Bryan Kohberger gives judge 2,000 pages of mostly irrelevant information

The judge presiding over Bryan Kohberger’s case criticized the defense on Friday for submitting over 2,000 pages of “largely irrelevant” information.

Kohberger, 29, is facing four counts of first-degree murder and one count of felony burglary. He is accused of fatally stabbing University of Idaho students Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin in an off-campus residence in 2022.

District Judge Steven Hippler issued an order regarding the defense’s motion for a Franks hearing and a memorandum supporting the motion. A Franks hearing is held to determine whether an affidavit used to obtain a search warrant contains truthful information. If the defense’s motion is granted, the judge will hear arguments from both sides before ruling.

Hippler said there are 38 exhibits accompanying the motion, amounting to over 2,000 pages.

“Unfortunately, Defendant’s memorandum largely fails to identify with particularity the relevant portions of the exhibits, instead referring simply to the exhibit number without identifying the precise pages at issue,” Hippler said. “Thus, the Court is left with the unenviable task of sifting through pages and pages of largely irrelevant documents to ascertain what portion Defendant may be referring to.”

Hippler added that the court “is not required to search the record looking for evidence.” He said for the motion to be considered by the court, the defense must resubmit the supporting exhibits and “exclude portions that are not relevant to the motion.”

The defense has until Tuesday to resubmit its legal filings.

The strong remarks come one week after Hippler declined the state’s request to postpone a deadline in the case.

On November 13, the defense asked Hippler to extend the deadline for filing motions related to discovery. The deadline was November 14.

“Defendant asserts his counsel and investigators are still reviewing ‘the vast amount of discovery in this case’ and, therefore, he needs additional time to file motions related to discovery. Motions to enlarge deadline filed on the eve of the deadline are not well taken,” Hippler wrote in an order on November 15.

Hippler argued that the defense should have asked the court for an extension sooner.

“Defendant could have ascertained far sooner whether the discovery motions deadline would pose difficulty and brought it to the Court’s attention,” Hippler said.

“Further, and importantly, Defendant has not demonstrated with his filing good cause to enlarge the deadline. He has not set forth what efforts have been made to review the discovery, what portion of discovery has not yet been reviewed, why it has not been reviewed or how long it will take to complete such review.”

Do you have a story Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact [email protected].