The most recent episode of "Hidden Killers" podcast, hosted by Tony Brueski, delved deep into the controversial DNA profiling issues in the case against Brian Kohberger. The central point of the discussion revolved around a motion filed on behalf of Kohberger's defense, demanding the state to disclose the DNA profiles used in the investigation. Bob Motta, a veteran defense attorney and host of the "Defense Diaries" podcast, was on hand to shed light on this intricate legal battle.
 
 Motta began by affirming, "Now, obviously I'm a defense attorney. So I'm a bit biased in that and I've been in these battles with the state for 20 plus years in terms of what they're gonna turn over or what they're not going to turn over." He highlighted the state's stance: that since they now possess Kohberger's buccal swab and profile, the DNA in question would not be introduced at the trial. The argument thus stands - why would the defense need it?
 
 The DNA at the heart of the debate isn't just any regular genetic information, but genealogical DNA, which is employed to build familial trees from a profile, pinpointing potential offenders. Motta states, "You're talking about this family tree being built from a profile and that's how they're getting to all these offenders. It's, it's an incredible resource and tool for law enforcement." This tool has recently proved instrumental in solving cold cases and identifying missing individuals missing for decades.
 
 However, the ability of law enforcement agencies to access and utilize such data isn't without its detractors. A pivotal point Motta emphasized upon was the potential breach of the Fourth Amendment rights. The argument is nuanced; when genetic information is used to trace a family tree, it draws upon shared DNA across multiple generations. As Motta elucidated, "My Y S T R. Is shared with my father and my grandfather and my great-grandfather and everyone on the male line all the way down." Therefore, there's an argument to be made about individuals having a privacy interest in a third party's DNA because of this shared genetic lineage.
 
 The debate further deepens when considering the plethora of databases available. While law enforcement maintains databases like CODIS, private databases, such as Ancestry and 23andMe, exist wherein individuals can opt to allow law enforcement to use their DNA profiles. The lines blur when it comes to the use of profiles from individuals who haven't given explicit consent.
 
 Another contentious point highlighted by Motta was the weight given to the DNA evidence in determining Kohberger's proximity to the crime scene. In his words, "take that [DNA] piece out...and you're basically left with just a guy driving around." Without the DNA evidence linking Kohberger directly inside the house, the case stands on shakier grounds, depending solely on phone pings and location data.
 
 While Motta acknowledges the significant leaning of evidence towards guilt, he insists that any judgments should be reserved until after the trial, "After the evidence has been vetted. Otherwise, we're all just guessing."
 
 As the debate around genealogical DNA and its implications in the legal world intensifies, it's evident that this case might just be the beginning of a series of legal battles aiming to clarify the blurry lines around genetic privacy and Fourth Amendment rights. Only time will tell how these issues are resolved, but what's certain is that the outcome will have long-lasting implications on how criminal investigations are conducted in the future.
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 Murde