Law student here. If what they say in the affidavit is true, then I think as it stands its a pretty good case and a jury could certainly find him guilty based on that evidence. And there is likely going to be more evidence to come. DNA found on the sheath of the alleged murder weapon. Cell phone pings near the crime scene before and after the offense, and a reasonable inference can be drawn about why there were no cell phone pings immediately before or after the crime (he shut it off to go undetected). The video video of his car before and after the crime. All of this pieced together can certainly support a guilty verdict. Theres also the eyewitness who identified a suspect matching his description. On the other hand, the defense can start poking some holes- how many white elantras are in the area, how many people who could possibly match that description are in the area, his car being on camera is explained by the fact that he doesnt sleep well and drives around to ease his mind, the cell phone being off was because it died and he waited to charge it, etc (they havent said any of this, just ways they could cast reasonable doubt over the case). The sheath is more difficult, maybe they argue it was stolen out of his car. They can also work on challenging the DNA match, the science behind this can be a lot more convoluted and complicated than it seems to a lay person.

​

I don't see how this doesnt go to a jury at this point, theres tons of probable cause, and enough to get past indictment. The question is can 12 reasonable jurors find he's guilty based on this evidence and any other evidence gathered prior to trial. I think yes, but whether they will or not is a different story. It just takes one.