion in limine, which seeks to exclude neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence from the trial. The defense intends to present expert testimony indicating that Mr. Kohberger exhibits behaviors consistent with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). They argue that these conditions explain certain behaviors, such as a flat affect, intense gaze, and repetitive speech patterns, which might otherwise be misinterpreted by the jury as indicative of guilt or lack of remorse. Additionally, the defense contends that these behaviors are neurological in nature, supported by neuroimaging evidence, and are crucial for the jury to understand Mr. Kohberger's demeanor and actions accurately.The State, represented by Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, has moved to prohibit the introduction of this evidence, arguing that it is inadmissible under Idaho rules. The prosecution asserts that the defense has not provided sufficient specific details about Mr. Kohberger's alleged conditions and that such evidence could unfairly prejudice the jury. They also contend that the defense failed to meet disclosure deadlines set by the court. The judge's decision on whether to allow the neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence will significantly impact the strategies employed by both parties in the upcoming trial, scheduled to begin on August 11, 2025.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ty ABecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the defense has submitted a response opposing the State's motion in limine, which seeks to exclude neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence from the trial. The defense intends to present expert testimony indicating that Mr. Kohberger exhibits behaviors consistent with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). They argue that these conditions explain certain behaviors, such as a flat affect, intense gaze, and repetitive speech patterns, which might otherwise be misinterpreted by the jury as indicative of guilt or lack of remorse. Additionally, the defense contends that these behaviors are neurological in nature, supported by neuroimaging evidence, and are crucial for the jury to understand Mr. Kohberger's demeanor and actions accurately.The State, represented by Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, has moved to prohibit the introduction of this evidence, arguing that it is inadmissible under Idaho rules. The prosecution asserts that the defense has not provided sufficient specific details about Mr. Kohberger's alleged conditions and that such evidence could unfairly prejudice the jury. They also contend that the defense failed to meet disclosure deadlines set by the court. The judge's decision on whether to allow the neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence will significantly impact the strategies employed by both parties in the upcoming trial, scheduled to begin on August 11, 2025.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ty ABecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the defense has submitted a response opposing the State's motion in limine, which seeks to exclude neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence from the trial. The defense intends to present expert testimony indicating that Mr. Kohberger exhibits behaviors consistent with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). They argue that these conditions explain certain behaviors, such as a flat affect, intense gaze, and repetitive speech patterns, which might otherwise be misinterpreted by the jury as indicative of guilt or lack of remorse. Additionally, the defense contends that these behaviors are neurological in nature, supported by neuroimaging evidence, and are crucial for the jury to understand Mr. Kohberger's demeanor and actions accurately.The State, represented by Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, has moved to prohibit the introduction of this evidence, arguing that it is inadmissible under Idaho rules. The prosecution asserts that the defense has not provided sufficient specific details about Mr. Kohberger's alleged conditions and that such evidence could unfairly prejudice the jury. They also contend that the defense failed to meet disclosure deadlines set by the court. The judge's decision on whether to allow the neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence will significantly impact the strategies employed by both parties in the upcoming trial, scheduled to begin on August 11, 2025.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ty ABecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the defense has submitted a response opposing the State's motion in limine, which seeks to exclude neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence from the trial. The defense intends to present expert testimony indicating that Mr. Kohberger exhibits behaviors consistent with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). They argue that these conditions explain certain behaviors, such as a flat affect, intense gaze, and repetitive speech patterns, which might otherwise be misinterpreted by the jury as indicative of guilt or lack of remorse. Additionally, the defense contends that these behaviors are neurological in nature, supported by neuroimaging evidence, and are crucial for the jury to understand Mr. Kohberger's demeanor and actions accurately.The State, represented by Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, has moved to prohibit the introduction of this evidence, arguing that it is inadmissible under Idaho rules. The prosecution asserts that the defense has not provided sufficient specific details about Mr. Kohberger's alleged conditions and that such evidence could unfairly prejudice the jury. They also contend that the defense failed to meet disclosure deadlines set by the court. The judge's decision on whether to allow the neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence will significantly impact the strategies employed by both parties in the upcoming trial, scheduled to begin on August 11, 2025.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ty ABecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In the case identified as CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger has filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the execution of a Pennsylvania search warrant at 119 Lamsden Drive, Albrightsville, PA, as well as statements he made during that operation. Kohberger's defense argues that the search warrant was invalid due to alleged reckless or intentional omissions of material facts in the supporting affidavit. They contend that these omissions led to a lack of probable cause, rendering the search unconstitutional. Additionally, the defense asserts that law enforcement's failure to properly "knock and announce" their presence violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights, and that any statements he made during the search should be suppressed as they were obtained without a Miranda warningIn response, the State maintains that the search was conducted under a valid warrant issued by a Pennsylvania court, based on substantial probable cause. They argue that the affidavit supporting the warrant was sufficient and did not omit any material information that would invalidate the warrant. The State also contends that the "knock and announce" procedure was appropriately followed, and that Kohberger's statements during the search were either spontaneous or made after he was informed of his rights, thereby complying with legal requirements. Consequently, the State requests that the court deny Kohberger's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search at 119 Lamsden Drive and his subsequent statements.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-REDACTED-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Lamsden-Statements.pdf
In the case identified as CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger has filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the execution of a Pennsylvania search warrant at 119 Lamsden Drive, Albrightsville, PA, as well as statements he made during that operation. Kohberger's defense argues that the search warrant was invalid due to alleged reckless or intentional omissions of material facts in the supporting affidavit. They contend that these omissions led to a lack of probable cause, rendering the search unconstitutional. Additionally, the defense asserts that law enforcement's failure to properly "knock and announce" their presence violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights, and that any statements he made during the search should be suppressed as they were obtained without a Miranda warningIn response, the State maintains that the search was conducted under a valid warrant issued by a Pennsylvania court, based on substantial probable cause. They argue that the affidavit supporting the warrant was sufficient and did not omit any material information that would invalidate the warrant. The State also contends that the "knock and announce" procedure was appropriately followed, and that Kohberger's statements during the search were either spontaneous or made after he was informed of his rights, thereby complying with legal requirements. Consequently, the State requests that the court deny Kohberger's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search at 119 Lamsden Drive and his subsequent statements.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-REDACTED-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Lamsden-Statements.pdf
In State of Idaho v. Bryan Kohberger (Case Number CR01-24-31665), Motion in Limine #2 seeks to exclude vague and undisclosed expert testimony from being used at trial. Kohberger's defense argues that the prosecution has not properly disclosed the identities, qualifications, or specific opinions of their expert witnesses, violating established discovery rules. The defense contends that admitting broad, undefined, or last-minute expert testimony would place them at a severe disadvantage by preventing effective cross-examination and rebuttal preparation. They emphasize that expert testimony should meet the Daubert standard, ensuring that all scientific or technical evidence presented in court is reliable, relevant, and based on a sound methodology. Without proper disclosure, the defense fears that the prosecution may introduce unvetted or speculative testimony, which could unfairly sway the jury.Additionally, the defense raises concerns about ambiguous or generalized expert conclusions that lack a clear factual foundation. They argue that the court must preclude any expert testimony that was not properly disclosed or that fails to meet the necessary scientific and legal standards. The motion highlights the risk of unverified forensic interpretations or psychological assessments being introduced without proper vetting, potentially leading to misleading conclusions. The defense urges the court to enforce strict evidentiary standards by limiting expert testimony only to properly disclosed, scientifically validated opinions. This motion is a critical part of the defense's strategy to prevent prejudicial, speculative, or unreliable forensic evidence from influencing the jury in one of the most high-profile cases in Idaho's history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-2-RE-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdf
In State of Idaho v. Bryan Kohberger (Case Number CR01-24-31665), Motion in Limine #2 seeks to exclude vague and undisclosed expert testimony from being used at trial. Kohberger's defense argues that the prosecution has not properly disclosed the identities, qualifications, or specific opinions of their expert witnesses, violating established discovery rules. The defense contends that admitting broad, undefined, or last-minute expert testimony would place them at a severe disadvantage by preventing effective cross-examination and rebuttal preparation. They emphasize that expert testimony should meet the Daubert standard, ensuring that all scientific or technical evidence presented in court is reliable, relevant, and based on a sound methodology. Without proper disclosure, the defense fears that the prosecution may introduce unvetted or speculative testimony, which could unfairly sway the jury.Additionally, the defense raises concerns about ambiguous or generalized expert conclusions that lack a clear factual foundation. They argue that the court must preclude any expert testimony that was not properly disclosed or that fails to meet the necessary scientific and legal standards. The motion highlights the risk of unverified forensic interpretations or psychological assessments being introduced without proper vetting, potentially leading to misleading conclusions. The defense urges the court to enforce strict evidentiary standards by limiting expert testimony only to properly disclosed, scientifically validated opinions. This motion is a critical part of the defense's strategy to prevent prejudicial, speculative, or unreliable forensic evidence from influencing the jury in one of the most high-profile cases in Idaho's history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-2-RE-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdf
In the case identified as CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger has filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the execution of a Pennsylvania search warrant at 119 Lamsden Drive, Albrightsville, PA, as well as statements he made during that operation. Kohberger's defense argues that the search warrant was invalid due to alleged reckless or intentional omissions of material facts in the supporting affidavit. They contend that these omissions led to a lack of probable cause, rendering the search unconstitutional. Additionally, the defense asserts that law enforcement's failure to properly "knock and announce" their presence violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights, and that any statements he made during the search should be suppressed as they were obtained without a Miranda warningIn response, the State maintains that the search was conducted under a valid warrant issued by a Pennsylvania court, based on substantial probable cause. They argue that the affidavit supporting the warrant was sufficient and did not omit any material information that would invalidate the warrant. The State also contends that the "knock and announce" procedure was appropriately followed, and that Kohberger's statements during the search were either spontaneous or made after he was informed of his rights, thereby complying with legal requirements. Consequently, the State requests that the court deny Kohberger's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search at 119 Lamsden Drive and his subsequent statements.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-REDACTED-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Lamsden-Statements.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the case identified as CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger has filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the execution of a Pennsylvania search warrant at 119 Lamsden Drive, Albrightsville, PA, as well as statements he made during that operation. Kohberger's defense argues that the search warrant was invalid due to alleged reckless or intentional omissions of material facts in the supporting affidavit. They contend that these omissions led to a lack of probable cause, rendering the search unconstitutional. Additionally, the defense asserts that law enforcement's failure to properly "knock and announce" their presence violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights, and that any statements he made during the search should be suppressed as they were obtained without a Miranda warningIn response, the State maintains that the search was conducted under a valid warrant issued by a Pennsylvania court, based on substantial probable cause. They argue that the affidavit supporting the warrant was sufficient and did not omit any material information that would invalidate the warrant. The State also contends that the "knock and announce" procedure was appropriately followed, and that Kohberger's statements during the search were either spontaneous or made after he was informed of his rights, thereby complying with legal requirements. Consequently, the State requests that the court deny Kohberger's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search at 119 Lamsden Drive and his subsequent statements.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-REDACTED-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Lamsden-Statements.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defense has filed Motion in Limine #1 to exclude inflammatory evidence in the trial of Bryan Kohberger. The motion argues that certain evidence may unfairly prejudice the jury, inflaming emotions rather than contributing to a fair and impartial evaluation of the facts. The defense contends that such evidence lacks probative value and could lead to an unfair trial, potentially violating Kohberger's constitutional rights.The motion requests that the court carefully review and exclude any evidence deemed overly graphic, emotionally charged, or otherwise prejudicial. The defense emphasizes the importance of ensuring a trial based on facts and legal standards rather than emotional reactions. By filing this motion, Kohberger's legal team aims to prevent any undue influence on the jury and secure a fair judicial process.In Motions in Limine #2 and #3 in Case No. CR01-24-31665, Bryan Kohberger's defense seeks to exclude additional prejudicial evidence from trial. Motion #2 requests the exclusion of speculative or unreliable expert testimony, arguing that such testimony could mislead the jury and lacks a sufficient scientific basis. The defense contends that only properly vetted, methodologically sound expert opinions should be admitted to ensure a fair trial. Motion #3 seeks to bar any references to uncharged or unrelated bad acts allegedly committed by Kohberger. The defense argues that introducing such evidence would unfairly bias the jury, violating evidentiary rules that prohibit character attacks unrelated to the charges at hand. Both motions emphasize the necessity of maintaining a trial based strictly on admissible, fact-based evidence to ensure due process.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-1-RE-Inflammatory-Evidence.pdf022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-3-RE-Use-Term-Murder.pdf022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-4-RE-Using-Terms-Psychopath-Sociopath.pdf
In State of Idaho v. Bryan Kohberger (Case Number CR01-24-31665), Motion in Limine #2 seeks to exclude vague and undisclosed expert testimony from being used at trial. Kohberger's defense argues that the prosecution has not properly disclosed the identities, qualifications, or specific opinions of their expert witnesses, violating established discovery rules. The defense contends that admitting broad, undefined, or last-minute expert testimony would place them at a severe disadvantage by preventing effective cross-examination and rebuttal preparation. They emphasize that expert testimony should meet the Daubert standard, ensuring that all scientific or technical evidence presented in court is reliable, relevant, and based on a sound methodology. Without proper disclosure, the defense fears that the prosecution may introduce unvetted or speculative testimony, which could unfairly sway the jury.Additionally, the defense raises concerns about ambiguous or generalized expert conclusions that lack a clear factual foundation. They argue that the court must preclude any expert testimony that was not properly disclosed or that fails to meet the necessary scientific and legal standards. The motion highlights the risk of unverified forensic interpretations or psychological assessments being introduced without proper vetting, potentially leading to misleading conclusions. The defense urges the court to enforce strict evidentiary standards by limiting expert testimony only to properly disclosed, scientifically validated opinions. This motion is a critical part of the defense's strategy to prevent prejudicial, speculative, or unreliable forensic evidence from influencing the jury in one of the most high-profile cases in Idaho's history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-2-RE-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In State of Idaho v. Bryan Kohberger (Case Number CR01-24-31665), Motion in Limine #2 seeks to exclude vague and undisclosed expert testimony from being used at trial. Kohberger's defense argues that the prosecution has not properly disclosed the identities, qualifications, or specific opinions of their expert witnesses, violating established discovery rules. The defense contends that admitting broad, undefined, or last-minute expert testimony would place them at a severe disadvantage by preventing effective cross-examination and rebuttal preparation. They emphasize that expert testimony should meet the Daubert standard, ensuring that all scientific or technical evidence presented in court is reliable, relevant, and based on a sound methodology. Without proper disclosure, the defense fears that the prosecution may introduce unvetted or speculative testimony, which could unfairly sway the jury.Additionally, the defense raises concerns about ambiguous or generalized expert conclusions that lack a clear factual foundation. They argue that the court must preclude any expert testimony that was not properly disclosed or that fails to meet the necessary scientific and legal standards. The motion highlights the risk of unverified forensic interpretations or psychological assessments being introduced without proper vetting, potentially leading to misleading conclusions. The defense urges the court to enforce strict evidentiary standards by limiting expert testimony only to properly disclosed, scientifically validated opinions. This motion is a critical part of the defense's strategy to prevent prejudicial, speculative, or unreliable forensic evidence from influencing the jury in one of the most high-profile cases in Idaho's history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-2-RE-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the case identified as CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger has filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the execution of a Pennsylvania search warrant at 119 Lamsden Drive, Albrightsville, PA, as well as statements he made during that operation. Kohberger's defense argues that the search warrant was invalid due to alleged reckless or intentional omissions of material facts in the supporting affidavit. They contend that these omissions led to a lack of probable cause, rendering the search unconstitutional. Additionally, the defense asserts that law enforcement's failure to properly "knock and announce" their presence violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights, and that any statements he made during the search should be suppressed as they were obtained without a Miranda warningIn response, the State maintains that the search was conducted under a valid warrant issued by a Pennsylvania court, based on substantial probable cause. They argue that the affidavit supporting the warrant was sufficient and did not omit any material information that would invalidate the warrant. The State also contends that the "knock and announce" procedure was appropriately followed, and that Kohberger's statements during the search were either spontaneous or made after he was informed of his rights, thereby complying with legal requirements. Consequently, the State requests that the court deny Kohberger's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search at 119 Lamsden Drive and his subsequent statements.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-REDACTED-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Lamsden-Statements.pdf
In the case identified as CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger has filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the execution of a Pennsylvania search warrant at 119 Lamsden Drive, Albrightsville, PA, as well as statements he made during that operation. Kohberger's defense argues that the search warrant was invalid due to alleged reckless or intentional omissions of material facts in the supporting affidavit. They contend that these omissions led to a lack of probable cause, rendering the search unconstitutional. Additionally, the defense asserts that law enforcement's failure to properly "knock and announce" their presence violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights, and that any statements he made during the search should be suppressed as they were obtained without a Miranda warningIn response, the State maintains that the search was conducted under a valid warrant issued by a Pennsylvania court, based on substantial probable cause. They argue that the affidavit supporting the warrant was sufficient and did not omit any material information that would invalidate the warrant. The State also contends that the "knock and announce" procedure was appropriately followed, and that Kohberger's statements during the search were either spontaneous or made after he was informed of his rights, thereby complying with legal requirements. Consequently, the State requests that the court deny Kohberger's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search at 119 Lamsden Drive and his subsequent statements.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-REDACTED-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Lamsden-Statements.pdf
In the Bryan Kohberger trial, the defense has filed a Motion in Limine #7 seeking to exclude any witness testimony referencing "bushy eyebrows" as an identifying feature of the intruder. This motion specifically targets the anticipated testimony of a surviving roommate, referred to as "D.M.," who reportedly described the intruder as having "bushy eyebrows" during her initial interviews with law enforcement. The defense argues that such testimony is unreliable due to D.M.'s limited opportunity to observe the intruder, her potential impairment from alcohol consumption, and the vague nature of the description, which could apply to a vast number of individuals.Additionally, the defense contends that D.M.'s artwork, which emphasizes prominent eyebrows, may have influenced her recollection, further questioning the reliability of her identification. They assert that allowing such testimony would be more prejudicial than probative, potentially leading the jury to make improper associations based solely on the defendant's physical appearance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protomail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-7-RE-Witness-Identification-Bushy_Eyebrows.pdf
In the Bryan Kohberger trial, the defense has filed a Motion in Limine #7 seeking to exclude any witness testimony referencing "bushy eyebrows" as an identifying feature of the intruder. This motion specifically targets the anticipated testimony of a surviving roommate, referred to as "D.M.," who reportedly described the intruder as having "bushy eyebrows" during her initial interviews with law enforcement. The defense argues that such testimony is unreliable due to D.M.'s limited opportunity to observe the intruder, her potential impairment from alcohol consumption, and the vague nature of the description, which could apply to a vast number of individuals.Additionally, the defense contends that D.M.'s artwork, which emphasizes prominent eyebrows, may have influenced her recollection, further questioning the reliability of her identification. They assert that allowing such testimony would be more prejudicial than probative, potentially leading the jury to make improper associations based solely on the defendant's physical appearance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protomail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-7-RE-Witness-Identification-Bushy_Eyebrows.pdf
In Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defense has filed Motion in Limine #1 to exclude inflammatory evidence in the trial of Bryan Kohberger. The motion argues that certain evidence may unfairly prejudice the jury, inflaming emotions rather than contributing to a fair and impartial evaluation of the facts. The defense contends that such evidence lacks probative value and could lead to an unfair trial, potentially violating Kohberger's constitutional rights.The motion requests that the court carefully review and exclude any evidence deemed overly graphic, emotionally charged, or otherwise prejudicial. The defense emphasizes the importance of ensuring a trial based on facts and legal standards rather than emotional reactions. By filing this motion, Kohberger's legal team aims to prevent any undue influence on the jury and secure a fair judicial process.In Motions in Limine #2 and #3 in Case No. CR01-24-31665, Bryan Kohberger's defense seeks to exclude additional prejudicial evidence from trial. Motion #2 requests the exclusion of speculative or unreliable expert testimony, arguing that such testimony could mislead the jury and lacks a sufficient scientific basis. The defense contends that only properly vetted, methodologically sound expert opinions should be admitted to ensure a fair trial. Motion #3 seeks to bar any references to uncharged or unrelated bad acts allegedly committed by Kohberger. The defense argues that introducing such evidence would unfairly bias the jury, violating evidentiary rules that prohibit character attacks unrelated to the charges at hand. Both motions emphasize the necessity of maintaining a trial based strictly on admissible, fact-based evidence to ensure due process.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-1-RE-Inflammatory-Evidence.pdf022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-3-RE-Use-Term-Murder.pdf022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-4-RE-Using-Terms-Psychopath-Sociopath.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the Bryan Kohberger trial, the defense has filed a Motion in Limine #7 seeking to exclude any witness testimony referencing "bushy eyebrows" as an identifying feature of the intruder. This motion specifically targets the anticipated testimony of a surviving roommate, referred to as "D.M.," who reportedly described the intruder as having "bushy eyebrows" during her initial interviews with law enforcement. The defense argues that such testimony is unreliable due to D.M.'s limited opportunity to observe the intruder, her potential impairment from alcohol consumption, and the vague nature of the description, which could apply to a vast number of individuals.Additionally, the defense contends that D.M.'s artwork, which emphasizes prominent eyebrows, may have influenced her recollection, further questioning the reliability of her identification. They assert that allowing such testimony would be more prejudicial than probative, potentially leading the jury to make improper associations based solely on the defendant's physical appearance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protomail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-7-RE-Witness-Identification-Bushy_Eyebrows.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the Bryan Kohberger trial, the defense has filed a Motion in Limine #7 seeking to exclude any witness testimony referencing "bushy eyebrows" as an identifying feature of the intruder. This motion specifically targets the anticipated testimony of a surviving roommate, referred to as "D.M.," who reportedly described the intruder as having "bushy eyebrows" during her initial interviews with law enforcement. The defense argues that such testimony is unreliable due to D.M.'s limited opportunity to observe the intruder, her potential impairment from alcohol consumption, and the vague nature of the description, which could apply to a vast number of individuals.Additionally, the defense contends that D.M.'s artwork, which emphasizes prominent eyebrows, may have influenced her recollection, further questioning the reliability of her identification. They assert that allowing such testimony would be more prejudicial than probative, potentially leading the jury to make improper associations based solely on the defendant's physical appearance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protomail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-7-RE-Witness-Identification-Bushy_Eyebrows.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In State of Idaho v. Bryan Kohberger (Case Number CR01-24-31665), Motion in Limine #2 seeks to exclude vague and undisclosed expert testimony from being used at trial. Kohberger's defense argues that the prosecution has not properly disclosed the identities, qualifications, or specific opinions of their expert witnesses, violating established discovery rules. The defense contends that admitting broad, undefined, or last-minute expert testimony would place them at a severe disadvantage by preventing effective cross-examination and rebuttal preparation. They emphasize that expert testimony should meet the Daubert standard, ensuring that all scientific or technical evidence presented in court is reliable, relevant, and based on a sound methodology. Without proper disclosure, the defense fears that the prosecution may introduce unvetted or speculative testimony, which could unfairly sway the jury.Additionally, the defense raises concerns about ambiguous or generalized expert conclusions that lack a clear factual foundation. They argue that the court must preclude any expert testimony that was not properly disclosed or that fails to meet the necessary scientific and legal standards. The motion highlights the risk of unverified forensic interpretations or psychological assessments being introduced without proper vetting, potentially leading to misleading conclusions. The defense urges the court to enforce strict evidentiary standards by limiting expert testimony only to properly disclosed, scientifically validated opinions. This motion is a critical part of the defense's strategy to prevent prejudicial, speculative, or unreliable forensic evidence from influencing the jury in one of the most high-profile cases in Idaho's history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-2-RE-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdf
In State of Idaho v. Bryan Kohberger (Case Number CR01-24-31665), Motion in Limine #2 seeks to exclude vague and undisclosed expert testimony from being used at trial. Kohberger's defense argues that the prosecution has not properly disclosed the identities, qualifications, or specific opinions of their expert witnesses, violating established discovery rules. The defense contends that admitting broad, undefined, or last-minute expert testimony would place them at a severe disadvantage by preventing effective cross-examination and rebuttal preparation. They emphasize that expert testimony should meet the Daubert standard, ensuring that all scientific or technical evidence presented in court is reliable, relevant, and based on a sound methodology. Without proper disclosure, the defense fears that the prosecution may introduce unvetted or speculative testimony, which could unfairly sway the jury.Additionally, the defense raises concerns about ambiguous or generalized expert conclusions that lack a clear factual foundation. They argue that the court must preclude any expert testimony that was not properly disclosed or that fails to meet the necessary scientific and legal standards. The motion highlights the risk of unverified forensic interpretations or psychological assessments being introduced without proper vetting, potentially leading to misleading conclusions. The defense urges the court to enforce strict evidentiary standards by limiting expert testimony only to properly disclosed, scientifically validated opinions. This motion is a critical part of the defense's strategy to prevent prejudicial, speculative, or unreliable forensic evidence from influencing the jury in one of the most high-profile cases in Idaho's history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-2-RE-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdf
In Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defense has filed Motion in Limine #1 to exclude inflammatory evidence in the trial of Bryan Kohberger. The motion argues that certain evidence may unfairly prejudice the jury, inflaming emotions rather than contributing to a fair and impartial evaluation of the facts. The defense contends that such evidence lacks probative value and could lead to an unfair trial, potentially violating Kohberger's constitutional rights.The motion requests that the court carefully review and exclude any evidence deemed overly graphic, emotionally charged, or otherwise prejudicial. The defense emphasizes the importance of ensuring a trial based on facts and legal standards rather than emotional reactions. By filing this motion, Kohberger's legal team aims to prevent any undue influence on the jury and secure a fair judicial process.In Motions in Limine #2 and #3 in Case No. CR01-24-31665, Bryan Kohberger's defense seeks to exclude additional prejudicial evidence from trial. Motion #2 requests the exclusion of speculative or unreliable expert testimony, arguing that such testimony could mislead the jury and lacks a sufficient scientific basis. The defense contends that only properly vetted, methodologically sound expert opinions should be admitted to ensure a fair trial. Motion #3 seeks to bar any references to uncharged or unrelated bad acts allegedly committed by Kohberger. The defense argues that introducing such evidence would unfairly bias the jury, violating evidentiary rules that prohibit character attacks unrelated to the charges at hand. Both motions emphasize the necessity of maintaining a trial based strictly on admissible, fact-based evidence to ensure due process.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-1-RE-Inflammatory-Evidence.pdf022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-3-RE-Use-Term-Murder.pdf022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-4-RE-Using-Terms-Psychopath-Sociopath.pdf
In the Bryan Kohberger trial, the defense has filed a Motion in Limine #7 seeking to exclude any witness testimony referencing "bushy eyebrows" as an identifying feature of the intruder. This motion specifically targets the anticipated testimony of a surviving roommate, referred to as "D.M.," who reportedly described the intruder as having "bushy eyebrows" during her initial interviews with law enforcement. The defense argues that such testimony is unreliable due to D.M.'s limited opportunity to observe the intruder, her potential impairment from alcohol consumption, and the vague nature of the description, which could apply to a vast number of individuals.Additionally, the defense contends that D.M.'s artwork, which emphasizes prominent eyebrows, may have influenced her recollection, further questioning the reliability of her identification. They assert that allowing such testimony would be more prejudicial than probative, potentially leading the jury to make improper associations based solely on the defendant's physical appearance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protomail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-7-RE-Witness-Identification-Bushy_Eyebrows.pdf
In the Bryan Kohberger trial, the defense has filed a Motion in Limine #7 seeking to exclude any witness testimony referencing "bushy eyebrows" as an identifying feature of the intruder. This motion specifically targets the anticipated testimony of a surviving roommate, referred to as "D.M.," who reportedly described the intruder as having "bushy eyebrows" during her initial interviews with law enforcement. The defense argues that such testimony is unreliable due to D.M.'s limited opportunity to observe the intruder, her potential impairment from alcohol consumption, and the vague nature of the description, which could apply to a vast number of individuals.Additionally, the defense contends that D.M.'s artwork, which emphasizes prominent eyebrows, may have influenced her recollection, further questioning the reliability of her identification. They assert that allowing such testimony would be more prejudicial than probative, potentially leading the jury to make improper associations based solely on the defendant's physical appearance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protomail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-7-RE-Witness-Identification-Bushy_Eyebrows.pdf
In Case Number CR01-24-31665, Motion in Limine #9 seeks to exclude evidence related to Amazon click activity from being presented at trial. The defense argues that the Amazon browsing history, purchase records, or any click activity are irrelevant, prejudicial, and lack proper authentication as definitive proof of the defendant's intent or actions. They contend that the click activity does not directly establish a connection to the alleged crime, as multiple individuals could have accessed the account or device. Furthermore, the defense asserts that allowing such evidence could mislead the jury into drawing speculative conclusions, particularly if the data lacks clear attribution to the defendant's personal actions.The motion also raises concerns about the reliability and admissibility of digital evidence, questioning whether proper forensic procedures were followed in retrieving and analyzing the Amazon activity logs. The defense argues that without concrete proof of the defendant personally conducting the searches or purchases, the evidence should be deemed inadmissible under evidentiary rules prohibiting undue prejudice and speculation. Additionally, they highlight the potential for false assumptions, as online browsing does not necessarily indicate criminal intent. The motion urges the court to prevent the prosecution from introducing Amazon click activity at trial, arguing that its inclusion would create an unfair bias against the defendant without definitive proof of its relevance to the charges.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-9-RE-Excluding-Amazon-Click-Activity-Evidence.pdf
In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the defense filed Motion in Limine #6 on February 24, 2025, seeking to exclude the testimony of Idaho State Police forensic scientist Rylene Nowlin regarding "touch" or "contact" DNA. The defense argues that such terms are misleading, as they imply a definitive method of DNA deposition, which cannot be scientifically determined. They contend that allowing testimony on how DNA was transferred to the knife sheath found at the crime scene would confuse the jury and unfairly prejudice the defendant.The motion emphasizes that current DNA technology cannot conclusively determine when or how DNA was deposited on an item, whether through direct contact or secondary transfer. The defense references studies and expert opinions highlighting the complexity of DNA transfer mechanisms and the potential for indirect transfer. They assert that permitting Nowlin to testify about the manner of DNA deposition exceeds her expertise and could mislead the jury, violating Idaho Rules of Evidence 402 and 403.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-6-RE-Rylene-Nowlin-Reference-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdf
In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the defense filed Motion in Limine #6 on February 24, 2025, seeking to exclude the testimony of Idaho State Police forensic scientist Rylene Nowlin regarding "touch" or "contact" DNA. The defense argues that such terms are misleading, as they imply a definitive method of DNA deposition, which cannot be scientifically determined. They contend that allowing testimony on how DNA was transferred to the knife sheath found at the crime scene would confuse the jury and unfairly prejudice the defendant.The motion emphasizes that current DNA technology cannot conclusively determine when or how DNA was deposited on an item, whether through direct contact or secondary transfer. The defense references studies and expert opinions highlighting the complexity of DNA transfer mechanisms and the potential for indirect transfer. They assert that permitting Nowlin to testify about the manner of DNA deposition exceeds her expertise and could mislead the jury, violating Idaho Rules of Evidence 402 and 403.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-6-RE-Rylene-Nowlin-Reference-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdf
In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the defense filed Motion in Limine #6 on February 24, 2025, seeking to exclude the testimony of Idaho State Police forensic scientist Rylene Nowlin regarding "touch" or "contact" DNA. The defense argues that such terms are misleading, as they imply a definitive method of DNA deposition, which cannot be scientifically determined. They contend that allowing testimony on how DNA was transferred to the knife sheath found at the crime scene would confuse the jury and unfairly prejudice the defendant.The motion emphasizes that current DNA technology cannot conclusively determine when or how DNA was deposited on an item, whether through direct contact or secondary transfer. The defense references studies and expert opinions highlighting the complexity of DNA transfer mechanisms and the potential for indirect transfer. They assert that permitting Nowlin to testify about the manner of DNA deposition exceeds her expertise and could mislead the jury, violating Idaho Rules of Evidence 402 and 403.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-6-RE-Rylene-Nowlin-Reference-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the defense filed Motion in Limine #6 on February 24, 2025, seeking to exclude the testimony of Idaho State Police forensic scientist Rylene Nowlin regarding "touch" or "contact" DNA. The defense argues that such terms are misleading, as they imply a definitive method of DNA deposition, which cannot be scientifically determined. They contend that allowing testimony on how DNA was transferred to the knife sheath found at the crime scene would confuse the jury and unfairly prejudice the defendant.The motion emphasizes that current DNA technology cannot conclusively determine when or how DNA was deposited on an item, whether through direct contact or secondary transfer. The defense references studies and expert opinions highlighting the complexity of DNA transfer mechanisms and the potential for indirect transfer. They assert that permitting Nowlin to testify about the manner of DNA deposition exceeds her expertise and could mislead the jury, violating Idaho Rules of Evidence 402 and 403.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-6-RE-Rylene-Nowlin-Reference-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the defense filed Motion in Limine #6 on February 24, 2025, seeking to exclude the testimony of Idaho State Police forensic scientist Rylene Nowlin regarding "touch" or "contact" DNA. The defense argues that such terms are misleading, as they imply a definitive method of DNA deposition, which cannot be scientifically determined. They contend that allowing testimony on how DNA was transferred to the knife sheath found at the crime scene would confuse the jury and unfairly prejudice the defendant.The motion emphasizes that current DNA technology cannot conclusively determine when or how DNA was deposited on an item, whether through direct contact or secondary transfer. The defense references studies and expert opinions highlighting the complexity of DNA transfer mechanisms and the potential for indirect transfer. They assert that permitting Nowlin to testify about the manner of DNA deposition exceeds her expertise and could mislead the jury, violating Idaho Rules of Evidence 402 and 403.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-6-RE-Rylene-Nowlin-Reference-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdf
In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the defense filed Motion in Limine #6 on February 24, 2025, seeking to exclude the testimony of Idaho State Police forensic scientist Rylene Nowlin regarding "touch" or "contact" DNA. The defense argues that such terms are misleading, as they imply a definitive method of DNA deposition, which cannot be scientifically determined. They contend that allowing testimony on how DNA was transferred to the knife sheath found at the crime scene would confuse the jury and unfairly prejudice the defendant.The motion emphasizes that current DNA technology cannot conclusively determine when or how DNA was deposited on an item, whether through direct contact or secondary transfer. The defense references studies and expert opinions highlighting the complexity of DNA transfer mechanisms and the potential for indirect transfer. They assert that permitting Nowlin to testify about the manner of DNA deposition exceeds her expertise and could mislead the jury, violating Idaho Rules of Evidence 402 and 403.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-6-RE-Rylene-Nowlin-Reference-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdf
AP correspondent Julie Walker reports the Trump administration may exclude government spending from GDP, obscuring the impact of DOGE cuts.
IGG testing, also known as Immunoglobulin G testing, is a method used in forensic science to identify individuals through the analysis of specific proteins found in blood. Immunoglobulin G (IgG) is a type of antibody produced by the immune system in response to foreign substances, such as bacteria or viruses. Each person's IgG profile is unique, similar to a genetic fingerprint, making it useful for identification purposes.In crime-solving, IGG testing involves collecting blood samples from crime scenes and comparing them to known samples, such as those taken from suspects or victims. The presence or absence of specific IgG antibodies in the samples can help forensic investigators establish links between individuals and crime scenes.Police use IGG testing to:Establish connections between suspects and crime scenes: By comparing the IgG profiles of blood samples found at a crime scene with those of suspects or victims, investigators can determine whether a particular individual was present at the scene.Exclude innocent suspects: If the IgG profile of a suspect does not match that of the blood found at the crime scene, it can help exclude them from the investigation.Identify unknown individuals: In cases where the identity of a suspect or victim is unknown, IGG testing can be used to narrow down potential matches based on blood samples collected from the scene.However, like any forensic technique, IGG testing also raises privacy concerns. Some of these concerns include:Informed consent: Collecting blood samples for IGG testing without the individual's consent may raise ethical questions about privacy and bodily autonomy.Genetic information: IgG profiles can reveal information about an individual's immune system, which is a form of genetic information. There are concerns about how this sensitive data is collected, stored, and used, especially in terms of potential discrimination or misuse.False positives and misinterpretation: While IGG testing can be a valuable tool in forensic investigations, there is always a risk of false positives or misinterpretation of results. This could lead to wrongful accusations or convictions if not carefully considered.Database security: As with any forensic database, there are concerns about the security of the information stored within it. Unauthorized access or breaches could compromise individuals' privacy and potentially lead to misuse of their data.Ever since the arrest of Bryan Kohberger a conviction has rested upon the shoulders of the DNA that was collected at the scene of the brutal quadruple homicide. However, there have been challenges to the process used to collect that DNA and some have even questioned the constitutionality of the process itself. In this episode we take a look at that argument and hear from several legal scholars about the process that was used to collect the DNA and how that evidence will or will not be used moving forward.(commercial at 13:11)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Moscow murder suspect could mount constitutional challenge | Idaho Statesman
IGG testing, also known as Immunoglobulin G testing, is a method used in forensic science to identify individuals through the analysis of specific proteins found in blood. Immunoglobulin G (IgG) is a type of antibody produced by the immune system in response to foreign substances, such as bacteria or viruses. Each person's IgG profile is unique, similar to a genetic fingerprint, making it useful for identification purposes.In crime-solving, IGG testing involves collecting blood samples from crime scenes and comparing them to known samples, such as those taken from suspects or victims. The presence or absence of specific IgG antibodies in the samples can help forensic investigators establish links between individuals and crime scenes.Police use IGG testing to:Establish connections between suspects and crime scenes: By comparing the IgG profiles of blood samples found at a crime scene with those of suspects or victims, investigators can determine whether a particular individual was present at the scene.Exclude innocent suspects: If the IgG profile of a suspect does not match that of the blood found at the crime scene, it can help exclude them from the investigation.Identify unknown individuals: In cases where the identity of a suspect or victim is unknown, IGG testing can be used to narrow down potential matches based on blood samples collected from the scene.However, like any forensic technique, IGG testing also raises privacy concerns. Some of these concerns include:Informed consent: Collecting blood samples for IGG testing without the individual's consent may raise ethical questions about privacy and bodily autonomy.Genetic information: IgG profiles can reveal information about an individual's immune system, which is a form of genetic information. There are concerns about how this sensitive data is collected, stored, and used, especially in terms of potential discrimination or misuse.False positives and misinterpretation: While IGG testing can be a valuable tool in forensic investigations, there is always a risk of false positives or misinterpretation of results. This could lead to wrongful accusations or convictions if not carefully considered.Database security: As with any forensic database, there are concerns about the security of the information stored within it. Unauthorized access or breaches could compromise individuals' privacy and potentially lead to misuse of their data.Ever since the arrest of Bryan Kohberger a conviction has rested upon the shoulders of the DNA that was collected at the scene of the brutal quadruple homicide. However, there have been challenges to the process used to collect that DNA and some have even questioned the constitutionality of the process itself. In this episode we take a look at that argument and hear from several legal scholars about the process that was used to collect the DNA and how that evidence will or will not be used moving forward.(commercial at 13:11)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Moscow murder suspect could mount constitutional challenge | Idaho Statesman
Blessed Are You When They Exclude You: Scripture Reflection for Feb. 16, 2025 by Priests for Life
AP correspondent Mimmi Montgomery reports on Japan lobbying to be excluded from 25% steel and aluminum tariffs introduced by the U.S.
The prosecution has asked for a hearing to determine whether or not Mr. Green, Karen Read's digital forensic expert, can testify. The defense argued that all forensic experts use the same methodology—they take the digital extraction, run it through different tools, and interpret the information. The defense also argued that the prosecution's efforts to prevent the expert from testifying are "dystopian" and "Orwellian." The defense asked the court to deny the motion and not have a Daubert Hearing.The prosecution's police expert, Trooper Guarino, ran Jen McCabe's phone through two different analyzer programs and one program indicated that the Google search was there, and that was not turned over to the defense in the initial report.It'll be interesting to see what happens Friday's hearing and we'll be paying attention to how many times Mr. Alessi says "Orwellian" and if the court brings up the ACCRA experts and the discovery issue.Watch the full coverage: https://youtube.com/live/7dNN7AE5mekThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy
IGG testing, also known as Immunoglobulin G testing, is a method used in forensic science to identify individuals through the analysis of specific proteins found in blood. Immunoglobulin G (IgG) is a type of antibody produced by the immune system in response to foreign substances, such as bacteria or viruses. Each person's IgG profile is unique, similar to a genetic fingerprint, making it useful for identification purposes.In crime-solving, IGG testing involves collecting blood samples from crime scenes and comparing them to known samples, such as those taken from suspects or victims. The presence or absence of specific IgG antibodies in the samples can help forensic investigators establish links between individuals and crime scenes.Police use IGG testing to:Establish connections between suspects and crime scenes: By comparing the IgG profiles of blood samples found at a crime scene with those of suspects or victims, investigators can determine whether a particular individual was present at the scene.Exclude innocent suspects: If the IgG profile of a suspect does not match that of the blood found at the crime scene, it can help exclude them from the investigation.Identify unknown individuals: In cases where the identity of a suspect or victim is unknown, IGG testing can be used to narrow down potential matches based on blood samples collected from the scene.However, like any forensic technique, IGG testing also raises privacy concerns. Some of these concerns include:Informed consent: Collecting blood samples for IGG testing without the individual's consent may raise ethical questions about privacy and bodily autonomy.Genetic information: IgG profiles can reveal information about an individual's immune system, which is a form of genetic information. There are concerns about how this sensitive data is collected, stored, and used, especially in terms of potential discrimination or misuse.False positives and misinterpretation: While IGG testing can be a valuable tool in forensic investigations, there is always a risk of false positives or misinterpretation of results. This could lead to wrongful accusations or convictions if not carefully considered.Database security: As with any forensic database, there are concerns about the security of the information stored within it. Unauthorized access or breaches could compromise individuals' privacy and potentially lead to misuse of their data.Ever since the arrest of Bryan Kohberger a conviction has rested upon the shoulders of the DNA that was collected at the scene of the brutal quadruple homicide. However, there have been challenges to the process used to collect that DNA and some have even questioned the constitutionality of the process itself. In this episode we take a look at that argument and hear from several legal scholars about the process that was used to collect the DNA and how that evidence will or will not be used moving forward.(commercial at 13:11)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Moscow murder suspect could mount constitutional challenge | Idaho StatesmanBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
