Podcasts about limine

Bryan Kohberger had a hearing on April 9th, 2025 to go over Motions in Limine. What was first thought to be a 2 day affair, was completed in 1 day because Judge Hippler runs a tight ship! The Defense and Prosecution were able to go over 25 Motions. Some were decided on the stand, others were taken under advisement. The most intense part of the hearing focused on a dispute over AT&T records.The Defense Attorney, Anne Taylor, made accusations about the Prosecution withholding evidence, leading to a strong rebuke from the judge. Judge Hipper reminded Anne Taylor that she is an "Officer of the Court" and that when he took on this case he doesn't want theatrics or accusations that aren't supported evidence about supposed bad conducts.He said that he respects all of the attorneys and the types of accusations made can get a person disbarred! When Rulings are posted in writing, I will break them down in an upcoming Monday - The Emily Show podcast episode.Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/L_LYXsaPV8ERESOURCESThe Emily Show Podcast - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFdNnRZUqH60WELo6OInNVPU7Fed0d2BzBushy Eyebrow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHlYOkcFXAwThis 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

Bryan Kohberger will be back in court on April 9th & 10th, 2025 to discuss Motions in Limine and other filings. The State adds another Prosecutor to the team - Attorney Hurwit. An important limine is the AT&T Timing Advance Records. There's a dispute between the Prosecution and Defense regarding access to these records. The prosecution claims the records related to Kohberger timed out and no longer exist due to AT&T's policy of keeping them for only seven days. The defense questions this, suggesting that law enforcement may have seen these records and that the Prosecution might not be fully disclosing information. What's the truth about the 7-day retention policy? This could be a potential for a major issue if the Prosecution had the records and didn't disclose them, versus if AT&T simply stating the records no longer exist.Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/mHlYOkcFXAwThis 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

​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.

​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 response concerning his Motion in Limine #7, which seeks to exclude testimony related to a witness's identification of the intruder based on "bushy eyebrows." The defense argues that such testimony is highly subjective and could lead to wrongful convictions, emphasizing that mistaken identifications have historically been a leading cause of such outcomes in the United States. They contend that allowing the witness, referred to as D.M., to describe the intruder's "bushy eyebrows" would be tantamount to an in-court identification of Kohberger, which they believe is inappropriate given the circumstances.Furthermore, the defense highlights that D.M. has a personal interest in drawing eyes and eyebrows, suggesting that her focus on this feature may not be a reliable basis for identification. They also point out that D.M. was interviewed multiple times by law enforcement, and her descriptions evolved over these interviews, raising concerns about the consistency and reliability of her testimony. The defense asserts that admitting such subjective identification could unfairly prejudice the jury and undermine Kohberger's right to a fair trial.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ty ABecome 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 Case Number CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan C. Kohberger has filed a reply to the State's response concerning his Motion in Limine #7, which seeks to exclude testimony related to a witness's identification of the intruder based on "bushy eyebrows." The defense argues that such testimony is highly subjective and could lead to wrongful convictions, emphasizing that mistaken identifications have historically been a leading cause of such outcomes in the United States. They contend that allowing the witness, referred to as D.M., to describe the intruder's "bushy eyebrows" would be tantamount to an in-court identification of Kohberger, which they believe is inappropriate given the circumstances.Furthermore, the defense highlights that D.M. has a personal interest in drawing eyes and eyebrows, suggesting that her focus on this feature may not be a reliable basis for identification. They also point out that D.M. was interviewed multiple times by law enforcement, and her descriptions evolved over these interviews, raising concerns about the consistency and reliability of her testimony. The defense asserts that admitting such subjective identification could unfairly prejudice the jury and undermine Kohberger's right to a fair trial.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.

Get 15% off OneSkin with the code LAWNERD at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod #adKaren Read's Case is scheduled to begin, with Jury Selection on April 1st but will not begin the evidence portion until the end of April. The Commonwealth has filed motions asking for things she said to reporters during interviews and the Discovery ID Docuseries. The Federal Appeal is pending as well as a decision on the Motion to Dismiss the entire case. 911 calls in the Bryan Kohberger case have been revealed as well as Amazon purchases in the Motions in Limine. UMG filed a motion to dismiss Drake's case ultimately stating that he lost a rap battle that he willingly participated in. The concept of defamation in rap music, hyperbole, and opinion versus factual statements are challenged in this filing and it's a great read. The Lively and Baldoni cases have been getting more movement as many parties filed motions to dismiss. We'll see what happens next. RESOURCESKaren Read Post-Mistrial Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKVEoBmOhzUprvqi3-_6JoZ Drake Sues UMG - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5PlpbIL8EEDrake Filing - https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/drake-UMG-defamation-complaint.pdfYSL Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gLrrA5-0W1pG9P5S7Xk6VpoInterview with Sir Mix-A-Lot - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgL4AT4CYYARoommates Text Messages - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s7V7y2gpOI911 Calls in Kohberger Case - https://youtu.be/oH7AsdGk7HILast Karen Read hearing - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e9BfCqOIvsThis 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

​In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #2, which sought to exclude or limit the testimony of twenty-two of the State's expert witnesses on the grounds of vague and undisclosed expert testimony. The State asserted that it had complied with Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) and the applicable Idaho Rules of Evidence by providing detailed disclosures for each expert, outlining their anticipated testimony, the facts and data supporting their opinions, and their qualifications. The State emphasized that any disagreements with the experts' anticipated testimony should be addressed through cross-examination and rebuttal expert testimony, rather than exclusion. Additionally, the State highlighted its good-faith effort to comply with the Court's scheduling orders and instructions, noting that the Defendant had ample opportunity to review and respond to the State's disclosures, and had not demonstrated any actual prejudice resulting from the disclosures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-2-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdf

​In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #2, which sought to exclude or limit the testimony of twenty-two of the State's expert witnesses on the grounds of vague and undisclosed expert testimony. The State asserted that it had complied with Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) and the applicable Idaho Rules of Evidence by providing detailed disclosures for each expert, outlining their anticipated testimony, the facts and data supporting their opinions, and their qualifications. The State emphasized that any disagreements with the experts' anticipated testimony should be addressed through cross-examination and rebuttal expert testimony, rather than exclusion. Additionally, the State highlighted its good-faith effort to comply with the Court's scheduling orders and instructions, noting that the Defendant had ample opportunity to review and respond to the State's disclosures, and had not demonstrated any actual prejudice resulting from the disclosures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-2-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdf

​In State v. Bryan Kohberger, the prosecution responded to Defendant's Motion in Limine #13, which sought to prevent the State from using Kohberger's alleged autism diagnosis as an aggravating factor during sentencing. The prosecution clarified that they do not intend to present Kohberger's autism as an aggravating circumstance to justify the death penalty. However, they reserve the right to challenge the defense's portrayal of autism as a mitigating factor. Citing legal precedents, the State argued that while mental health conditions should not be used to increase culpability, they can be examined to assess the weight of mitigating evidence presented by the defense. Therefore, they requested the court deny the motion, allowing them to rebut any claims that Kohberger's autism diminishes his responsibility for the alleged crimes.​In State v. Bryan Kohberger, the defense filed Motion in Limine #8, seeking to exclude any evidence not previously disclosed under Idaho Rule of Evidence 404(b), which pertains to the admissibility of prior bad acts to prove character. The defense argued that introducing such evidence without proper notice would be prejudicial and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial.​In response, the prosecution contended that they have complied with all disclosure requirements and that any evidence presented falls within the permissible scope of Rule 404(b). They asserted that the evidence in question is directly relevant to establishing motive, intent, or identity, rather than merely suggesting a propensity for criminal behavior. The prosecution requested that the court deny the defense's motion, allowing the jury to consider all pertinent evidence that meets legal standards.​In State v. Bryan Kohberger, the defense filed Motion in Limine #14, aiming to exclude certain statistical analyses related to DNA evidence from being presented at trial. The defense argued that the methodologies used were either unreliable or could mislead the jury, potentially violating Kohberger's right to a fair trial.In response, the prosecution contended that the statistical analyses in question adhere to established scientific standards and are commonly accepted in forensic investigations. They emphasized that such analyses are crucial for interpreting DNA evidence and can assist the jury in understanding the weight of the genetic findings. The prosecution requested that the court deny the defense's motion, asserting that excluding this evidence would hinder the jury's ability to fully evaluate the forensic aspects of the case.to contact me:boobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-REDACTED-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-14-RE-Statistical-Analysis.pdf031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-13-RE-Conditions-Aggravators.pdf031025+States+Response+Defendants+Motion+in+Limine+Re+Unnoticed+404b+Evidence.pdf

​In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #6, which sought to preclude the use of terms like "touch DNA" and "contact DNA" during trial. The defense argued that these terms could mislead the jury into believing that DNA presence conclusively indicates direct contact, without considering other means of transfer. The State countered that such terminology is commonly accepted in forensic science and that its experts should be permitted to use these terms to accurately describe the nature of the DNA evidence. They emphasized that the defense would have the opportunity to cross-examine the State's experts on the limitations and interpretations of "touch" or "contact" DNA evidence, ensuring that the jury receives a comprehensive understanding of the evidence presented.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-6-RE-Reference-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdf

​In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #6, which sought to preclude the use of terms like "touch DNA" and "contact DNA" during trial. The defense argued that these terms could mislead the jury into believing that DNA presence conclusively indicates direct contact, without considering other means of transfer. The State countered that such terminology is commonly accepted in forensic science and that its experts should be permitted to use these terms to accurately describe the nature of the DNA evidence. They emphasized that the defense would have the opportunity to cross-examine the State's experts on the limitations and interpretations of "touch" or "contact" DNA evidence, ensuring that the jury receives a comprehensive understanding of the evidence presented.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-6-RE-Reference-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdf

​In State v. Bryan Kohberger, the prosecution responded to Defendant's Motion in Limine #13, which sought to prevent the State from using Kohberger's alleged autism diagnosis as an aggravating factor during sentencing. The prosecution clarified that they do not intend to present Kohberger's autism as an aggravating circumstance to justify the death penalty. However, they reserve the right to challenge the defense's portrayal of autism as a mitigating factor. Citing legal precedents, the State argued that while mental health conditions should not be used to increase culpability, they can be examined to assess the weight of mitigating evidence presented by the defense. Therefore, they requested the court deny the motion, allowing them to rebut any claims that Kohberger's autism diminishes his responsibility for the alleged crimes.​In State v. Bryan Kohberger, the defense filed Motion in Limine #8, seeking to exclude any evidence not previously disclosed under Idaho Rule of Evidence 404(b), which pertains to the admissibility of prior bad acts to prove character. The defense argued that introducing such evidence without proper notice would be prejudicial and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial.​In response, the prosecution contended that they have complied with all disclosure requirements and that any evidence presented falls within the permissible scope of Rule 404(b). They asserted that the evidence in question is directly relevant to establishing motive, intent, or identity, rather than merely suggesting a propensity for criminal behavior. The prosecution requested that the court deny the defense's motion, allowing the jury to consider all pertinent evidence that meets legal standards.​In State v. Bryan Kohberger, the defense filed Motion in Limine #14, aiming to exclude certain statistical analyses related to DNA evidence from being presented at trial. The defense argued that the methodologies used were either unreliable or could mislead the jury, potentially violating Kohberger's right to a fair trial.In response, the prosecution contended that the statistical analyses in question adhere to established scientific standards and are commonly accepted in forensic investigations. They emphasized that such analyses are crucial for interpreting DNA evidence and can assist the jury in understanding the weight of the genetic findings. The prosecution requested that the court deny the defense's motion, asserting that excluding this evidence would hinder the jury's ability to fully evaluate the forensic aspects of the case.to contact me:boobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-REDACTED-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-14-RE-Statistical-Analysis.pdf031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-13-RE-Conditions-Aggravators.pdf031025+States+Response+Defendants+Motion+in+Limine+Re+Unnoticed+404b+Evidence.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 State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #2, which sought to exclude or limit the testimony of twenty-two of the State's expert witnesses on the grounds of vague and undisclosed expert testimony. The State asserted that it had complied with Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) and the applicable Idaho Rules of Evidence by providing detailed disclosures for each expert, outlining their anticipated testimony, the facts and data supporting their opinions, and their qualifications. The State emphasized that any disagreements with the experts' anticipated testimony should be addressed through cross-examination and rebuttal expert testimony, rather than exclusion. Additionally, the State highlighted its good-faith effort to comply with the Court's scheduling orders and instructions, noting that the Defendant had ample opportunity to review and respond to the State's disclosures, and had not demonstrated any actual prejudice resulting from the disclosures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-2-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 C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #2, which sought to exclude or limit the testimony of twenty-two of the State's expert witnesses on the grounds of vague and undisclosed expert testimony. The State asserted that it had complied with Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) and the applicable Idaho Rules of Evidence by providing detailed disclosures for each expert, outlining their anticipated testimony, the facts and data supporting their opinions, and their qualifications. The State emphasized that any disagreements with the experts' anticipated testimony should be addressed through cross-examination and rebuttal expert testimony, rather than exclusion. Additionally, the State highlighted its good-faith effort to comply with the Court's scheduling orders and instructions, noting that the Defendant had ample opportunity to review and respond to the State's disclosures, and had not demonstrated any actual prejudice resulting from the disclosures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-2-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 C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #2, which sought to exclude or limit the testimony of twenty-two of the State's expert witnesses on the grounds of vague and undisclosed expert testimony. The State asserted that it had complied with Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) and the applicable Idaho Rules of Evidence by providing detailed disclosures for each expert, outlining their anticipated testimony, the facts and data supporting their opinions, and their qualifications. The State emphasized that any disagreements with the experts' anticipated testimony should be addressed through cross-examination and rebuttal expert testimony, rather than exclusion. Additionally, the State highlighted its good-faith effort to comply with the Court's scheduling orders and instructions, noting that the Defendant had ample opportunity to review and respond to the State's disclosures, and had not demonstrated any actual prejudice resulting from the disclosures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-2-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdf

​In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #2, which sought to exclude or limit the testimony of twenty-two of the State's expert witnesses on the grounds of vague and undisclosed expert testimony. The State asserted that it had complied with Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) and the applicable Idaho Rules of Evidence by providing detailed disclosures for each expert, outlining their anticipated testimony, the facts and data supporting their opinions, and their qualifications. The State emphasized that any disagreements with the experts' anticipated testimony should be addressed through cross-examination and rebuttal expert testimony, rather than exclusion. Additionally, the State highlighted its good-faith effort to comply with the Court's scheduling orders and instructions, noting that the Defendant had ample opportunity to review and respond to the State's disclosures, and had not demonstrated any actual prejudice resulting from the disclosures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-2-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdf

​In the case of State v. Bryan Kohberger, the defense filed Motion in Limine #7, seeking to exclude witness identification based on the description of "bushy eyebrows." The defense argued that the surviving roommate's (identified as D.M.) description was unreliable due to her limited observation under distressing conditions, potential impairment from alcohol, and the generic nature of the "bushy eyebrows" characteristic, which could apply to many individuals. They contended that admitting this description could unfairly prejudice the jury against Kohberger.In response, the prosecution opposed the motion, asserting that D.M.'s consistent description of the intruder's "bushy eyebrows" was both relevant and reliable. They emphasized that D.M. consistently provided this specific detail across multiple interviews, and that such a distinctive feature could assist in identifying the perpetrator. The prosecution also highlighted that a photograph of Kohberger, taken shortly after the incident, depicted him with prominent eyebrows, supporting the witness's account. They argued that the determination of whether Kohberger's eyebrows match the description should be left to the jury.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-7-RE-Witness-Identification-Bushy-Eyebrows.pdf

​In the case of State v. Bryan Kohberger, the defense filed Motion in Limine #7, seeking to exclude witness identification based on the description of "bushy eyebrows." The defense argued that the surviving roommate's (identified as D.M.) description was unreliable due to her limited observation under distressing conditions, potential impairment from alcohol, and the generic nature of the "bushy eyebrows" characteristic, which could apply to many individuals. They contended that admitting this description could unfairly prejudice the jury against Kohberger.In response, the prosecution opposed the motion, asserting that D.M.'s consistent description of the intruder's "bushy eyebrows" was both relevant and reliable. They emphasized that D.M. consistently provided this specific detail across multiple interviews, and that such a distinctive feature could assist in identifying the perpetrator. The prosecution also highlighted that a photograph of Kohberger, taken shortly after the incident, depicted him with prominent eyebrows, supporting the witness's account. They argued that the determination of whether Kohberger's eyebrows match the description should be left to the jury.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-7-RE-Witness-Identification-Bushy-Eyebrows.pdf

In State v. Bryan Kohberger, the defense filed Motion in Limine #12, seeking to exclude any testimony identifying the make and model of the vehicle seen near the crime scene on November 13, 2022. The defense argued that the vehicle identification was speculative and lacked continuous surveillance footage linking the car observed at 1112 King Road to other footage from 1125 Ridge Road. They contended that without unbroken visual evidence, asserting that the vehicles in different videos are the same is conjectural and could mislead the jury.In response, the prosecution opposed the motion, asserting that their expert, FBI Forensic Examiner Anthony Imel, had analyzed multiple surveillance videos and concluded that the vehicle captured shared characteristics with a 2014-2015 Hyundai Elantra. They emphasized that the suspect vehicle was observed multiple times near the crime scene before and after the homicides, and that Kohberger owned a white 2015 Hyundai Elantra at that time. The prosecution argued that the jury should be allowed to hear this expert testimony and determine the weight of the evidence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-12-RE-Make-Model-Suspect-Vehicle.pdfBecome 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 State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #6, which sought to preclude the use of terms like "touch DNA" and "contact DNA" during trial. The defense argued that these terms could mislead the jury into believing that DNA presence conclusively indicates direct contact, without considering other means of transfer. The State countered that such terminology is commonly accepted in forensic science and that its experts should be permitted to use these terms to accurately describe the nature of the DNA evidence. They emphasized that the defense would have the opportunity to cross-examine the State's experts on the limitations and interpretations of "touch" or "contact" DNA evidence, ensuring that the jury receives a comprehensive understanding of the evidence presented.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-6-RE-Reference-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdfBecome 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 State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #6, which sought to preclude the use of terms like "touch DNA" and "contact DNA" during trial. The defense argued that these terms could mislead the jury into believing that DNA presence conclusively indicates direct contact, without considering other means of transfer. The State countered that such terminology is commonly accepted in forensic science and that its experts should be permitted to use these terms to accurately describe the nature of the DNA evidence. They emphasized that the defense would have the opportunity to cross-examine the State's experts on the limitations and interpretations of "touch" or "contact" DNA evidence, ensuring that the jury receives a comprehensive understanding of the evidence presented.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-6-RE-Reference-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdfBecome 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 State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #6, which sought to preclude the use of terms like "touch DNA" and "contact DNA" during trial. The defense argued that these terms could mislead the jury into believing that DNA presence conclusively indicates direct contact, without considering other means of transfer. The State countered that such terminology is commonly accepted in forensic science and that its experts should be permitted to use these terms to accurately describe the nature of the DNA evidence. They emphasized that the defense would have the opportunity to cross-examine the State's experts on the limitations and interpretations of "touch" or "contact" DNA evidence, ensuring that the jury receives a comprehensive understanding of the evidence presented.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-6-RE-Reference-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdf

​In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #6, which sought to preclude the use of terms like "touch DNA" and "contact DNA" during trial. The defense argued that these terms could mislead the jury into believing that DNA presence conclusively indicates direct contact, without considering other means of transfer. The State countered that such terminology is commonly accepted in forensic science and that its experts should be permitted to use these terms to accurately describe the nature of the DNA evidence. They emphasized that the defense would have the opportunity to cross-examine the State's experts on the limitations and interpretations of "touch" or "contact" DNA evidence, ensuring that the jury receives a comprehensive understanding of the evidence presented.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-6-RE-Reference-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdf

​In State v. Bryan Kohberger, the prosecution responded to Defendant's Motion in Limine #13, which sought to prevent the State from using Kohberger's alleged autism diagnosis as an aggravating factor during sentencing. The prosecution clarified that they do not intend to present Kohberger's autism as an aggravating circumstance to justify the death penalty. However, they reserve the right to challenge the defense's portrayal of autism as a mitigating factor. Citing legal precedents, the State argued that while mental health conditions should not be used to increase culpability, they can be examined to assess the weight of mitigating evidence presented by the defense. Therefore, they requested the court deny the motion, allowing them to rebut any claims that Kohberger's autism diminishes his responsibility for the alleged crimes.​In State v. Bryan Kohberger, the defense filed Motion in Limine #8, seeking to exclude any evidence not previously disclosed under Idaho Rule of Evidence 404(b), which pertains to the admissibility of prior bad acts to prove character. The defense argued that introducing such evidence without proper notice would be prejudicial and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial.​In response, the prosecution contended that they have complied with all disclosure requirements and that any evidence presented falls within the permissible scope of Rule 404(b). They asserted that the evidence in question is directly relevant to establishing motive, intent, or identity, rather than merely suggesting a propensity for criminal behavior. The prosecution requested that the court deny the defense's motion, allowing the jury to consider all pertinent evidence that meets legal standards.​In State v. Bryan Kohberger, the defense filed Motion in Limine #14, aiming to exclude certain statistical analyses related to DNA evidence from being presented at trial. The defense argued that the methodologies used were either unreliable or could mislead the jury, potentially violating Kohberger's right to a fair trial.In response, the prosecution contended that the statistical analyses in question adhere to established scientific standards and are commonly accepted in forensic investigations. They emphasized that such analyses are crucial for interpreting DNA evidence and can assist the jury in understanding the weight of the genetic findings. The prosecution requested that the court deny the defense's motion, asserting that excluding this evidence would hinder the jury's ability to fully evaluate the forensic aspects of the case.to contact me:boobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-REDACTED-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-14-RE-Statistical-Analysis.pdf031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-13-RE-Conditions-Aggravators.pdf031025+States+Response+Defendants+Motion+in+Limine+Re+Unnoticed+404b+Evidence.pdf

​In the case of State v. Bryan Kohberger, the defense filed Motion in Limine #7, seeking to exclude witness identification based on the description of "bushy eyebrows." The defense argued that the surviving roommate's (identified as D.M.) description was unreliable due to her limited observation under distressing conditions, potential impairment from alcohol, and the generic nature of the "bushy eyebrows" characteristic, which could apply to many individuals. They contended that admitting this description could unfairly prejudice the jury against Kohberger.In response, the prosecution opposed the motion, asserting that D.M.'s consistent description of the intruder's "bushy eyebrows" was both relevant and reliable. They emphasized that D.M. consistently provided this specific detail across multiple interviews, and that such a distinctive feature could assist in identifying the perpetrator. The prosecution also highlighted that a photograph of Kohberger, taken shortly after the incident, depicted him with prominent eyebrows, supporting the witness's account. They argued that the determination of whether Kohberger's eyebrows match the description should be left to the jury.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-7-RE-Witness-Identification-Bushy-Eyebrows.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of State v. Bryan Kohberger, the defense filed Motion in Limine #7, seeking to exclude witness identification based on the description of "bushy eyebrows." The defense argued that the surviving roommate's (identified as D.M.) description was unreliable due to her limited observation under distressing conditions, potential impairment from alcohol, and the generic nature of the "bushy eyebrows" characteristic, which could apply to many individuals. They contended that admitting this description could unfairly prejudice the jury against Kohberger.In response, the prosecution opposed the motion, asserting that D.M.'s consistent description of the intruder's "bushy eyebrows" was both relevant and reliable. They emphasized that D.M. consistently provided this specific detail across multiple interviews, and that such a distinctive feature could assist in identifying the perpetrator. The prosecution also highlighted that a photograph of Kohberger, taken shortly after the incident, depicted him with prominent eyebrows, supporting the witness's account. They argued that the determination of whether Kohberger's eyebrows match the description should be left to the jury.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-7-RE-Witness-Identification-Bushy-Eyebrows.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In response to Defendant Bryan Kohberger's Motion in Limine #1, which seeks to exclude potentially inflammatory evidence from the trial, the State argues that such evidence is both relevant and admissible. The prosecution contends that certain pieces of evidence, including Kohberger's Amazon purchase history and specific descriptions provided by eyewitnesses, are directly linked to the case and essential for establishing context and intent. They assert that this evidence demonstrates Kohberger's possession of items similar to those found at the crime scene and aligns with witness descriptions, thereby strengthening the prosecution's argument.​In response to Defendant Bryan C. Kohberger's Motion in Limine #3, which seeks to prohibit the use of the term "murder" during the trial, the State argues that such a restriction is unwarranted and impractical. The prosecution contends that the term "murder" is an accurate legal designation of the charges against Kohberger, who faces four counts of first-degree murder. They assert that the jury will be fully aware of the nature of the charges, and the use of the term aligns with legal standards and precedents.​In response to Defendant Bryan C. Kohberger's Motion in Limine #4, which seeks to prohibit the use of the terms "psychopath" and "sociopath" during the trial, the State has indicated that it currently has no plans to use these terms. However, the prosecution reserves the right to revisit this stance if the defense introduces evidence regarding Kohberger's mental health, particularly in light of recent motions referencing his diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-1-RE-Inflammatory-Evidence.pdf031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-3-Use-Term-Murder.pdf031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-4-Use-Terms-Psychopath-Sociopath.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of State v. Bryan Kohberger, the defense filed Motion in Limine #7, seeking to exclude witness identification based on the description of "bushy eyebrows." The defense argued that the surviving roommate's (identified as D.M.) description was unreliable due to her limited observation under distressing conditions, potential impairment from alcohol, and the generic nature of the "bushy eyebrows" characteristic, which could apply to many individuals. They contended that admitting this description could unfairly prejudice the jury against Kohberger.In response, the prosecution opposed the motion, asserting that D.M.'s consistent description of the intruder's "bushy eyebrows" was both relevant and reliable. They emphasized that D.M. consistently provided this specific detail across multiple interviews, and that such a distinctive feature could assist in identifying the perpetrator. The prosecution also highlighted that a photograph of Kohberger, taken shortly after the incident, depicted him with prominent eyebrows, supporting the witness's account. They argued that the determination of whether Kohberger's eyebrows match the description should be left to the jury.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-7-RE-Witness-Identification-Bushy-Eyebrows.pdf

​In the case of State v. Bryan Kohberger, the defense filed Motion in Limine #7, seeking to exclude witness identification based on the description of "bushy eyebrows." The defense argued that the surviving roommate's (identified as D.M.) description was unreliable due to her limited observation under distressing conditions, potential impairment from alcohol, and the generic nature of the "bushy eyebrows" characteristic, which could apply to many individuals. They contended that admitting this description could unfairly prejudice the jury against Kohberger.In response, the prosecution opposed the motion, asserting that D.M.'s consistent description of the intruder's "bushy eyebrows" was both relevant and reliable. They emphasized that D.M. consistently provided this specific detail across multiple interviews, and that such a distinctive feature could assist in identifying the perpetrator. The prosecution also highlighted that a photograph of Kohberger, taken shortly after the incident, depicted him with prominent eyebrows, supporting the witness's account. They argued that the determination of whether Kohberger's eyebrows match the description should be left to the jury.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-7-RE-Witness-Identification-Bushy-Eyebrows.pdf

​In response to Defendant Bryan Kohberger's Motion in Limine #9, which seeks to exclude evidence of his Amazon click activity at trial, the State argues that such evidence is both relevant and admissible. The prosecution contends that Kohberger's Amazon activity, particularly his purchase of a Ka-Bar knife and related items in March 2022, is directly linked to the case. They assert that this evidence demonstrates Kohberger's possession of a knife matching the sheath found at the crime scene, which contained his DNA. Additionally, the State maintains that the Amazon click activity is pertinent, as it reflects Kohberger's interest in knives and accessories both before and after the alleged offenses.The State refutes the defense's claim that the Amazon data is incomplete or taken out of context, asserting that the evidence was obtained through a valid search warrant and encompasses relevant periods before and after the crimes. They argue that the click activity is not unfairly prejudicial and that its probative value outweighs any potential prejudice. The prosecution also emphasizes that the evidence is not misleading and that any concerns about Amazon's algorithms influencing user behavior do not diminish the relevance of Kohberger's specific search and purchase history. Therefore, the State requests that the court deny the defendant's motion and allow the Amazon click activity evidence to be presented at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-9-RE-Excluding-Amazon-Click-Activity-Trial.pdf

​In response to Defendant Bryan Kohberger's Motion in Limine #9, which seeks to exclude evidence of his Amazon click activity at trial, the State argues that such evidence is both relevant and admissible. The prosecution contends that Kohberger's Amazon activity, particularly his purchase of a Ka-Bar knife and related items in March 2022, is directly linked to the case. They assert that this evidence demonstrates Kohberger's possession of a knife matching the sheath found at the crime scene, which contained his DNA. Additionally, the State maintains that the Amazon click activity is pertinent, as it reflects Kohberger's interest in knives and accessories both before and after the alleged offenses.The State refutes the defense's claim that the Amazon data is incomplete or taken out of context, asserting that the evidence was obtained through a valid search warrant and encompasses relevant periods before and after the crimes. They argue that the click activity is not unfairly prejudicial and that its probative value outweighs any potential prejudice. The prosecution also emphasizes that the evidence is not misleading and that any concerns about Amazon's algorithms influencing user behavior do not diminish the relevance of Kohberger's specific search and purchase history. Therefore, the State requests that the court deny the defendant's motion and allow the Amazon click activity evidence to be presented at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-9-RE-Excluding-Amazon-Click-Activity-Trial.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 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 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 Case No. CR01-24-31665, the State filed a Motion in Limine on February 24, 2025, seeking to delineate the permissible scope of references to Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) during the trial. The motion requests that the court limit mentions of IGG to the fact that law enforcement received a "tip" leading to the identification of the defendant, Bryan Kohberger, without delving into the specifics of the IGG process. Additionally, the State aims to exclude any testimony or evidence related to the United States Department of Justice's Interim Policy on Forensic Genetic Genealogical DNA Analysis and Searching, the terms of service of genetic genealogy subscription services, debates on the use of IGG in criminal investigations, and any alleged discovery violations associated with IGG.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-States-Motion-in-Limine-RE-Investigative-Genetic-Geneology.pdf

​In Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defense filed Motion in Limine #5 titled "Re: Inconclusive Data," seeking to exclude certain evidence deemed inconclusive. The court granted the defense's request to seal this motion, as indicated in an order dated March 3, 2025. Consequently, the specific details and arguments presented in the motion are not publicly accessible.​In Case No. CR01-24-31665, the State filed a Motion in Limine on February 21, 2025, to restrict the defense from introducing or arguing alternative perpetrator evidence without first meeting specific relevance and admissibility standards as outlined in the Idaho Rules of Evidence (I.R.E.) 401, 402, and 403. The State contends that during the investigation, thousands of tips regarding possible perpetrators were received, but none, except those related to the defendant, were substantiated. Allowing the defense to present alternative perpetrator theories without concrete evidence directly connecting others to the homicides could mislead and confuse the jury, result in undue delays, waste time, and unfairly prejudice the State's case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Motion-inLimine5-RE-Inconclusive-Data.pdf022125-States-Motion-in-Limine-RE-Alternative-Perpetrator-Evidence.pdf

​In Case No. CR01-24-31665, the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #11, which sought to exclude evidence related to Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG). The Defendant indicated an intention to exclude IGG evidence and not to call expert witnesses on the matter. In light of this, the State agreed not to introduce IGG evidence or related expert testimony. Instead, the State proposed to present that law enforcement received a "tip," without specifying its source or content, which led to the identification of the Defendant. ​This approach aims to streamline the trial by focusing on direct evidence linking the Defendant to the crime, while avoiding potential complexities and disputes surrounding the IGG process. By mutually agreeing to exclude IGG evidence, both parties seek to prevent unnecessary confusion or prejudice that could arise from discussing the investigative techniques used during the investigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031025+States+Response+Defendants+Motion+in+Limine+Re+Exclude+IGG+Evidence.pdf

​In Case No. CR01-24-31665, the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #11, which sought to exclude evidence related to Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG). The Defendant indicated an intention to exclude IGG evidence and not to call expert witnesses on the matter. In light of this, the State agreed not to introduce IGG evidence or related expert testimony. Instead, the State proposed to present that law enforcement received a "tip," without specifying its source or content, which led to the identification of the Defendant. ​This approach aims to streamline the trial by focusing on direct evidence linking the Defendant to the crime, while avoiding potential complexities and disputes surrounding the IGG process. By mutually agreeing to exclude IGG evidence, both parties seek to prevent unnecessary confusion or prejudice that could arise from discussing the investigative techniques used during the investigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031025+States+Response+Defendants+Motion+in+Limine+Re+Exclude+IGG+Evidence.pdf

There are many new filings and rulings in the Karen Read case. Judge Cannone is allowing the Commonwealth's dog bite expert to testify, raising questions about consistency with previous rulings regarding expert testimony. The Pro Hac Vice admission for attorney Mark Bederow has been denied. There's a motion to correct the record by prosecutor Hank Brennan and more.Updates in the Bryan Kohberger case. I go through a new filing regarding text messages from surviving roommates and victims. Details from the 9-1-1 call are being examined and the defense filed Motions in Limine to challenge key evidence.RESOURCESKaren Read - Motion to Dismiss Hearing - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DspEzUu2lGMThis 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