Murders of 4 Idaho College Students - suspect arrested

Planigale said:
It sounds like the defence are being reasonable. They could presumably insist a witness attends court and is subject to cross examination. It would absolutely be the duty of the defence to interview key witnesses, either by deposition or by cross examination. I do not think the defence can rely on the police to have asked exculpatory questions e.g. was the person you saw right or left handed (not meant to be a specific question to this case). Doing this by deposition so the witness does not have to travel seems reasonable behaviour.
Click to expand...

It goes beyond reasonable to constitutionally required.

Lack of proper investigation is the most significant issue in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. If there is a full and proper investigation as to law and fact a reviewing court will not second guess any strategic/ tactical decisions by trial counsel unless they are just off the charts bonkers.
 
Stacyhs said:
New information released:
Click to expand...

I have a concern about this statement;
“The STR profile is at least 5.37 octillion times more likely to be seen if the defendant is the source than if an unrelated individual randomly selected from the general population is the source,” the filing stated.
Click to expand...
From my understanding he was not randomly selected; but using genealogy selected from relatives of people with a similar profile. Therefore the odds of any relative of these people having a matching profile will be much higher than the general poulation. If there is a mixed DNA (e.g. the victim's) then the stats may be even more dubious. I'm sure more information will become available.
 
Planigale said:
I have a concern about this statement;

From my understanding he was not randomly selected; but using genealogy selected from relatives of people with a similar profile. Therefore the odds of any relative of these people having a matching profile will be much higher than the general poulation. If there is a mixed DNA (e.g. the victim's) then the stats may be even more dubious. I'm sure more information will become available.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about?

Of course Kolberger wasn't randomly selected. The DNA recovered from the parent's trash and from the genealogy profile led police to get a search warrant where Kolberger's DNA was obtained.
DNA from the cheek swab of the man charged with the slaying of four Idaho university students last year has been found to be a “statistical match” to that found on the knife sheath at the crime scene, according to a new court filing. ...
Click to expand...


“A traditional STR DNA comparison was done between the STR profile found on the Ka-Bar knife sheath and Defendant’s DNA. The comparison showed a statistical match,” the court filing said.
Click to expand...
It's Kolberger's DNA that matched DNA on the knife sheath at the murder scene.

All the report says about a statistical match is that it's more likely Kolberger's than a random person's. And 'statistical match' is just how DNA results are reported in court and on court documents.
 
Planigale said:
I have a concern about this statement;

From my understanding he was not randomly selected; but using genealogy selected from relatives of people with a similar profile. Therefore the odds of any relative of these people having a matching profile will be much higher than the general poulation. If there is a mixed DNA (e.g. the victim's) then the stats may be even more dubious. I'm sure more information will become available.
Click to expand...

DNA probabilities from a crime lab involving any field sample are best taken with a grain of salt. They don't take into account possible contamination or police misconduct both of which are going to happen way, way more often than once in basically never.

Errors in probability calculations often are functionally irrelevant. Bringing down something from the octillions to the billions because the lab used substandard statistical models isn't really all that useful.
 
databases

Planigale said:
I have a concern about this statement;

From my understanding he was not randomly selected; but using genealogy selected from relatives of people with a similar profile. Therefore the odds of any relative of these people having a matching profile will be much higher than the general poulation. If there is a mixed DNA (e.g. the victim's) then the stats may be even more dubious. I'm sure more information will become available.
Click to expand...
This issue has come up in at least one trial in 2022, in which an expert in DNA profiling was called to testify for the defense. Regarding this topic, I would say that I only know enough to be dangerous, but even that would be an exaggeration.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
What are you talking about?

Of course Kolberger wasn't randomly selected. The DNA recovered from the parent's trash and from the genealogy profile led police to get a search warrant where Kolberger's DNA was obtained.
...
Click to expand...

And the DNA from the parent's trash meant they didn't have enough evidence at that point for a search warrant which isn't required for trash fishing. But they did suspect Kolberger and did interstate travel to collect it. Most likely evidence from the cell phone ping trail he left on multiple, late night trips prior to the murders. Kolberger was likely super careful not to leave any DNA where the investigators could collect it at his own home. Wouldn't be looking through the trash at the parents unless they had a good sample from the knife sheath to check against. Once they had the DNA from the parent's trash, they met the threshold for a seach warrant and could collect a sample from him as well as search his home.
 
As Kohberger (not KoLberger) was working on his PhD in criminal justice, he'd be well aware of how DNA is left and can be used to identify a suspect. He'd have taken precautions not to leave any, but not even someone with his knowledge is immune from making a critical mistake in the heat of the moment. His would be leaving the knife sheath behind.
 
Stacyhs said:
As Kohberger (not KoLberger) was working on his PhD in criminal justice, he'd be well aware of how DNA is left and can be used to identify a suspect. He'd have taken precautions not to leave any, but not even someone with his knowledge is immune from making a critical mistake in the heat of the moment. His would be leaving the knife sheath behind.
Click to expand...

Agreed. He would have been aware the sheath was missing. And that's probably also why they tracked him to his parent's house to collect trash for DNA testing. Likely super careful not to leave anything around back where he lived but wasn't so careful where he though he was safe far away. Looks like really good detective work.
 
Stacyhs said:
As Kohberger (not KoLberger)
Click to expand...
Thanks, I wasn't paying close attention.


Stacyhs said:
... was working on his PhD in criminal justice, he'd be well aware of how DNA is left and can be used to identify a suspect. He'd have taken precautions not to leave any, but not even someone with his knowledge is immune from making a critical mistake in the heat of the moment. His would be leaving the knife sheath behind.
Click to expand...
I thought it was odd about the knife sheath being left behind but given one of the non-murdered roommates saw him I imagine he left in a hurry, leaving the knife sheath behind by mistake.

He made other mistakes like his car being seen in the area of the crime and his cellphone traced
near the crime scene "on at least twelve occasions before November 13, 2022. All of those occasions, except for one, occurred in the late evening and early morning hours …"
Click to expand...
 
Chris_Halkides said:
This issue has come up in at least one trial in 2022, in which an expert in DNA profiling was called to testify for the defense. Regarding this topic, I would say that I only know enough to be dangerous, but even that would be an exaggeration.
Click to expand...

It comes up all the time with y-STR evidence as that type of DNA test isn't useful in differentiating along the male lineage. y-STR gets used in a lot of rape cases because it's the only way to get a testable sample when looking for male DNA that is mixed in with a ton of female DNA.

Plus they usually have to amplify the DNA (PCR) to read it which makes it less clear what is a matching allele and what is an artifact.

In this case the known suspect sample is good and it depends on the quality of the unknown sample. Unless they are total muppets the numbers the lab is throwing around implies a high quality.
 
The John Puckett case and database problems

We are all agreed that YSTR testing is much less discriminating than autosomal profiling; moreover, the calculation is performed differently. To the best of my understanding, the problem to which Planigale alluded is entirely different. Let me present a little background from memory. John Puckett was convicted of rape in San Francisco in the 1970s. Many years later he was put on trial for a murder (and rape?) of Diane Sylvester on the basis of a partial profile. The profile was either 5 and 1/2 or 7 loci, depending upon how one called the peaks. Link

"One of the prosecution’s DNA experts testified that the chances of a random match to the DNA recovered from Sylvester was 1.1 million to one. Another gave his own “likelihood ratio” as 1 in 152 billion. The jury convicted Puckett, but only after sending a note to the court asking how he had become a suspect – a question the judge refused to answer.

"At a pretrial hearing, Bicka Barlow, a DNA specialist for the San Francisco public defender’s office who has a master’s degree in genetics, had testified that the match probability statistics were wrong. The problem was that the 1 in 1.1 million statistic applied to a random match to a single individual. That doesn’t hold true when you began comparing DNA profiles with huge databases of DNA samples. Then, according to two panels of scientific experts convened by the FBI and the National Research Council, the chances of a random individual match should be multiplied by the number of samples in the database. That would change the odds of an innocent person receiving a DNA hit in Puckett’s case from 1 in 1.1 million to approximately one in three. Yes, one in three.

"But the judge in Puckett’s trial never let the jury hear about this statistical disparity. He ruled it was inadmissible. He also ruled that the jury could not hear about the person the police originally suspected in Sylvester’s murder before the DNA hit on Puckett. Police had arrested Robert Baker, a street artist who had escaped from a mental institution, for a rape that occurred four blocks from Sylvester’s apartment two weeks before her murder." (highlighting mine)

From talking to an expert recently, I understand that there are now three schools of thought regarding database searching.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
We are all agreed that YSTR testing is much less discriminating than autosomal profiling; moreover, the calculation is performed differently. To the best of my understanding, the problem to which Planigale alluded is entirely different. Let me present a little background from memory. John Puckett was convicted of rape in San Francisco in the 1970s. Many years later he was put on trial for a murder (and rape?) of Diane Sylvester on the basis of a partial profile. The profile was either 5 and 1/2 or 7 loci, depending upon how one called the peaks. Link

"One of the prosecution’s DNA experts testified that the chances of a random match to the DNA recovered from Sylvester was 1.1 million to one. Another gave his own “likelihood ratio” as 1 in 152 billion. The jury convicted Puckett, but only after sending a note to the court asking how he had become a suspect – a question the judge refused to answer.

"At a pretrial hearing, Bicka Barlow, a DNA specialist for the San Francisco public defender’s office who has a master’s degree in genetics, had testified that the match probability statistics were wrong. The problem was that the 1 in 1.1 million statistic applied to a random match to a single individual. That doesn’t hold true when you began comparing DNA profiles with huge databases of DNA samples. Then, according to two panels of scientific experts convened by the FBI and the National Research Council, the chances of a random individual match should be multiplied by the number of samples in the database. That would change the odds of an innocent person receiving a DNA hit in Puckett’s case from 1 in 1.1 million to approximately one in three. Yes, one in three.

"But the judge in Puckett’s trial never let the jury hear about this statistical disparity. He ruled it was inadmissible. He also ruled that the jury could not hear about the person the police originally suspected in Sylvester’s murder before the DNA hit on Puckett. Police had arrested Robert Baker, a street artist who had escaped from a mental institution, for a rape that occurred four blocks from Sylvester’s apartment two weeks before her murder." (highlighting mine)

From talking to an expert recently, I understand that there are now three schools of thought regarding database searching.
Click to expand...

It's been a running battle. It looks like the simple product rule has finally started to fall out of favor. The Idaho lab getting into "octillions" is to me a red flag that they are trying to use the simple product rule. Which IMO brings their general competency into question.


The irony is that coincidental matches are the weak spot of all forensic science but we only really wind up arguing about it with DNA because it has some level of measurable objectivity. Number of loci, etc. Yet DNA rests on way solid ground than a lot of forensic sciences.

As opposed to something like fingerprints (also ballistics, tool mark evidence, etc.) which are shaky at best and there really isn't that objective foothold to determine how quantity and quality of points of comparison lead to a probability of coincidental match. So experts testify in terms of absolute certainty and it is a continuing struggle to point out how absolutely absurd that is.
 
Planigale said:
If the defence is correct that the grand jury was misdirected in the required standard to bring forward an indictment then they are doing their job in appealing this.
Click to expand...

The judge (Judge Judge?!) has ordered the GJ records partially released:

Judge rules to release redacted Grand Jury proceedings and records in case against Bryan Kohberger

Judge John Judge has ruled that the records and transcripts from the Grand Jury proceedings that led to the indictment of Bryan Kohberger be released, albeit redacted.

The deliberations will not be part of the records released, and the names of the impaneled grand jurors will be redacted.

The State had also asked that information included in Exhibit A of the proceedings be sealed, only to be shared with attorneys and experts, and the information contained in the exhibit is not to be made public.

The order also releases copies of other exhibits from the grand jury hearings and copies of juror questionnaires, with the understanding the information is to remain confidential.

Select portions of witness testimony that are redacted will be allowed to be shared with that specific witness, but will remain unavailable to the public.

The ruling in the defense team's third motion to compel, requesting information regarding DNA findings, is still pending.
Click to expand...

The defense is arguing this:

Defense attorneys argue the Idaho state Constitution sets the standard of proof for a grand jury at beyond a reasonable doubt. But the grand jury in the case against Kohberger was given the lower standard required for an archaic process called a presentment, which requires a preliminary hearing. In turn, failing to properly instruct the grand jury is grounds for a dismissal of the indictment, the defense argues.

Idaho’s criminal procedure law defines a presentment as a formal statement by the grand jury indicating to the court a crime has been committed, and there are “reasonable grounds” that the person named in the presentment committed the crime.

Bryan Kohberger enters the courtroom for his arraignment hearing in Latah County District Court, Monday, May 22, 2023, in Moscow, Idaho, U.S. Kohberger is accused of killing four University of Idaho students in November 2022.
Why judges use gag orders in high-profile cases like the Idaho student killings
In comparison, an indictment – under Idaho law – is a written accusation presented by the grand jury “charging a person with a public offense.”

Kohberger’s attorneys argue the indictment should either be dismissed or be treated as a presentment and have a preliminary hearing. They acknowledge in the motion that the “Defense recognizes that the whole of modern jurisprudence on this issue is against it.”
Click to expand...

Is that last sentence an admission that the defense knows their basis for dismissal isn't well grounded?
 
Kohberger's defense lawyers are claiming his alibi is that he had a habit of taking long drives but they can't say exactly where. :confused:
 
From Stacy's citation above:

In turn, failing to properly instruct the grand jury is grounds for a dismissal of the indictment, the defense argues.
Click to expand...
To which the prosecutor simply refiles the charges. This is not a double jeopardy case.
 
Stacyhs said:
Kohberger's defense lawyers are claiming his alibi is that he had a habit of taking long drives but they can't say exactly where. :confused:
Click to expand...


They're clutching at straws, because that's all they have. Which reminds me of the time I asked my commercial law professor what he would do if he were Timothy McVeigh's attorney. He replied, "Nothing. There's nothing to do. He's hanging out all over the place."
 
SpitfireIX said:
They're clutching at straws, because that's all they have.
Click to expand...
Makes me wonder if Kohberger is still having his lawyers work on getting him off? Did he tell them he didn't do it? Did they not ask him directly but rather offer him several approaches they could take?

Or is this just standard stuff before the attorneys move on to mitigating circumstances like he's crazy or his parents abused him?

Just what does a defense attorney tell their client who is guilty of 4 horrible murders ... allegedly?
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Makes me wonder if Kohberger is still having his lawyers work on getting him off? Did he tell them he didn't do it? Did they not ask him directly but rather offer him several approaches they could take?

Or is this just standard stuff before the attorneys move on to mitigating circumstances like he's crazy or his parents abused him?

Just what does a defense attorney tell their client who is guilty of 4 horrible murders ... allegedly?
Click to expand...

The job of the defence is to challenge the prosecution, whether their client is in fact guilty is immaterial, if the prosecution is unable to prove the guilt in court then the jury will not return a guilty verdict. The defence should test and challenge each part of the prosecution's case.

To some extent tis may also in the US system part of negotiating a plea deal; if the defence can make the prosecution's case weaker then the prosecution may be prepared to offer a better deal.
 
I don't think a defense attorney generally asks their client if they're guilty or not. And no defendant who is not pleading guilty would tell his lawyer he is guilty.
 
Planigale said:
The job of the defence is to challenge the prosecution, whether their client is in fact guilty is immaterial, if the prosecution is unable to prove the guilt in court then the jury will not return a guilty verdict. The defence should test and challenge each part of the prosecution's case.

To some extent tis may also in the US system part of negotiating a plea deal; if the defence can make the prosecution's case weaker then the prosecution may be prepared to offer a better deal.
Click to expand...
Stacyhs said:
I don't think a defense attorney generally asks their client if they're guilty or not. And no defendant who is not pleading guilty would tell his lawyer he is guilty.
Click to expand...
Matthew Best said:
But the word "guilty" is a legal term. A defendant might say they'd "done it", but still not be "guilty" legally.
Click to expand...
Somewhere my point was missed. Yes, yes, I know all that.

In order to properly defend a defendant the lawyer really should know the facts, however, but that wasn't what I was getting at.

It's typical for a defense attorney to put forth a not guilty plea no matter what at the arraignment. Even if a defendant says they want to plead guilty the attorney would advise the person to wait.

What struck me as odd here was the claim the defendant likes to drive around at night. That was an attempt to impeach the evidence his car was near the murder scene repeatedly before the murder was committed. That's different from just saying 'not guilty' and asking for bail (even if it's not expected to be granted).

If Kohberger told the lawyer he didn't do it then I could see such a claim about driving around. It made me curious. That's all. If it made anyone else curious I'd be interested in their thoughts.
 
Last edited:
If the only evidence was proximity to the crime scene I can see how the " driving around " defense might be useful. Otherwise, I don't see it being any more useful than the " I didn't do it. " defense.
 
Stacyhs said:

Is that last sentence an admission that the defense knows their basis for dismissal isn't well grounded?
Click to expand...

It is arguing for a change in the law. If a lawyer has a good faith belief that the existing caselaw is wrong they argue that. They still have to acknowledge that the existing caselaw disagrees with them.

These motions are necessary to set up appeals meant to change the state of the law.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Somewhere my point was missed. Yes, yes, I know all that.

In order to properly defend a defendant the lawyer really should know the facts, however, but that wasn't what I was getting at.

It's typical for a defense attorney to put forth a not guilty plea no matter what at the arraignment. Even if a defendant says they want to plead guilty the attorney would advise the person to wait.
Click to expand...

More than that.

In a serious felony case were a defendant try to plead guilty at arraignment the judge would just enter a not guilty plea on their behalf and move on. Pleading to a felony requires so many safeguards that these arraignment pleas are in real terms ceremonial. I mean, except for media being able to use "Joe Blow Denies Ritual Killing" as a headline.
What struck me as odd here was the claim the defendant likes to drive around at night. That was an attempt to impeach the evidence his car was near the murder scene repeatedly before the murder was committed. That's different from just saying 'not guilty' and asking for bail (even if it's not expected to be granted).
Click to expand...
In a lot of jurisdictions they use the strength of evidence as a bail factor. The state says the car was there, the defense says something like this. Without a transcript or motion it's hard to say whether the defense was making an affirmative claim or just pointing out the weakness of the state's factual assertion.
If Kohberger told the lawyer he didn't do it then I could see such a claim about driving around. It made me curious. That's all. If it made anyone else curious I'd be interested in their thoughts.
Click to expand...

It's likely that the attorney said something more along the lines of "so what, people like to drive around" to the state's representation of the evidence than an affirmative claim. Somewhere in between, really.

Reading media reports of preliminary matters requires several grains of salt. There is this combination of ignorance, imprecision, and need to grab eyeballs that causes these reports to read like they come from an alternative universe. At least from the perspective of the people trying the case.

.
 
Planigale said:
The job of the defence is to challenge the prosecution, whether their client is in fact guilty is immaterial, if the prosecution is unable to prove the guilt in court then the jury will not return a guilty verdict. The defence should test and challenge each part of the prosecution's case.

To some extent tis may also in the US system part of negotiating a plea deal; if the defence can make the prosecution's case weaker then the prosecution may be prepared to offer a better deal.
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

The US adversarial system is gross in a ton of ways but most of the hate gets directed towards the defense attorney role when that role, as distasteful as it can sometimes seem, is necessary to prevent the system from collapsing into a full on police state.

I'd be all for comprehensive reform into a more inquisitorial system aimed at reaching the truth rather than what amounts to a game. Just kneecapping criminal defense alone isn't going to do anything but make the system worse.

It is unfortunate that high profile cases such as this one shape the public perception of the criminal justice system when these cases have little resemblance to the vast majority of criminal cases.
 
Suddenly said:
Pretty much.

The US adversarial system is gross in a ton of ways but most of the hate gets directed towards the defense attorney role when that role, as distasteful as it can sometimes seem, is necessary to prevent the system from collapsing into a full on police state.

I'd be all for comprehensive reform into a more inquisitorial system aimed at reaching the truth rather than what amounts to a game. Just kneecapping criminal defense alone isn't going to do anything but make the system worse.

It is unfortunate that high profile cases such as this one shape the public perception of the criminal justice system when these cases have little resemblance to the vast majority of criminal cases.
Click to expand...

The weaknesses in the inquisitorial system are why Italy moved to the adversarial system.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
In order to properly defend a defendant the lawyer really should know the facts, however, but that wasn't what I was getting at.
Click to expand...

A good lawyer needs to know if their client did the crime. If the client did it, they will defend one way, and if they didn't they will defend another way. We should assume this conversation has happened between the defendant and his council.

It's typical for a defense attorney to put forth a not guilty plea no matter what at the arraignment. Even if a defendant says they want to plead guilty the attorney would advise the person to wait.
Click to expand...

Not always. Depends of the crime and the weight of the known evidence against the defendant.

What struck me as odd here was the claim the defendant likes to drive around at night. That was an attempt to impeach the evidence his car was near the murder scene repeatedly before the murder was committed. That's different from just saying 'not guilty' and asking for bail (even if it's not expected to be granted).
Click to expand...

The statement came in a rebuttal to the prosecution's demand for either an alibi, or the promise that the defense wasn't going to spring one on them in the middle of the trial. The statement about late night driving is more of an indication of what the state's evidence in regards to traffic and security camera footage the state has that shows him leaving Pullman, driving around Moscow, and returning to Pullman. In doing so, the defense wandered into a mine field as now they state can look at his cellphone data, and whatever black-box data they've pulled from the Elantra to see if he did in fact drive around a lot at night (which he probably did), but can also see if he was in the habit of turning off his phone on these drives. The other problem is he would have had to drive somewhere, and there would be video of his car at this location.

This is why you remain silent. The state has to prove their case, you're innocent until a jury says otherwise.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Somewhere my point was missed. Yes, yes, I know all that.

In order to properly defend a defendant the lawyer really should know the facts, however, but that wasn't what I was getting at.

It's typical for a defense attorney to put forth a not guilty plea no matter what at the arraignment. Even if a defendant says they want to plead guilty the attorney would advise the person to wait.

What struck me as odd here was the claim the defendant likes to drive around at night. That was an attempt to impeach the evidence his car was near the murder scene repeatedly before the murder was committed. That's different from just saying 'not guilty' and asking for bail (even if it's not expected to be granted).

If Kohberger told the lawyer he didn't do it then I could see such a claim about driving around. It made me curious. That's all. If it made anyone else curious I'd be interested in their thoughts.
Click to expand...

The issue about the alibi came up after the arraignment. At the arraignment he stood mute, which resulted in plea of not guilty being entered.

During pre-trial the defense is required to identify certain defenses that it will raise at trial. This allows the prosecution to prepare for those defenses. The defense indicated that they would use an alibi defense.

The prosecution asked where and where they are claiming he was. The defense is being vague. They say he was driving around late that night. They
say they don't have witnesses for his precise location for each moment. They say evidence may come from cross examination of state's witnesses or defense expert witnesses.

That sounds like they are going to say he was driving that night, which matches his cell phone records, but that the car at the house was not his. I expect they will ask witnesses about the number of similar cars registered in the state. The affidavit for the arrest warrant says even after they narrowed it down they were still looking into thousands of cars. There could have been several similar or identical cars driving in town that night. That is reasonable doubt that the car at the house was his car.

Being so vague probably indicates that they don't have any evidence to prove exactly where he was driving. They are probably hoping beyond hope that something turns up like a video of another identical car driving around at the same time. Otherwise, they was to see the prosecution's evidence first and then try to poke holes in that or maybe pick out some videos and say that is his car but in these other videos it is a different car. That depends on exactly what they get from the prosecution.

The thing I am still curious about is the license plate. Nothing about the plate was mentioned at all in the warrant affidavit. He had a Pennsylvania plate at the time. Even if the cameras didn't pick up the plate number, I would think one of the videos would be clear enough to identify the state.
 
Stacyhs said:
The weaknesses in the inquisitorial system are why Italy moved to the adversarial system.
Click to expand...

I am not crazy about the inquisitorial system because you have the problem of the biases of the people doing the inquisition.
The inquistional system looks fine on paper, but, as with many schemes on paper, human beings mess it up.
The Adversarial systems has problems, but IMHO works better then the inquistorial system.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
I don't think a defense attorney generally asks their client if they're guilty or not. And no defendant who is not pleading guilty would tell his lawyer he is guilty.
Click to expand...

My Attroney Kid Sister said that Lawyer who only defended innocent clients would starve to death very quickly.
 
Stacyhs said:
They'll try to cast doubt by saying it was contamination. But the hurdle to overcome is that he was never in the house before so how would his DNA be innocently transferred?
Click to expand...

In the lab, like the way they framed OJ. :rolleyes:

I suspect they'll argue it was trace DNA. Juries get confused. But this guy is no OJ and the jurors in the pool are going to be vicious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom