One judge said that four university students killed in 2022 could testify to see a former roommate of the university. An intruder with “Bushi eyebrows” About time of crime.
For Defense Attorney Brian During a hearing earlier this month, the fourth district judge asked Steven Hipler to ban any proof for mentioning “Bushi eyebrows”, as they say the roommate’s details are incredible and irrelevant to this case.
However, in a rally released Friday, Hippler said that the testimony could be used during the trial of Kohbargar for four murders that began later this year.
30 -year -old Kohberger has been charged with murder Stabbing Ethan Chapin, Knar Carnodol, Madison Mozen and Kylie Goncalevis are in a rented house near Idaho near Moscore campus.
Kohberger, a graduate student at Washington State University, was arrested in Pennsylvania a few weeks after his death. Investigators said they had met his DNA with genetic material recovered from a knife sheet found in the crime scene.
When asked for a petition for the complaint, Kohberger remained silent, persuading the judge to appeal to him to be guilty.
The roommate told the police that he saw someone wearing black dress and a ski mask inside the house he had shared with four roommates before 4:19 in the morning, according to the court documents.
At that time he was drunk and told the police that he could not remember any other face features but the intruder shrubbery eyebrows stood in his memory.
Kohberger’s defense attornees mentioned that the roommate continued to see what his attention was affected by sleep and alcohol, and his opportunity to see the intruder was often second.
His attorneys said that if a police artist could not provide adequate details to allow a compound sketch, it would be wrong and superstitious to testify to the eyebrows of the bushes, causing Zuri to believe that Kohberger was guilty of his eyebrows.
But the judge does not agree.
Hippler writes, “There is a large bay in a search that a witness is not able to testify what they have seen personally and allow only vigorous cross-examination,” Hipler wrote. “It’s a subject for cross -testing.”
Hipler also said that if Kohberger was convicted, his defense team could not use his treatment diagnosis to explain his “courtroom behavior” unless Kohberger did not take a position during the penalty episode.
Prosecutors asked the judge to prevent any testimony during the penalty episode about the developmental coordination disorder in Kohberger’s autism spectrum disorder, as well as Kohberger’s childhood.
The prosecution team has said that they do not want to use the mental situation to try to restrict Kohberger’s guilt if they are convicted.
The defense team, however, said they did not plan at all and instead of its autism spectrum diagnosis would be used to explain some of the behavior of Kohberger’s court, such as the tendency to keep an eye contact for a long time than expected, the ability to stay very steady and its stroke.
The judge said he had not noticed any strange behavior.
Hipler writes, “Once the court did not seem to be acting in an odd or incomplete manner or otherwise showing signs at the consulting table.
He said that introducing evidence of autism spectrum diagnosis would probably mislead the jury and already take an unreasonable time in a long trial, he said.
Nevertheless, the judge said that if Kohberger’s behavior took place in favor of the testimony, it could become relevant. Kohberger’s OCD diagnosis can also be relevant at one point, Hippler said, especially since the defense team says it feels the difficulties of sleeping at night, which leads to the habit of running during the night driving and decompressing.
If these situations occur during the trial, the judge said that the lawyers should be brought to him – beyond the presence of jury – he could decide whether the evidence should be introduced at that time.
Leave a Reply