Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Mega Edition: Prosecutors Challenge Kohberger's Venue Change Report (8/28/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Prosecutors Challenge Kohberger's Venue Change Report (8/28/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. Prosecutors
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: in Moscow have responded to Brian Kohlberger and his request
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: for a venue change. And in this episode, we're going
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: to take a look at that response. Case number CR 29-22-2805.
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: The state's objection to defendant's motion to change venue. State
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: of Idaho plaintiff, Brian C. Kohlberger, the defendant. comes now,
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: the state of Idaho, by and through the Latah County
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: prosecuting attorney, and objects to defendant's motion to change venue. Introduction.
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: Defendant has filed a motion to change venue, requesting that
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: the trial in this matter be moved from Latah County,
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: where the offenses took place, to Ada County, some 300
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: miles away. To support his motion, he conducted a survey
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: of prospective jurors in Latah County, Ada County, Canyon County,
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: and Bannock County. But far from demonstrating that a Latah
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: County jury pool has been uniquely subjected to an utterly
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: corrupted environment, as defendant argues in his brief, the data
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: shows that the pervasive and wide-ranging coverage of this case
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: throughout the entire state of Idaho has led to high
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: case recognition among survey respondents across all four surveyed counties.
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: The court should decline defendant's invitation to parse and split
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: hairs over an incomplete dataset to reverse engineer a transfer
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: to Ada County. which according to defendant's own experts has
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: received the second highest among of media coverage in the
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: state and where a statistically greater number, albeit slight, of
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: the survey respondents familiar with the case believe defendant is guilty.
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: The court should deny defendant's motion and instead focus on
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: crafting remedial measures to ensure that a fair and impartial
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: jury can be seated in Latah County. The argument, although
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: the government generally must prosecute an offense in the county
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: where it occurred, A court may change venue in two
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: limited circumstances. First, a court must change venue to another
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: county if the court is satisfied that a fair and
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: impartial trial cannot be had in the county where the
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: case is pending. ICR 21A, see also similar language in
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: IC 19-1801. Second, a court may but is not required
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: to change venue for the convenience of the parties and
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: in the interest of justice. ICR 21B. In this case,
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: defendant has asked the court to change venues on both basis.
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: For the following reasons, the defendant has failed to show
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: that either of these circumstances applies. One, defendant has failed
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: to establish that a fair and impartial trial cannot be
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: held in the Latah County. Defendant has argued that due
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: to pervasive publicity in this case, a change of venue
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: is appropriate. Defendant further claims that the atmosphere in Latah
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: County has been utterly corrupted by media coverage. Defense Memorandum
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: in Support of Motion to Change Venue, page 5. It
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: is undisputed that the defendant has a constitutional right to
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: a fair trial with a fair jury, a panel of impartial,
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: indifferent jurors, State v. Abdullah, 158, Idaho, 386, 421, 348, P. 3D, 1, 36, 2014.
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: On a change of venue motion, it's the defendant's burden
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: to show a reasonable likelihood that the pretrial publicity will
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: deprive him of a fair trial. However, where pretrial publicity
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: is at issue, a presumption of prejudice necessitating a change
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: of venue applies only in the most extreme of cases.
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: State v. Haddon, 152, Idaho 371, 379, Court of Appeals, 2012,
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: citing Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S., 358, 379, 130,
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court, 2896, 2915, 2010. The mere fact that the
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: crimes reported by the media are gruesome or memorable does
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: not render the publicity inflammatory to the extent of requiring
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: a change of venue. Haddon at 385. The United States
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court also explained that juror impartiality does not require ignorance,
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: skilling at 381-130 Supreme Court at 2915. In determining whether
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: pretrial publicity has risen to a level that justifies a
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: change of venue, Idaho's appellate courts look at a series
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: of factors. The accuracy of the pretrial publicity, the extent
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: to which the articles are inflammatory, inaccurate, or beyond the
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: scope of admissible evidence, the number of articles, whether the
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: jurors were so incessantly exposed to such articles that they
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: had subtly become conditioned to accept a particular version of
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: the facts at trial, and the amount of time that's
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: passed between the coverage and the trial. Haddon at 377,
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: citing State v. Sheehan, 139 Idaho, 267, 278, 2003, Hall,
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: 111 Idaho, 827, 829, and 30, 1986. The United States
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court, has held that only in the most extreme
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: cases is a defendant afforded a presumption of prejudice based
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: on a pretrial publicity. CEG, Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723,
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: 83 Supreme Court, 1417, 1963. In a bank robbery homicide,
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: defendant afforded a presumption of prejudice where his videotaped confession
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: during a police interrogation was aired on local news three
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: times and seen by thousands. and State v. Estes 381 U.S.
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: 532-551-85 Supreme Court 1628-1637-1965. During court hearing proceedings, judge allowed
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: unmitigated camera access to the courtroom, including the filming of
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: jurors' faces. Neither Rideau nor Estes apply here. Defendant in
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: this case did not confess to the murders, let alone
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: on video broadcast to thousands, and it is the state's
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: understanding that the court... will not allow the filming of
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: jurors' faces at the trial in this case. Defendant urges
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: this court to find that Shepard v. Maxwell, another U.S.
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court case, applies here. Defendant's Memorandum in Support of
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: Motion to Change Venue, page 8, citing Shepard v. Maxwell,
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: 384 U.S. 333, 86 Supreme Court, 1507, 1966. But Shepard
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: is wholly inapplicable to this case. In Shepard, bedlam reigned
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: in the courthouse during the trial and newsmen took over
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: practically the entire courtroom, hounding most of the participants in trial.
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: Within a few feet from the jury box and council
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: table sat some 20 reporters staring at Shepard and taking notes.
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: ID at 335-86 Supreme Court 1507. The Shepard court went
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: on to explain the extreme nature of the media participation
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: at trial. The erection of a press table for reporters
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: inside the bar is unprecedented. The bar of the court
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: is reserved for counsel, providing them a safe place in
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: which to keep papers and exhibits and to confer privately
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: with client and co-counsel. It's designed to protect the witness
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: and the jury from any distractions, intrusions, or influences, and
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: to permit bench discussions of the judge's rulings away from
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: the hearing of the public and the jury. Having assigned
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: almost all of the available seats in the courtroom to
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: the news media, the judge lost his ability to supervise
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: that environment. The movement of the reporters in and out
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: of the courtroom caused frequent confusion and disruption. And the
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: record reveals constant commotion within the bar. Moreover, the judge
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: gave the throng of newsmen gathered in the corridors of
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: the courthouse absolute free reign. Participants in the trial, including
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: the jury, were forced to run a gauntlet of reporters
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: and photographers each time they entered or left the courthouse.
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: The total lack of consideration for the privacy of the
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: jury was demonstrated by the assignment to a broadcasting station
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: of a space next to the jury room on the
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: floor above the courtroom, as well as the fact that
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: the jurors were allowed to make telephone calls during their
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: five-day deliberation. This case has nowhere near the chaos present
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: in Shepard. As the Shepard court explained, the carnival atmosphere
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: at trial could easily have been avoided since the courtroom
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: and the courthouse premises are subject to the control of
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: the court. Here, the court has scrupulously avoided such an environment.
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: The court entered a non-dissemination order early in the case.
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: When the small press pool that was allowed in the
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: courtroom failed to follow the court's instructions as to filming
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: or photographing the defendant, the court disallowed any media filming, photographing,
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: or audio recording of the court proceedings. This court has
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: repeatedly taken precautions to avoid the circus-like environments described in Shepard,
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: And thus, Shepard is easily distinguishable and a poor comparison
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: to this matter. As the case law makes clear, the
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: test is not knowledge of the case, but rather partiality.
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: See Haddon v. State v. Hairston, 133, Idaho, 496, 506, 988, P. 3D, 1170, 1180, Idaho, 1999. Thus,
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: the fact that the Latah County survey respondents had the
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: highest percentage of knowledge is... About the case, compared to
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: other counties, is far less significant than the fact that
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: Latah County survey respondents had the least amount of overall
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: prejudgment among the counties. Defend Exhibit B. Appendix B. A.
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: The survey data provided by Dr. Edelman is inadequate to
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: justify a change of venue. I. It's not reported how
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: many individuals declined to take the survey, raising serious concerns
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: about non-response bias. A glaring omission in the data provided
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: by Dr. Edelman is the lack of any information about
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: the number of individuals who were contacted but chose not
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: to respond to the survey. This is important because non-participation
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: bias can change the outcome of such a survey, CEG
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: Scott Keeter et al. What low response rates mean for
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: telephone surveys, Pew Research Center available at pewresearch.org. As of
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: the authoring of the 2017 article, promulgated by the Pew
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: Research Center, telephone pole response rates stabilized at approximately 9%
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: after years of decline. While the Pew Research Center article
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: concludes that low response rates do not necessarily lead to
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: a conclusion of bias across all subject matters, low response
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: rates can skew results in specific areas. For example, individuals
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: with high civic involvement are overrepresented in surveys, As the
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: Pew article explains, telephone polls greatly overstate civic engagement, probably
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: because of non-response bias. As has been established in previous work,
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: the people who answer surveys are likely to be the
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: same people that are involved in their community's public life.
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: They are joiners. Such a phenomenon could easily play a
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: role here, where at the very outset of the survey,
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: respondents were told that they were being asked for opinions
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: about an upcoming jury trial. This court must ask itself,
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: would an individual who was asked for their opinion about
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: an upcoming jury trial continue a survey if they had
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: no opinion about an upcoming jury trial? And once the
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: survey started, would a prudent, thoughtful, and conscientious person who
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: is reluctant to pass judgment with limited information opine to
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: a stranger whether they believe a criminally accused is guilty
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: of murder? The court should also consider the fact that,
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: while the survey respondents were told that the poll was
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: not political or sales-related, the survey respondents were never told
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: why they were being asked questions. They had no way
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: of knowing whether the poll was being done on behalf
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: of the news media, or a true crime blogger, or
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: some other purpose. While they were told their responses would
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: not be made public, they were never told whether they
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: were being recorded, One only has to exercise common sense
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: to see that there are innumerable reasons why prudent, thoughtful, deliberative,
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: and conscientious individuals might hesitate to complete such a survey.
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: Defendants' flawed hypothesis is that 98% of a self-selecting group
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: who voluntarily chose to share opinions about an upcoming jury
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: trial have heard about this particular upcoming jury trial than
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: 98% of all citizens who were summoned for jury duty
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: will also have heard about it. the court should reject
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: this illogical leap of faith and embrace a more practical inference.
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: It is more likely that a voluntary survey that begins
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: by asking individuals to opine about an upcoming jury trial
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: will over-represent individuals with knowledge about an upcoming jury trial.
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: We're going to wrap this episode up right here, and
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: in the next episode dealing with the topic, we'll pick
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: up with two. This court does not have complete survey data,
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: and therefore cannot adequately compare data among the four surveyed counties.
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode can
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box. What's up everyone and
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: welcome back to the program. In this episode, we're going
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: to pick up where we left off with the prosecution's
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: response to the change of venue request in Moscow. 2.
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: This court does not have complete survey data and therefore
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: cannot adequately compare data among the four surveyed counties. As
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: defendant acknowledges, this high-profile quadruple homicide case has captured the
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: attention of the community, the state, the country, and even
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: beyond the United States. Motion to change venue, page 5.
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: Given the amount of attention that this case has received
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: across the entire state, there are two critical questions on
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: defendant's motion to change venue. The first question is whether
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: a fair and impartial jury can be convened in Latah County.
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: And if not, the second question is whether an alternative
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: county would better safeguard defendants' right to a fair trial
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: and an impartial jury. After all, why would the court
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: change venue to another county that has nearly the same
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: media saturation as Latah County? Yet the state and the
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: court were not provided a comprehensive list of survey responses
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: across all four counties that were surveyed, In fact, Dr.
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: Edelman's report focused primarily on Ada County as an alternative venue,
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: despite the fact that Canyon County and Bannock County, the
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: two other counties surveyed, received astronomically less media coverage than
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: Latah County or Ada County. As an example of the
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: incomplete data provided from Canyon and Bannock Counties is found
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: on pages 50 and 51 of Dr. Edelman's declaration, where
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: he reports that in Canyon County, Approximately 90% of the
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: jury-eligible population there had read, seen, or heard about the case,
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: and 51% followed the case somewhat or very closely, and
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: that in Bannock County, approximately 84% of survey respondents recognized
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: the case, some 14 percentage points lower than in Latah County.
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: Just 45% of survey respondents followed the case somewhat or
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: very closely. However, when Edelman discusses the Ada County survey respondents,
• 15:13
  Speaker 1: He reports that while Ada County had a 93% recognition rate,
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: there were important differences between the Latah and Ada County
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: jury pools. Ada County residents are far less invested in
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: the case. Only 15% reported that they followed the case
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: very closely, compared to 29% of Latah County residents. It
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: is unclear why the court was provided the statistical number
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: of survey respondents who followed the case very closely in
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: Ada County. Yet in Canyon and Bannock County, the somewhat
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: and very categories were collapsed, creating a larger percentage. This
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: piece of context is especially concerning given that defendant is
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: advocating specifically for a venue change to Ada County, despite
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: the fact that Ada County has a slightly higher prejudgment
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: rate than Latah County and a higher percentage of case recognition, 93%,
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: than either of the two alternative counties, Canyon at 90%
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: and Bannock at 84%. Additionally, Dr. Edelman discusses the phenomenon
• 16:12
  Speaker 1: of minimization effect, which is when a prospective juror attempts
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: to minimize the full extent of their exposure to pretrial publicity. However,
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: his discussions about the impact of this phenomenon on the
• 16:24
  Speaker 1: actual survey respondents in this case was limited solely to
• 16:28
  Speaker 1: Latah County. Similarly, as discussed in more detail below, Nowhere
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: in the survey report is the mention of answers provided
• 16:36
  Speaker 1: by Canyon County or Bannock County survey respondents about the
• 16:39
  Speaker 1: two most potentially prejudicial and inflammatory pieces of media information
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: addressed by the survey. Rumors that defendant had stalked one
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: of the victims and followed them on social media. In
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: an environment where the court has limited data and where
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: the defendant is asking the court to move the venue
• 16:56
  Speaker 1: to a county with a slightly higher prejudgment rate among
• 17:00
  Speaker 1: survey respondents with knowledge of the case. These types of
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: omissions make it impossible for the court to make an
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: informed determination whether to move venue at all, much less
• 17:09
  Speaker 1: to move it specifically to Ada County. 3. The majority
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: of the survey focused on prospective jurors' knowledge of the
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: information already within the court record and admissible at trial.
• 17:21
  Speaker 1: Defendant argues in his brief that this matter is an
• 17:24
  Speaker 1: extreme case justifying a change of venue due to the
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: continuous nature of media coverage often inaccurate and misleading and
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: the impact of the media coverage, and the small size
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: of the community. Defendant's memorandum in support of motion to
• 17:38
  Speaker 1: change venue at page 5. But as Idaho's appellate courts
• 17:42
  Speaker 1: have repeatedly held, facts are prejudicial when they are beyond
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: the scope of admissible evidence or inaccurate. See Haddon 152,
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: Idaho at 377. Also see Sheehan 139, Idaho 278. When
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: reviewing the nature and content of the pretrial publicity, this
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: court is concerned with the accuracy of the pretrial publicity,
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: the number of articles, and whether the articles will condition
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: the jurors to accept a particular version of the facts
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: at trial. N.C. Hall, 139, Idaho, at 829, qualitatively, the
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: courts must be concerned with news stories and editorials that
• 18:18
  Speaker 1: are inflammatory, inaccurate, or beyond the scope of of admissible evidence.
• 18:23
  Speaker 1: During the course of Dr. Edelman's survey, respondents were asked
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: whether they had read, seen, or heard about a series
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: of factual information items related to the case. The majority
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: of these items, that cell tower data showed that the
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: defendant was near the victim's home several times in the
• 18:38
  Speaker 1: months before the murder, that a knife sheath was found
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: at the murder scene, that DNA found on that knife
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: sheath came back as a match to defendant, that defendant
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: drove the same type of vehicle in the neighborhood of
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: the murder's, that defendant was arrested at his parents' home
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: in Pennsylvania, and that the defendant has stated he was
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: out driving alone on the night of the murders, are
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: part of the court record and admissible at trial. Only
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: three of the questions asked were not part of the
• 19:04
  Speaker 1: court record, and these questions were, Have you read, seen,
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: or heard if university students in Moscow and their parents
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: lived in fear until Brian Kohlberger was arrested for the murders?
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: Have you read, seen, or heard if Brian Kohlberger stalked
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: one of the victims? Have you read, seen, or heard
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: if Brian Kohlberger had followed one of the victims on
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: social media? According to Dr. Edelman's report, 45%, less than half,
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: of Latah County residents surveyed responded, yes, when asked if
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: they had read, seen, or heard that defendant stalked one
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: of the victims. The report did not indicate the response
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: rate for the other counties surveyed. Similarly, 45% of Latah
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: County residents responded yes when asked if they had read, seen,
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: or heard that defendant followed one of the victims on
• 19:49
  Speaker 1: social media. Dr. Edelman reported that only 35% of Ada
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: County respondents reported having heard this information, but did not
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: report on the responses from the other two counties. As
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: to the question whether individuals had read, seen, or heard
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: that university students and their parents lived in fear until
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: defendant's arrest, Overall response rates were not provided for any county.
• 20:11
  Speaker 1: In any event, the substantial majority of the factual information
• 20:15
  Speaker 1: asked of the survey respondents was not beyond the scope
• 20:18
  Speaker 1: of what will be admitted at trial. Most of the
• 20:21
  Speaker 1: items were contained within the court record. As to the
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: prejudicial items related to the rumors that defendant had stalked
• 20:27
  Speaker 1: one of the victims or followed any of them on
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: social media, less than half of Latah County survey respondents
• 20:33
  Speaker 1: reported even having heard of that. The data provided the
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: court demonstrates, if anything, the majority of Latah County survey
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: respondents had not heard the most prejudicial and inflammatory information
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: pieces outside of the court record and that Latah County
• 20:48
  Speaker 1: residents who have heard about the case were, overall, statistically
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: less likely to prejudge the defendant. B. The court should
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: decline the defendant's invitation to disregard long-settled precedent establishing voir
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: dire as the proper procedure for addressing bias. The survey
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: relied upon by the defendant did not even ask the
• 21:08
  Speaker 1: respondents the most critical question of all, whether they could
• 21:11
  Speaker 1: set aside their bias and base their decision only on
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: the evidence at trial. Instead, defendant and his expert asked
• 21:19
  Speaker 1: this court to simply assume that the survey respondents, and
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: by extension, all potential jurors in Latah County who have
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: been exposed to media information about this case, are incapable
• 21:29
  Speaker 1: of setting their bias aside and serving on a jury.
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: In Dr. Edelman's declaration, he argues that a juror's professed
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: ability to be fair and impartial should not be taken
• 21:39
  Speaker 1: at face value in cases where there is substantial prejudicial
• 21:43
  Speaker 1: pre-trial publicity. Similarly, Professor Scott Sundby argues generally the small-town
• 21:49
  Speaker 1: residence where a crime is committed cannot be impartial. Jurors
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: and will go into the proceedings with a thumb on
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: the death side of the scale. Sundby asserts that there
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: are two distinct dangers in holding the trial in Moscow. First,
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: Sundby argues jurors will be aware of community outrage and
• 22:05
  Speaker 1: as a result might fear being outcast if they fail
• 22:08
  Speaker 1: to return a death sentence. In support of this assertion,
• 22:12
  Speaker 1: Sundby provides a single example, the Arkansas case of Bobby
• 22:16
  Speaker 1: Ray Fretwell, whose execution was commuted after a juror came
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: forward and admitted that he had voted for the death
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: penalty for the sole reason that he feared being ostracized
• 22:25
  Speaker 1: in his hometown, he shared with Fretwell's victims. Death row
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: inmates spared after juror makes plea. Steve Barnes, New York Times,
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: February 6, 1999. Setting aside the obvious issue with asking
• 22:39
  Speaker 1: this court to base a legal decision on a single
• 22:41
  Speaker 1: news story involving a nearly 40-year-old case that is not
• 22:45
  Speaker 1: binding on this court, there is a glaring distinction between
• 22:48
  Speaker 1: the Fretwell case and this case. The advent of social
• 22:52
  Speaker 1: media and the internet assuming the 1984 homicide went to
• 22:56
  Speaker 1: trial in the middle of the 80s It is virtually
• 22:58
  Speaker 1: certain that media coverage was more localized to the community
• 23:02
  Speaker 1: rather than spread out across the state of Arkansas or
• 23:05
  Speaker 1: the country. Thus, had a judge even been asked to
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: change venue in that case, it's entirely likely that the
• 23:11
  Speaker 1: absence of pervasive media coverage, a different county may well
• 23:15
  Speaker 1: have had a population that had largely not heard of
• 23:18
  Speaker 1: the case. That simply isn't the case in this matter.
• 23:21
  Speaker 1: Where a significant number of individuals in every county surveyed
• 23:25
  Speaker 1: were familiar with the case. Thus, it is a poor
• 23:28
  Speaker 1: analogy that has no legal or factual relevance to this court. Second,
• 23:33
  Speaker 1: Sunbee argues that homicide of University of Idaho students created
• 23:37
  Speaker 1: a uniquely traumatizing effect on the city of Moscow, effectively
• 23:41
  Speaker 1: rendering potential jurors as victims once removed. In support of
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: this assertion, Sunbee offers another faulty analogy, claiming that trying
• 23:50
  Speaker 1: this case in Moscow was would be tantamount to allowing
• 23:53
  Speaker 1: a guard who worked in the same prison to serve
• 23:55
  Speaker 1: on a jury where a defendant was on trial for
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: murder of a prison guard. But that analogy is flawed
• 24:01
  Speaker 1: because it does not take into account the court's ability
• 24:04
  Speaker 1: to convene a large enough jury pool to prevent anyone
• 24:06
  Speaker 1: with such a close connection to the case to sit
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: on the jury. Similarly, after arguing that exposure to media
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: creates bias that are difficult to overcome, Dr. Amani L.
• 24:17
  Speaker 1: Alayi concludes that the venue should be moved outside of
• 24:20
  Speaker 1: Latah County. Dr. L. Alayi specifically argues that even extended
• 24:25
  Speaker 1: voir dire by seasoned attorneys does not specifically mitigate pretrial
• 24:29
  Speaker 1: publicity effects despite the other potential benefits. The problem with
• 24:34
  Speaker 1: the defendant's experts, however, is that their opinions are directly
• 24:37
  Speaker 1: contrary to the law. The United States Supreme Court and
• 24:41
  Speaker 1: Idaho's appellate courts have repeatedly held that a prospective juror
• 24:45
  Speaker 1: may remain on a jury pool if a trial judge
• 24:47
  Speaker 1: is persuaded that the juror can set aside their initial
• 24:50
  Speaker 1: impression and render a verdict solely on the evidence presented
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: at trial. As the Idaho Supreme Court held in State v. Harrison,
• 24:58
  Speaker 1: the trial does not need to find jurors that are
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: entirely ignorant of the facts and the issues involved in
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: the case to hold the mere existence of any preconceived
• 25:07
  Speaker 1: notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused
• 25:10
  Speaker 1: without more is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a
• 25:13
  Speaker 1: prospective juror's impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard.
• 25:18
  Speaker 1: It's sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression
• 25:21
  Speaker 1: or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence
• 25:24
  Speaker 1: presented in court. And as the same court explained in Haddon,
• 25:28
  Speaker 1: it will only be at the commencement of voir dire
• 25:31
  Speaker 1: that the court and the parties will be able to
• 25:33
  Speaker 1: determine if any of the prospective jurors have formed an
• 25:36
  Speaker 1: opinion based upon adverse pretrial publicity. Only then can a
• 25:40
  Speaker 1: court determine whether the atmosphere of the court will be
• 25:43
  Speaker 1: so utterly corrupted by press coverage that an unbiased jury
• 25:47
  Speaker 1: cannot be found. Thus, as the state has previously argued,
• 25:51
  Speaker 1: even if the court determined that a change of venue
• 25:53
  Speaker 1: would be necessary, the only appropriate way for the court
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: to do so would be after commencement of ordeer. All right,
• 26:01
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap this episode up right here, and
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: in the next episode, we're going to pick up with
• 26:05
  Speaker 1: Part C. The court can fashion a remedial measure for
• 26:09
  Speaker 1: jury selection short of changing the venue. All of the
• 26:12
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 26:15
  Speaker 1: the description box. What's up everyone and welcome back to
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: the program. In this episode, we're picking up where we
• 26:21
  Speaker 1: left off with the prosecutors in Moscow and their response
• 26:26
  Speaker 1: to Brian Kohlberger and his attempt to change the venue. C.
• 26:31
  Speaker 1: The court can fashion a remedial measure for jury selection
• 26:33
  Speaker 1: short of changing the venue. Because the court has not
• 26:37
  Speaker 1: been presented with evidence that a jury pool in Ada
• 26:39
  Speaker 1: County would be any less likely to prejudge the defendant
• 26:43
  Speaker 1: than one in Latah County, the best way to ensure
• 26:46
  Speaker 1: that the defendant gets a fair trial is to safeguard
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: the jury selection process. First, the court can convene a
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: large jury pool. As noted elsewhere in this brief, if
• 26:55
  Speaker 1: the court were to summon 1,800 jurors, only one in
• 26:57
  Speaker 1: 100 would have to be chosen to in order to
• 27:01
  Speaker 1: select a jury of 12 plus 6 alternates. Next, the
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: court could send out questionnaires to each of the jurors
• 27:07
  Speaker 1: to gauge knowledge of the case, media exposure, bias, and
• 27:11
  Speaker 1: other views. The court could then allow the parties ample
• 27:13
  Speaker 1: time to review each questionnaire, and the parties could then
• 27:17
  Speaker 1: confer to discuss whether they had reached any stipulations as
• 27:20
  Speaker 1: to disqualifications for cause. After that, the court could take
• 27:24
  Speaker 1: up the issue of any disputed jurors and determine whether
• 27:28
  Speaker 1: to dismiss those jurors for cause. then those jurors, whose
• 27:31
  Speaker 1: questionnaire passes initial review, could be called back to the
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: courthouse for actual voir dire. The court could also allow
• 27:38
  Speaker 1: a detailed individual voir dire outside the presence of the
• 27:41
  Speaker 1: other jurors, which would address concerns outlined by Dr. Edelman
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: in his report. If the court were inclined to allow
• 27:47
  Speaker 1: the child to be live-streamed, the court could make an
• 27:50
  Speaker 1: exception for individual voir dire and disallow any recording of
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: the individual voir dire to ensure that each juror being
• 27:56
  Speaker 1: questioned would be maximally incentivized to freely and and candidly
• 28:01
  Speaker 1: answer any question asked of him or her. D. Even
• 28:04
  Speaker 1: if the court were to find that a fair and
• 28:06
  Speaker 1: impartial trial cannot be impaneled in Latah County, the court
• 28:10
  Speaker 1: may impanel a jury from a neighboring county rather than
• 28:12
  Speaker 1: moving the trial 300 miles away. Even if the court
• 28:16
  Speaker 1: were to be persuaded that a fair and impartial jury
• 28:18
  Speaker 1: could not be impaneled in Latah County, the court could
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: rely on Idaho Code Section 19, 1816, and draw upon
• 28:25
  Speaker 1: a jury pool from a neighboring county. To invoke Idaho
• 28:28
  Speaker 1: Code Section 19-1816, the court must find 1. A fair
• 28:33
  Speaker 1: and impartial jury cannot be impaneled in the county where
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: the criminal complaint, information, or indictment was filed, that it
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: would be more economical to transport the jury than to
• 28:43
  Speaker 1: transfer the pending action, and 3. that justice would be
• 28:46
  Speaker 1: served thereby. As explained in more detail in Section 2 below,
• 28:51
  Speaker 1: the transfer of trial to Ada County would come at
• 28:54
  Speaker 1: an extraordinary cost. Transporting the jurors from a neighboring county
• 28:58
  Speaker 1: such as Nez Perce County would be a far more
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: economical option. Similar in population size to Latah County, Nez
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: Perce County has a population of over 42,000. United States
• 29:10
  Speaker 1: Census Bureau data available at the census website. Lewiston, the
• 29:15
  Speaker 1: largest city in Nez Perce County, is approximately 30 miles
• 29:18
  Speaker 1: from the Latah County Courthouse. Summoning a jury panel from
• 29:22
  Speaker 1: across the county line, would incur far fewer costs and
• 29:25
  Speaker 1: logistical issues than moving the trial to Ada County. 2.
• 29:30
  Speaker 1: Transferring venue would not be convenient for the parties and witnesses,
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: nor would it be in the interest of justice. Defendant
• 29:37
  Speaker 1: Next argues that the court should change venue under Idaho Constitution.
• 29:40
  Speaker 1: Rule 21B, which provides that upon defendant's motion, a court
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: may change venue to another county for the convenience of
• 29:47
  Speaker 1: parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. This
• 29:50
  Speaker 1: Idaho Criminal Rule addressing venue is distinguishable from its civil counterpart,
• 29:55
  Speaker 1: Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 40.1. which also allows for
• 29:59
  Speaker 1: a venue change for convenience, but is limited in scope
• 30:03
  Speaker 1: to the convenience of the witness and the ends of justice. Idaho, R. Civ. P. 40.1, A.
• 30:09
  Speaker 1: 1 and B. Defendant does not even address the convenience
• 30:13
  Speaker 1: of the parties and has failed to establish that a
• 30:15
  Speaker 1: change of venue, in this case, is convenient for the
• 30:18
  Speaker 1: witnesses or in the interest of justice. First, defendant argues
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: that Ada County's large population size has more than 10
• 30:25
  Speaker 1: times as many potential jurors than Latah County, and thus
• 30:29
  Speaker 1: offers a larger jury pool to choose from. But the
• 30:32
  Speaker 1: fact that Latah County is smaller than Ada County does
• 30:35
  Speaker 1: not mean that it's too small to select a jury.
• 30:38
  Speaker 1: As the 11th most populated county of Idaho's 44 counties,
• 30:42
  Speaker 1: Latah County is larger than 75% of Idaho's communities. Latah
• 30:47
  Speaker 1: County's jury-eligible population of over 32,500 could easily accommodate a
• 30:52
  Speaker 1: panel of hundreds or even thousands of individuals being summoned
• 30:56
  Speaker 1: for jury duty. See Edelman Declaration, page 3. As noted above,
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: if the court were to proceed with a 12-person jury
• 31:03
  Speaker 1: and six alternates, the court could easily summon 1,800 individuals,
• 31:08
  Speaker 1: only 5% of Latah County's total jury-eligible population, meaning that
• 31:12
  Speaker 1: out of every 100 jurors called for duty, only one
• 31:15
  Speaker 1: would need to qualify to be able to seat a jury. Next,
• 31:19
  Speaker 1: the defendant argues that the Ada County Courthouse can best
• 31:21
  Speaker 1: accommodate this trial. specifically Ada County's large courtrooms with adequate
• 31:26
  Speaker 1: space for attorneys and room for spectators. But even Ada
• 31:30
  Speaker 1: County cannot accommodate every interested spectator. One merely had to
• 31:34
  Speaker 1: drive by the Ada County Courthouse during certain days in
• 31:37
  Speaker 1: the Lori Vallow trial of 2023 and the Chad Daybell
• 31:41
  Speaker 1: trial earlier this year to see a lion out the door.
• 31:44
  Speaker 1: The public interest in attending the Chad Daybell trial was
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: so great that individuals who wished to attend had to
• 31:50
  Speaker 1: apply online for the reservation the day before to get
• 31:54
  Speaker 1: a ticket into the courtroom. Chad Daybell's trial will be live-streamed.
• 31:58
  Speaker 1: Here's what you need to know if you want to
• 32:00
  Speaker 1: be in the courtroom. On cases of such tremendous public interest,
• 32:04
  Speaker 1: there is unlikely to be any physical courtroom large enough
• 32:06
  Speaker 1: to accommodate every member of the public who wishes to observe. Moreover,
• 32:11
  Speaker 1: the court can accommodate the large number of people who
• 32:14
  Speaker 1: want to view the trial by providing live streaming options.
• 32:17
  Speaker 1: As to the size of the tables for the attorneys,
• 32:19
  Speaker 1: the location of media, and the daily workings of security,
• 32:22
  Speaker 1: these logical considerations can be addressed by careful planning with
• 32:26
  Speaker 1: the local trial court administrator and the administrative district judge.
• 32:30
  Speaker 1: There's no reason to think that the Latah County Courthouse
• 32:33
  Speaker 1: or its staff is incapable of addressing these administrative and
• 32:36
  Speaker 1: procedural matters in the months leading up to the trial. Indeed,
• 32:40
  Speaker 1: when the defendant filed a motion to remove cameras in
• 32:42
  Speaker 1: the courtroom after media outlets repeatedly took close-up photographs of
• 32:47
  Speaker 1: the defendant in violation of a prior verbal admonition of
• 32:50
  Speaker 1: the court, the court swiftly denied multiple subsequent media requests
• 32:54
  Speaker 1: and eventually issued its amended order governing courthouse and courtroom conduct,
• 32:59
  Speaker 1: which prohibited the media from video recording, still photography, or
• 33:03
  Speaker 1: audio recording during court proceedings. There is no reason to
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: believe that any subsequent concerns about the media or security
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: would not be addressed with similar efficiency. Defendant also argues
• 33:15
  Speaker 1: that this case should be moved to Ada County based
• 33:18
  Speaker 1: on cost. Defendant's argument is limited to asserting that out-of-state
• 33:22
  Speaker 1: witnesses who fly in the Boise would be closer to
• 33:24
  Speaker 1: the physical location of the courthouse. while Latah County witnesses
• 33:28
  Speaker 1: would potentially have to fly to Spokane's airport and rent
• 33:31
  Speaker 1: a car. The state does not dispute that the Spokane
• 33:34
  Speaker 1: airport is further from the Latah County Courthouse than the
• 33:37
  Speaker 1: Boise airport is from the Ada County Courthouse. However, the
• 33:41
  Speaker 1: nearby city of Lewiston also has an airport serviced by
• 33:44
  Speaker 1: Delta and United with nonstop flights to Denver, Seattle, and
• 33:48
  Speaker 1: Salt Lake City. Lewiston Airport's website's available here. Most of
• 33:53
  Speaker 1: the state's witnesses are local or will be traveling to
• 33:56
  Speaker 1: Moscow by car. If venue is moved, those witnesses, who
• 33:59
  Speaker 1: are local, will need to rent hotels in Boise, potentially
• 34:02
  Speaker 1: for multiple nights, while they wait to testify. The state's
• 34:05
  Speaker 1: law enforcement and emergency dispatch witnesses would have to potentially
• 34:09
  Speaker 1: be away from work for days rather than hours, creating
• 34:12
  Speaker 1: a ripple effect of inconvenience. Similarly, the medical examiner, who
• 34:16
  Speaker 1: is based out of Spokane, would have also to extend
• 34:20
  Speaker 1: her time away from the office. Some witnesses... would otherwise
• 34:23
  Speaker 1: drive to Moscow from Spokane or northern Idaho, would have
• 34:27
  Speaker 1: to obtain flights if the trial were moved to Boise,
• 34:30
  Speaker 1: which would increase the costs. While the defense counsel took
• 34:33
  Speaker 1: this case on a contract basis and will have to
• 34:36
  Speaker 1: travel whether the trial is had in Ada County or
• 34:38
  Speaker 1: in Latah County, the same is not true for the court,
• 34:42
  Speaker 1: the court reporter, the court clerk, and the court staff attorney.
• 34:45
  Speaker 1: All would have to travel to Boise either by air
• 34:48
  Speaker 1: or in a state vehicle, would have to obtain lodging
• 34:51
  Speaker 1: and would have to arrange for per diem reimbursement for meals.
• 34:54
  Speaker 1: The state, which has the burden of proof and must
• 34:56
  Speaker 1: deal with the logistics of juggling witnesses and trial exhibits,
• 35:01
  Speaker 1: would have to relocate both of its lead attorneys, as
• 35:03
  Speaker 1: well as its support and victim services staff, for weeks
• 35:06
  Speaker 1: and likely months. This would come at great expense for lodging, transportation,
• 35:11
  Speaker 1: and per diem. Additionally, the elected prosecutor... His chief deputy
• 35:15
  Speaker 1: would be physically away from the daily operations of the
• 35:18
  Speaker 1: Leyta County Prosecutor's Office and from the law enforcement agencies
• 35:22
  Speaker 1: they advise, creating a potentially detrimental ripple effect for Leyta
• 35:26
  Speaker 1: County's public safety operations. Finally, the defense also asked the
• 35:31
  Speaker 1: court to change venue on the basis that Moscow Police
• 35:34
  Speaker 1: Chief Fry is currently running for Leyta County Sheriff. First,
• 35:38
  Speaker 1: this presupposes the outcome of the November election and is premature.
• 35:42
  Speaker 1: If elected as sheriff, Chief Fry would have the statutory
• 35:45
  Speaker 1: authority to summon a sufficient number of trial jurors in
• 35:48
  Speaker 1: the event that there is an unanticipated shortage. Idaho Code
• 35:52
  Speaker 1: Section 2, 2-10. Defendant states Chief Fry is a witness
• 35:57
  Speaker 1: and therefore his duty would create conflict. At this time,
• 36:00
  Speaker 1: the state does not anticipate calling Chief Fry as a witness. However,
• 36:04
  Speaker 1: even if he were called as a witness by the defense...
• 36:06
  Speaker 1: and even if there were an unanticipated shortage of jurors,
• 36:10
  Speaker 1: he could delegate his authority to a senior chief deputy
• 36:13
  Speaker 1: to exercise that function if necessary. See Idaho Code Section 31, 2006,
• 36:19
  Speaker 1: allowing a county officer to designate a senior deputy to
• 36:22
  Speaker 1: perform the duties of the office during a vacancy, absence,
• 36:25
  Speaker 1: or inability. The court should also consider, in the interest
• 36:29
  Speaker 1: of justice, the physical location of the victim's families, ICR 21B.
• 36:32
  Speaker 1: Interest of justice is a consideration considered in a court's
• 36:36
  Speaker 1: determination whether to change venue for convenience. It's the state's
• 36:40
  Speaker 1: understanding that most of the victims, immediate family members, who
• 36:44
  Speaker 1: are constitutionally entitled to attend trial proceedings, live closer to
• 36:47
  Speaker 1: Latah County than to Boise, see Idaho Constitution Article 1,
• 36:52
  Speaker 1: Section 22-4. It is also strange to the state that
• 36:55
  Speaker 1: the surveyor did not do polling in geographically closer counties,
• 36:59
  Speaker 1: such as Nez Perce County, given how close the overall
• 37:02
  Speaker 1: prejudgment rates among the surveyed counties were, it's entirely possible
• 37:06
  Speaker 1: that Nez Perce County would have had an even lower
• 37:08
  Speaker 1: prejudgment rate than Latah County. If the court were to
• 37:12
  Speaker 1: change venue, it seems to the state that the changing
• 37:15
  Speaker 1: venue to a geographically closer county such as Nez Perce
• 37:18
  Speaker 1: or Kootenai County, just across the state line from Spokane
• 37:21
  Speaker 1: International Airport, would be less inconvenient than moving the trial
• 37:25
  Speaker 1: 300 miles south to Boise. In any event, the defendant
• 37:29
  Speaker 1: has come nowhere close to demonstrating that moving this trial
• 37:32
  Speaker 1: to Boise is would be convenient to the witnesses or
• 37:35
  Speaker 1: the parties, nor has the defendant demonstrated such a move,
• 37:38
  Speaker 1: would be in the interest of justice. Conclusion Defendant has
• 37:43
  Speaker 1: failed to meet the burden of showing that change of venue,
• 37:45
  Speaker 1: in this case, is necessary or convenient. The court should
• 37:49
  Speaker 1: decline his invitation to ignore well-settled precedent establishing the voir
• 37:53
  Speaker 1: dire process. The court should also decline to relocate itself,
• 37:57
  Speaker 1: the state, and scores of witnesses hundreds of miles from
• 38:00
  Speaker 1: only to face a jury pool with similar high media exposure.
• 38:04
  Speaker 1: Defendant's motion should be denied. Respectfully submitted this 12th day
• 38:08
  Speaker 1: of August 2024, and it was signed by William Thompson Jr.
• 38:13
  Speaker 1: and Ingrid Beatty. All of the information that goes with
• 38:17
  Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box.