Murder In Moscow: The State Responds To Bryan Kohberger's Touch DNA Motion In Limine (Part 1) (3/22/25)

​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:[email protected]: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:[email protected]: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 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:[email protected]: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 the case of United States v. Sean Combs (Case No. 1:24-cr-00542-AS), the defense has filed a reply memorandum supporting their motion to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants executed at Combs' residences in Los Angeles and Miami, as well as his electronic accounts and devices. The defense argues that the government obtained these warrants by making false statements and omitting critical exculpatory evidence, thereby presenting a misleading portrayal of the facts to justify the searches. They contend that certain evidence, which suggested that participation in the alleged "Freak-Off" parties was voluntary and consensual, was intentionally excluded from the warrant applications. The defense asserts that this misconduct led to the issuance of overly broad warrants, allowing the seizure of extensive personal and digital records unrelated to the alleged offenses.Alternatively, the defense requests a Franks hearing to challenge the validity of the search warrants. A Franks hearing is warranted when a defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement was knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included in a warrant affidavit, and that the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause. The defense maintains that the government's alleged omissions and misrepresentations meet this standard, necessitating such a hearing. They emphasize that without the purportedly misleading information, the warrants would lack probable cause, rendering the seized evidence inadmissible.to contact me:[email protected]:  gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.187.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (Case No. 1:24-cr-00542-AS), the defense has filed a reply memorandum supporting their motion to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants executed at Combs' residences in Los Angeles and Miami, as well as his electronic accounts and devices. The defense argues that the government obtained these warrants by making false statements and omitting critical exculpatory evidence, thereby presenting a misleading portrayal of the facts to justify the searches. They contend that certain evidence, which suggested that participation in the alleged "Freak-Off" parties was voluntary and consensual, was intentionally excluded from the warrant applications. The defense asserts that this misconduct led to the issuance of overly broad warrants, allowing the seizure of extensive personal and digital records unrelated to the alleged offenses.Alternatively, the defense requests a Franks hearing to challenge the validity of the search warrants. A Franks hearing is warranted when a defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement was knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included in a warrant affidavit, and that the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause. The defense maintains that the government's alleged omissions and misrepresentations meet this standard, necessitating such a hearing. They emphasize that without the purportedly misleading information, the warrants would lack probable cause, rendering the seized evidence inadmissible.to contact me:[email protected]:  gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.187.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​On the 13th day of Lori Vallow Daybell's trial, the prosecution presented compelling evidence focusing on the events surrounding the death of Tammy Daybell, Chad Daybell's first wife. The court heard the 911 call Chad made on October 19, 2019, reporting Tammy's sudden death. In the call, Chad stated, "I'm Chad, the husband. She's clearly dead... She's frozen." This call was made just ten days after Tammy had reported an incident where she was approached by a masked individual with a paintball gun, an event prosecutors suggest was an attempted shooting by Alex Cox, Lori's brother.Further testimony came from Tammy's sister, Samantha Gwilliam, who expressed shock upon learning of Tammy's sudden passing. She recounted that Chad had informed her Tammy died in her sleep after a coughing fit, despite Tammy appearing healthy during their recent interactions. Gwilliam also noted the rapidity of Tammy's burial, which took place just three days after her death, raising concerns about the lack of an autopsy at that timeto contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​On day 12 of Lori Vallow Daybell's trial, the court heard significant testimony from multiple witnesses, providing further insight into the events surrounding the deaths of Tylee Ryan, J.J. Vallow, and Tammy Daybell. FBI Forensic Anthropologist Dr. Angi Christensen resumed her testimony, detailing the sharp trauma observed on Tylee's skeletal remains. She identified multiple sharp-force injuries on Tylee's hip and pelvic bones, suggesting attempts at dismemberment. Additionally, forensic experts testified that Tylee's DNA was found on a pickaxe and shovel recovered from Chad Daybell's property, indicating these tools were likely used in the disposal of her body.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In response to the letter filed with the court by the Bureau of Prisons, Maxwell's legal team doubled down on their assertions of her mistreatment while in custody adding that she is also losing her hair.Join me as I break it down.(Commercial at 14:48)To contact me:[email protected]:https://nypost.com/2020/12/07/ghislaine-maxwell-losing-her-hair-from-imprisonment-lawyers/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The New York Times sued the BOP for documents relating to Epstein's death and after a protracted battle, they came out on top. In this episode we dive into some of those documents as they pertain to Epstein's alleged suicide. (Commercial at 20:05)To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10234303/Jeffrey-Epstein-used-days-alive-complaining-jumpsuit-treated-like-bad-guy.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein and his relationship with JP Morgan and other high flying financial institutions is well known and documented and for years those relationships were used to help facilitate his criminal enterprise and even from the grave, those ties are now coming back to haunt the financial sector as settlements and lawsuits continue to pile up. Even with all of these financial penalties though, the question still remains:Will anyone ever be held truly responsible and given a long prison sentence? Let's dive in!(commercial at 13:19)to contact me:[email protected]:Hiltzik: Making Epstein's banks pay for his crimes - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.