BOISE, Idaho — A judge says a former roommate of four University of Idaho students who were killed in 2022 can testify about seeing an intruder with “bushy eyebrows” around the time of the crime.
Defense attorneys for Bryan Kohberger had asked 4th District Judge Steven Hippler during a hearing earlier this month to bar any evidence referencing “bushy eyebrows,” because they say the roommate’s description is unreliable and irrelevant to the case.
But in a ruling released Friday, Hippler said the testimony can be used during Kohberger’s trial on four murder charges set to begin later this year.
Kohberger, 30, is charged with murder in the stabbing deaths of Ethan Chapin, Xana Kernodle, Madison Mogen and Kaylee Goncalves at a rental home near campus in Moscow, Idaho.
Kohberger, then a criminal justice graduate student at Washington State University, was arrested in Pennsylvania weeks after the deaths. Investigators said they matched his DNA to genetic material recovered from a knife sheath found at the crime scene.
When asked to enter a plea to the charges, Kohberger stood silent, prompting the judge to enter a not guilty plea on his behalf.
The roommate told police she saw someone wearing black clothing and a ski mask inside the home she shared with four roommates sometime before 4:19 a.m. on the day of the killings, according to court documents.
She was intoxicated at the time, and told police she couldn’t remember any other facial characteristics but that the intruder’s bushy eyebrows stood out in her memory.
Kohberger’s defense attorneys noted that the roommate also constantly questioned what she saw, that her attention was influenced by sleepiness and alcohol, and that her opportunity to see the intruder was seconds at most.
Allowing her to testify about bushy eyebrows when she couldn’t provide enough details to allow a police artist to do a composite sketch would be unfair and prejudicial, causing a jury to believe Kohberger is guilty because of his eyebrows, his attorneys said.
But the judge disagreed.
“There is a large gulf between a finding that a witness is not competent to testify about what they personally witnessed, and simply allowing impeachment by vigorous cross-examination,” Hippler wrote. “This is a matter for cross-examination.”
Hippler also said that if Kohberger is convicted, his defense team can’t use his medical diagnoses to explain his “courtroom demeanor” unless Kohberger takes the stand during the penalty phase.
Prosecutors had asked the judge to bar any testimony during the penalty phase about Kohberger’s autism spectrum disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, as well as the developmental coordination disorder that Kohberger may have experienced in childhood.
The prosecution team said they didn’t want mental conditions to be used to try to limit Kohberger’s culpability if he is convicted.
But the defense team said they didn’t plan on doing that at all, and that instead his autism spectrum diagnosis would be used to explain some of Kohberger’s courtroom demeanor, like his tendency to hold eye contact for longer than expected, his ability to sit very still and his stoicism.
The judge said he hadn’t noticed any strange behavior.
“Not once has the Court perceived Defendant to be acting in an odd or incongruent manner or otherwise demonstrating signs at counsel table that would warrant any explanation to the jury. His demeanor has been entirely appropriate,” Hippler wrote.
Introducing evidence about the autism spectrum diagnosis would likely confuse the jury and take up an undue amount of time in an already long trial, he said.
Still, the judge said, Kohberger’s demeanor might become relevant if he takes the stand to testify. Kohberger’s OCD diagnosis also might be relevant at some point, Hippler said, particularly since the defense team has said it causes Kohberger to experience sleep difficulties that led to a habit of nighttime driving and running to decompress.
If those scenarios arise during the trial, the judge said the attorneys should bring up the matter to him — outside the presence of the jury — so he can make a decision on whether the evidence should be introduced at that time.