Jaded Evidence · Interactive investigation
Franz and Theresia Kraus: Lorenz Kraus Prosecution
Albany County, New York
Current legal status: Pretrial; partial suppression ruling reported; January 11, 2027 trial reported.
Next event: January 11, 2027 — reported trial setting
Explore the people, chronology, evidence and court decisions below. Allegations, testimony, attorney positions and judicial conclusions are labeled separately.
02 | Victim background
Franz and Theresia Kraus were the defendant’s parents. The prosecution alleges that their son killed them and concealed their bodies at their Albany home. The precise findings on identification, cause and timing require the original forensic record.
03 | People and documented roles
Lorenz Kraus is the defendant. Judge William T. Little ruled on the disputed statements. Greg Floyd conducted the CBS6 interview that became a central subject of the suppression litigation.
View More — Defendant profile and legal posture
Pretrial; partial suppression ruling reported; January 11, 2027 trial reported.
A lawyer’s role, a charging decision and a judicial ruling are different kinds of information. The case file identifies only roles supported by the sources below.
04 | Interactive event-by-event timeline
Select an event to expand its evidence and limits. Future hearings and trial settings are identified as future events.
View More — 2017 — alleged period — Parents’ deaths alleged
Reporting describes the prosecution’s allegation that the parents were killed years before discovery.
Time: Exact time is not established in the reviewed sources.
Evidence / source: Times Union — October ruling and January setting
Disputed information / limits: This is an allegation, not a trial finding on timing or cause.
View More — 2025 — Televised interview and prosecution
Kraus made incriminating statements in a CBS6 interview; charges followed.
Time: Exact time is not established in the reviewed sources.
Evidence / source: Times Union — October ruling and January setting
Disputed information / limits: An incriminating statement still requires scrutiny and corroboration.
View More — October 3, 2026 — Partial suppression ruling reported
Coverage says the TV interview may be used while some later police statements were suppressed.
Time: Exact time is not established in the reviewed sources.
Evidence / source: CBS6 — October 3 admissibility report
Disputed information / limits: Admissibility is not a verdict that the statement is accurate.
View More — January 11, 2027 — Reported future trial
Times Union cites online court records for the January setting.
Time: Exact time is not established in the reviewed sources.
Evidence / source: Times Union — October ruling and January setting
Disputed information / limits: The signed scheduling order remains to be obtained.
05 | Investigation and evidence
Open an evidence card to see what the record supports and what still needs verification.
View More — Televised interview
The original recording and circumstances of the interview matter. Edited extracts do not replace the complete evidence.
View More — Police-station statements
The reported partial exclusion must be distinguished from the admitted TV interview.
View More — Forensic and financial proof
The indictment’s concealment and financial allegations need their own documentary support; statements alone should not be used to invent forensic findings.
06 | Prosecution and defense
View More — Prosecution position
The indictment includes murder allegations and related concealment and financial counts. Prosecutors seek to use Kraus’s televised statements as evidence.
View More — Defense position
Counsel argued that police involvement in arranging security for the interview made the setting relevant to constitutional interrogation protections. The court reportedly allowed the interview but excluded some later police-station statements.
07 | Trial testimony and courtroom developments
The October admissibility decision is the principal verified pretrial development. The full written decision is still needed for its precise scope.
View More — Read the proceeding in context
A reported question, an attorney’s argument, an admitted exhibit and a court’s finding are not interchangeable. Where a full transcript, exhibit or signed order has not been obtained, the gap is identified rather than filled with an inferred result.
08 | Verdicts, sentencing and appeals
No trial verdict or sentence is established. Kraus has pleaded not guilty.
View More — Outcome and source limits
January 11, 2027 — reported trial setting
Future settings can change. The sources identify whether this entry is based on a filed record, an official announcement or attributed court reporting. A source check does not establish that no later filing exists.
09 | Unresolved questions
- Retrieve the written suppression decision and indictment.
- Confirm the January trial order.
- Review identification, cause-of-death and financial exhibits independently of televised remarks.
10 | Court records and source documents
- CBS6 — October 3 admissibility report
- Times Union — October ruling and January setting
- CBS6 — January 21 suppression hearing
View More — Verification and editorial notes
This case file was reconciled with Jaded Evidence’s master trial records and the public sources listed above. The source descriptions preserve the difference between a primary court document, an official party announcement and reporting. A prosecution release states the prosecution’s account; it is not a substitute for a verdict.
The page links to available originals and clearly identified reporting. Missing transcripts, exhibits, expert reports or signed orders are listed as research gaps. No quotation, timestamp, forensic result or ruling is supplied from inference.