Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Murder In Moscow: Trial Expert Bryan Edelman And The Affidavit In Support Of Kohberger (Part 7-11) (8/7/26)

Transcript

Murder In Moscow: Trial Expert Bryan Edelman And The Affidavit In Support Of Kohberger (Part 7-11) (8/7/26) · Beyond The Horizon

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
0:03
Speaker 1: this episode, we're picking up where we left off with
0:05
Speaker 1: the Brian Edelman Declaration in support of Brian Kolberger. Part
0:10
Speaker 1: six Telephone Survey. A telephone survey was conducted in Layta County.
0:15
Speaker 1: Comparison surveys were conducted in Ada County, Canyon, and Bannett Counties.
0:21
Speaker 1: Research Strategies Incorporated, which is based in Mobile, Alabama, was
0:24
Speaker 1: hired to field the telephone survey. Standard practices related to
0:28
Speaker 1: the development of the instrument, interviewer training, sampling, and callbacks
0:33
Speaker 1: were closely followed. The survey instrument and methodology adhere to
0:37
Speaker 1: the professional standards and guidelines put forth by the American
0:41
Speaker 1: Society of Trial Consultants. All recognition questions were designed to
0:46
Speaker 1: describe the case using the language found in the media coverage.
0:50
Speaker 1: The surveys were in the field between March fifth and
0:53
Speaker 1: July sixth of twenty twenty four. Ultimately, four hundred jury
0:57
Speaker 1: eligible residents in Leayta County, four hundred in Ada County,
1:01
Speaker 1: two hundred from Canyon County, and two hundred and two
1:04
Speaker 1: from Bannett County completed the survey. Case recognition it's my
1:08
Speaker 1: opinion that the results of the telephone survey indicate that
1:11
Speaker 1: there is a bias in Leayta County and the jury
1:14
Speaker 1: pool against the defendants stemming from exposure to pre trial publicity.
1:18
Speaker 1: Sensational crimes are more likely to have a longer lasting
1:21
Speaker 1: impact on the public's consciousness in smaller counties compare it
1:25
Speaker 1: to larger ones where violent crimes are more common. In addition,
1:28
Speaker 1: informal communication channels, including social media, can have a greater
1:32
Speaker 1: effect in spreading rumors and misinformation about a sensational crime
1:36
Speaker 1: such as this. Layta County is the eleventh largest county
1:40
Speaker 1: in Idaho, with just thirty two thousand, five hundred and
1:42
Speaker 1: fifteen residents over the age of eighteen. Sixty six percent
1:47
Speaker 1: or twenty one thousand, five hundred and ninety eight of
1:49
Speaker 1: its jury eligible population reside in Moscow, the community most
1:53
Speaker 1: traumatized by this crime. Leayta County residents have remained highly
1:57
Speaker 1: invested in this case despite the passage of time. Time
2:00
Speaker 1: almost all ninety eight percent jury eligible respondents were familiar
2:04
Speaker 1: with the case. In addition, approximately sixty eight percent of
2:07
Speaker 1: survey respondents reported that they have followed this case somewhat
2:11
Speaker 1: or very closely, with twenty nine percent falling into the
2:14
Speaker 1: latter category, presumption of guilt. The survey data also indicates
2:18
Speaker 1: that the presumption of innocence has been shifted to a
2:21
Speaker 1: presumption of guilt. Approximately sixty seven percent of perspective jurors
2:25
Speaker 1: who were familiar with the case believe that Brian Colberger
2:28
Speaker 1: is guilty of murder, with twenty five percent falling into
2:31
Speaker 1: the definitely guilty category. The presumption of guilt increased to
2:35
Speaker 1: eighty one percent for those who recognize seven or more
2:38
Speaker 1: media items tested in the survey. Furthermore, fifty one percent
2:42
Speaker 1: of those who have been exposed to media coverage reported
2:45
Speaker 1: that Colburger would have a difficult time convincing them that
2:48
Speaker 1: he is not guilty, with increased to sixty six percent
2:51
Speaker 1: for those who recognize seven or more media items. Just
2:55
Speaker 1: nineteen percent reported that defendant would not have a difficult
2:58
Speaker 1: time convincing them of his innocence. As for the sentence,
3:02
Speaker 1: fifty two percent of Leatak County survey respondents believe the
3:06
Speaker 1: jury should sentence Coburger to the death if he's convicted,
3:09
Speaker 1: compared to twenty four percent who favored life without the
3:12
Speaker 1: possibility of parole. Approximately fifty one percent of those who
3:16
Speaker 1: did not support a life sentence indicated that the defendant
3:19
Speaker 1: would have a difficult time convincing them that he should
3:22
Speaker 1: not be executed. Only nineteen percent disagreed with that statement.
3:26
Speaker 1: Case knowledge the community is just more than passing familiar
3:30
Speaker 1: with the case. Approximately seventy nine percent of Latak County
3:33
Speaker 1: survey respondents recognized at least five of nine media items
3:38
Speaker 1: tested in the survey, and fifty two percent were familiar
3:41
Speaker 1: with seven or more. Eighty one percent of survey respondents
3:44
Speaker 1: who recognized the case had read, seen, or heard that
3:47
Speaker 1: police found a knife sheath on the bed next to
3:50
Speaker 1: one of the victims, and sixty seven percent were aware
3:53
Speaker 1: that DNA found on the knife sheath was matched to
3:55
Speaker 1: Brian Colberger. In addition, eighty six percent of Leatak County
3:59
Speaker 1: surveys respondents heard that the defendant owns the same type
4:02
Speaker 1: of vehicle recorded on video driving in the neighborhood where
4:06
Speaker 1: the killings occurred, and seventy nine percent were aware that
4:09
Speaker 1: cell phone tower data purportedly showed that Colburger made several
4:13
Speaker 1: trips near the victims home months before the killings. Being
4:17
Speaker 1: familiar with Such incriminating details, which came from the probable
4:21
Speaker 1: cause affid David shared with the media, is particularly concerning,
4:24
Speaker 1: giving that most were significantly related to prejudgment. For example,
4:28
Speaker 1: seventy five percent of Leta County survey respondents who had read, seen,
4:32
Speaker 1: or heard that DNA found on the knife sheath was
4:35
Speaker 1: later matched to Brian Colberger believed he is guilty of murder,
4:38
Speaker 1: and sixty percent indicated that he would have a difficult
4:41
Speaker 1: time convincing them otherwise. All the media items tested in
4:45
Speaker 1: the survey and significantly related to the presumption at guilt
4:48
Speaker 1: are provided in the table below. Some of the most
4:51
Speaker 1: prejudicial media items were those regarding misinformation. For example, eighty
4:55
Speaker 1: one percent of prospective jurors who had heard that Coburger
4:58
Speaker 1: stocked one of the victims reports that he's guilty, and
5:01
Speaker 1: sixty two percent maintained that he would have a difficult
5:03
Speaker 1: time changing their minds. Only after this allegation was proliferated
5:07
Speaker 1: through the media and social media for sixteen months did
5:10
Speaker 1: the prosecutor clarify. In April twenty twenty four, hearing that
5:14
Speaker 1: it was untrue. Prospective jurors who had seen media coverage
5:17
Speaker 1: discussing Coberger's alibi have also reacted critically. Approximately seventy nine
5:23
Speaker 1: percent of those who have read, seen, or heard that
5:25
Speaker 1: the defendants that he was driving alone on the night
5:27
Speaker 1: of the murders believe he is guilty, and sixty two
5:30
Speaker 1: percent indicated that he would have a difficult time convincing
5:33
Speaker 1: them otherwise. Consistent with what often happens in smaller venues, rumors, conjecture,
5:38
Speaker 1: and misinformation have spread through informal discussion and alternate communication
5:43
Speaker 1: networks such as social media. Approximately eighty eight percent of
5:46
Speaker 1: Leta County survey respondents who recognize the case have talked
5:50
Speaker 1: about the murders or heard others talking about them in
5:53
Speaker 1: person or online. Prospective jurors who were also familiar with
5:57
Speaker 1: misinformation reported in the media and tested in the survey.
6:01
Speaker 1: For example, forty five percent of red seen or heard
6:03
Speaker 1: that Brian Coburger stalked one of the victims, and forty
6:07
Speaker 1: five percent were aware that he allegedly followed one of
6:09
Speaker 1: the victims on social media earlier. In the survey, respondents
6:13
Speaker 1: were asked what rumors or theories they had heard about
6:15
Speaker 1: the murders, the defendant or his victims. Leta County Survey
6:19
Speaker 1: respondents reported a litany of rumors and conjecture that have
6:23
Speaker 1: been spread in the coverage, in formal discussions and social media.
6:27
Speaker 1: Examples include he may come from a family of crime,
6:30
Speaker 1: and previous cases have been uncovered. I've heard that Coburger
6:34
Speaker 1: has been linked to other murders in Washington and Pennsylvania.
6:37
Speaker 1: I've heard their railroad in Coburger to put them away,
6:39
Speaker 1: and the evidence was planted and he's being framed. One
6:42
Speaker 1: other one that I heard was that he was not
6:44
Speaker 1: working with one or the other of the roommates. Some
6:48
Speaker 1: speculation that Coburger committed a murder in Oregon. Possibly the
6:52
Speaker 1: house was a party house and a couple of people
6:54
Speaker 1: who died there weren't supposed to be there, the boyfriend
6:56
Speaker 1: and the girlfriend. Also, Coburger had commented about committing the
6:59
Speaker 1: perfect murder in a paper that maybe one of his
7:03
Speaker 1: victims had rejected him sexually caused this with his criminal
7:07
Speaker 1: justice interest, he wanted to try to commit the perfect murder.
7:10
Speaker 1: The girls were party girls. Brian was studying criminology see
7:13
Speaker 1: how much he could get away with. I just heard
7:15
Speaker 1: it was part of his research to commit these murders
7:18
Speaker 1: in a small town because he thought he could get
7:19
Speaker 1: away with it. I've heard a theory that he might
7:22
Speaker 1: have committed the murders to see if he can get
7:23
Speaker 1: away with it and get off, That he planned it
7:26
Speaker 1: out and that he would keep doing it if he
7:28
Speaker 1: wasn't caught. He was a law student at WSU, and
7:31
Speaker 1: he looked on the internet for how to do certain things.
7:34
Speaker 1: He was interviewing people for his thesis. Someone said that
7:38
Speaker 1: he may have been snubbed by the girls at parties.
7:40
Speaker 1: Students that were killed were big partiers and had been
7:42
Speaker 1: to parties with them, and that Coburger bragged about committing
7:45
Speaker 1: perfect murder and was taking criminal justice classes people who
7:50
Speaker 1: they thought were involved. Also that the other roommates were involved,
7:53
Speaker 1: but that hasn't been proven, just a rumor. Rumors about
7:56
Speaker 1: other suspects. He frequented mad Greek stalking. Well, hold up,
8:01
Speaker 1: you mean to tell me that you're going to try
8:02
Speaker 1: and say he didn't go to the mad Greek. Sorry.
8:04
Speaker 1: I don't buy that for a minute. That there could
8:07
Speaker 1: have been another person. I heard that Colberger had an obsession.
8:10
Speaker 1: Multiple people involved may have been connected with ritual killings
8:13
Speaker 1: of an animal. Speculation that the roommates are involved surprised
8:17
Speaker 1: the police did not do more investigations. I think frat
8:20
Speaker 1: boys may have been involved. News on the street it
8:23
Speaker 1: was really a gruesome murder and vicious. Also heard by
8:26
Speaker 1: some people I know in jail that have told me
8:28
Speaker 1: they have seen interaction with police in Coburger while in
8:30
Speaker 1: jail and says the police seemed to be friendly to
8:33
Speaker 1: butter up with Coburger to try to get him to talk.
8:36
Speaker 1: Police here are doing an excellent job. And on this case,
8:40
Speaker 1: we're told he slice and diced them and hung them
8:42
Speaker 1: from the fan. Don't know why he did it. There
8:45
Speaker 1: were some rumors that he stalked the girls, but can't
8:47
Speaker 1: say that's for sure. The rumor that he was an
8:50
Speaker 1: ex of one of the female victims, and I heard
8:52
Speaker 1: he had tourettes. He fit the description and was in
8:55
Speaker 1: the wrong place at the wrong time. He tried to
8:57
Speaker 1: leave the country. I heard that there was two other people,
8:59
Speaker 1: but they found his DNA at the scene. I've heard
9:02
Speaker 1: that the defense isn't sure who it is, or maybe
9:04
Speaker 1: the roommates are involved, or there may be more than
9:07
Speaker 1: one person. He had killed someone else in the car
9:10
Speaker 1: with him. He killed the people and there was someone
9:13
Speaker 1: else helping him. His roommates said Coburger was acting strange
9:16
Speaker 1: around the time of the murders. He's guilty. He did it,
9:18
Speaker 1: and the evidence was found at the crime scene. He
9:21
Speaker 1: knew one of the people in there. He tried to
9:23
Speaker 1: connect with one woman. He was aware of where the
9:26
Speaker 1: girls were at all times, been in and around the
9:28
Speaker 1: house a couple of times. Rumors that there was a
9:30
Speaker 1: second person responsible in Rumors of following the girls online,
9:34
Speaker 1: and lots and lots of parties at the house because
9:36
Speaker 1: it's a university town. He was obsessed with one of
9:40
Speaker 1: the girls at the house. I heard that Brian tried
9:42
Speaker 1: to hit one of the girls at the restaurant. Brian
9:44
Speaker 1: Colberger said, am I the only one getting arrested when
9:47
Speaker 1: the cop picked them up. He was stalking one of
9:49
Speaker 1: the victims. He was delusional about being in a relationship
9:52
Speaker 1: with one of the girls. We're pretty sure that he
9:55
Speaker 1: did it, pretty sure that he was stalking them, checking
9:57
Speaker 1: the places they went. One of the girls his romantic advances.
10:01
Speaker 1: He went in the house and killed three girls and
10:03
Speaker 1: one gentleman. He was dating one of the girls and
10:06
Speaker 1: she stopped seeing them. He came back and killed them
10:08
Speaker 1: all him sleeping or being obsessed with one of the
10:11
Speaker 1: girls and him stalking them. His relationship with the victims
10:14
Speaker 1: attracted to one. I've heard something along the lines he
10:17
Speaker 1: had a personal grudge against them, but don't know if
10:20
Speaker 1: it's true. I heard he was stalking two of the victims,
10:23
Speaker 1: who also heard he went back into the house after
10:25
Speaker 1: the murders were committed. I also heard that the roommates
10:28
Speaker 1: were in on it. He was a teacher assistant at
10:30
Speaker 1: WSU and he had issues with women there. One of
10:33
Speaker 1: the restaurants where he ate it was the one where
10:36
Speaker 1: the girls worked at. I've heard that he has a
10:38
Speaker 1: bad history with women, and everyone is thinking that has
10:41
Speaker 1: something to do with why he did what he did.
10:44
Speaker 1: He worked in the same building with me. I didn't
10:46
Speaker 1: know him, but a friend did and said he was
10:48
Speaker 1: strange and would just stare at you. I think he
10:50
Speaker 1: hates women. He doesn't respect women at all. Kind of
10:53
Speaker 1: obvious from the way he's treated his professors and the
10:56
Speaker 1: people he works with. His fellow grad students the other
10:58
Speaker 1: university he was working, they had problems with them too.
11:02
Speaker 1: I don't know why he picked those victims. He just
11:04
Speaker 1: stalked the other girl he just kind of ignored them
11:06
Speaker 1: and didn't engage in their communication. He was trying to
11:09
Speaker 1: communicate with her and she didn't respond, so he stalked her.
11:13
Speaker 1: That's what the videotapes are showing, and the pings on
11:15
Speaker 1: his cell phone his social media. A lot of people
11:18
Speaker 1: on Reddit found disturbing posts from years back the drive
11:21
Speaker 1: by stalking. He had a temper and stopped them. He
11:24
Speaker 1: was studying criminal law. Somehow he was shunned by them.
11:27
Speaker 1: There are different things from his past, his behaviors before
11:30
Speaker 1: he came here. He attended school in criminal justice. That's
11:34
Speaker 1: what he was studying at Washington State University. He lives
11:37
Speaker 1: back in Pennsylvania. Girls that grew up with them stalk
11:40
Speaker 1: don't know if that's the right word. He didn't have
11:42
Speaker 1: healthy relationships with women. Maybe a second person's involved. One
11:46
Speaker 1: of the girls complained about being stalked, but no action
11:48
Speaker 1: was taken. One story that I heard before he was
11:51
Speaker 1: apprehended that these women had a business going on the
11:53
Speaker 1: internet that was sexual in nature, and that was one
11:56
Speaker 1: of their clients. Was displeased with them. Maybe he didn't
11:58
Speaker 1: want one of the girls leaving town. Heard lots of
12:01
Speaker 1: different rumors heard numerous things too intense for me to repeat.
12:05
Speaker 1: Too many rumors answer this question mostly really crazy stuff.
12:09
Speaker 1: But other than that, we don't know a whole lot.
12:12
Speaker 1: I've read and seen ridiculous amounts of false information on
12:14
Speaker 1: TV and online. I'm a student and I've heard a lot.
12:17
Speaker 1: Don't know what to believe. There's a lot of discussion
12:20
Speaker 1: about his psychological makeup, a master's and working on a
12:24
Speaker 1: PhD in criminology. That's a fact. The rumor that he's
12:27
Speaker 1: going to write a book about it, and the reason
12:29
Speaker 1: is to write a book. He gets love letters from
12:31
Speaker 1: women in prison, that's a rumor. What the defense attorney
12:34
Speaker 1: wants is to make sure he doesn't get executed. That's
12:37
Speaker 1: a rumor. There are tons of rumors in this town,
12:39
Speaker 1: knee deep in rumors. The worst rumor was that the
12:42
Speaker 1: murders were engineered by a woman. A psychic in Texas
12:45
Speaker 1: accused her a murder. The woman's being sued and there
12:49
Speaker 1: is coret facts about it. The rumor is the history
12:51
Speaker 1: professor did this in the University of Idaho. I've heard
12:55
Speaker 1: rumors that the roommates might be or could be involved
12:58
Speaker 1: in about Coburger's past in history. I have heard that
13:01
Speaker 1: the girls that he really liked, that he had stabbed
13:03
Speaker 1: her the most and the worst. That's the biggest thing
13:06
Speaker 1: I've heard. There are so many little things heard. Rumors
13:09
Speaker 1: about drug deals, or that he stalked the victims, heard
13:12
Speaker 1: that it was possibly a drug case, there was a
13:14
Speaker 1: drug deal gone bad. I've heard all kinds of things,
13:17
Speaker 1: from drug deals gone bad, or to his being so
13:20
Speaker 1: smart that he thought he could get away with murder.
13:22
Speaker 1: Everyone in the whole country heard it. I feel like
13:25
Speaker 1: I remember it was home that had a lot of
13:28
Speaker 1: weekend and night parties, and that he had potentially been
13:31
Speaker 1: there once or twice to the home. I guess I
13:33
Speaker 1: don't pay much attention to that. Once that really bothered
13:36
Speaker 1: me was the roommates that were not killed. Dylan Bethany survived,
13:40
Speaker 1: and they were talking during the murder that they the
13:42
Speaker 1: two surviving roommates were involved somehow, there were drugs. It
13:45
Speaker 1: was disturbing. There's nothing in the information release that alludes
13:48
Speaker 1: to them having any involvement in the crimes. That the
13:51
Speaker 1: police department was corrupt, in the prosecutor's office, some conspiracy
13:55
Speaker 1: about cover up. It's silly and stupid. I don't believe it.
13:58
Speaker 1: There have been rumors about the union and the cops
14:01
Speaker 1: being involved. I heard that it was a party house
14:03
Speaker 1: and had a lot of people coming and going. I
14:05
Speaker 1: was aware of the victims. I had met two of
14:07
Speaker 1: them and they were scared of him. We are spending
14:10
Speaker 1: millions of dollars to defend them and it's a waste
14:12
Speaker 1: of tax dollars. Speculation is that he drove over there
14:15
Speaker 1: and left his phone, murdered the people drove away, left
14:18
Speaker 1: and went back that morning, remembering you forgot the sheath,
14:21
Speaker 1: that he might have thrown the knife in the river.
14:23
Speaker 1: That there is so much evidence against him. There is
14:25
Speaker 1: speculation that some people heard him when he started attacking them,
14:29
Speaker 1: and that one of them fought back. Also, someone said
14:32
Speaker 1: something about him turning his phone off or off the
14:34
Speaker 1: network when he was driving near the area. Some people
14:37
Speaker 1: think he made it look like he drove to Clarkstown, Washington,
14:41
Speaker 1: so it wouldn't look like he was in Moscow. And
14:43
Speaker 1: there was a coffee shop that saw his car in Clarkston,
14:46
Speaker 1: that the house was a bit of a party house,
14:48
Speaker 1: and heard that the neighbors saw an identical year and
14:51
Speaker 1: model of car of Coburger's parked outside the house the
14:54
Speaker 1: night of the murders. All right, we're going to wrap
14:56
Speaker 1: up right there, and then the next episode we're going
14:58
Speaker 1: to pick up with the impact on the community. All
15:01
Speaker 1: of the information that goes with this episode can be
15:03
Speaker 1: found in the description box. What's up everyone, and welcome
15:07
Speaker 1: back to the program. In this episode, we're going to
15:09
Speaker 1: pick up where we left off with the declaration of
15:12
Speaker 1: Brian Edelman in support of Brian Kolberger. The impact on
15:17
Speaker 1: the community. This crime had a devastating impact on the
15:20
Speaker 1: Leta County residence, many of whom considered this to be
15:23
Speaker 1: a very safe and close knit community prior to the murders.
15:27
Speaker 1: More than half fifty six percent of the survey respondents
15:31
Speaker 1: reported that they are someone they know experienced higher levels
15:34
Speaker 1: of stress, anxiety, or of fear during the search for
15:38
Speaker 1: the killer. That number increased to sixty three percent for
15:41
Speaker 1: Moscow residence. Another forty percent of prospective jurors had visited
15:46
Speaker 1: or walked by the home where the murders occurred. The
15:50
Speaker 1: University of Idaho plays an important role in Leayta County
15:53
Speaker 1: and the local economy. It's nine four hundred and ninety
15:56
Speaker 1: three students and two three hundred and twenty one full
16:00
Speaker 1: time employees composed thirty six percent of the county's population
16:04
Speaker 1: over the age of eighteen. As such, the exodus of
16:07
Speaker 1: students after the Thanksgiving break had a significant impact on
16:10
Speaker 1: local businesses. Approximately seventy eight percent of Laytak County survey
16:14
Speaker 1: respondents reported that they or someone they know lived in
16:18
Speaker 1: Moscow at the time of the murders. In addition, twenty
16:21
Speaker 1: five percent reported that their family members was a student
16:25
Speaker 1: or employee at the University of Idaho and Moscow. Leayta
16:29
Speaker 1: County survey respondents were asked how the murders impacted their community.
16:33
Speaker 1: Many reported that the environment was very tense and everyone
16:37
Speaker 1: was on edge. Residents were on high alert and living
16:40
Speaker 1: in a state of fear for the first time. People
16:42
Speaker 1: were locking their doors. Parents feared for their children's lives,
16:45
Speaker 1: and the sudden student exodus hurt local businesses. Others complained
16:49
Speaker 1: about the influx of media and reporters into Moscow. Survey
16:53
Speaker 1: respondents described the personal fear they and their neighbors experienced
16:57
Speaker 1: while the killer remained at large. I think tremendously basically
17:01
Speaker 1: changed everyone's lives. A community that felt extremely safe, caring,
17:05
Speaker 1: personable changed in an instant. I don't know how long
17:08
Speaker 1: it'll take for the college students to feel safe again.
17:11
Speaker 1: It was so terrible. It jarred the whole community. It
17:14
Speaker 1: has impacted us in a very negative way. It ripped
17:16
Speaker 1: our community apart. We lived in fear for so long.
17:19
Speaker 1: I know I still do, and it wouldn't be surprising
17:22
Speaker 1: if others are too. Community was shocked and we felt
17:25
Speaker 1: a deep loss, and it broke all of our hearts.
17:28
Speaker 1: We had a very dark cloud over our community for
17:30
Speaker 1: so long. The fear we faced will forever change our
17:33
Speaker 1: community forever, and it's going to take a long time
17:36
Speaker 1: for our community to get back to normal again. For me, dramatically,
17:40
Speaker 1: I had to shut a business, lost interaction with students
17:43
Speaker 1: because they had to leave. It changed everything immediately, and
17:46
Speaker 1: we are just now beginning to get that back. It
17:49
Speaker 1: impacted me and our community in a major way. We
17:52
Speaker 1: live in a small, innocent town and no crimes or
17:55
Speaker 1: a horrible thing has ever happened before. This was a
17:57
Speaker 1: wholesome town where everyone looked out and helped everyone, a
18:01
Speaker 1: town not too common these days, and that man took
18:04
Speaker 1: that from us. I was trying to hire people in
18:06
Speaker 1: some of the candidates wouldn't consider the job because of
18:09
Speaker 1: the murders, and there's a lot of sadness in the community.
18:12
Speaker 1: I think several people feel that the university shouldn't have
18:15
Speaker 1: torn down the house until after the trial. It just
18:18
Speaker 1: puts the fear in everybody that nobody is safe, and
18:21
Speaker 1: I definitely checked my doors to make sure that they're
18:23
Speaker 1: locked before I go to bed. I have friends that
18:26
Speaker 1: have young daughters and one friend that had a daughter,
18:29
Speaker 1: and I have two nieces that live in Moscow, and
18:32
Speaker 1: I bought them bear spray and I told her to
18:33
Speaker 1: keep it in her bedroom and if someone comes in,
18:36
Speaker 1: open it up on them. It made everyone scared for
18:39
Speaker 1: a long time until they found them. My wife works
18:42
Speaker 1: at the college and you could see the house from
18:44
Speaker 1: her office. The students and staff ran from their cars
18:47
Speaker 1: to the building because they were so scared. My wife
18:50
Speaker 1: wouldn't go to the store until I got home because
18:52
Speaker 1: she didn't like going by herself. It shook the whole community.
18:56
Speaker 1: I bought a house in twenty fourteen and they didn't
18:58
Speaker 1: even give me keys. I feel pretty secure being in
19:02
Speaker 1: my location, but the people in town I knew were
19:04
Speaker 1: losing their mind. I know people in both colleges and
19:07
Speaker 1: people were sad and confused. It was unbelievable and tragic.
19:12
Speaker 1: It was absolutely atrocious. I think it changed the way
19:14
Speaker 1: people felt in the community and changed the community forever.
19:18
Speaker 1: It invoked a lot of fear. My children were scared,
19:21
Speaker 1: and we lived thirty five miles out of town. I
19:23
Speaker 1: would fear for any person of student age in Moscow,
19:26
Speaker 1: whereas before it was a safe place. It really takes
19:29
Speaker 1: you by surprise. I don't lock my doors or my vehicles,
19:32
Speaker 1: never have, but if I lived in Moscow, I would.
19:36
Speaker 1: It's devastating and it's got everyone on edge. If he
19:39
Speaker 1: got away with it, who will be the next to
19:41
Speaker 1: do it. It's something that's discussed a lot. People started
19:45
Speaker 1: locking their doors when they ordinarily wouldn't. This is the
19:48
Speaker 1: kind of community where people don't even have house keys.
19:51
Speaker 1: That's not the case anymore. It was pretty shocking to people.
19:54
Speaker 1: Oh my god, it terrified the university. There were kids
19:58
Speaker 1: that just left school because as they were scared. It's
20:01
Speaker 1: not something that occurs in the area very often. I
20:03
Speaker 1: hate it now that everyone knows Moscow because of the murders,
20:07
Speaker 1: and that's very sad. It should be known for such
20:10
Speaker 1: better things. The community was very freaked out, and the
20:13
Speaker 1: whole school didn't shut down completely, but a lot of
20:16
Speaker 1: kids left before the semester. It's so sad someone committed
20:19
Speaker 1: a murder like this for no apparent reason. It's not
20:22
Speaker 1: what this area is all about. I am a University
20:25
Speaker 1: of Idaho alumni. Scared everyone. Cops were checking everyone's cameras.
20:30
Speaker 1: We were not prepared for something like this in our community,
20:33
Speaker 1: and we still don't have any sort of understanding of
20:35
Speaker 1: why this happened. It's changed everyone's way of living and thinking,
20:39
Speaker 1: terrifying to a lot of women who live here, and
20:42
Speaker 1: made you think differently about how to live your life significantly.
20:45
Speaker 1: We live in a small community, so we are all
20:48
Speaker 1: affected by this. We feared leaving our homes, our businesses
20:51
Speaker 1: were affected. We are still a little on edge strongly.
20:55
Speaker 1: People on campus were very worried, especially before they had
20:59
Speaker 1: a suspect. Even though I'm nowhere near a target. It
21:03
Speaker 1: made me increase my security. It scared everyone. Wow, we
21:06
Speaker 1: were scared. I live out in the country and who
21:09
Speaker 1: knows where the person could be hiding. We were very
21:12
Speaker 1: scared because we didn't know where he was or where
21:14
Speaker 1: he could be and I was especially scared as a mom,
21:18
Speaker 1: terrified us. We never locked our doors. Now we lock
21:21
Speaker 1: our doors and have security systems. It's going to get
21:24
Speaker 1: worse when the trial starts. Extremely disturbed about it. The
21:28
Speaker 1: media was very negative. It was shocking. It was painful
21:31
Speaker 1: for the witness. What irks our nerves is his thesis
21:35
Speaker 1: on how to get away with murder and crime. It
21:38
Speaker 1: was really sad in the following months, and we are
21:41
Speaker 1: not in a big county, and too many reporters were there.
21:44
Speaker 1: It was very dark times, a lot of fear in
21:46
Speaker 1: the community. On campus had added security and it shook
21:50
Speaker 1: up the community. It was immediately scary when they didn't
21:53
Speaker 1: have a suspect. It impacted economically and the school closed.
21:57
Speaker 1: It was a shock to our community and we live
21:59
Speaker 1: with unsettled feelings since it happened. It was terrifying. After
22:02
Speaker 1: this happened, many of us have lived in fear and
22:05
Speaker 1: still do. It shut everything down for quite a while,
22:08
Speaker 1: the university and everything. It was the talk of everywhere
22:11
Speaker 1: you went in person, news, just stopping for coffee because
22:14
Speaker 1: something like this just doesn't happen around here. It undermines
22:17
Speaker 1: the sense of safety in our small community. And it
22:21
Speaker 1: was very traumatic. It was horribly sad for the victims
22:24
Speaker 1: and the victims' families, the students, and our community. It
22:27
Speaker 1: scared us all We lived in fear. There was a
22:29
Speaker 1: lot more police presence than normal. Our younger adults were
22:33
Speaker 1: scared to leave campus and their homes. We had a
22:35
Speaker 1: difficult time feeling safe in the community. It put our
22:39
Speaker 1: community through hell. It was an awful thing. It impacted
22:43
Speaker 1: our community drastically and in a negative way. It took
22:46
Speaker 1: the innocence away from our community. Also caused us to
22:49
Speaker 1: live in fear. It instilled a lot of fear in
22:52
Speaker 1: the high school students. All the press were parked out here.
22:55
Speaker 1: It was intimidating. It has made us close and lock
22:58
Speaker 1: our doors, created doubt in our community. Our community used
23:01
Speaker 1: to be safe. It's made me not trust anymore and
23:04
Speaker 1: be more cautious. It devastated the community and made everyone scared.
23:08
Speaker 1: We now lock our doors. We lived in Moscow my
23:11
Speaker 1: entire life. First time we have ever felt unsafe. Once
23:15
Speaker 1: he was caught, it was a little better, but still
23:17
Speaker 1: have some insecurities, especially on campus. I think it impacted
23:21
Speaker 1: us deeply and I think it's going to leave a
23:23
Speaker 1: mark on us for a long time, if not forever.
23:26
Speaker 1: I only live fifteen miles from where this happened. The
23:29
Speaker 1: community is still reeling from this. I think a lot
23:32
Speaker 1: more people started locking their doors. It's been a pretty
23:34
Speaker 1: open community, but a lot are locking their doors and
23:37
Speaker 1: considering buying firearms, especially for the college kids. I think
23:41
Speaker 1: it really rattled the college to the core. I get
23:44
Speaker 1: scared driving in Moscow. Had a huge impact on the community.
23:48
Speaker 1: It shocked us. It had a huge impact on the college.
23:52
Speaker 1: It made us all weary and we were frantic. Some
23:54
Speaker 1: students left and didn't come back four three semesters. It
23:58
Speaker 1: was a very scary time for me in our community,
24:01
Speaker 1: and everyone was scared because it's a small community. Devastatingly,
24:05
Speaker 1: the grief was overwhelming. I did go to a memorial
24:08
Speaker 1: and it was a heartfelt outpouring for love for the
24:10
Speaker 1: victims and their families. Everyone was afraid. Some people left
24:14
Speaker 1: for the semester and didn't come back, not going here anymore.
24:17
Speaker 1: The University of Idaho ramped up security and was very
24:21
Speaker 1: visible to help people feel more safe. Because I worked
24:24
Speaker 1: for the university, I saw with a lot of students
24:27
Speaker 1: and other faculty. I heard about some of the classes
24:29
Speaker 1: that the victims were taking. They canceled classes and the
24:32
Speaker 1: university offered mental health counseling sessions outside of the university.
24:36
Speaker 1: There were a lot of people that felt unsafe until
24:39
Speaker 1: the suspect was caught. In the community as a whole,
24:42
Speaker 1: there was a loss of innocence and we never thought
24:44
Speaker 1: anything like this would happen in our community, and now
24:48
Speaker 1: that it has, our community has been changed forever. Community
24:52
Speaker 1: pressure to convict Brian Kolberger, as demonstrated in answers to
24:56
Speaker 1: several of the open ended questions many Leta residents expressed
24:59
Speaker 1: as a relief after the defendant was arrested. Survey respondents
25:04
Speaker 1: were asked how they believed residents in their county would
25:07
Speaker 1: react if the jury acquitted Brian Colberger Leyta County. Survey
25:11
Speaker 1: respondents answers indicate that all local jury will be under
25:15
Speaker 1: tremendous pressure to convict so that the community can begin
25:18
Speaker 1: to heal and recover the sense of safety that was lost.
25:21
Speaker 1: Many survey respondents reported that an acquittal would lead to
25:25
Speaker 1: an uproar and put residence back into a state of
25:28
Speaker 1: fear knowing that the killer was free. Others reported that
25:31
Speaker 1: Brian Kolberger would be killed if he was acquitted. Some
25:35
Speaker 1: said the community would place blame on local prosecutors in
25:38
Speaker 1: law enforcement if there was a not guilty verdict. Survey
25:41
Speaker 1: respondents also reported that the defendant should have to present
25:45
Speaker 1: evidence to convince the community that he was not guilty.
25:48
Speaker 1: These comments reinforce the quantitative data which show a strong
25:51
Speaker 1: presumption of guilt in Leyta County. Examples of these types
25:55
Speaker 1: of reactions to a hypothetical acquittal include they'd burdened down
25:58
Speaker 1: the courthouse. Age would be a mild description, very upset.
26:02
Speaker 1: They would think the jerry failed. I think we would
26:05
Speaker 1: all be heartbroken all over again, and fear would probably
26:08
Speaker 1: rise in us again. I don't think we would be
26:10
Speaker 1: okay with a not guilty verdict at all. It would
26:12
Speaker 1: be very hard for the community to accept, and it
26:15
Speaker 1: would be difficult for us to move forward and feel
26:17
Speaker 1: safe in the community like we once did before this
26:20
Speaker 1: horrible tragedy. Oh my gosh, I would be so afraid,
26:24
Speaker 1: possible riots. We will be disgusted unless some major evidence
26:28
Speaker 1: proves different. The entire county mostly believes in his guilt.
26:32
Speaker 1: They better have substantial evidence to not convict, and people
26:35
Speaker 1: would be fine if that was the case. If he's
26:38
Speaker 1: not guilty, prove it. They will have to prove with
26:40
Speaker 1: real evidence that he's not involved in the murder. They
26:43
Speaker 1: prove that he's not guilty, that have to figure and
26:46
Speaker 1: find somebody else because someone killed those kids. I can't
26:49
Speaker 1: imagine that happening, because they have so much against them.
26:53
Speaker 1: We would be dumbfounded. I don't see how I can't
26:56
Speaker 1: imagine this. I think there's a lot of people that
26:58
Speaker 1: have already made up their minds and would be upset.
27:00
Speaker 1: They would lose faith in the justice system. I think
27:03
Speaker 1: the community would not be happy. Most people I have
27:06
Speaker 1: talked to say they're convinced he did it. I think
27:08
Speaker 1: it would be very negative. I think the general consensus
27:11
Speaker 1: is that he's guilty. A lot of hot heads here
27:13
Speaker 1: in Idaho. I think it would be very scary. A
27:16
Speaker 1: lot of people think he's guilty. I think they would
27:19
Speaker 1: be rather shocked because of the evidence gathered. The DNA
27:22
Speaker 1: and stalking are hard to get around. I think they
27:25
Speaker 1: would be angry and shocked. I think they should try
27:27
Speaker 1: him right here. All right, we're gonna wrap up right here,
27:30
Speaker 1: and then the next episode we're gonna pick up with
27:33
Speaker 1: I think the reaction would be horrible. Most people are
27:35
Speaker 1: convinced that he's guilty. All of the information that goes
27:38
Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.
27:42
Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
27:45
Speaker 1: this episode, we're going to continue on with the Brian
27:47
Speaker 1: Edelman declaration in support of Brian Kohlberger. I think the
27:51
Speaker 1: reaction would be horrible. Most people are convinced that he's guilty.
27:56
Speaker 1: I think it would be very hard. People would be
27:58
Speaker 1: very upset. I think everyone pretty much decided it was him.
28:01
Speaker 1: There would be another media storm on how the system failed.
28:04
Speaker 1: Because most everyone I know believes he's guilty, and he
28:07
Speaker 1: has been tried in the media. There is going to
28:10
Speaker 1: have to be a lot of compelling evidence to find
28:12
Speaker 1: them not guilty. So if there is to be proven innocent,
28:15
Speaker 1: then that's the justice system. A lot of negativity on
28:18
Speaker 1: our local government feel like he's already been condemned. Residents
28:22
Speaker 1: in community would be very negative with that. I think
28:25
Speaker 1: he probably would be killed. Riots. Parents will take care
28:28
Speaker 1: of him. People may or may not take things into
28:31
Speaker 1: their own hands. I think that people will be very angry.
28:34
Speaker 1: Coburger will be in danger if they do not find
28:36
Speaker 1: him guilty. They would probably find him and kill him.
28:40
Speaker 1: Several would be on the hunt for him to make
28:42
Speaker 1: sure that he gets what's coming to him. They would
28:45
Speaker 1: likely be a riot, and he wouldn't last long outside
28:47
Speaker 1: because someone would do the good old boy justice. They
28:51
Speaker 1: would give him street justice. Oh my goodness, I think
28:54
Speaker 1: it would be terrible. With all the evidence that they
28:56
Speaker 1: say they have, there would have to be some sort
28:58
Speaker 1: of punishment, pretty much not getting out alive. I think
29:02
Speaker 1: they'd be really upset. Probably somebody would find them and
29:05
Speaker 1: take them out in their woods hang them. That's the
29:07
Speaker 1: kind of country we live in. That would be ugly,
29:10
Speaker 1: and I'm sure a street justice would happen. One of
29:12
Speaker 1: the family members or friends would take care of them.
29:15
Speaker 1: He would have a hard time finding a place for peace.
29:18
Speaker 1: He'd better go back to Pennsylvania real quick. I don't
29:20
Speaker 1: think it would be good at all. Coburger would have
29:22
Speaker 1: to leave the state for good. That would be a
29:24
Speaker 1: horrible thing, devastating to the community. Pretty sure the city
29:28
Speaker 1: will be in an uproar. I think they would ask
29:31
Speaker 1: for the prosecutor's job. I think they would react negatively.
29:35
Speaker 1: There wouldn't be riots or anything but people would be
29:37
Speaker 1: vocally upset, maybe an impact on the who the city
29:41
Speaker 1: prosecutor is, some political impacts. It would be seen as
29:44
Speaker 1: a pretty big error, would reflect negatively on the city prosecutor.
29:48
Speaker 1: If he couldn't get a conviction. People would be scared
29:51
Speaker 1: again and very mad at the police. It would raise
29:54
Speaker 1: concerns about the police department, enraged, strong opinions firing officers
30:00
Speaker 1: so that there is something wrong and there was some corruption.
30:03
Speaker 1: They would lose their minds and be very upset with
30:06
Speaker 1: law enforcement. That would really be hard on people here.
30:09
Speaker 1: We want closure. I think it would be an uprising
30:11
Speaker 1: and a lot of disagreement. I think that would just
30:14
Speaker 1: crush our community. It would be anarchy, and University of
30:17
Speaker 1: Idaho would not have a lot of students that want
30:20
Speaker 1: to come here. We would be very upset and disappointed
30:23
Speaker 1: and let down and confused. Everyone would be very afraid.
30:26
Speaker 1: We would be appalled that there would possibly be a
30:28
Speaker 1: murderer on the loose. It would be very bad. It
30:31
Speaker 1: would most likely cause an uproar in Moscow and some uncertainty.
30:36
Speaker 1: I believe fear would fall over the community again. If
30:39
Speaker 1: he is found not guilty, it would freak a lot
30:41
Speaker 1: of people out. It makes people really uneasy. They would
30:44
Speaker 1: be outraged, and it would have an even more negative
30:46
Speaker 1: effect on our community. I don't want to think about it,
30:50
Speaker 1: but I think it would create an uproar and a
30:52
Speaker 1: horrible outcome for our community. They would not react kindly,
30:56
Speaker 1: probably would be riots. Eighty five percent would be upset.
31:00
Speaker 1: I think it would be devastating and very disappointing. An
31:02
Speaker 1: uproar would rise in our community. There would be protesting
31:07
Speaker 1: in the streets. It would be horrific, and the community
31:10
Speaker 1: would lose their minds, and that would bring about more
31:13
Speaker 1: deeper fear within the community. I think they would find
31:16
Speaker 1: it very difficult, and people in our community would probably
31:19
Speaker 1: be outraged to a degree and would want clear answers
31:22
Speaker 1: as to why residents would have an uprising. I think
31:26
Speaker 1: they would be shocked. We would want to be told
31:28
Speaker 1: why and if a good answer wasn't given, and it
31:31
Speaker 1: would likely cause an uproar in our community, and the
31:34
Speaker 1: fear we had would probably rise in us again. I
31:37
Speaker 1: can't imagine what pain and anger and hurt and disappointment
31:40
Speaker 1: would come about if that happened. The newspapers have been
31:44
Speaker 1: very open about all of it, the whole time, and
31:46
Speaker 1: I appreciate them reporting to the community, but it does
31:49
Speaker 1: not inform the community of all the evidence comparison surveys.
31:54
Speaker 1: The comparison survey also found significant case recognition and prejudgment
31:58
Speaker 1: and other potential venues. Canyon County is the second most
32:01
Speaker 1: populated county in Idaho, with one hundred and eighty four thousand,
32:05
Speaker 1: six hundred and sixty residents over the age of eighteen.
32:08
Speaker 1: Approximately ninety percent of the jury eligible population there had read, seen,
32:13
Speaker 1: or heard about the case, and fifty one percent followed
32:16
Speaker 1: the case somewhat or very closely. Sixty nine percent of
32:19
Speaker 1: Canyon County survey respondents believe Brian Colberger is guilty of murder,
32:24
Speaker 1: and fifty seven percent reported that he would have a
32:27
Speaker 1: difficult time convincing them otherwise. In addition, fifty seven percent
32:31
Speaker 1: of those familiar with the case believe the defendant should
32:34
Speaker 1: be sentenced to death, and fifty nine percent indicated that
32:37
Speaker 1: he would have a difficult time convincing them that he
32:40
Speaker 1: should not be executed. The Bannett County Courthouse is five
32:44
Speaker 1: hundred and thirty two miles from Moscow. It's in a
32:47
Speaker 1: different media zone and was exposed to less coverage about
32:50
Speaker 1: the murders. Approximately eighty four percent of Bannett County survey
32:53
Speaker 1: respondents recognized the case, some fourteen percentage points lower than
32:58
Speaker 1: in Leta County. Just forty five percent of survey respondents
33:02
Speaker 1: followed the case somewhat or very closely, and fifty nine
33:05
Speaker 1: percent were familiar with five or more of the media
33:08
Speaker 1: items tested in the survey. However, seventy six percent of
33:11
Speaker 1: those familiar with the case believe Coburger is guilty of murder,
33:15
Speaker 1: and fifty three percent of those individuals reported that he
33:18
Speaker 1: would have a difficult time convincing them otherwise. In addition,
33:22
Speaker 1: fifty three percent believe the jury should sentence Colburger to
33:25
Speaker 1: death and fifty percent maintained that the defense would have
33:29
Speaker 1: a difficult time persuading them that he should receive a
33:31
Speaker 1: life sentence. This data shows that there are differences across
33:35
Speaker 1: the venues in Idaho. However, Bannik is a small county
33:38
Speaker 1: with just sixty six, nine hundred and eleven residents over
33:41
Speaker 1: the age of eighteen. In addition, like Moscow, it has
33:45
Speaker 1: a large university that plays an important role in the
33:48
Speaker 1: local community. Idaho State University student body makes up eighteen
33:52
Speaker 1: percent of the county's population and is the second largest employer.
33:55
Speaker 1: Given Bannet County size and similarities to Leyta County, it's
33:59
Speaker 1: likely that the local jury pool would be inundated with
34:02
Speaker 1: media coverage if the case were transferred there. Ada County
34:05
Speaker 1: is the largest in Idaho, with four hundred and six thousand,
34:08
Speaker 1: sixty eight residents over the age of eighteen. Its population
34:12
Speaker 1: is more than twelve times larger than Leayta County. While
34:15
Speaker 1: Boise State University is in Ada County, its student body
34:19
Speaker 1: of twenty two thousand, one hundred and thirteen students composed
34:22
Speaker 1: just five percent of the population over the age of eighteen.
34:26
Speaker 1: Ada County was also exposed to significant media coverage surrounding
34:30
Speaker 1: this case, which is reflected in the ninety three percent
34:33
Speaker 1: recognition rate. In addition, the prejudgment rate sixty eight percent,
34:37
Speaker 1: mirrored that which was found among Leayta County survey respondents.
34:42
Speaker 1: Approximately fifty six percent reported that Coburger would have a
34:45
Speaker 1: difficult time convincing them that he is not guilty. In addition,
34:49
Speaker 1: forty nine percent of Ada County survey respondents who recognized
34:53
Speaker 1: the case believe that Coburger should receive the death penalty,
34:56
Speaker 1: and fifty five percent maintained that he would have a
34:58
Speaker 1: difficult time convincing the otherwise. However, there were important differences
35:03
Speaker 1: between the Lata and Ada County jury pools. Ada County
35:08
Speaker 1: residents are far less invested in this case. Only fifteen
35:10
Speaker 1: percent reported that they followed the case very closely, compared
35:14
Speaker 1: to twenty nine percent of perspective jurors in Leayta County.
35:18
Speaker 1: They were also less familiar with prejudicial media items. Approximately
35:22
Speaker 1: sixty three percent had read, seen, or heard that police
35:25
Speaker 1: found the knife sheath and one of the victim's beds,
35:28
Speaker 1: compared to eighty one percent in Layta County. In addition,
35:32
Speaker 1: fifty two percent had heard that DNA on the knife
35:34
Speaker 1: sheath matched the defendant, fifteen percentage points lower than their
35:38
Speaker 1: Leayta County counterparts. Ada County survey respondents were also less
35:43
Speaker 1: familiar with prejudicial misinformation reported by the media. For example,
35:48
Speaker 1: thirty five percent had heard that Colberger allegedly followed one
35:51
Speaker 1: of the victims on social media. Ada County residents had
35:55
Speaker 1: fewer personal connections to the case and Moscow community. Only
35:59
Speaker 1: twenty percent lived or knew someone who lived in Moscow
36:02
Speaker 1: when the murders occurred, just four percent reported that they
36:06
Speaker 1: had a family member who was a student or employee
36:08
Speaker 1: at the university. In addition, only two percent of survey
36:11
Speaker 1: respondents or employed or knows someone employed by a law
36:14
Speaker 1: enforcement agency involved in the murder investigation. Finally, Aida County
36:19
Speaker 1: residents did not experience the degree of emotional distress during
36:23
Speaker 1: the six week search for the killer, which was found
36:25
Speaker 1: in Leatah County. Approximately thirty one percent reported that they
36:29
Speaker 1: or someone they know experienced higher levels of stress, anxiety,
36:33
Speaker 1: or fear before the Coburger arrest, twenty five percentage points
36:37
Speaker 1: lower than prospective jurors in Leyta County. Part seven ability
36:42
Speaker 1: to select a fair and partial jury in venues saturated
36:45
Speaker 1: with media coverage. When a jury pool has been exposed
36:49
Speaker 1: to prejudicial media coverage, the trial court and parties are
36:52
Speaker 1: faced with unique challenges which are not present in most cases.
36:56
Speaker 1: In most high profile cases, many prospective jurors enter the
36:59
Speaker 1: court with extensive knowledge and attitudes about the case, defendant,
37:03
Speaker 1: and the victims. However, it's often difficult for prospective jurors
37:07
Speaker 1: to predict how case specific knowledge and opinions may affect
37:11
Speaker 1: them over the course of a trial. Prospective jurors may
37:14
Speaker 1: also unintentionally omit exposure to specific media items during vordere
37:19
Speaker 1: when asked what they recall hearing about the case. These items, however,
37:24
Speaker 1: may become salient and recalled from memory once witness testimony begins.
37:29
Speaker 1: The research also shows that the information learned from media
37:32
Speaker 1: exposure can be misattributed as evidence presented at trial. Given
37:37
Speaker 1: these factors, it's important to ferret out during vordere the
37:41
Speaker 1: full extent of exposure to pre trial publicity, case specific attitudes,
37:45
Speaker 1: impressions of the defendant, and potential motivations to serve. However,
37:50
Speaker 1: the prejudicial effects of pre existing attitudes can occur at
37:54
Speaker 1: both a conscious and subconscious level, meaning jurors who profess
37:58
Speaker 1: impartiality may not be fully aware of their bias or
38:01
Speaker 1: how it may affect them as the trial unfolds. This
38:05
Speaker 1: can make it difficult to identify potential prejudice during the
38:08
Speaker 1: jury selection process. The Supreme Court has recognized the limitations
38:12
Speaker 1: of the Varder process as a remedy where potentially prejudicial
38:16
Speaker 1: pre trial publicity is an issue. All Right, we're going
38:19
Speaker 1: to wrap up right here, and in the next episode,
38:21
Speaker 1: we're going to pick up with Irvin Versus Dowd. All
38:25
Speaker 1: of the information that goes with this episode can be
38:27
Speaker 1: found in the description box What's up everyone, and welcome
38:30
Speaker 1: back to the program. In this episode, we're picking up
38:34
Speaker 1: where we left off with the declaration of Brian Edelman
38:37
Speaker 1: in support in support of Brian Kolberger. Given these factors,
38:42
Speaker 1: it's important to ferret out during vordear the full extent
38:46
Speaker 1: of exposure to pre trial publicity, case specific attitudes, impressions
38:50
Speaker 1: of the defendant, and potential motivations to serve. However, the
38:54
Speaker 1: prejudicial effects of pre existing attitudes can occur at both
38:58
Speaker 1: the conscious and SubCom level, meaning jurors who profess impartiality
39:03
Speaker 1: may not be fully aware of their bias or how
39:06
Speaker 1: it may affect them as a trial unfolds. This can
39:08
Speaker 1: make it difficult to identify potential prejudice during the jury
39:12
Speaker 1: selection process. The Supreme Court is recognized the limitations of
39:16
Speaker 1: the Vordere process as a remedy where potentially prejudicial pre
39:20
Speaker 1: child publicity is an issue. In Irvin versus Dowd, the
39:24
Speaker 1: Court concluded no doubt each jur was sincere when he
39:28
Speaker 1: said that he would be fair and impartial to petitioner,
39:31
Speaker 1: but the psychological impact requiring such a declaration before one's
39:35
Speaker 1: fellows is often its father, where so many times admitted
39:39
Speaker 1: prejudice such as a statement of impartiality, can be given
39:43
Speaker 1: little weight. As one of the jurors put it, you
39:46
Speaker 1: can't forget what you heard and see with his life
39:49
Speaker 1: at stake, it's not requiring too much that petitioner be
39:52
Speaker 1: tried in an atmosphere undisturbed by so huge a wave
39:55
Speaker 1: of public passion, and by a jury other than one
39:58
Speaker 1: in which two thirds of the members admit before hearing
40:01
Speaker 1: any testimony to possessing a belief in his guilt. Research
40:05
Speaker 1: on Vordere shows that these concerns are justified. Jurors are
40:10
Speaker 1: often reluctant to disclose relevant experiences, relationships, or opinions that
40:15
Speaker 1: may lead to bias, even when pre trial publicity is
40:18
Speaker 1: not an issue. One study found that while seventy one
40:22
Speaker 1: percent a jurors had a fixed opinion or regarding guilt,
40:24
Speaker 1: only fifteen percent admitted so during the Vordere. Marshall obtained
40:29
Speaker 1: questionnaires from two hundred and seventy seven former jurors in
40:32
Speaker 1: two counties and found that eighteen percent of those jurors
40:35
Speaker 1: admitted to withholding information during bordere Seltzer reported that approximately
40:41
Speaker 1: thirty nine percent a jurors who were interviewed after trial
40:44
Speaker 1: should have come forward in response to questions regarding crime,
40:47
Speaker 1: victimization or knowledge of police officers during jury selection, but
40:52
Speaker 1: failed to do so. Many aspects of the large group
40:55
Speaker 1: Vordeer format deterred jurycandor. Federal Court judge Gregor Maize published
41:01
Speaker 1: his findings after experimenting with an expanded Vardeer procedure in
41:05
Speaker 1: thirty federal criminal trials over nine month period, which included
41:09
Speaker 1: individual interviews with every veneer member who failed to respond
41:14
Speaker 1: to his general opening questions. Judge Maze reported that approximately
41:18
Speaker 1: twenty eight percent of members of each panel failed to
41:21
Speaker 1: respond to the dozens of questions posed an open court,
41:24
Speaker 1: an average of about sixteen people per trial. However, when
41:28
Speaker 1: questioned in private, one in five of these silent jurors
41:31
Speaker 1: disclosed personal information that was relevant to the case. In
41:35
Speaker 1: ninety percent of the trials, between one and four of
41:37
Speaker 1: these silent jurors expressed bias that led to their removal
41:41
Speaker 1: for cause. A search of appellate opinions shows that jurid
41:45
Speaker 1: disclosure has led to several mistrials by undermining a defendant's
41:49
Speaker 1: fair right to trial. For example, the US versus Colombo,
41:53
Speaker 1: eight sixty nine Ft two d one forty nine, Second Circuit,
41:57
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty nine, a jura failed to disclose when asked
42:00
Speaker 1: during vordir that her brother in law was a lawyer
42:03
Speaker 1: for the government. She did not mention this fact because
42:06
Speaker 1: she wanted to sit in on the jury for the case.
42:09
Speaker 1: In DIYer versus called her on one fifty one Ft
42:12
Speaker 1: three D nine seventy ninth Circuit nineteen ninety eight, a
42:16
Speaker 1: juror answered no when the panel was asked if anyone
42:18
Speaker 1: had ever been the victim of a crime. After the
42:21
Speaker 1: guilt phase, the defense learned that her brother had been
42:25
Speaker 1: shot and killed six years earlier. When questioned, she told
42:28
Speaker 1: the judge that she answered no because she thought the
42:30
Speaker 1: shooting was an accident, not a crime. Her brother had
42:34
Speaker 1: been pistol whipped four times and shot in the back
42:36
Speaker 1: of the head. Problems such as these have also been
42:40
Speaker 1: reported in high profile cases. For example, in the twenty
42:43
Speaker 1: twelve murder trial of Matthew Stebbens, who had been charged
42:47
Speaker 1: in a shooting death of a homeless shelter. A mistrial
42:50
Speaker 1: was declared after a juror announced during deliberations that she
42:53
Speaker 1: had previous issues with violent crime. One of her children
42:57
Speaker 1: had been shot in the head. She failed to raise
42:59
Speaker 1: her hand during when asked if anyone had been the
43:02
Speaker 1: victim of a violent crime. According to her, she did
43:05
Speaker 1: not think it was going to be an issue. A
43:07
Speaker 1: six and a half million dollar judgment was overturned in
43:10
Speaker 1: the high profile police corruption lawsuit against the public defender
43:14
Speaker 1: surrounding the Rampart Division in Los Angeles County. It was
43:18
Speaker 1: uncovered after the verdict that one of the jurors, Jennifer Selenis,
43:21
Speaker 1: had concealed knowledge of the scandal. During jury's selection, she
43:25
Speaker 1: did not raise her hand when asked if anyone had
43:28
Speaker 1: some knowledge of the events surrounding the Rampart Division. Later,
43:32
Speaker 1: it was discovered that Selenis had played a prominent role
43:34
Speaker 1: in a movie titled Gang Wars that was based on
43:37
Speaker 1: the Rampart Division. Other jurors on the panel corroborated that
43:40
Speaker 1: she was very familiar with the scandal and discussed aspects
43:44
Speaker 1: that were not in the evidence. Prospective jurors who had
43:47
Speaker 1: been exposed to prejudicial pre trial publicity entered the courtroom
43:51
Speaker 1: with case specific knowledge gleaned from the media, social media,
43:54
Speaker 1: and discussions with friends and family members and coworkers. Uncovering
43:58
Speaker 1: the full extent of jury rs case specific knowledge and
44:01
Speaker 1: opinions and high profile cases can be extremely difficult. Jury
44:05
Speaker 1: selection as a judicial remedy to address such bias relies
44:09
Speaker 1: on two factors, one that jurors can access their source
44:12
Speaker 1: of bias and two are willing to report it. In
44:16
Speaker 1: one study where researchers tested the effectiveness of extended wardere,
44:20
Speaker 1: participants in the experimental condition were exposed to pre trial
44:24
Speaker 1: publicity a week before the experiment prior to viewing a trial,
44:28
Speaker 1: they were subjected to minimal or extended wardear. The attorney
44:32
Speaker 1: in the extended wardeer condition explained how pre trial publicity
44:36
Speaker 1: may inappropriately impact decision making, as jurors to hold each
44:40
Speaker 1: other accountable for not discussing pre trial publicity, obtain public
44:44
Speaker 1: commitments to base their verdicts solely on the evidence presented
44:48
Speaker 1: in court, and to ensure that fellow jurors did the same.
44:51
Speaker 1: The researchers ultimately found that educating jurors on potential impact
44:56
Speaker 1: of pre trial publicity did not eliminate the effects of
45:00
Speaker 1: trial publicity. High profile cases also create a unique challenge
45:05
Speaker 1: during jury selection known as the minimization effect. This concept
45:09
Speaker 1: refers to prospective jurors attempts to minimize the full extent
45:13
Speaker 1: of their exposure to pre trial publicity. During vordere perspective,
45:17
Speaker 1: jurors try to downplay their knowledge of the case using
45:20
Speaker 1: qualifiers such as just nothing other than only a little
45:24
Speaker 1: bit and that's all. In archival study that analyze the
45:28
Speaker 1: jury selection transcripts from five high profile cases, sixty nine
45:33
Speaker 1: percent of prospective jurors used minimization language when questioned by
45:37
Speaker 1: the judge or attorneys. Another challenge in cases with significant
45:42
Speaker 1: media coverage surrounds the difficulty jurors have during vordere to
45:46
Speaker 1: recall every detail they have read, seen, or heard about
45:49
Speaker 1: the case. These types of open ended recall questions require
45:53
Speaker 1: significant cognitive effort and often result in incomplete recollection. This
45:57
Speaker 1: phenomenon is an inherent limitation and how memory works. For example,
46:02
Speaker 1: if someone is asked to recall everything they know about
46:05
Speaker 1: the movie Star Wars, their description would likely miss important
46:09
Speaker 1: details they are familiar with. Memory is much more accurate
46:13
Speaker 1: when answering recognition questions, have you read, seen, or heard
46:16
Speaker 1: if Darth Vader was Luke Skywalker's father? This concern is
46:20
Speaker 1: not mere speculation. In a twenty seventeen change of venue
46:24
Speaker 1: hearing in Texas, community residents exposed to detail pre trial
46:28
Speaker 1: publicity over several years were called as witnesses. During the hearing,
46:33
Speaker 1: they were asked to recall everything that they knew about
46:35
Speaker 1: the case. Following the recall question, they were asked a
46:38
Speaker 1: number of recognition questions about specific prejudicial and potentially inadmissible
46:44
Speaker 1: media items they failed to mention. The hearing demonstrated the
46:48
Speaker 1: limitation and memory question can you tell the court the
46:52
Speaker 1: facts that you know about the state of Texas versus
46:55
Speaker 1: John Feet as it relates to Irene Garza? Answer? Description
46:59
Speaker 1: of base facts? Question is that it? Answer, let's see,
47:03
Speaker 1: I believe so. Question Miss Prez, have you read, seen
47:07
Speaker 1: or heard about John Feet giving a confession to a priest? Answer? Yes,
47:12
Speaker 1: question and you didn't mention that a few minutes ago? Answer,
47:16
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, there were two I remember they mentioned that
47:19
Speaker 1: they were two confessions that he made to two priests.
47:22
Speaker 1: Question Okay, have you read, seen, or heard about whether
47:24
Speaker 1: or not Miss Irene Garza was alleged to have been raped.
47:28
Speaker 1: Answer yes, I read that. Question now, having refreshed your
47:32
Speaker 1: memory a few minutes ago. Are there other facts that
47:35
Speaker 1: you have read, seen, or heard that you haven't told
47:36
Speaker 1: the court about. Answer? I don't believe so. Question Okay,
47:40
Speaker 1: have you read, seen, or heard that John Feet was
47:42
Speaker 1: transferred to a monastery? After this answer I did read that. Yes.
47:48
Speaker 1: This limitation and memory recall has been demonstrated in several
47:51
Speaker 1: high profile cases around the country. For example, in a
47:55
Speaker 1: change of venue survey in Sonora, California, ninety five percent
47:59
Speaker 1: of surveys ress respondents recognized at least one additional detail
48:03
Speaker 1: reported in the media from the close ended recognition questions
48:06
Speaker 1: that they fail to mention in the open ended recall
48:09
Speaker 1: question on your identical trend. Ninety six percent was found
48:13
Speaker 1: in another high profile case in Nashville, Tennessee. For example,
48:16
Speaker 1: when asked have you read, seen, or heard about the case,
48:19
Speaker 1: one respondent answered bits and pieces on the news. They
48:23
Speaker 1: were just talking about the case. However, he later recognized
48:27
Speaker 1: several media items, including one the shooting was captured on
48:30
Speaker 1: video by surveillance cameras in the area and played on
48:33
Speaker 1: the television, news and internet, and two, the public approved
48:37
Speaker 1: a ballot measure in the last election to create a
48:40
Speaker 1: community Oversight board to monitor the Metro Nashville Police Department.
48:44
Speaker 1: Both were prejudicial items widely reported in the media. A
48:49
Speaker 1: similar pattern was found in this case. When asked if
48:51
Speaker 1: they had read, seen, or heard about the case, Leyta
48:54
Speaker 1: County survey respondents reported an average of just one point
48:57
Speaker 1: six details. However, percent of survey respondents later recognized at
49:02
Speaker 1: least one additional media item they fail to mention in
49:06
Speaker 1: their open ended answer, and recognized an average of four
49:09
Speaker 1: point nine additional media items. Many survey respondents used minimization
49:14
Speaker 1: language or incomplete responses when asked what they knew about
49:18
Speaker 1: the case. Most of these prospective jurors later recognized items
49:21
Speaker 1: widely reported in the media and tested in the survey
49:25
Speaker 1: sea table below. For example, just eight percent of Letah
49:29
Speaker 1: County survey respondents mentioned that police found the knife sheath
49:32
Speaker 1: near one of the victims when asked the standard open
49:35
Speaker 1: end did recall question. However, eighty one percent later recognized
49:39
Speaker 1: this media item when asked, have you read, seen, or
49:41
Speaker 1: heard if police found the knife sheath on the bed
49:45
Speaker 1: next to one of the victims. This finding is particularly
49:48
Speaker 1: concerning given that seventy two percent of survey respondents familiar
49:52
Speaker 1: with the media item believe that Brian Kolberger is guilty
49:55
Speaker 1: of murder, and fifty five percent reported that they would
49:58
Speaker 1: have a difficult time convincing otherwise. All right, that's going
50:02
Speaker 1: to do it for this episode. In the next episode,
50:04
Speaker 1: we're going to pick up with. A similar pattern was
50:06
Speaker 1: found with other prejudicial media items. All of the information
50:10
Speaker 1: that goes with this episode can be found in the
50:13
Speaker 1: description box What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program.
50:17
Speaker 1: In this episode, we're getting right back to the declaration
50:20
Speaker 1: in support of Brian Kohlberger that was given by Brian Edelman.
50:26
Speaker 1: A similar pattern was found with other prejudicial media items,
50:30
Speaker 1: some of which were inaccurately reported by the press. For example,
50:35
Speaker 1: only three percent of Leata County survey respondents mentioned that
50:39
Speaker 1: Brian Colberger had stalked one of the victims when asked
50:42
Speaker 1: what they knew about the case. However, forty five percent
50:45
Speaker 1: later recognized this media item when asked, have you read, seen,
50:49
Speaker 1: or heard if Brian Coolberger stalked one of the victims.
50:52
Speaker 1: The failure to recall this detail from memory when responding
50:56
Speaker 1: to an open ended question is concerning given that it
50:59
Speaker 1: significantly related to bias. Approximately eighty one percent of survey
51:03
Speaker 1: respondents who later recognize this media item believe that Coburger
51:07
Speaker 1: is guilty. The inability to provide a full account of
51:10
Speaker 1: everything a jur knows about a case puts the defendant
51:14
Speaker 1: in an untenable position. Counsel must choose to either rely
51:18
Speaker 1: on an open ended question known to generate incomplete recall,
51:21
Speaker 1: or ask media specific recognition questions, which are more diagnostic
51:25
Speaker 1: but risk exposing prospective jurors to extra judicial information they
51:30
Speaker 1: may not be familiar with. Prospective jurors inability to recall
51:34
Speaker 1: the full extent of their exposure to pre trial publicity
51:37
Speaker 1: can undermine the value of vorder as a corrective measure
51:40
Speaker 1: for identifying and ferreting out bias in high profile cases.
51:45
Speaker 1: If jurors are unable to fully recall from memory their
51:48
Speaker 1: detailed knowledge about a case when asked an open ended question,
51:52
Speaker 1: it makes it difficult for counsel to effectively exercised challenges.
51:56
Speaker 1: This problem is exasperated when there is an extensive reporting
52:00
Speaker 1: around inadmissible content or disputed facts. Incomplete recall also poses
52:05
Speaker 1: a problem for the trial court when exercising its discretion
52:09
Speaker 1: to wagh perspective, Jurors self reports about their ability to
52:12
Speaker 1: be fair and impartial and rule on cause challenges. This
52:16
Speaker 1: predicament is compounded by research which suggests that professions of
52:21
Speaker 1: impartiality should not always be taken at face value. Part
52:25
Speaker 1: of the challenge media coverage represents surrounds jurors efforts to
52:28
Speaker 1: guess how exposure to pre trial publicity may affect their
52:32
Speaker 1: evaluations of the evidence. Given the difficulties that such a
52:35
Speaker 1: guest poses, it is not surprising that claims of impartiality
52:39
Speaker 1: in high profile cases have been shown to be unreliable.
52:43
Speaker 1: A study on the prejudicial impact of pre trial publicity
52:47
Speaker 1: found that sixty two percent of jury eligible residents said
52:51
Speaker 1: they could be fair and impartial and decide the case
52:53
Speaker 1: solely on the basis of the evidence presented. However, only
52:57
Speaker 1: thirty nine percent said they put the knowledge of the
53:00
Speaker 1: media out of his or her mind. Another obstacle is
53:04
Speaker 1: the well documented tendency for individuals to respond in a
53:07
Speaker 1: manner that will be viewed favorably by others, which has
53:10
Speaker 1: been coined by social desirability effect. This phenomenon has been
53:15
Speaker 1: researched and found in a multitude of disciplinary settings, including
53:19
Speaker 1: the courtroom. Socially desirable responses are more likely to occur
53:23
Speaker 1: when individuals become focused on the public aspects of themselves.
53:27
Speaker 1: Public awareness of oneself can become particularly salient in a
53:32
Speaker 1: courtroom setting where prospective jurors are asked questions by an
53:35
Speaker 1: authority figure in front of a public audience. Jones, for example,
53:39
Speaker 1: reported that participants appeared to alter their answers to reflect
53:43
Speaker 1: what they thought a judge wanted to hear, rather than
53:46
Speaker 1: what they actually thought. When potential jurors learn through the
53:50
Speaker 1: jury selection process that the law requires them to be
53:52
Speaker 1: fair and impartial, there is a risk that they will
53:55
Speaker 1: overstate their ability to set aside their knowledge and beliefs
53:59
Speaker 1: in order to create a favorable public impression. Also referred
54:02
Speaker 1: to as a response bias and demand characteristics, The effect
54:06
Speaker 1: causes the juror interviewee to pick up the subtle and
54:09
Speaker 1: overt clues as to what a lawyer or judge interviewer
54:13
Speaker 1: wants to hear. Hering Vauder, a clear, strong message is
54:16
Speaker 1: often sent to prospective jurors. Good jurors are not supposed
54:20
Speaker 1: to have prejudicial information or bias about the case. If
54:23
Speaker 1: they do, then they should set them aside and decide
54:26
Speaker 1: the case solely on the law and the evidence presented
54:29
Speaker 1: in court. When this is established, many prospective jurors will
54:33
Speaker 1: adjust their public statements to meet to these courtroom norms.
54:37
Speaker 1: The social desirability effect is found even in instances when
54:41
Speaker 1: the jury pool has been exposed to extreme forms of
54:44
Speaker 1: prejudicial media coverage. In Redoubt, the jury pool was exposed
54:48
Speaker 1: to a tape twenty minute interview in the jail between
54:51
Speaker 1: the defendant and the sheriff. In the interrogation, the defendant
54:55
Speaker 1: confessed to the murder of three people during a bank robbery.
54:58
Speaker 1: A soundtrack was added to the recording, and the interview
55:01
Speaker 1: aired three times on television. Within a few months leading
55:04
Speaker 1: up to the trial, three of the twelve seated jurors
55:08
Speaker 1: had seen the televised interrogation. Despite the highly prejudicial nature
55:12
Speaker 1: of such a sensational televised confession, all three jurors told
55:16
Speaker 1: the court during Vordeer that they could lay aside any
55:19
Speaker 1: opinion given the defendant the presumption of innocence as provided
55:23
Speaker 1: by law, based their decisions solely upon the evidence, and
55:27
Speaker 1: apply the law as given by the Court Chief Justice
55:30
Speaker 1: Hughes offered his honest view of the world nearly ninety
55:33
Speaker 1: years ago. In the United States versus Would, Impartiality is
55:37
Speaker 1: not a technical conception. It's a state of mind. A
55:40
Speaker 1: trial court's decision whether a juror possessed this mental latitude
55:44
Speaker 1: of appropriate indifference must be reviewed in the totality of circumstances.
55:48
Speaker 1: It's not limited to the juror's response to a magic question.
55:52
Speaker 1: In Irvin versus Dowd, the court ruled no doubt each
55:55
Speaker 1: juror was sincere when he said that he would be
55:57
Speaker 1: fair and impartial to the petitioner. But the psychological impact
56:01
Speaker 1: requiring such a declaration before one fellows is often its father.
56:06
Speaker 1: Where so many many times admitted prejudice, such a statement
56:10
Speaker 1: of impartiality can be given little way. As one of
56:13
Speaker 1: the jurors put it, you can't forget what you hear
56:16
Speaker 1: and see with his life at stake. It's not requiring
56:19
Speaker 1: too much that the petitioner be tried in an atmosphere
56:23
Speaker 1: that is undisturbed by so huge a wave of public passion,
56:26
Speaker 1: and by a jury other than one in which two
56:29
Speaker 1: thirds of the members admit before hearing any testimony to
56:32
Speaker 1: possessing a belief in his guilt. The set aside question
56:36
Speaker 1: has also been shown in the social science literature to
56:39
Speaker 1: be leading increases socially desirable responses and lacks validity ieed
56:45
Speaker 1: not correlated with other measures of bias. Research has demonstrated
56:49
Speaker 1: that answers to the set aside question often conflict with
56:52
Speaker 1: responses to other measures of bias. For example, Moron and
56:56
Speaker 1: Cutler nineteen ninety one found that sixty two percent of
56:59
Speaker 1: jury eligible residents in high profile cases said that they
57:03
Speaker 1: could be fair and impartial and decide the case solely
57:06
Speaker 1: on the basis of the evidence presented. However, only thirty
57:09
Speaker 1: nine percent said that they could put the knowledge of
57:11
Speaker 1: the media out of his or her mind. They also
57:14
Speaker 1: found that subjective estimates of the ability to be fair
57:18
Speaker 1: and impartial was not related to the case knowledge. Sue
57:21
Speaker 1: Smith and Padroza nineteen seventy five found that participants who
57:25
Speaker 1: had been exposed to negative pre trial publicity and reported
57:28
Speaker 1: that they could render a fair and impartial verdict were
57:31
Speaker 1: just as likely to convict compared to their counterparts in
57:34
Speaker 1: a control group that had read neutral pre trial publicity
57:38
Speaker 1: and also reported that they could be fair and impartial.
57:41
Speaker 1: My own research also demonstrates the unreliability of the set
57:45
Speaker 1: aside question. A twenty twenty study presented at the American Psychology,
57:50
Speaker 1: Law and Society Annual Conference found that prospective jurors profess
57:55
Speaker 1: that they can be fair and impartial even in the
57:57
Speaker 1: most extreme circumstances. Scipants were recruited from a Facebook page
58:02
Speaker 1: dedicated to a popular mini series called The Jinx. The
58:05
Speaker 1: documentary is about Robert Durst, a real estate mogul in
58:08
Speaker 1: New York who had been associated with the string of murders.
58:12
Speaker 1: Durst was arrested and charged with murder shortly after the
58:15
Speaker 1: documentary aired on Max formerly known as HBO Max. The
58:19
Speaker 1: mini series included many highly prejudicial and potentially inadmissible allegations
58:25
Speaker 1: and details. The documentary also captured a confession that was
58:29
Speaker 1: unintentionally recorded while Durst was in the bathroom. People who
58:33
Speaker 1: publicly posted highly prejudicial opinions on the Facebook page were
58:37
Speaker 1: recruited for the study. For example, one participant posted, this
58:41
Speaker 1: is the true vision of a sociopath. I'm physically ill
58:44
Speaker 1: over the conclusion. I'm besides myself. I was overjoyed at
58:48
Speaker 1: the news that he was arrested. Approximately ninety two percent
58:51
Speaker 1: of participants reported that Durst was guilty, and seventy seven
58:55
Speaker 1: percent reported that he would have a difficult time convincing
58:58
Speaker 1: them that he was not guilty in an upcoming murder trial.
59:02
Speaker 1: In addition, participants were familiar with multiple prejudicial media items
59:07
Speaker 1: from the documentary, including that Durst one was a suspect
59:10
Speaker 1: in his wife's disappearance ninety six percent, was a suspect
59:14
Speaker 1: in several murders ninety two percent, and had been tried
59:17
Speaker 1: in Texas for murder ninety two percent, and had allegedly
59:20
Speaker 1: confessed one hundred percent. Participants were read an instruction drafted
59:25
Speaker 1: from the transcript from a high profile case. The introduction
59:29
Speaker 1: mentioned that Durst was entitled to a fair and impartial trial.
59:32
Speaker 1: The burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove
59:35
Speaker 1: that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Participants were
59:38
Speaker 1: also told that the law requires them to set aside
59:41
Speaker 1: any bias and opinions they had and decide the case
59:45
Speaker 1: solely based on the evidence inside the courtroom. Participants were
59:49
Speaker 1: then asked if they could be fair and impartial and
59:51
Speaker 1: decide the case solely on the basis of the evidence
59:54
Speaker 1: as the law required. Even though these participants had been
59:58
Speaker 1: exposed to a prejudicial mini series with multiple inadmissible prejudicial details,
1:00:03
Speaker 1: made negative comment about the defendant, publicly believe that Durst
1:00:06
Speaker 1: was guilty and indicated that he would have a difficult
1:00:09
Speaker 1: time convincing the otherwise. Eighty one percent reported that they
1:00:13
Speaker 1: could be fair and impartial when asked an open ended question.
1:00:17
Speaker 1: Their responses mirrored what they had heard from the introduction.
1:00:20
Speaker 1: For example, the participant who described the defendant as a
1:00:23
Speaker 1: true vision of a sociopath reported that he could be
1:00:26
Speaker 1: definitely fair and impartial and explained, I could start from
1:00:30
Speaker 1: the beginning and listen to the information presented and follow
1:00:33
Speaker 1: the directions and wipe out everything that I know. I
1:00:36
Speaker 1: would need to be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt.
1:00:39
Speaker 1: These findings are consistent with the body of social science
1:00:42
Speaker 1: literature on the effectiveness of the set aside question. Even
1:00:46
Speaker 1: in the most extreme of circumstances, prospective jurors provide the
1:00:50
Speaker 1: socially desirable response. Accordingly, a juror's professed ability to be
1:00:55
Speaker 1: fair and impartial should not be taken at face value
1:00:57
Speaker 1: in cases where there is substantial prejudiction pre child publicity.
1:01:01
Speaker 1: This is less of an issue when dealing with limited
1:01:04
Speaker 1: case knowledge and general attitudes jurors typically bring with them
1:01:08
Speaker 1: into the court room in most cases e g. Medical
1:01:12
Speaker 1: malpractice duy. There is little evidence, however, to suggest that
1:01:16
Speaker 1: individuals can forget or disassociate themselves from specific attitudes, emotions,
1:01:21
Speaker 1: and beliefs about the defendant and the case developed from
1:01:24
Speaker 1: exposure to media coverage. The conclusion, it's my opinion that
1:01:28
Speaker 1: the residents in Latah County have been exposed to extensive
1:01:32
Speaker 1: prejudicial pre child publicity in social media surrounding the murders
1:01:36
Speaker 1: of Kailigansolvis Madison, Mogen Xanna Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin. The
1:01:41
Speaker 1: media saturated the jury pool with potential trial evidence and details,
1:01:45
Speaker 1: some of which prove to be false or misleading. These
1:01:48
Speaker 1: killings send shockwaves through the local community and generated widespread
1:01:52
Speaker 1: panic During the six week search for the killer. With
1:01:55
Speaker 1: limited information made available by investigators, rumors and misinformation proliferate
1:02:00
Speaker 1: through informal communication channels and social media platforms about the
1:02:04
Speaker 1: crime and the killer. Residents remained on high alert and
1:02:08
Speaker 1: feared that the murderer could strike again. A large number
1:02:11
Speaker 1: of students went home for the Thanksgiving break and did
1:02:14
Speaker 1: not return. Despite efforts by the court to curb the
1:02:17
Speaker 1: flow of prejudicial pre trial publicity, the survey data indicates
1:02:21
Speaker 1: that the coverage has had an impact on the jury
1:02:24
Speaker 1: pool and undermined the presumption of innocence. Approximately ninety eight
1:02:28
Speaker 1: percent of the survey respondents were familiar with the case.
1:02:31
Speaker 1: In addition, community members are more than just familiar with
1:02:35
Speaker 1: this crime. Sixty eight percent of survey respondents reported that
1:02:39
Speaker 1: they have followed the case somewhat or very closely, with
1:02:42
Speaker 1: twenty nine percent falling into the latter category. In addition,
1:02:45
Speaker 1: seventy nine percent of survey respondents recognized at least five
1:02:49
Speaker 1: of nine media items tested in the survey, and fifty
1:02:52
Speaker 1: two percent new seven or more. Eighty one percent of
1:02:56
Speaker 1: those familiar with the case had read, seen, or heard
1:02:59
Speaker 1: that police found a knife sheath on the bed next
1:03:01
Speaker 1: to one of the victims, and sixty seven percent were
1:03:03
Speaker 1: aware that DNA found on the sheath was matched to
1:03:06
Speaker 1: Brian Colberger. In addition, eighty six percent of Leta County
1:03:10
Speaker 1: survey respondents heard that the defendant owned the same type
1:03:14
Speaker 1: of car recorded on video driving in the neighborhood where
1:03:17
Speaker 1: the killings occurred. N seventy nine percent new that cell
1:03:20
Speaker 1: phone tower data purportedly shows that Coburger made several trips
1:03:25
Speaker 1: to the victim's home months before the killings. These findings
1:03:28
Speaker 1: are particularly concerning given the media items which came from
1:03:32
Speaker 1: the probable cause Affidavid released to the media were significantly
1:03:36
Speaker 1: related to prejudgment. This puts the defendant at a distinct
1:03:40
Speaker 1: disadvantage at the start of the trial. Many of the
1:03:43
Speaker 1: incriminating details widely reported or in dispute, including the claim
1:03:47
Speaker 1: that Coburger's vehicle was placed near the crime scene by
1:03:50
Speaker 1: video footage and cell tower data. After these details were
1:03:55
Speaker 1: mentioned repeatedly in the coverage for over sixteen months, the
1:03:58
Speaker 1: prosecution stated during a year that several of them were
1:04:01
Speaker 1: false or potentially inadmissible. Within this climate, the burden of
1:04:05
Speaker 1: proof is shifted to the defendant. Coburger must change jurors
1:04:09
Speaker 1: pre existing opinions regarding the evidence against them, which has
1:04:13
Speaker 1: developed from extensive exposure to bias media coverage. Several rumors
1:04:17
Speaker 1: have proliferated throughout Leaytai County. For example, survey respondents reported
1:04:22
Speaker 1: Coburger had a bad history with women, was responsible for
1:04:25
Speaker 1: other murders, bragged about committing the perfect murder, and was
1:04:28
Speaker 1: acting strange after the crime occurred. The media also shared
1:04:32
Speaker 1: posts from his social media accounts, which reinforced negative opinions
1:04:36
Speaker 1: of the defendant. Other survey respondents reported that Coburger was
1:04:40
Speaker 1: obsessed with one of the victims, had dated or tractor
1:04:43
Speaker 1: location and been in her house in the past. There
1:04:46
Speaker 1: was also speculation about drugs. Other suspects involved an online
1:04:51
Speaker 1: business that was sexual in nature, and parties at the
1:04:54
Speaker 1: victim's house. Many Leytai County prospective jurors exposed to prejudicial
1:04:59
Speaker 1: media coverage hold the presumption of guilt. Approximately sixty seven
1:05:03
Speaker 1: percent of survey respondents who knew about the case reported
1:05:06
Speaker 1: that Brian Colberger is guilty of murder, with twenty five
1:05:09
Speaker 1: percent indicating that he is definitely guilty. The presumption of
1:05:13
Speaker 1: innocence increased eighty one percent for those who recognize seven
1:05:17
Speaker 1: or more media items. In addition, fifty one percent of
1:05:20
Speaker 1: survey respondents reported that Coburger would have a difficult time
1:05:24
Speaker 1: convincing them that he's not guilty, which increased to sixty
1:05:27
Speaker 1: six percent for those who recognize seven or more media items.
1:05:32
Speaker 1: Leta is the eleventh largest county in Idaho, with just
1:05:35
Speaker 1: thirty two thousand, five hundred and fifteen residents over the
1:05:38
Speaker 1: age of eighteen. Sixty six percent or twenty one thousand,
1:05:42
Speaker 1: five hundred ninety eight of its jury eligible population reside
1:05:46
Speaker 1: in Moscow, the community most traumatized by this crime. These
1:05:49
Speaker 1: murders devastated this small town and shattered residence sense of safety.
1:05:54
Speaker 1: The survey data provides insight into the extent of personal
1:05:58
Speaker 1: connections among Leata County residentdence to Moscow, the University of Idaho,
1:06:02
Speaker 1: and these murders. Approximately eighty eight percent of those familiar
1:06:06
Speaker 1: with the case have talked about it or heard others
1:06:09
Speaker 1: talking about it in person or online. In addition, seventy
1:06:12
Speaker 1: eight percent of survey respondents lived in Moscow or knew
1:06:15
Speaker 1: someone who lived there at the time of the murders.
1:06:18
Speaker 1: Another twenty five percent reported that they or a family
1:06:22
Speaker 1: member was a student or employee at the University of
1:06:24
Speaker 1: Idaho and Moscow. A sizeable percentage of the prospective jury
1:06:28
Speaker 1: pool was also connected to the murder investigation. Approximately twenty
1:06:33
Speaker 1: two percent of Leayta County survey respondents are employed or
1:06:37
Speaker 1: know someone employed by law enforcement agency involved in the
1:06:40
Speaker 1: murder investigation, Leayta County residents lived in a perpetual state
1:06:44
Speaker 1: of panic during the search for the killer. Many survey
1:06:47
Speaker 1: respondents reported that they started locking their doors for the
1:06:50
Speaker 1: first time, and parents feel that feared that their children's lives.
1:06:54
Speaker 1: More than half fifty six percent of survey respondents reported
1:06:57
Speaker 1: that they or someone they know experienced higher leflvel of stress, anxiety,
1:07:02
Speaker 1: or of fear during the manhunt. That number increased to
1:07:05
Speaker 1: sixty three percent for Moscow residents. Overall. These findings are
1:07:09
Speaker 1: particularly concerning given the limitations of ordear as a tool
1:07:13
Speaker 1: for assessing the full extent of a prospective jurors case
1:07:16
Speaker 1: knowledge in high profile cases. Consistent with the research literature,
1:07:21
Speaker 1: survey respondents offered incomplete recall when asked the common open
1:07:24
Speaker 1: ended question, what have you read, seen, or heard about
1:07:27
Speaker 1: the case? Most survey respondents ninety six percent later recognized
1:07:31
Speaker 1: at least one additional media item they failed to report
1:07:34
Speaker 1: in their open ended answer, and recognized an average of
1:07:37
Speaker 1: four point nine additional media items. For example, only three
1:07:42
Speaker 1: percent of the survey respondent mentioned that Brian Kolberger had
1:07:45
Speaker 1: stalked one of the victims when describing that they had
1:07:47
Speaker 1: heard about the case. However, forty five percent remembered this
1:07:51
Speaker 1: prejudicial media item when asked a close ended recognition question
1:07:55
Speaker 1: later in the survey. The finding is particularly concerning given
1:07:58
Speaker 1: that eighty one percent of sear survey respondents who are
1:08:01
Speaker 1: familiar with this media item believe Brian Colberger is guilty
1:08:05
Speaker 1: of murder, and sixty two percent reported that he would
1:08:08
Speaker 1: have a difficult time convincing them otherwise. Jurors in ability
1:08:12
Speaker 1: to fully recall what they know about a high profile
1:08:14
Speaker 1: case undermines the value of wardeer as a tool for
1:08:18
Speaker 1: a ferreting out bias. If jurors are unable to fully
1:08:21
Speaker 1: disclose what they have read, seen, or heard, then neither
1:08:24
Speaker 1: the court nor defense Council can properly a weigh self
1:08:26
Speaker 1: professions of impartiality and exercise challenges. The comparison surveys also
1:08:31
Speaker 1: found significant differences between Leayta County and the comparison venues. Ada.
1:08:38
Speaker 1: County's population is more than twelve times larger than Leayta County,
1:08:42
Speaker 1: with four hundred and six thousand, zero sixty eight residents
1:08:46
Speaker 1: over the age of eighteen. Its residents are also far
1:08:49
Speaker 1: less invested in the case. Only fifteen percent reported that
1:08:52
Speaker 1: they followed the case very closely, and survey respondents were
1:08:56
Speaker 1: less familiar with prejudicial media items. For example, six y
1:09:00
Speaker 1: three percent had read, seen or heard that police found
1:09:02
Speaker 1: the knife sheath on one of the victim's beds, and fifty
1:09:05
Speaker 1: two percent had heard the DNA on the knife sheath
1:09:08
Speaker 1: matched the defendant. Recognition rates for these media items were
1:09:12
Speaker 1: eighteen and fifteen percentage points lower in Layta County. Ada
1:09:16
Speaker 1: County survey respondents were also less familiar with prejudicial information
1:09:20
Speaker 1: reported by the media. For example, thirty five percent had
1:09:24
Speaker 1: heard that the defendant allegedly followed one of the victims
1:09:27
Speaker 1: on social media, compared to forty five percent in Layta County.
1:09:31
Speaker 1: Ada County residents had fewer personal connections to these murders
1:09:35
Speaker 1: and the local community. Only twenty percent lived or knew
1:09:39
Speaker 1: someone who lived in Moscow at the time of the killings.
1:09:41
Speaker 1: Just over four percent reported that they have a family
1:09:44
Speaker 1: member who was a student or employee at the University
1:09:46
Speaker 1: of Idaho and Moscow. In addition, two percent of Ada
1:09:49
Speaker 1: County survey respondents or employed or no someone who was
1:09:53
Speaker 1: employed by law enforcement agency involved in the murder investigation. Finally,
1:09:57
Speaker 1: Ada County community members did not suffer the levels of
1:10:00
Speaker 1: emotional distress found in Layta County during the search for
1:10:04
Speaker 1: the killer. Only thirty one percent of perspective jurors reported
1:10:07
Speaker 1: that they or someone they know experienced higher levels of stress, anxiety,
1:10:11
Speaker 1: or fear during the manhunt, twenty five percentage points lower
1:10:15
Speaker 1: than in Leayta County. In conclusion, given the nature of
1:10:18
Speaker 1: the pre trial publicity, its negative impact on the Leaytai
1:10:21
Speaker 1: County jerry pool, and the small size of the county,
1:10:24
Speaker 1: I believe that there is a reasonable likelihood that the
1:10:26
Speaker 1: presumption of innocence has been undermined and shifted to a
1:10:30
Speaker 1: presumption of guilt. As such, remedial measures are necessary to
1:10:34
Speaker 1: protect the defendant's constitutional rights to a fair and impartial trial.
1:10:39
Speaker 1: Based on these findings, it's my opinion that a change
1:10:42
Speaker 1: of venue would be an appropriate prophylactic measure to mitigate
1:10:45
Speaker 1: the prejudicial impact of pre trial publicity surrounding this case.
1:10:50
Speaker 1: I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of
1:10:53
Speaker 1: the State of California, that the foregoing facts are true
1:10:56
Speaker 1: and correct, except as to the facts stated upon information
1:10:59
Speaker 1: and belief which facts I believe to be true. Executed
1:11:03
Speaker 1: on July fifteenth, twenty twenty four, and signed by Brian Edelman.
1:11:08
Speaker 1: All Right, so there's a declaration of Brian Edelman and
1:11:11
Speaker 1: why he thinks that Brian Kolberger is not going to
1:11:14
Speaker 1: get a fair trial in Moscow. So as this information
1:11:18
Speaker 1: continues to hit the docket, we'll get it added to
1:11:20
Speaker 1: the catalog. As for this one, well that's going to
1:11:23
Speaker 1: do it. All of the information that goes with this
1:11:26
Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box.