Kohberger evidence hearing April 9th, 2025




Brian C. Kohberger is a man accused of slaying 4 college students in their sleep at an off campus house in Moscow Idaho. The case has been moved from Moscow, Idaho to Boise, Idaho and now Judge Steven Hippler is in charge. Judge Hipplers background is in Medical Malpractice Defense, but he has presided in over a 100 criminal felony cases over the last decade. Thus, this is not his first felony murder case. He has a strong reputation as a Judge who does not make mistakes. The hearing lasted the entire day and extended beyond the normal closing hours of the court house.

At the rectangular shaped defense table, positioned to the right of the courtroom, as one faces the judge, Mr. Kohberger sat with his legal team. Mr. Kohberger sat in a stilled eye focused position, wearing a light bluish button down shirt with a white crew neck t-shirt underneath, and no external jacket. The shirt color and the fact he had not donned a jacket for the proceeding, while everyone else wore a dark jacket made it appear as though he had a light focused on him. At this hearing the defense team encompassed three women and no men. Anne Taylor, who is the lead attorney on the case and works the public defender's office in Moscow, Idaho was at the table seated two chairs away to Mr. Kohberger’s left toward the center of the courtroom. She wore dark black eye mascara and a three piece skirt set with a white shirt under her jacket for the hearing. Sitting adjacent to Mr. Kohberger to his left was Elisa Massoth who is a specialist in criminal defense and has practiced law in the Boise area for decades. It is highly likely she is familiar with Judge Hippler. During the hearing she came off as being “well prepared” and unyielding in determination. She josted with Judge Hippler on several occasions. A new addition to the Anne Taylor team was San Francisco attorney Bicka Barlow, an expert on DNA forensics who testified for Kohberger's defense during an August 2023 hearing. She has been admitted pro hac vice ( Pronounced “Pro - Hock - Vee - Cha” ) (Latin meaning “for this turn” or "for this occasion”) in the case, She is not licensed to practice law in Idaho. Thus, pro hac vice is a legal term the courts use to denote, the Judge has made an exception to the rule, and in this case, will allow her to practice law as a representative for Brian Kohberger. The exception stems from her expertise in DNA forensics. She sat with Mr. Kohbergers to his right at the short end of the table. She was wearing a black three piece skirt set with a grayish blouse underneath her jacket. She spoke several times during the hearing to address a motion in limine regarding investigative genetic genealogy (IGG)/DNA evidence.

Seated at a rectangular table to the left of the courtroom as they faced the Judge's bench was the prosecution team. Bill Thompson sat farthest from the center aisle wearing a standard light grey suit with a white shirt and paisley black and yellow tie. Bill Thompson is lead on the prosecution team and he is the State's attorney in Moscow, Idaho. Sitted inboard at the middle of the table was Ashley Jennings. Ms. Jenning is a Senior Deputy prosecutor at the Layta county courthouse in Moscow Idaho, and was dressed in a dark blue 3 piece skirt set with a paisley dark and light blue shirt. Ms. Jennings has been with the Layta county office since March of 2018. Jeff Nye, who serves as Chief of the Criminal Division with the Idaho State Attorney's office was seated near the center aisle and wearing a dark grey suit with a white shirt with a light green colored tie with dark green X’s running vertically down the tie.. Mr. Nye comes to the prosecution team with some impressive credentials. His delivery is extremely polished as though he has been in the trial courts several thousand times. All attorneys for the prosecution sat on the long end of the table facing Judge Hippler.

The hearing consisted of both parties elaborating on various in limine filings they had made over the past several weeks. They expressed to Judge Hippler their reasoning as to why certain “evidence” should be included or excluded at trial. During the hearing Judge Hippler expressed that he enjoyed dialog with both parties.

What they discussed:



  1. Defense Motion in Limine #1 RE Inflammatory Evidence, Use of the term murder, Using the Terms Psychopath or Sociopath

    • For the Defense: Anne Taylor
    • For the State: Bill Thompson
    • During this discussion Judge Hippler disclosed that the photographic evidence of the crime scene was extremely graphic. He stopped short of ordering against the use of inflammatory evidence, but cautioned the attorneys to be professional and to alert the opposing parties before introducing possible inflammatory evidence into trial.

    • Judge Hippler ruled during the hearing he will grant the in limine motion of the defense. However, the term murder could be used during opening arguments. The terms Psychopath or Sociopath are not to be used during the trial



  2. States Motion in Limine RE Improper Death Penalty Comments

    • For the State: Ashley Jennings
    • For the Defense: Anne Taylor
    • This was an argument to prevent the defense from making comments like, “ the government is trying to kill Mr. Kohberger”.

    • Judge Hippler ruled during the hearing that both parties are not to be argumentative and they are to use the appropriate language


  3. Defense Motion in Limine #8 RE Unnoticed 404b Evidence

    • For the Defense: Elisa Massoth
    • For the State: Bill Thompson
    • Elisa Massoth represented the defendant in this debate, she set it up nicely. She initiated her argument by emphasizing there were three points that needed to be discussed.

      • The introduction of theDeSales University paper that Mr. Kohberger wrote with the title “Crime-scene Scenario Final” as evidence. The prosecution claims this paper demonstrates Mr. Kohberger knew how to avoid detection or clean up a crime scene. However, since he was a student with a focus on criminology, it would not be out of the ordinary for Mr. Kohberger to have knowledge of how to sanitize a crime scene.
      • Mr. Kohberger’s Amazon records related to his searches and purchases. This evidence alone creates a very high hurdle for Mr. Kohbergers defense team. Mr. Kohberger bought a K-Bar knife months before the killing, then searched for another K-Bar knife after the murders. The question must be asked, where is the knife Mr Kohberger originally purchased?
      • A video of a traffic stop involving Moscow, Id police officer and Mr. Kohberger.


      The first two points, the DeSales Paper and the Amazon search data were discussed . Ms. Massoth attempted to make the point that the evidence was a violation of Idaho Rules of Evidence (IRE) rule number 404 B. Judge Hippler stopped her several times to point out that rule 404b prohibited bad acts from being used as a testimony to someone's character. Judge Hippler used the analogy that prior conviction of speeding does not allude to the propensity to commit murder. Therefore, the introduction of a prior record of speeding tickets would not be allowed. He advised the DeSales paper and the Amazon data were not bad acts. However, Ms. Massoth considered them to be bad acts because the state had introduced them as evidence establishing them as bad acts in Mr. Kohlberg's mind leading up to the murders. Part of his planning of the crime. Judge Hippler was not buying her argument. Then, Elisas Masoth brought up the Traffic stop video. This was a bad act and now Judge Hippler had to live with his adamant response to the first two arguments. Ms. Massoth outlined the problem of the video,
      • Provided presence in Moscow
      • It was at night
      • Visual of he car
      • Kohberger opinion about selt belts
      • Kohberger’s rebuff about why the Moscow police where asking him for his phone number
      • Kohbergers rebuff regarding a lecture from the Moscow police officer about seat belts
      She pointed out the jury could interpret, that Mr. Kohberger is some kind of rebel, who doesn’t want to obey the law. The state countered that the video establishes Mr. Kohbreger as the owner of the car, his phone number, his address, ect and that no reasonable jury member would associate speeding with the propensity to commit murder. Ms. Masoth pointed out that all those items the state listed could be established through secondary sources, such as motor vehicle records. It was a valid point. Judge Hippler was caught in a pickle since he had smashed in the point of bad evidence during the initial evaluation of the first two issues.

    • Judge Hippler ruled he would grant the in limine motion of the state regarding the DeSales paper and Amazon data, but he would review the video and make a written response.


  4. States Motion in Limine RE Immediate Family Members in Courtroom

    • For the State: Ashley Jennings
    • For the Defense: Elisa Massoth
    • The state did not want Mr. Kohbergers family, who will attend the trial, to be present in the courtroom, because some of them will be called as witnesses. The court doesn’t want witnesses in the courtroom listening to the trial before they are called to testify. The defense accused the state of purposely putting all of Kohlberg's family on the witness list to prevent them from being present at trial. Judge Hippler used a gumbo soup analogy to illustrate that testimony doesn’t have to be in order. Thus, those members of the Kohberger family who will testify can testify first, then they can attend the rest of the trial. Judge Hippler has asked the state to provide a list of who they are going to call by April 25th 2025.

    • Judge Hippler ruled for now he will grant the families of the homicide victims’ to be present in the courtroom during trial, and reserve as to the defendant families until he has reviewed who the state is going to call and testify, the in limine motion of the state.


  5. Defense Motion in Limine #13 RE Conditions as Aggravator

    • For the Defense: Anne Taylor
    • For the State: Jeff Nye
    • Mr. Kohberger has been diagnosed by Dr. Rachel Orr, PsyD, ABPP-CN to have Autism Spectrum Disorder(ASD). The Supreme Court has ruled that people who have intellectual disabilities cannot be executed. However, ASD is not considered an intellectual disability. ASD is considered to be a developmental disability. The mainstream media has propagandized that Kohberger is guilty because his mannerisms are not mainstream. He sits in one position and stares into space for long periods of time. Also, The defense is asking Judge Hippler to not allow any videos of acquaintances of Mr. Kohbeger after his arrest, because in those videos people made mean comments about Mr. Kohberger's demeanor not knowing that Mr. Kohberger’s demeanor was the result of ASD. Jeff Nye for the state proclaimed the state had no plan to use ASD as an aggravating factor during the penalty phase of the trial. Also, Jeff Nye stated the state had no plans to use videos of students trashing Mr. Kohberger.

    • Judge Hippler ruled the state should not make the general arguement that ASD is an agrevating factor.


  6. Defence Motion in Limine #5 RE Inconclusive Data, Defense Motion in Limine #6 RE Rylene Nowlin and Reference to Touch and Contact DNA, Defence Motion in Limine #14 RE Statistical Analysis

    • For the Defense: Bicka Barlow
    • For the State: Jeff Nye
    • Not much went on in this discourse except for a gleeful discussion about how the two parties were working out regarding the use of terms during the trial and would soon come to a conclusion about a proposed jury instruction for Judge Hippler at trial.

    • Judged said he was hopeful they could work it out and if they couldn’t he would resolve it then. He gave them until pre-trial to come to a conclusion.


  7. States Motion in Limine RE: Alternative Perpetrator Evidence

    • For the State: Bill Thompson
    • For the Defense: Elisa Massoth
    • This state, as presented by Lead Prosecutor Bill Thompson, expressed concern about the defense, or defendant, introducing random people into the trial without proper vetting in accordance with the court rules. In addition, the state wanted the Judge to set a timeline for alternative to prevent them from being introduced in the middle of the trial The defense countered the would offer alternatives and would vet them in accordance with the rules

    • Judge Hippler ruled that a previous case, State of Idaho v. Meister, was the controlling case to establish court precedent for introducing “Alternative Perpetrator Evidence”. Basically if the defense is going to use an alternative perpetrator then they have to make a factual showing of their connection to the crime, not just throwing random people, or theories in front of the jury. Judge Hippler wanted to hear of any issues regarding Alternative perpetrators and other theories closer to pretrial, he would set a date later.


  8. Defense Motion in Limine #12 RE Make and Model of Suspect Vehicle

    • For the Defense: Anne Taylor
    • For the State: Ashley Jennings
    • The defense wants to suppress the use of the term “suspect vehicle one” from the trial. Claiming it will influence the jury to wrongly believe that all white Honda Electras they will see in videos at trial are the same car.

    • Judge Hippler ruled he will deny the in limine motion and allow the state to present expert testimony that the vehicle depicted in the vedios during the trial are “suspect Vehicle one"


  9. Defense Motion in Limine #7 RE Witness Identification by Bushy Eyebrows

    • For the Defense: Elisa Massoth
    • For the State: Ashley Jennings
    • The defense wants to exclude the term “Bushy Eyebrows”. They argued that reliability is the Lynchpin determining the admissibility of identifiable testimony. In that, the term Bushy Eyebrows was not a term DM, the only eyewitness, created herself. The defense claims that Moscow officers coached her into using the term after viewing the drawings in her bedroom. It is also disclosed that the DM never used the term “balaclava”. The Defense claims ISP officer Gooch first used the term and then coached her into drawing one. When describing the head covering to law enforcement she used the term “weird looking ski mask”. Thus, it is very possible the black clad intruder was wearing a shemagh and the DM could not describe it because she may have not seen one before. DM testimony came into question because she had been drinking the entire day and well into the night. She was sleepy and delirious from the effect of alcohol by her own admission.

    • Judge Hippler ruled he will deny the in limine motion regarding the use of the term “bushy eyebrows”. The D.M. description of the eyebrows of the black clad intruder is admissible


  10. States Motion in Limine RE 911 Call (Redacted)

    • For the State: Ashley Jennings
    • For the Defense: Anne Taylor
    • The state wants to bring in the trial the initial 911 call as an excited utterance. The defense counters that many of the students on the phone were being told what to say which means their description of the event the next morning is hearsay and not allowed at trial. DM, one of the surviving roommates on the 2nd floor claims she saw XK but thought she passed out from the night before. That seems hard to believe It is also revealed that from the time DM goes to the first floor bedroom, after seeing the black clad intruder, until the morning around 09:00 am on 13 Nov. 2022, she is not just sleeping she is texting on snap chat and instagram about the incident. The defense claims there is a lot of activity going on in the house for the next 8 hours after the murders. The defense claims the 911 calls are not a true description of the initial encounter because those people talking with the 911 operator are being coached on what to say.

    • Judge Hippler ruled he will take it under advisement and give a written response letter.


  11. States Motion in Limine RE Text Messages and Testimony (Redacted)

    • For the State: Ashley Jennings
    • For the Defense: Anne Taylor
    • State wants to bring in phone records for DM between 02:10 am and 04:37 am on Nov 13th 2022.
    • Judge Hippler ruled he would advise


  12. States Motion in Limine RE: Admissibility of Demonstrative Exhibits and Memorandum in Support
    • For the State: Bill Thompson
    • For the Defense: Anne Taylor
    • This was an interesting discussion about a model replica, the FBI built, of the house where the murders took place. Evidently the model can be taken apart floor by floor to show to the jury the location of all the people inside the house. They termed this structure the “doll house”. The defense objected claiming it was not to scale and it would negatively influence the jury because it would be in plain sight during the entire trial. Judge Hippler countered that the defense could produce their own 3 D image if they so choose.

    • Judge Hippler ruled it would not go back to the deliberation room with the jury, but would think about it farther and give a written answer.


  13. States Motion in Limine RE Self-Authentication of Records (Redacted

    • For the State: Bill Thompson
    • For the Defense: Anne Taylor
    • Judge Hippler ruled it was not the time to discuss this issue and everyone agreed.


  14. States Motion in Limine RE: Alibi

    • For the State: Bill Thompson
    • For the Defense: Anne Taylor
    • The state wants to prevent the defense from presenting a surprise witness who will testify as to Mr. Kohbergers whereabouts during the time of the murders.

    • Judge Hippler rules that the defense comes across evidence that supports Mr. Kohberger's alibi then the court will address it then.


  15. States Motion in Limine RE ATT Timing Advance Records

    • For the State: Ashley Jennings
    • For the Defense: Anne Taylor
    • This was a conversation about FBI special agent Nick Ballance, who will testify at trial or before, regarding Mr. Kohbergers cell phone activity. The defense claims Nick Ballance is withholding information in the form of timing advance records from AT&T. Judge Hippler claims the defense is making accusations of the state hiding evidence, but the defense has produced no evidence to support their claim.

    • Judge Hippler ruled he will not allow question about evidence that does not exist, however, he will allow the defense to question Special Agent Nick Ballance outside of the Jury


  16. Defense Motion in Limine #2 RE Vague and Undisclosed Expert Testimony

    • For the Defense: Anne Taylor
    • For the State: AShley Jennings
    • The defense also claims they have an expert that contradicts Nick Ballance’s conclusions, and that Special Agent Nick Ballance did not testify before the grand Jury. Judge Hippler points out that the victims were unable to fight back do to their level of toxicity
    • Judge Hippler ruled he would take it under advisement.


  17. Defense Motion in Limine #9 RE Excluding Amazon Click Activity Evidence at Trial

    • For the Defense: Elisa Massoth
    • For the State: Ashley Jennings
    • This was an interesting debate over Mr. Kohberger’s Amazon click activity. During the presentation by Ms. Masoth, Judge Hipler interrupted her to point out that a K-Bar knife was bought on an account registered to Mr. Kohbergers name. In addition, Judge Hippler pointed out that Mr. Kohberger had searched for knives after the murders on his amazon account. The defense countered that anyone could have searched for these items because it was a shared account. Judge Hippler reiterated that the account is in Mr. Kohbergers name.

    • Judge Hippler ruled he would not exclude the Amazon click activity


  18. States Motion in Limine RE: Neuropsychological and Psychiatric Evidence & Defense motion regarding Autism Spectrum Disorder

    • For the State: Bill Thompson
    • For the Defense: Elisa Massoth
    • This was an attempt by the state to counter an argument by the defense during the penalty phase that Mr. Kohberger looks weird sitting in the courtroom. The defense wants to explain to the jury that Mr. Kohberger is normal even though he sits in one position for long periods of time. The defense wants to tell the jury in opening statements that because Mr. Kohberger is a clean person, changes his shower curtain often, and wears gloves doesn’t make him a bad person. The state claims there is no authority in law for this disclosure and is asking Judge Hippler to forbid it.

    • Judge Hippler ruled he will grant in part, and reserve , in part, the in limine motion of the state. If the defendant does not testify, evidence of his diagnoses to explain his courtroom demeanor is relevant and/or inadmissible under IRE 403. Ruling is reserved as to certain behaviors that may become relevant in rebuttal, except for expert testimony that he was physically unable to commit the crimes, for which there is no disclosed opinion.


  19. Motion to Strike Death Penalty RE Autism Spectrum Disorder

    • For the Defense: Elisa Massoth
    • For the State: Jeff Nye
    • The defense tried to argue, that if Mr. Kohberger was convicted, he should be spared the death penalty, because he has a mental disorder. Judge Hippler commented that Mr. Kohberger was a Doctoral student and looked normal. Jeff Nye commented that Autism Spectrum Disorder was not a qualifier for an exception based on the rules.



  20. Motion to Strike Death Penalty regarding discovery

    • For the Defense: Anne Taylor
    • For the State: Ashley Jennings
    • This was a debate where Anne Taylor complained she had too much work to do. Thus, the death penalty should be removed because she was overwhelmed with data. That is, the amount of data to review was so vast it would take her decades to complete a review. Judge Hippler was going to have none of it. He questioned her as to why she took on another death penalty case, if she was so overwhelmed with this case. She looked stomped. In addition, he asked her if she had hired additional paralegals to review the large amount of data. She basically had no response. Finally he asked the state if any of the terabits of video evidence had any exculpatory evidence, and the state replied , No.



Pre Trial is set for May 15th, 2025 at am mountain time