The defense team for Bryan Kohberger has raised concerns about the possibility of a tainted jury, due to the amount of information already in the public domain. According to the podcast "Hidden Killers" with Tony Brueski and former prosecutor Laurie Gilbertson, the defense is worried that potential jurors have already heard and know too much about Kohberger. The defense has made many comments and complaints about the situation, and they were the side that requested a gag order to prevent any further information from coming out from either side or even the victim's families.
 
 “It’s interesting here because the defense… asked for there not to be anything coming out from either side or even the victim's families. So that would really lead to not at all tainting the jury pool,” said Gilbertson. Despite the concerns, Gilbertson believes that the court has taken appropriate precautions, including the gag order, to ensure the jury pool is not tainted. “I don’t think that concerns from the defense regarding a tainted jury pool are really that valid here,” she added.
 
 Another point of discussion on the podcast was the use of expert witnesses, especially those whose expertise could be questionable. For example, the case involved a self-taught genealogist, Gabriela Vargas, who began working on cases just in 2018. Despite being relatively new to the field and running a carpentry business as a side hustle, she was called upon as an expert witness. Brueski raised questions about the validity of such experts, saying, “Should there be stricter rules on who's getting up on the stand and claiming to be an expert?”
 
 Gilbertson explained that the process of qualifying an expert involves going through their work experience, education, publications, peer-reviewed papers, teaching experience, and the specificity and backing of their expertise. After this, the opposing side has an opportunity to cross-examine, and then the judge makes a determination on whether the person can be deemed an expert. “This person, I will deem them an expert… they are able to offer an opinion to the jury that the jury can then consider that will be relevant, that will be credible, and that is based on all of their knowledge and experience,” she explained.
 
 However, Gilbertson also noted that while legally an expert opinion holds no greater weight than a layperson's, the public perception may differ. “Calling someone an expert in lay terms tends to kind of give the public that idea. So, yeah. Can that taint the jury pool? In my opinion, it doesn't taint it too well for the person calling her as an expert,” she remarked.
 
 In the end, regardless of what is heard outside the courtroom, the jury will be instructed about all these matters by the judge, who will clarify what it means if someone is called or denied being called an expert. This, Gilbertson believes, will ensure that the jury makes decisions based on clear and accurate information.
 
 As the trial for Bryan Kohberger continues, concerns about a tainted jury and the qualifications of expert witnesses remain key issues that the court must navigate carefully to ensure a fair trial. Whether or not the defense’s concerns are well-founded, it is clear that the court is taking precautions to address these issues and ensure a fair and just process for all parties involved.
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, Awaiting Admission: BTK’s Unconfessed Crimes, 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