Bryan Kohberger’s legal defense team had sought to prevent prosecutors from describing him as a ‘psychopath’ or using specific terms that might prejudice the jury. However, the criminology Ph.D. student, who was later charged with four counts of first-degree murder, regularly searched for the term ‘psychopath’ and related content, according to digital forensics experts. The analysis of his computer suggested that he attempted to delete key evidence, including potential motive details, but retained searches for the term ‘psychopath’ and related terms like ‘psychopaths paranoid,’ as well as content around wiretapping and serial killer profiles.
Forensic expert Heather Barnhart, from Cellebrite, noted that the search for ‘psychopath’ was a normal word that Kohberger might have typed into a browser, which could have been linked to his academic research. However, the pattern of his frequent searches, coupled with his actions such as reading extensively about serial killers during Christmas night, raised concerns about his mental state and paranoia. The investigation also found that he deleted information, potentially including motive-related details, from his Google Chrome browser history between October 12 and November 16, even though the murders occurred around 4 a.m. on November 13.
Despite the defense’s efforts to block the use of the term ‘murder’ and ‘psychopath,’ Kohberger’s lawyers argued that such labels could unfairly prejudice the jury and deny him the presumption of innocence. However, these requests were denied, and he pleaded guilty to the four murder charges after his legal team could not prevent the use of critical evidence or the threat of the death penalty. The forensic analysis also suggested that the motive or reason behind the murders may have been erased, leaving the families of the victims without a clear explanation, which Barnhart described as the most significant loss in the case.
While the defense failed to secure the necessary judicial relief, Kohberger’s case continues to highlight the intersection of legal strategy, digital forensics, and the psychological aspects of the accused. The case also raises questions about the role of technology in understanding and analyzing criminal behavior, as well as the impact of media and public perception on the legal process.