The Brian Kohberger trial has seen a new twist in its tale, as the defense prepares to challenge the DNA evidence that may incriminate Kohberger. In the latest episode of the podcast "Hidden Killers", Tony Brueski spoke with former Felony Prosecutor and attorney, Eric Faddis, shedding light on the defense’s strategy and the risks it presents.
Brueski started the episode discussing a new motion, an attempt to "compel the defense to persuade prosecutors to share various evidence," specifically surrounding DNA testing. Faddis pointed out that, at this juncture, the DNA evidence "could be terribly problematic for Kohlberg." He mentioned a potential reconsideration by the prosecution on using some of the genetic genealogy evidence. "All of this is gonna come down on Friday. We're gonna know a lot more then."
The podcast discussed the key idea of "false positives" in DNA evidence. To the general public, the term can be misleading. "If there is anything that, like you said, any errors, any faultiness, but when it comes down to a false positive with DNA...the odds of that are slim to almost nothing whatsoever with the type of DNA they're testing," Brueski stated. He continued with an analogy, explaining that even if a key (representing DNA) is mishandled or gets dirty, it still opens the right door, indicating the DNA remains unchanged despite potential mishandling.
Faddis brought a new perspective, suggesting that Kohberger’s defense might attempt to claim the DNA was planted, an accusation that would dramatically alter the course of the trial. If the defense could highlight any faults in the testing, it could strengthen their argument against the evidence's reliability. "If they're gonna try to use all of the... alleged faultiness in the testing to support a larger theory that this DNA evidence was planted," Faddis hypothesized.
Taking the stance that the evidence was planted is significantly risky for the defense. Faddis clarified that such an argument is a double-edged sword. "That's a super risky argument to take," he said, "If you're gonna put that in front of a jury as a defense attorney, you better be able to back it up." Arguing that evidence was planted inherently suggests that the DNA was, in fact, from the client, thus removing the argument about testing reliability.
Brueski pondered on the implications, "How risky is it to go down that road? ...to go down that road, is there a lot of risk involved to make such a claim?" Faddis responded with a resounding, "Oh heck yes." Arguing the DNA was planted implies not just that the evidence was mishandled but that there was a deliberate attempt to frame Kohberger.
"It's a pretty tall accusation to make if you can't back it up," Faddis said, "and also that accusation... divests you of one additional argument." He emphasized the gravity of such a claim and the need for a competent attorney to carry it forward.
The debate surrounding the DNA evidence, whether it's about its validity or potential mishandling, has added another layer of complexity to the Brian Kohberger case. As the motion to compel unfolds, all eyes will be on the courtroom to see how the defense navigates these treacherous waters and the direction the trial takes in the coming weeks.
Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj
Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at
https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com