This is a special report from True Crime Today and the Hidden Killers podcast.

Brian Coburger back in court for another rather large motions hearing.

Let's take you to the courtroom right now.

Bushy eyebrows, I think is next.

This is a defense motion.

DM is considered an eyewitness.

An eyewitness testimony is some of, if not, the most impactful testimony in a trial.

The testimony must be subject to close scrutiny

before its admission is allowed. We seek that the use of the descriptor, bushy eyebrows,

be excluded from use at trial because the witness with this descriptor is completely uncertain of what she remembers,

and her description is derived from seeing the intruder for only a second.

Whether this court applies Manson Biggers, which I would say is not completely right on point

because there wasn't a photo lineup and there wasn't a show up or the court

considers the science behind memory. The criteria you must look at is what factors influence

the accuracy of the memory and make the testimony reliable because reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony.

Between Manson Biggers and the science of memory, there are several factors that are consistently considered,

and I'm going to go through a few of those.

Factor one. What was the opportunity to see?

This is also known as first phase of development of memory or the acquisition phase

and distance, lighting, and duration of exposure are important.

DM is uncertain about the lighting.

The stairs to her left were not lit. The kitchen may or may not have been lit and the twinkle lights in the living room may have been lit. She described seeing the person for quote, only a second, end quote. The person may have been three

...