Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
this episode, we're going to dive right back into those
core documents and we're going to take a look at
an C. Taylor's declaration in support of defendants third Motion
to Compel Case number c R twenty nine DASH twenty
two DASH zero zero zero two eight zero five. State
of Idaho Plaintiff first Brian C. Coberger, the defendant I
and C. Taylor do state and declare one. Council for
mister Colberger filed a specific request for discovery related to
the DNA in this case, titled Defendant's third Supplemental Request
for Discovery two. The State filed a specific response to
that request. After reviewing the materials provided. The following remains
to be discovered. A request three profiles uploaded to a
DNA database. The State has provided information related to this
request for the seized item, the knife sheath only. The
defense has requested all DNA profiles, including three additional unidentified
mail DNA profiles developed during the course of law enforcement's investigation.
This information has not been supplied. B Request six Communications.
The State has not provided all emails, text messages, electronic messages,
or other messages and conversations regarding biological testing in this investigation.
See Requests nine to ten Unexpected Results and corrective Actions.
This request has been partially complied with. However, the response
lacks the full scope of the request. Six months before
and six months after testing related to this investigation, Further
information relating to all lab personnel has not been provided. Three.
Part of the third supplemental discovery request was for materials
related to genetic genealogy testing A. The State is objected
to this request in its entirety and has filed a
motion for a protective order. Counsel for mister Colberger requests
this Court consider the contemporaneous objection to the State's motion
and declaration in support of the motion to compel. The
requested discovery is properly sought. Pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule sixteen.
This discovery is necessary to the preparation of mister Colberger's defense. One.
Council for mister Colberger has reviewed the materials provided in
the case regarding the DNA testing laboratory reports, bench notes,
and photographs. Further experts in the field of genetic genealogy
and DNA have consulted and offered information and guidance. The
state acknowledges it used genetic genealogy testing in this case,
but claims it does not have to produce the records.
In the specific request for discovery, the defense disagrees two
Council has learned through consultation with experts and sources reference below,
that the use of genetic genealogy databases does not necessarily
lead to a single individual as a potential suspect, and
that reports of these searches often reference multiple individuals for
further investigation and DNA testing. In fact, the state acknowledges
such in its motion for protective order when it acknowledges
hundreds of relatives Page five Motion for Protection Order. The
testing conducted by a private lab is completely different in
nature than the testing done by forensic labs. Genetic genealogy
labs do not generate a profile in the same way
that forensic labs do, and there cannot be a direct
comparison between the data obtained in this case by the
Idaho State Forensic Crime Lab and the private lab. The
tests used by a private lab are either SNP single
nucleotide polymorphisms or whole genome sequencing. These tests are similar
to the methods used by commercial services such as twenty
three and meters and ancestry dot com. Now you see
why I added the Beginner's Guide to DNA for people
who might not have any idea what we're talking about.
That'll give you a bit of a reference point. Three.
Based upon information from experts in the field, I have
learned that once a genetic genealogy profile is created and
the testing by the private lab is completed, the profile
is uploaded to a database that contains similar data from
other individuals. Once the genetic genealogy profile is uploaded, the
profile is compared within that database and relatives are identified.
Number four. It is my understanding that once possible relatives
have been identified, their identities are used to construct a
family tree to identify possible suspects, using public records and
in some instances contacting individuals for further family information. This
process leads to a pool of individuals rather than one
specific individual. The possibility of other relatives who might be
similar to mister Colberger is extremely important to the defense
in this case. The processes used in this method of
identification may be extremely important to mister Colberger's defense. The
timing and steps utilized are extremely important to mister Colberger's
investigation and defense. Five. I have reviewed a copy of
an Idaho State Police announcement dated July twenty eighth, twenty
twenty one that the Idaho State Police Forensic Service Laboratory
secured a grant the fund genetic genealogy testing for unsolved
Idaho cases see attached exhibit A. ISPFS contracted with Authrum
Laboratories in Texas. The bad news for the defense here
Authroom is one of the premier laboratories in the business.
And if AM's getting the results they're getting, chances are
your client's cooked. Number six. The US Department of Justice
issued its Interim Policy for Forensic Genetic Genealogical DNA Analysis
and Search in twenty nineteen. The policy describes the process
that law enforcement engages in during these searches and the results.
In limitations of the method, the identified individuals are one
or more or genetic associations. That means that the door
of the forensic or a reference sample may be related
to a service user emphasis added, which may require additional
investigative work and testing. If a suspect is identified, the
agency is required to retain all FGG profiles, account information
and data for potential use during prosecution and subsequent judicial proceedings.
See attached Exhibit B number seven. A new collaborative, National
Technology Validation and Implementation Collaborative was established in twenty twenty two.
Its purpose is to collaborate and formulate methods and policy
for labs and law enforcement to establish forensic investigative genetic
genealogy programs. The collaborative contributed to a forensic science journal.
The publication includes contributors from Idaho Aileen noauln Idaho State
Police Forensic Services, and Alana Minton, Office of the Attorney General,
State of Idaho. This publication includes reference to the aforementioned
US Department of Justice interim policy. Of particular note is
the policy of release of information in accordance with rules
of discovery see attached Exhibit C number eight. I am
aware of specific news reports in this case regarding mister
Coberger's DNA, as published by The New York Times on
June eleventh, twenty twenty three, that FBI personnel work with
the profile that Atham had produced, spending days building out
a family tree that began with distant relatives number nine.
The New York Times source have more information than the
State has disclosed to the defense. This New York Times
article generated intense media coverage and interest, the scope of
which is explained in the true scope report attached as
Exhibit D Number ten. In addition, mister Coberger's defense team
has discussed the use of stats in this type of
case with experts who have informed me that the manner
of identifying mister Coberger via this type of search may
have significant impacts on the statistical analysis of the CODIS
profile generated by the Idaho State Police Lab. Without access
to the actual genetic genealogy search methods and results, it
is impossible for qualified experts to address these issues. Number eleven,
Council for mister Colberger notes that the state utilized a
statistical analysis number to claim a high likelihood of a
match between the DNA on the sheath and that of
mister Coburger. The State, by its own admission, has taken
a number of steps to identify mister Coberger as a match.
The statistical probability is not an absolute The size of
comparison sample and the nature of the search are important
to ascertain conclusion bias, and finally, number twelve, mister Coberger
has a right to effective assistance of council. He has
a right to confront evidence. Counsel must undertake a thorough
investigation of all parts of the case the state brings
against mister Coburger. As such, the genetic genealogy investigation and
process is necessary for the defense team to do its job.
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is
true and correct, and that those matters stated upon information
and belief are true to the best of my knowledge.
Dated this twenty second day of June and signed by
Anne Taylor. All Right, folks, that's going to do it
for this one. All of the information that goes with
this episode can be found in the description box Hello
and