Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Mega Edition: Bryan Kohberger Is Granted A Change In Venue (8/22/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Bryan Kohberger Is Granted A Change In Venue (8/22/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. So
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: Judge Judge decided that it was in the best interest
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: of justice when it comes to Brian Colberger and his
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: trial to move that trial out of Moscow. Well, in
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: this episode, we're going to begin taking a look at
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: the order that turned that venue change from a possibility
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: into a reality. Case Number CR twenty nine Dash twenty
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: two Dash twenty eight oh five, the Order granting Defendant's
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: motion to change venue. State of Idaho Plaintiff versus Brian C. Coburger,
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: the defendant one introduction. On January thirtieth, twenty twenty four,
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: Defendant Bryan C. Coburger filed a motion for a change
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: of venue pursuant the Idaho Criminal Rule twenty one Idaho
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: Section nineteen Dash eighteen oh one, Article one, Section one, six, seven, thirteen,
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: and eighteen of the Idaho Constitution. In the fifth, sixth, eighth,
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: and fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. On February eighth,
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, the state filed an objection to Coburger's motion.
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: The hearing on Coburger's motion was originally scheduled for June
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: twenty seventh, twenty twenty four. Thereafter, the party stipulated to
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: continuing the hearing to August twenty ninth, twenty twenty four.
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: On July twenty second, twenty twenty four, Coburger filed a
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: memorandum in support of motion to change venue with various
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: exhibits attached. The state filed an additional objection on August twelfth,
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, and Coburger filed a reply on August nineteenth,
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, with additional exhibits. A change of hearing
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: venue was held on August twenty ninth, twenty twenty four.
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: Colberger was present and represented by Anne Taylor, Elisa Massoth,
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: and Jay Logsden. The State was represented by William Thompson
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: Junior and Ashley Jennings Leta County Prosecutor's Office and Ingrid
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: Beatty in jeff nine, Office of the Attorney General. At
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: the hearing, defendant presented expert testimony from James Todd Murphy,
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: doctor Amani L. Aliley, and doctor Brian Edelman and doctor
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: Veronica to hear. The State did not call any witnesses.
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: The Court has spent many months carefully considering the legal
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: and logistical concerns with the trial of this length and magnitude,
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: carefully reading each submission, listening to each expert, and evaluating
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: each party's position based upon the totality of factors, Defendant's
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: motion for change of venue is granted. Background. On November thirteenth,
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty two, four University of Idaho students Kaylee Gonsalvis,
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: Madison Mogan, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin were found deceased
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: in Gonsalves, Mogan, and Kernodle's off campus home in Moscow, Idaho.
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: The cause of death for each was ruled as a homicide.
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: As news of the tragedy broke, media outlets from around
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: the country descended upon Moscow. As law enforcement investigated, news stations, newspapers,
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: and social media were flooded with stories and speculations about
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: the homicides. Throughout the course of the investigation, the Moscow
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: Police Department, in partnership with the University of Idaho, the
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: Leta County Prosecutor's Office, and the Idaho State Police, held
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: press briefings to answer questions and to reassure the public appropriately.
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: The information released was limited to protect the integrity of
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: the ongoing investigation. On December thirtieth, twenty twenty two, Coburger
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: was arrested in charge with four counts of murder in
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: the first degree and one count of burglary. Again, media
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: outlets descended upon Moscow, and the news coverage quickly focused
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: on Coburger. That same day, an order governing courthouse and
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: courtroom conduct was entered to help alleviate any potential prejudicial photography,
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: audio or video recordings and interviews within this courthouse. The
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: conduct order has remained in place throughout the proceedings. Because
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: of the extensive media coverage from the outset of the homicides,
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: a non dissemination order was quickly put into place by
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: stipulation of the parties on January three, twenty twenty three,
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: to help protect Colburger's right to affair trial by an
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: impartial jury. The non dissemination order, as amended, has remained
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: in place throughout the duration of this case. In an
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: additional effort to help protect Coburger's right to affair trial,
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: on November seventeenth, twenty twenty three, this court entered an
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: order removing cameras from the court room. Since that time,
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: the proceedings have been streamed via the court's YouTube channel,
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: which in theory allows the public access to the proceedings
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: while minimizing prejudicial photographs and videos focusing solely on Coburger
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: and his every move. Despite efforts by the parties in
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: the court to protect the jury pool from being inundated
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: with information that is potentially prejudiced and false, extensive media
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: coverage by mainstream media sources such as newspapers, radio stations,
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: and television news outlets has continued throughout the state and nationally. Additionally,
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: and perhaps more challenging, is the ongoing spread of prejudicial misinformation,
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: rumors and patently false theories of the case on social
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: media outlets such as Facebook, podcasts, and blogs. And just
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: to interject real quick, this is why we offer all
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: sides of the story here on this podcast. We don't
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: just come here to railroad people. We come here to
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: get to the truth. There have also been numerous television
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: shows and documentaries produced about the homicides, and at least
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: one book has already been published. The parties agree the
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: case is generated extensive coverage by the media, Internet, slews
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: and others trying to capitalize on the tragedy, but disagree
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: on how the court should attempt to remedy this issue
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: to ensure Colberger is tried by a fair impartial jury. Well,
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: here's an idea, get rid of the gag order. What
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: they're doing is blaming everybody else for there being no
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: information or for their being a lack of good information,
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: when it's really their own fault. You're the ones who
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: put the gag order in place. What you think people
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: aren't going to speculate in some Coburger argues that the
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: venue must be changed from Lata County to a location
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: with a larger population that is geographically distant from where
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: the homicides occurred. The state asserts that a larger juror pool,
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: extensive juror questionnaires, and vorder are sufficient remedies that will
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: result in a fair and impartial jury in Layta County.
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: In addition to the issue of juror prejudice resulting from
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: extensive coverage of the homicides and Coburger by the media
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: and others, and the smaller population of Leata County. The
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: defense also asserts the trial should be moved outside of
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: Layta County for the convenience of the parties and witnesses
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: and the interest of justice. The State disagrees that moving
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: the trial would be in the interest of justice or
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: convenient to the parties and witnesses. Part three the evidence.
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: As noted above. At the change of anual hearing, Coburger
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: presented expert testimony from James Todd Murphy, doctor Amani l Aleiley,
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: doctor Brian Edelman, and doctor Veronica the hear. Additionally, Coburger
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: submitted several exhibits depicting news stories, news clips, and social
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: media posts for this court's review. The state did not
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: call any witnesses or submit any evidence. The Court will
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: summarize the key takeaways from testimony offered by each of
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: Coberger's experts. One James Todd Murphy. James Todd Murphy is
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: the president of Truscope North America. Truscope provides media monitoring
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: services that offer information to help understand the impact of
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: media coverage on a particular community. Truscope looks only at
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: mainstream media sources such as newspapers and new stations of
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: the mainstream media coverage and IDAHO of this case, thirty
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: six percent of that coverage has been within Leata County.
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: This would include media like the Moscow Pullman Deli News,
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: Lewiston Tribune, and the television news station out of Spokane, Washington.
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: Colberger requests this case to be moved to Ada County,
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: which has thirty four percent of the mainstream media coverage
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: in Idaho. While the media coverage percentages are similar between
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: the two counties, Ada County has a much larger population
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: than Lata County. According to Murphy, this means that the
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: media coverage in Aida County is much more diluted, while
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: Layta County is saturated with such coverage. Stated differently, media
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: coverage in Layta County offered twice as many opportunities to
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: be seen per person then in Ada County. The higher
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: volume of coverage in Layta County, coupled with the smaller
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: pool of eligible jurors, means people in Lata County had
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: twice as many chances to be exposed to the case
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: versus those residing in Ada County. When looking at the
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: volume of media coverage over time, Ada County had a
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: higher volume of media coverage from February twenty twenty three
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: to June twenty twenty three. However, since that time, Ada
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: County has consistently had the higher volume of media coverage,
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: with the two counties being similar overall in their current
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: coverage of the case. All of this, taken together, means
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: that the probability of Leta County resident being exposed to
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: media coverage of the case is much higher than the
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: probability of an Ada County resident being exposed to media
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: coverage of the case. Two. Doctor Amani l Alailee doctor
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: Omani l Aleiley is a social psychologist and social cognition researcher.
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: As part of her research, doctor Laliley evaluates how publicity
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: about a case can shape potential jurors attitudes. Doctor l
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: Aleiley has found that the more publicity a case generates,
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: the more likely potential jurors are to dislike the defendant
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: and view the defendant as guilty. Doctor lla Ley believes
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: that the publicity in Leayta County residents that they've been
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: exposed to make some biased against Coburger for several reasons,
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: even if that bias is subconscious. First, Leayta County authority
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: figures have publicly spoken about Coburger's guilt in absolute terms.
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: The former Moscow Police Department Chief James Fry, who was
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: the police chief during the investigation into the homicides publicly
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: declared that he had no doubt that the right guy
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: had been arrested for the crimes. After Coburger's arrest, the
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: University of Idaho President Scott Green stated publicly that the
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: university community once again felt safe. Generally speaking, individuals are
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: more likely to trust and believe authority figures, so these
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: statements by Layta County authority figures are particularly impactful to
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: Layta County residents. Second, because Leayta County is a small,
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: close knit community, community members feel a sense of loyalty
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: to community views and fellow community members. For example, the
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: Layta County jurors may feel an inner clash or conflict
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: if they felt the state had not proven that Coburger
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, because they may feel
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: voting not guilty would cause community outrage or once again
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: cause fear within the community. Thus, the inner clash may
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: cause jurors to vote guilty even when they believe there
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: is reasonable doubt as to the guilt. This inner clash
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: may be even greater when personal connections within Laytak County
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: are considered. Similarly, given the small size of Leata County,
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: Leaiyta County residents had a much more emotional experience surrounding
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: the homicides and therefore or much more invested in the case.
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: For example, when Coburger was arrested, Laytak County residents who
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: had been fearful experienced a sense of relief, which equates
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: the believing Coburger is guilty. Next, the extensive negative publicity
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: surrounding Colburger leads potential jurors to think of Coburger negatively.
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: Stated differently, before Coburger's arrest, if one was to hear
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: the name Brian Kolberger, the reaction would have been neutral. Now,
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: after Coburger's name and picture have been associated with terms
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: like murderer, evil killer, and stalker. When individuals hear the name,
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: there is negative association. This impact is greater in Leayta
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: County because of the saturation of the extensive media coverage. Finally,
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: given all of this, doctor l Aliale opined that it
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: was arguably impossible for residents of Leata County to be
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: asked to serve as impartial jurors because they are biased
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: against Colburger, even if they do not want to be
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: biased or think they are biased. This is particularly difficult
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: for the defense to overcome because when humans process information
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: while experiencing emotions like fear and anger, it's difficult to
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: change the initial opinions formed, even in the face of
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: contradictory evidence. Instead, we as humans pay greater attention to
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: information that backs up a bist preconceived ideas and opinions
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: taken together. Doctor L. Aaliley stated that, in her expert opinion,
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: the best way to ensure Colberger is tried by affair
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: and impartial jury is to find jurors who are both
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: physically and psychologically removed from Leyta County. All Right, we're
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: gonna wrap up this episode right here, and in the
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: with three Doctor Brian Edelman. All of the information that
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: this episode, we're picking up where we left off with
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: the order by Judge Judge for the venue to change three.
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: Doctor Brian Edelman. Doctor Brian Edelman is a social psychologist
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: who works as a trial consultant for a jury selection
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: and pre trial research. In this case, the Defense hired
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: doctor Edelman to conduct a survey of Leta County residents,
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: Ada County residents, Canyon County residents, and Bannett County residents
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: to determine if a change of venue motion was warranted.
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: The key findings from the survey show that case recognition
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: is high throughout Idaho. Ninety eight percent of survey respondents
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: in Leayta County recognize the case, ninety three percent of
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: survey respondents in Ada County recognize the case, ninety percent
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: of survey respondents in Canyon County recognize the case, and
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: eighty four percent of survey respondents in Bannett County recognize
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: the case. In Lata County, of the ninety eight percent
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: of respondents that recognize the case, sixty seven percent reported
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: they believe Coburger is guilty. Twenty four point seven percent
• 14:40
  Speaker 1: reported that they believe that Coburger is definitely guilty. Similarly,
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: in Ada County, sixty eight percent of respondents who recognize
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: the case believe Coburger is guilty. Twenty two percent reported
• 14:52
  Speaker 1: believing Coburger is definitely guilty. Sixty nine percent of respondents
• 14:57
  Speaker 1: in Canyon County believe Coburger is guilty. Twenty three percent
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: reported Colburger is definitely guilty, and seventy six percent of
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: respondents in Bane County believe Colburger is guilty. Nineteen percent
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: reported Coburger is definitely guilty. In Layta County, twenty nine
• 15:13
  Speaker 1: percent of survey respondents were reported following the case very
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: closely and thirty eight point five percent reported following the
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: case somewhat closely. In Ada County, forty nine percent reported
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: they believe death was the appropriate sentence. Fifty seven percent
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: of respondents in Canyon County reported that they believe death
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: was the appropriate sentence, and fifty three percent in Banitt
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: County reported that they believe death was the appropriate sentence.
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: In Layta County, twenty nine percent of survey respondents reported
• 15:44
  Speaker 1: following the case very closely and thirty eight point five
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: percent reported following the case somewhat closely. In Ada County,
• 15:52
  Speaker 1: fifty eight percent of respondents reported following the case very
• 15:55
  Speaker 1: closely or somewhat closely, while that number fell to fifty
• 15:59
  Speaker 1: one percent in Canyon County and forty six percent in
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: Bannit County. Thirty nine percent of survey respondents in Leayta
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: County indicated they experienced higher levels of stress, anxiety, or
• 16:11
  Speaker 1: fear during the search for the person responsible for the killings.
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: This contrasts with seventeen percent of Ada County respondents who
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: answered yes to the question, eleven percent of Canyon County
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: respondents who answered yes, and eleven percent of Bannitt County
• 16:26
  Speaker 1: respondents who answered yes. Additionally, a higher number of Leata
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: County residents reported talking about the case with others living
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: in Moscow when the homicides occurred, having ties to the
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: University of Idaho, and having ties to law enforcement who
• 16:42
  Speaker 1: investigated the crimes. Finally, Doctor Edelman considered the population sizes
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: of the county surveyed, with Ada County having sixty six,
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: nine hundred and eleven residents and Leata County having thirty
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: two thousand, five hundred and fifteen residents. Based on all
• 16:58
  Speaker 1: the information obtained from the survey, Doctor Edelman upon the
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: case recognition and presumption of guilt is and will continue
• 17:06
  Speaker 1: to be high throughout Idaho given the extensive media coverage
• 17:09
  Speaker 1: the case is generated. In his opinion, population size matters.
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: For example, if roughly fifty percent of Leayta County residents
• 17:17
  Speaker 1: presume Coburger is guilty. That leaves approximately fifteen thousand Layta
• 17:21
  Speaker 1: County residents who do not hold this presumption. Of those,
• 17:26
  Speaker 1: not all are eligible to serve as a jur In
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: contrast to fifty percent of Ada County residents presume Coburger
• 17:33
  Speaker 1: is guilty. That leaves over two hundred thousand residents who
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: do not hold such a presumption. Thus, Ada County has
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: a much larger pool of non biased potential jurors. Even
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: more important to doctor Edelman, though, was the issue of
• 17:47
  Speaker 1: personal connections within Leayta County and the personal impact this
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: case has had on Leyta County residence. The feelings of fear, stress,
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: and anxiety surrounding the homicides where significantly greater in Leaytah
• 18:01
  Speaker 1: County than in other counties. This was also true for
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: the connections to the University of Idaho and local law enforcement.
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: Doctor Edelman testified that these connections and experiences are the
• 18:13
  Speaker 1: real issue when it comes to seating an impartial jury
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: in Leata County. Based on the results of his surveys,
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: doctor Edelman opining that in his expert opinion, there is
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: a reasonable likelihood the presumption of guilt prevails in Laytah County,
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: and that a change of venue is appropriate. Number four
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: Doctor Veronica the Hear. Doctor Veronica to Hear was called
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: by the defense to offer her expert opinion as to
• 18:40
  Speaker 1: the validity of the survey work done by doctor Edelman.
• 18:43
  Speaker 1: In this case. Doctor d'her testified that the surveys were
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: conducted in accordance with applicable standards and the results were sound.
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: Five media articles and video clips. The defense also submitted
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: numerous media articles in video clips demonstrating the sheer of
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: volume of coverage this case is generated. The court agrees
• 19:05
  Speaker 1: and the State does not dispute that the coverage of
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: this case by both mainstream media and social media outlets
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: has been extensive in Letah County, throughout Idaho, and nationally.
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: While some of the mainstream reporting has been appropriate and
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: based on information from the court record, there has been
• 19:22
  Speaker 1: extensive coverage that is prejudicial to Coburger and likely it
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: admissible at trial. Part four the standard both the Idaho
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: Constitution and the United States Constitution protect a defendant's right
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: to a fair trial by an impartial jury. To help
• 19:39
  Speaker 1: achieve a constitutionally sound trial, Idaho Criminal Rule twenty one
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: allows transfer of a case for trial. In certain instances,
• 19:48
  Speaker 1: Idaho Criminal Rule twenty one a states that on a
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: motion of either party, the court must transfer the proceeding
• 19:55
  Speaker 1: to another county if the court is satisfied that affair
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: and impartial trial cannot be had in the county where
• 20:01
  Speaker 1: the case is pending. Similarly, Idaho Codes Section nineteen eighteen
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: oh one states that a criminal action prosecuted by indictment
• 20:10
  Speaker 1: may be removed from the court in which it's pending
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: on the application of the defendant, on the ground that
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: county where the indictment is pending. Idaho Criminal Rule number
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: twenty one also allows transfer for convenience. On motion of
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: the defendant, the court may transfer proceedings to another county
• 20:31
  Speaker 1: for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: interest of justice. A motion for change of venue pursuant
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: to Idaho Criminal Rule twenty one is left to the
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: discretion of the trial court. Part five Analysis one prejudice.
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: In deciding a motion for change of venue, the court
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: determines whether the totality of the circumstances duror exposure to
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: pre trial publicity will result in a trial that is
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: not fundamentally fair. The critical in is whether the nature
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: of their exposure to pre trial publicity caused the prospective
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: jur to form an opinion about the defendant's guilt and
• 21:08
  Speaker 1: as a result, they are unable to serve as an
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: unbiased juror. In determining whether a criminal defendant actually received
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: a fair trial, the Idaho Supreme Court considers the following factors.
• 21:19
  Speaker 1: One the existence of affid David's indicating prejudice or an
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: absence of prejudice in the community where the trial took place.
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: Two the testimony of the jurors at jury selection regarding
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: whether they had formed an opinion based upon adverse pre
• 21:34
  Speaker 1: trial publicity. And three whether the defendant challenged for cause
• 21:38
  Speaker 1: any of the jurors finally selected. Four the nature and
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: content of the pre trial publicity, and five the amount
• 21:45
  Speaker 1: of time elapsed between pre trial publicity and the trial.
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: Some of these factors can only be evaluated during or
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: after jury selection, while others can be evaluated by the
• 21:56
  Speaker 1: trial court in deciding an earlier emotion to change venue
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: a actual prejudice. In evaluating actual juror prejudice, the relevant
• 22:06
  Speaker 1: question is not whether the community remembered the case, but
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: whether the jurors at trial had such fixed opinions that
• 22:13
  Speaker 1: they would not judge impartially the guilt of the defendant.
• 22:16
  Speaker 1: Stated differently, courts must evaluate whether, in the totality of
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: the existing circumstances, juror exposure to pre trial publicity resulted
• 22:25
  Speaker 1: in a trial that was not fundamentally fairer. The defendant
• 22:29
  Speaker 1: bears the burden of proving prejudice or showing reasonable likelihood
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: that there was prejudice. In reviewing case law, a finding
• 22:37
  Speaker 1: of actual juror prejudice rests on examination of the jury
• 22:41
  Speaker 1: selection process. This includes evaluating how jurors answered screening questionnaires,
• 22:46
  Speaker 1: the testimony during Vordeer as the whole, and the jurors
• 22:50
  Speaker 1: eventually seated, and any juror seated despite a four cause
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: challenge by the defense. These factors are considered along with
• 22:58
  Speaker 1: evaluating pre trial pay publicity itself and the timing of
• 23:02
  Speaker 1: that publicity. Here, the defense argues that the survey work
• 23:05
  Speaker 1: of doctor Edelman establishes actual prejudice within Leayta County. However,
• 23:11
  Speaker 1: actual prejudice cannot be evaluated at this juncture based on
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: a survey of some four hundred Blayta County residents who
• 23:18
  Speaker 1: are anonymous, did not answer questions in court and were
• 23:21
  Speaker 1: not subject to questioning by the state without attempting to
• 23:25
  Speaker 1: see a jury. There is no real evidence, such as
• 23:27
  Speaker 1: juris screening questionnaires and testimony during Vordeer for this court
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: to evaluate actual prejudice. B presume prejudice. Adverse pre trial
• 23:38
  Speaker 1: publicity can create such a presumption of prejudice that the
• 23:41
  Speaker 1: jurors claim that they can be impartial should not be believed.
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: Unlike with actual prejudice, finding a presumed prejudice means that
• 23:49
  Speaker 1: the court need not consider a juris screening questionnaires or
• 23:52
  Speaker 1: testimony during Vordeer before declaring a jury verdict void or
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: in this case, declaring a change of venue appropriate based
• 23:59
  Speaker 1: on PUREJJ. It is the defendant's burden to establish a
• 24:03
  Speaker 1: reasonable likelihood prejudicial news coverage prevented or will prevent a
• 24:07
  Speaker 1: fair trial in violation of the sixth Amendment to the
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: United States Constitution. In cases where juror prejudice has been presumed,
• 24:16
  Speaker 1: the following factors have been examined. One, the size and
• 24:19
  Speaker 1: characteristics of the community in which the crime occurred, whether
• 24:23
  Speaker 1: news stories contained a confession or other blatantly prejudicial information
• 24:28
  Speaker 1: of the type readers or viewers could not reasonably be
• 24:31
  Speaker 1: expected to shut from sight three, the lapse of time
• 24:34
  Speaker 1: between the prejudicial news coverage and the trial and for
• 24:38
  Speaker 1: what the jury actually found. As far as guilt is concerned,
• 24:42
  Speaker 1: the amount of time elapse between the pre trial publicity
• 24:45
  Speaker 1: and the trial. When reviewing the nature and content of
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: pre trial publicity, the trial court should be concerned with
• 24:51
  Speaker 1: the accuracy of the pre trial publicity, the extent to
• 24:54
  Speaker 1: which the articles are inflammatory, inaccurate, or beyond the scope
• 24:58
  Speaker 1: of admissible evidence, and the number of articles, and whether
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: the jurors were so incessantly exposed to such articles that
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: they had subtly become conditioned to accept a particular version
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: of the facts at trial had in one fifty two
• 25:12
  Speaker 1: Idaho at three seventy seven two seventy one, p Dot
• 25:16
  Speaker 1: three d at twelve thirty three. All right, we're going
• 25:19
  Speaker 1: to wrap up right here, and in the next episode,
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: we're going to finish this bad boy off. All of
• 25:25
  Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
• 25:28
  Speaker 1: in the description box. What's up everyone, and welcome back
• 25:31
  Speaker 1: to the program. In this episode, we're going to finish
• 25:34
  Speaker 1: off taking a look at Judge John Judge's order to
• 25:39
  Speaker 1: change the venue in the Brian Koberger trial. First as
• 25:44
  Speaker 1: to the size and characteristics. First, as to the size
• 25:47
  Speaker 1: and the characteristics of the community. Leta County is a
• 25:51
  Speaker 1: relatively small community with a population of approximately forty one thousand,
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: twenty four, nine hundred and sixty three who are eligible
• 25:59
  Speaker 1: to say serve on a jury. The state argues that
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: this is enough to in Panel eighteen impartial individuals. The
• 26:07
  Speaker 1: defense argues at the small, tight knit community makes it
• 26:11
  Speaker 1: impossible to fined in impartial individuals. Because of the extensive publicity,
• 26:16
  Speaker 1: Leayta County residents have been exposed to the emotional experience
• 26:20
  Speaker 1: and feelings of fear residence experienced in the wake of
• 26:23
  Speaker 1: the homicides, feelings of loyalty to the community, and community connections.
• 26:28
  Speaker 1: The defense position is supported by the testimony of Todd Murphy,
• 26:31
  Speaker 1: doctor L. Aalailey, and doctor Edelman. As mister Murphy testified,
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: thirty six percent of all mainstream news coverage of this
• 26:39
  Speaker 1: case throughout Idaho has been in Leayta County. This, coupled
• 26:43
  Speaker 1: with the smaller population in Leata County makes the probability
• 26:47
  Speaker 1: of Leata County residence exposure to such coverage higher than
• 26:51
  Speaker 1: in Ada County, Bannet County, or Canyon County. Doctor l
• 26:55
  Speaker 1: Alailee testified that the more publicity one is exposed to,
• 26:59
  Speaker 1: the more likely an individual is to dislike Coburger and
• 27:03
  Speaker 1: view him as guilty, while doctor Edelman survey results suggests
• 27:07
  Speaker 1: that similar percentages of survey respondents throughout the counties surveyed
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: knew of the case and presume Coburger was guilty to
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: share a number of individuals in the larger counties increase
• 27:19
  Speaker 1: the chances of impaneling affair and impartial jury. Further, both
• 27:23
  Speaker 1: doctor l Aaliley and doctor Edelman expressed great concern over
• 27:27
  Speaker 1: the emotional experiences, feelings of fear, and personal connections of
• 27:31
  Speaker 1: Leyta County residents. These issues are unique to Leayta County
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: and are increased by the small size of the community potential.
• 27:41
  Speaker 1: Jurors in Ata County, for example, did not experience the
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: same level of fear caused by the homicides as Leyta
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: County residents. Similarly, it's far more likely for jurors in
• 27:52
  Speaker 1: Leyta County to know someone involved in the investigation of
• 27:55
  Speaker 1: the case or otherwise related to the case, and more
• 27:59
  Speaker 1: likely that Leaytai County residents have discussed the case with
• 28:02
  Speaker 1: each other. Additionally, the smaller town makes it more difficult
• 28:06
  Speaker 1: to keep the identity of jurors private, which, as doctor
• 28:09
  Speaker 1: Lay testified, may hinder some jurors in their decision making
• 28:14
  Speaker 1: because of feelings of loyalty to the community. Next is
• 28:19
  Speaker 1: discussed above. It's disputed that there has been significant media
• 28:23
  Speaker 1: coverage in this case throughout the state and nationally. While
• 28:26
  Speaker 1: some of the coverage has been neutral reporting of court proceedings,
• 28:30
  Speaker 1: much of the coverage has been sensationalized and prejudicial to Coburger.
• 28:35
  Speaker 1: By way of example, the defense provided the court with
• 28:38
  Speaker 1: two hundred and twenty two pages of news articles covering
• 28:41
  Speaker 1: the case from one local newspaper. One article published after
• 28:45
  Speaker 1: Coburger's arrest includes statements from Washington State University students who
• 28:50
  Speaker 1: are reported feeling weird having sat in class with Coburger
• 28:53
  Speaker 1: and felt relieved knowing Coburger had been arrested. Another article
• 28:57
  Speaker 1: starts out by referring to Colberger as the man accused
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: of slaughtering for University of Idaho students. The title of
• 29:04
  Speaker 1: yet another article refers to Colberger as the UI killer.
• 29:08
  Speaker 1: While the issue is extensive, sensationalized coverage is not unique
• 29:12
  Speaker 1: to Leayta County, it's potentially more impactful given the volume
• 29:16
  Speaker 1: of coverage coupled with the smaller population, as the lapse
• 29:20
  Speaker 1: of time between the coverage and trial and information provided
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: by mister Murphy demonstrates that coverage has overall waned since
• 29:28
  Speaker 1: February twenty twenty three. However, there is an uptick in
• 29:31
  Speaker 1: coverage before and after hearings and court decisions. This is
• 29:35
  Speaker 1: especially true for Leayta County, with Ada County following a
• 29:39
  Speaker 1: similar trajectory. The court does not anticipate this trend will
• 29:43
  Speaker 1: change heading up to trial and anticipates the coverage will
• 29:46
  Speaker 1: substantially increase in the weeks and days before the start
• 29:50
  Speaker 1: of the trial. Finally, while this court does not have
• 29:53
  Speaker 1: affid David's demonstrating prejudice in Leayta County, the court must
• 29:57
  Speaker 1: consider the results of the survey doctor Edelman prepared. Again,
• 30:01
  Speaker 1: while the presumption of guilt was similar across the all
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: counties surveyed, the number is more impactful in Laytai County
• 30:08
  Speaker 1: given the smaller population some sixty seven percent of Layta
• 30:12
  Speaker 1: County survey respondents reported believing that Coburger is guilty, with
• 30:16
  Speaker 1: fifty one percent of those indicating it would be hard
• 30:19
  Speaker 1: for Coburger to convince them of his innocence. While a
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: similar percentage answered these questions the same in Ada County.
• 30:26
  Speaker 1: The impact of these numbers when considering the population size
• 30:30
  Speaker 1: are drastically different. Leayta County has approximately twenty four thousand
• 30:35
  Speaker 1: residents who are eligible for jury service. If fifty percent
• 30:39
  Speaker 1: of those are qualified or disqualified for having fixed opinions
• 30:43
  Speaker 1: as to Coburger's guilt, only twelve thousand individuals remain. This
• 30:48
  Speaker 1: is before andy have been excused for hardships such as illness, breastfeeding,
• 30:52
  Speaker 1: loss of wages for a three month long trial, sole
• 30:56
  Speaker 1: child care provider for young children, et cetera. Thus, one
• 30:59
  Speaker 1: can save during the prejudice in Leayta County demonstrated in
• 31:03
  Speaker 1: doctor Edelman survey and the population size of Leayta County together,
• 31:07
  Speaker 1: the court is concerned that if the venue is not
• 31:09
  Speaker 1: changed now, it will be asked to reconsider its decision
• 31:12
  Speaker 1: during jury selection, which, if granted at that juncture, would
• 31:16
  Speaker 1: very likely result in the trial being delayed many months.
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: Considering the undisputed evidence presented by the defense, the extreme
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: nature of the news coverage in this case, the smaller
• 31:26
  Speaker 1: population in Leayta County, the defense is met the rather
• 31:30
  Speaker 1: low standard of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that prejudicial news
• 31:34
  Speaker 1: coverage will compromise a fair trial in Layta County. Thus,
• 31:38
  Speaker 1: the Court will grant Coburger's motion to change venue for
• 31:41
  Speaker 1: presumed prejudice two convenience and interest of justice, even without
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: a finding of presumed prejudice. Venue in this case must
• 31:50
  Speaker 1: be changed for the convenience of parties and witnesses and
• 31:53
  Speaker 1: in the interests of justice. While this issue was summarily
• 31:56
  Speaker 1: addressed by the parties, the court has considered the logista
• 32:00
  Speaker 1: while the motion for change of venue was pending. While
• 32:03
  Speaker 1: Leaytai County Court staff and court security are ready and
• 32:06
  Speaker 1: willing to facilitate the trial to the best of their ability,
• 32:09
  Speaker 1: there are serious issues that cannot be resolved no matter
• 32:12
  Speaker 1: how much planning and preparations done. First, and perhaps most important,
• 32:17
  Speaker 1: is the issue of safety and security for the parties, witnesses, victims, families, jurors,
• 32:22
  Speaker 1: and the Latai County community. The Leatai County Sheriff's Office,
• 32:26
  Speaker 1: which is currently fully staffed, simply lacks the number of officers
• 32:30
  Speaker 1: needed to provide security for the trial while also continuing
• 32:34
  Speaker 1: to perform their day to day duties of patrol and
• 32:37
  Speaker 1: responding to calls. One solution is to ask the Idaho
• 32:41
  Speaker 1: State Police and the Moscow Police Department to help. However,
• 32:45
  Speaker 1: officers from both ISP and MPD were heavily involved in
• 32:49
  Speaker 1: the investigation of the homicides, and it's anticipated that several
• 32:53
  Speaker 1: officers will be called to testify a trial. Additionally, it
• 32:57
  Speaker 1: is the court's understanding that both of those agencies are
• 33:00
  Speaker 1: currently understaffed. Pulling local officers away from their normal duties
• 33:04
  Speaker 1: for three months to provide trial security would potentially put
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: the Leayta County community at risk. Further, in the event
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: of a natural disaster such as a wildfire, or a
• 33:15
  Speaker 1: large emergency like an active shooter or a multiple vehicle wreck,
• 33:18
  Speaker 1: there is very real possibility that officers tasked with trial
• 33:22
  Speaker 1: security would be pulled away to deal with other issues. Thus,
• 33:26
  Speaker 1: while our local law enforcement is ready and willing to
• 33:29
  Speaker 1: do what they need to do to ensure a safe trial,
• 33:32
  Speaker 1: there are not enough officers to ensure the safety of
• 33:35
  Speaker 1: the parties or the safety of witnesses, victims, families, jurors
• 33:40
  Speaker 1: for a three month period. Similarly, Leytai County does not
• 33:44
  Speaker 1: have enough court clerks to efficiently manage the jury selection process.
• 33:48
  Speaker 1: It's anticipated that general qualification questions will need to be
• 33:52
  Speaker 1: sent out to some six thousand individuals. The court clerks
• 33:55
  Speaker 1: will be tasked with the entering jur information from those
• 33:59
  Speaker 1: six thousand individuals into an electronic system. This task, a loan,
• 34:04
  Speaker 1: will require several clerks and will take time. Leayta County
• 34:08
  Speaker 1: has only one court clerk currently familiar with the process,
• 34:11
  Speaker 1: and she has several other day to day responsibilities outside
• 34:14
  Speaker 1: of her role as jury commissioner. Thus, to accomplish this task,
• 34:19
  Speaker 1: Leaytai County would have to bring clerks in from other
• 34:21
  Speaker 1: counties to help, along with extra computer equipment for those
• 34:25
  Speaker 1: clerks to perform their work. After the initial process, the
• 34:29
  Speaker 1: court would summons in some eighteen hundred individuals to fill
• 34:33
  Speaker 1: out extensive jury questionnaires. Again, this process would require both
• 34:37
  Speaker 1: court clerks and court security to take attendance, manage and
• 34:41
  Speaker 1: move the individuals where they need to go to fill
• 34:44
  Speaker 1: out questionnaires. In privacy scan questionnaires and quickly get the
• 34:47
  Speaker 1: questionnaires to the court and council. Again. While Leayta County
• 34:51
  Speaker 1: Court staff are willing to do what needs to be done,
• 34:54
  Speaker 1: the reality is that we do not have enough individuals
• 34:57
  Speaker 1: to perform the task of jury selection of effectively and efficiently. Further,
• 35:02
  Speaker 1: the Leta County Courthouse itself poses significant issues for a
• 35:06
  Speaker 1: trial of this length and magnitude. The courthouse lacks the
• 35:10
  Speaker 1: space needed by both state and defense. While the state
• 35:15
  Speaker 1: has a dedicated space within the courthouse, the state would
• 35:18
  Speaker 1: still be faced with the challenge of escorting sensitive witnesses
• 35:22
  Speaker 1: through public spaces in the courthouse to get to the courtroom. Meanwhile,
• 35:26
  Speaker 1: the defense does not have a dedicated space within the
• 35:29
  Speaker 1: courthouse and there are limited options available. The few options available,
• 35:34
  Speaker 1: ie the district court meeting room or a pre trial room,
• 35:38
  Speaker 1: are small, located in public areas, and are not sound proof.
• 35:42
  Speaker 1: These locations do not provide the defense with the privacy
• 35:45
  Speaker 1: it needs during trial to meet with each other and witnesses. Further,
• 35:50
  Speaker 1: the jury room itself is problematic in terms of its size.
• 35:54
  Speaker 1: Fitting twelve to thirteen jurors in the jury room for
• 35:57
  Speaker 1: a routine trial is crowded. Fitting eighteen jurors in the
• 36:00
  Speaker 1: jury room for three months would be uncomfortable at best. Additionally,
• 36:04
  Speaker 1: the door between the jury room and the courtroom is
• 36:07
  Speaker 1: not sound proof. Further, court security would be tasked with
• 36:10
  Speaker 1: trying to bring the jury into the courthouse in a
• 36:13
  Speaker 1: fashion that ensured the jurors privacy while also ensuring the
• 36:16
  Speaker 1: court's privacy. The only option for bringing the jury into
• 36:20
  Speaker 1: the courtroom is through the public hallway or directly past
• 36:23
  Speaker 1: the court's chambers. Neither are good options. Further, there is
• 36:27
  Speaker 1: also an issue of continuing day to day operations in
• 36:30
  Speaker 1: Letah County Courthouse. The magistrate judge will continue to have
• 36:34
  Speaker 1: daily hearings, a district judge will continue with the day
• 36:37
  Speaker 1: to day operations of the district court, and the juvenile
• 36:40
  Speaker 1: and CPS caseloads will have to continue. Additionally, the Clerk's
• 36:44
  Speaker 1: office must continue with its day to day operations of
• 36:47
  Speaker 1: processing case filings, taking payments, and assisting the public. All
• 36:53
  Speaker 1: these normal court operations will undoubtedly be strained by the
• 36:56
  Speaker 1: resources required for this trial in terms of space and personnel.
• 37:01
  Speaker 1: While traveling to another county for three months is indeed
• 37:04
  Speaker 1: inconvenient for the attorneys the court, some family members of
• 37:07
  Speaker 1: the victims, and some witnesses. Having the trial at the
• 37:11
  Speaker 1: Letai County Courthouse would also be inconvenient in numerous ways,
• 37:15
  Speaker 1: and beyond that would present serious safety risks. Thus, the
• 37:19
  Speaker 1: interest of justice requires that the trial be moved to
• 37:22
  Speaker 1: a venue with the resources, both in term of personnel
• 37:26
  Speaker 1: and space, necessary to effectively and efficiently handle a trial
• 37:31
  Speaker 1: of this magnitude and length, so that the parties in
• 37:34
  Speaker 1: the court can focus on the case and not on
• 37:36
  Speaker 1: the peripheral issues. Six Conclusion and order. Coberger's motion to
• 37:41
  Speaker 1: change venue is granted pursue into Idaho Criminal Rule twenty
• 37:45
  Speaker 1: one A and twenty one B. Consistent with the language
• 37:48
  Speaker 1: of Idaho Criminal Rule twenty one C two B, this
• 37:52
  Speaker 1: Court orders a transfer of venue without specifying the new
• 37:55
  Speaker 1: place of venue, and refers the case to the Administrative
• 37:58
  Speaker 1: Director of the Court for assignment by the Supreme Court
• 38:02
  Speaker 1: to a court of proper venue in another judicial district
• 38:05
  Speaker 1: and assignment of a specific judge to preside in the
• 38:08
  Speaker 1: criminal proceedings. This was dated September sixth of twenty twenty four,
• 38:13
  Speaker 1: and it was signed by Judge Judge all Right. So
• 38:16
  Speaker 1: not only are we getting the venue moved. We might
• 38:19
  Speaker 1: be getting a new judge, and I'll have a little
• 38:22
  Speaker 1: bit more on that later on, but for now, we're
• 38:25
  Speaker 1: going to wrap up right here, and all of the
• 38:27
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 38:31
  Speaker 1: the description box.