Thread by @azarilaw

THREAD: #BryanKohberger State's response to defense's 3rd supplemental discovery request. First, Prosecution's discovery obligations extend beyond what is in their possession to also items within their control. It's a proactive duty, meaning they must

produce what they have and what they need to gather. The rule must be interpreted in the context of Brady obligations (disclosure of exculpatory evidence). Re "Standard Lab Discovery: state claims it won't provide personnel related materials unless lab staff testify

as expert witnesses at trial. Defense likely wants the lab analyst's training records to prepare for effective cross-examination and perhaps to gauge the defense experts Kohberger needs to retain. This information relates to the credibility of the analysts and the

reliability of their methods and conclusion. Prosecution can't get around disclosure by cherry-picking its trial witnesses. At the 5/22 MTC hearing, court has to rule on scope and timing of this disclosure.

Re Genetic Geneology Testing & Search: this is a fairly recent science. It is however part of the investigation and subject to disclosure. Specifically, it was relied upon in the testing of items from the trash bin outside #Kohberger's family home in PA.

It appears the pros claims it won't use the genealogical testing as part of its case therefore irrelevant. They have a separate sample of direct DNA from Kohberger that may/may not match the sample from the knife sheath.

But the defense is still entitled to test the reliability of the investigation and will argue that it is very much relevant. Again, pros's election not to utilize some part of its investigation does not preclude the defense from disclosure of discovery items.

It's not dispositive of relevance. Protective order mentioned by pros may be related to proprietary concerns that company performing the testing may have. At bottom, defense should stand firm at the 5/22 motion hearing to get a ruling on all outstanding items of discovery. END