Thread by @alcaprari23

AFTERNOON 🧵: #BryanKohberger Hearing

After a quick lunch, court is back in session. I'll live tweet the afternoon's proceedings below. #Idaho4 #IdahoFour

Judge has taken his post. #BryanKohberger has also taken his seat. Kohberger offers a very faint smile, maybe more of an acknowledgement, to his defense attorney when he enters. The defense calls its next witness, Gabriella Vargas, to the stand.

Vargas is from California and is an investigative genetic genealogist.

Vargas is detailing her experience with investigative genetic genealogy, including her own self-taught education on the subject and personal mission to find her biological father which began in 2018.

Vargas worked for Identifiers International, handling murder suspect cases and other violent crimes. She helped law enforcement identify unknown assailants.

She then moved to the DNA Doe Project which takes on adult criminal cases by helping law enforcement identify unknown remains. She worked with the Project for about two years.

Vargas trained new recruits & volunteers, checked their work, made sure documentation was clear & accurate and made sure that the genetic genealogy match was properly situated on a family tree. Vargas says she has worked around 25-30 genetic genealogy cases for law enforcement.

Vargas has never testified in court before & says she was asked if she would testify on behalf of the defense today.

Typically law enforcement contacts her directly when they are unable to solve a case. Vargas then evaluates the type of case and if there is viable DNA to use.

Vargas will then have the DNA sample shipped to her and to a third-party forensic lab. Vargas will then take over the case until she has provided the investigative lead back to the agency. She shares update on quality checks, sequencing, uploads, processing.

Vargas: "The case is mine. It is in my control until I'm done."

Vargas is detailing the painstaking process of her investigative technique and says one case has taken her 14 months to solve.

Vargas is detailing workarounds/loopholes that exist within the various genetic genealogy databases. Ways that you can see names that you shouldn't, evade agency restrictions, see things only law enforcement should have access to etc.

Vargas says she "struggles with this." It is clearly an ethical dilemma for her. On one hand, using these techniques is a term violation, but on the other hand, it can get you results easier and quicker. Vargas has been excused from the stand.

Defense calls its final witness, Bicka Barlow. Barlow is from San Francisco and works as an attorney and consultant. She has a bachelors and masters degree in genetics. Later she went to law school.

Barlow is helping consult the defense on discovery in this case, helping the defense understand what it has and what it doesn't have. She says she has identified areas where discovery is missing.

Now talking DNA profiles, an aspect Barlow believes is missing. In the #BryanKohberger case, there are three other unidentified male profiles that are missing from the defense's files. Barlow says she doesn't know if those profiles were uploaded to the proper genetic database.

Thompson interjects and says the three unidentified male samples were not qualified to be uploaded to the database. Defense says that's the first time she's hearing this. Thompson does not seem pleased and says that's a mischaracterization.

Witness excused. Judge trying to clarify what evidence the defense has and what it does not. Defense says it has some emails, but not all emails and attachments. Solution? Defense wants judge to order that it goes to defense. Judge wonders aloud if it actually does exist.

Defense says it brought these four witnesses in today to prove to the judge that there is so much more out there when it comes to genetic genealogy that the defense does not have. Defense says it is having to fight so hard for everything and feels suspicious.

Defense says it cannot articulate to the judge how the prosecution got to naming its client as the suspect because they don't have all the information out there.

State's counterargument: "This information is not in the possession or control of the prosecuting attorney," and therefore cannot provide what it doesn't have.

Says it's possible the FBI has it. But the State does not. State says FBI told them these things exist, but the state does not have it.

The state says it is also trying to protect the innocent civilians that are also listed within the comprehensive database. "Why take that risk for something that is not relevant to the trial?"

State is arguing that there is nothing scientific about IGG. Says it's about putting DNA into a database and letting a computer do the work. Judge is questioning that logic. Says Witness Vargas does not have a scientific background. Lab analysis, yes. IGG, no.

The point being that the State feels it doesn't have to provide the information related to IGG, only to lab analysis, which it claims to have done.

Witness Vargas is listening intently to the State make its case (and argue against the merit of much of her testimony today). I watched as she wrote a note on a legal pad, ripped it out, folded it up and passed it to Anne Taylor. #BryanKohberger leans over to read the message.

Prosecution: "The mere possibility that the FBI... violated the terms of service shouldn't be enough to force disclosure of the information or else you will run into the issue of having to show the entire investigation every time."

Judge says because this is a death penalty case, he doesn't want to make it through the full trial only to hear during an appeal process that the defense did not have documents that they should have had, in which case everyone will be accused of being "bad lawyers."

Judge says he will not make a decision about the DNA testing today. I assume that means he will do what he has done in the past, which is issue a written decision later after reviewing both arguments in private.

He looks at the clock and says it is way past the time he thought they would adjourn today. We are now going into a 10 minute recess until more motions are heard. Court will resume 4pmPT.

It seems as if the pool photographer just got a firm scolding from the bailiff. At the last hearing, the judge instructed the pool to shoot the courtroom wide and not focus on #BryanKohberger. It's possible this is a different photographer than last time.

We are back on the record. Judge says he is hearing about false reporting out there about a motion to dismiss indictment. Those are different decisions from different judges in Idaho.

Judge to media: "Be careful that you know what you are talking about before you send it out."

We are now hearing other motions, including the motion to stay proceedings. Defense is going through the "irregularities" that happened in the grand jury indictment process, which they say violated Idaho code.

Anne Taylor: "The court should stay the proceedings and allow an evidentiary hearing to investigate what impact that had on the grand jury indictment."

State counterargument: There are allegations stated by the defense that don't relate to the statute [which governs Grand Jury selection]. State says the questionnaire shouldn't include the information that the defense claims it should have.

State asks court to deny the motion to stay the proceedings. Defense argues there were only 32 people called for grand jury when there should have been 45. Says there were items that were wrong on the questionnaires that were not done correctly. Defense again asks for a stay.

BREAKING: Judge says he has studied the case law prior to today's hearing. He says the affidavit was "vague." Based on what has been presented, he does not believe there was a substantial failure in the grand jury indictment. Judge has denied the request to stay the proceedings. #BryanKohberger #IdahoFour #Idaho4

Judge: "As far as I'm concerned, we are starting the trial on October 2nd."

Jury selection will begin a week before. About 1,000 potential jurors will be brought in.

We are now beginning to hear arguments about #BryanKohberger's alibi: That he was out driving around the night of the murders. State says it will accept the alibi that he was driving around, but he should specify where exactly if he is not going to call anyone else to verify it.

The defense says it has provided what it can provide to the prosecutor and more. Taylor says Kohberger doesn't have to testify if he doesn't want to at trial. More information about the alibi may come from expert witnesses, but she says she won't go into it more today.

Thompson doesn't like that answer. He is getting heated and says that logic shouldn't be allowed based on the way the statute is written. Says Kohberger should be allowed to testify about his alibi, but no third party witnesses should be allowed to weigh in.

Judge says that if Taylor plans to present witnesses to testify about his alibi, then she needs to share who with the prosecution before more time passes. That aligns with the state's point, that time is running out and they don't want to be ambushed when the trial begins.

Judge now discussing deadlines. We are now six weeks away from trial.

Deadlines for completion of discovery: Sept. 1
Deadline for expert disclosures: Sept. 8
If there is an actual alibi, required by Sept. 8
Deadline for pretrial motions including those related to death penalty: Sept. 8
Deadline for responses to motions: Sept. 15
Deadline for proposed jury questionnaires: Sept. 18
Deadline for proposed witnesses under rules 16b6 and c3: Sept 15
Deadline for rule 404b notices: Sept. 15
Court will hear all the motions: Sept. 22 at 10amPT
Jury Selection: Sept. 25, 26 & 27 (possibly more)
Final Pretrial conference: Sept. 29 at 10amPT
Trial: Oct. 2 beginning at 8:30amPT through Nov. 17

It is wild to think that this trial could begin on Oct. 2. Every single legal expert I've spoken to say they don't think it will begin then. But the way both sides + the judge are talking right now, it really seems as if they are adamant of getting this going on time.

The court is trying to schedule a day to discuss a motion to dismiss indictment. The defense hopes to propose it sooner rather than later, but the judge says he is very busy trying to clear his schedule before Oct. 2. The state is arguing that it needs time to go through the motion and build their arguments against it once it is filed. They say they need at least seven days. The motion to dismiss indictment has been scheduled for 1pmPT on Sept. 1.

Judge: "Keep the lines of communication open, be respectful to each other and maybe some of this can be ironed out a bit sooner."

And with that, court is adjourned! I'll be live one more time tonight on Banfield. See you then!