Bryan Kohberger and his attorneys spent most of the day Thursday in an Ada County courtroom to argue motions related to the death penalty.Kohberger is currently set to start trial in Ada County on August 11, 2025. Hes charged with burglary and four counts of first-degree murder, accused of fatally stabbing University of Idaho students Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin in an off-campus home in November 2022.RELATED: Summer 2025 trial date set for Idaho student murder suspect Bryan Kohberger.Prosecutors first filed an intent to seek the death penalty in June 2023. Since then, Kohbergers attorneys have filed several motions in attempts to get the death penalty taken off the table. It was the center of discussions at Thursdays hearing.The defense hoped to call two experts to testify, but Judge Steven Hippler ultimately ruled not to allow the testimony.The first closed portion of the hearing focused on Kohberger's attire for future hearings. When the public portion of the hearing began at 9:10 a.m., the defendant was wearing a suit and tie in the courtroom.Judge Steven Hippler said Kohberger would be permitted to appear in street clothing for future hearings.RELATED: Kohberger's defense files motion to strike the state's notice of intent to seek death penalty.As arguments got underway Thursday morning, the state started with objections to allow the testimony of the defense's expert witness, forensic pathologist Barbara Wolf, saying it was far too early in the court process to take this testimony.Hippler agreed with those arguments, and Wolf did not testify. Defense attorney Ann Taylor then focused on the claims that Idaho is unable to properly execute death row inmates.Idaho does not have a current means of executing anybody, Taylor said. She continued arguing that keeping a person on death row without a way to carry out an execution is dehumanizing.Judge Steven Hippler cut Taylor off, saying Idaho does have legal means to seek execution, citing lethal injection and firing squad, indicating that the isolated incident regarding the failed execution attempt of Thomas Creech in February was an individual circumstance that would not apply in any other case.RELATED | Federal stay of execution granted for Creech after Idaho Supreme Court denies appealCreech's execution was called off after eight failed attempts to insert an IV line.Judge Hippler said that even if Kohberger is convicted, it would be 10+ years before an execution would be carried out, and "who knows" what methods would be in place at that time.Taylor argued the anxiety and "unknowing" of whether an execution would be carried out is cruel, unusual, and unconstitutional. Judge Hippler cited the state Supreme Court ruling just this week denying that same argument for Thomas Creech.RELATED: Motion for stay of Thomas Creech's execution denied by Idaho Supreme Court.The state expressed that the defenses arguments were too vague and should not be accepted. They havent even suggested what a proper alternative would be, and we dont even know decades from now what alternatives there would be, Deputy Attorney General Jeff Nye said.Hippler said the court would take those arguments into advisement and issue a decision later.The defense then pleaded with the judge to allow testimony from Professor Aliza Cover, whose research has examined capital punishment and constitutional law.I dont find that the testimony will be relevant or helpful for the court to decide this issue, Hippler ultimately said. "Opinions as to the law are generally not admissible by experts. The court is the determiner of questions of law and not someone else's opinion of what the law is; therefore (Wolf's) opinions are not relevant or helpful, and therefore not admissible," Hippler said.With no admissible expert testimony, the court then continued arguments for several motions filed by the defense to strike the death penalty. First, the defense argued on grounds of arbitrariness.Our definition is so broad that there is no narrowing there, the defense argued. Theres essentially no guidance.Kohberger was handcuffed and escorted out of the courtroom for a brief recess before discussions continued for motions to strike statutory aggravators, including utter disregard, multiple murders, how heinous or cruel an alleged crime was, and the defendant's 'future dangerousness'.The defense ultimately argued that each aggravator should be stricken because Idaho law is far too vague, and claimed applying the aggravators as written violates the Eighth Amendment.Deputy Attorney General Jeff Nye with the state argued that all the aggravators had been upheld in previous courts, and asked the judge to deny the defense's motions to strike the aggravators.Among other reasons, the defense wants the death penalty taken off the table for concerns regarding a death penalty-qualified jury.It goes to the point of why we are arguing all of these right now there's a huge difference between picking a death-qualifying jury and a non-capital qualified jury," the defense argued. "Death-qualified juries are highly likely to convict in the guilt-innocence phase, and we are very concerned about that."Taylor argued that if Kohberger went to trial at the initial October 2023 date in Latah County, he would have had to give up his right to a fair and impartial jury and effective counsel.The defense argued it is a conflict of constitutional rights specifically Kohberger having to choose between effective assistance of counsel or a speedy trial. In Idaho, a case must be brought to trial within roughly six months of an indictment unless a defendant waives their right to a speedy trial. However, the defense argues it's not possible to properly carry out that legal process for a death penalty case that quickly.Nye argued, "The real problem here that the defense is grasping with here is that they didn't have to waive his constitutional right, but they did."After a break for lunch, the defense continued arguments to strike the death penalty on the basis that it violates international law.Kohberger's attorneys argue that "Idahos death penalty procedure violates the provisions of international treaties and the fundamental precepts of international human rights", and because "international treaties ratified by the United States are binding on state courts, the imposition of the death penalty is unlawful."In addition to motions to strike the death penalty, Jay Logsdon, with Kohberger's defense team, argued a motion to trifurcate the proceedings, which would split the trial into three phases guilt, eligibility, and sentencing arguing it would make it easier for a jury to understand and carry out their duties.The studies have shown that juries really want to get these things right, but they really want to follow along," Logsdon said. "Oftentimes, the instructions that they get aren't really that clear, and I think adding to their book by cramming it all into one hearing is unnecessary.Nye argued it was unnecessary because the jurors would receive plenty of instruction. "The court can't just start with the assumption that jurors aren't going to follow the law or that it's simply too concerning or too confusing for the jurors. The jurors will receive instructions," Nye said.Judge Steven Hippler will consider all arguments and issue a ruling at a later date.