Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Mega Edition: The Media Motion To Intervene In The Bryan Kohberger Trial (8/9/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: The Media Motion To Intervene In The Bryan Kohberger Trial (8/9/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. On
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: this episode, we're going to take a look at some
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: more core documents, and the first one we're going to
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: look at is the memorandum in support of the petition
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: to intervene as the real party in interest, and the
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: second is the order granting petitions to intervene. As usual,
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: we'll dive in with no commentary, so you have the
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: news media, the petitioners versus the Second Judicial District of
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: the State of Idaho, County of Leata, the Honorable Megan E. Marshall,
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: Magistrate Judge, Supreme Court, Docket number five zero four A
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: two dash two zero two three. Memorandum in support of
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: petition to intervene as real party of interest comes now
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: Brian C. Coberger, Buying through their attorney J. Way Weston Lodgson,
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: Chief Deputy Litigation, and hereby submits the following memorandum in
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: support of his contemporaneously filed petition to intervene as a
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: respondent in this action pursuant to I dot A dot
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: R seven dot one, as permitted in I dot A
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: dot R five A background. On November thirteenth, twenty twenty two,
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: Media began reporting about the murders of four college students
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: in Moscow, Idaho. Since those initial reports, the coverage has
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: gone viral, leading to not only worldwide press coverage, but
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: multiple citizen investigators creating videos and online groups discussing the murders.
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: This was known to mister Coberger's attorneys the moment he
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: was arrested. Thus, one of the first things those attorneys
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: did was prepare emotion for a non dissemination order. Counsel
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: for mister Coburger contacted Council for the Prosecution and the
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: party stipulated to the granting of such an order. In
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: the short time before the order was entered, mister Coberger's
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: attorneys became known to the press and their office was
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: immediately besieged by reporters. Press members took pictures of employees
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: through windows, entered the office and refused to leave without
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: meeting with attorneys, and regularly called the office on the
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: same line necessary for its clients to reach their attorneys.
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: After the order was entered, the behavior slow drastically. The
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: media now seeks to dissolve the order via a petition
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: for a writ of mandamus from this court directed at
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: the Magistrate Court in Leta County. The media claims it
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: needs access to attorneys and their agents in mister Coberger's
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: criminal matter to provide the public which with all the facts,
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: implying that a court room fails to do so. The
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: media's petition directly implicates mister Coburger's right to a fair trial.
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: Although the magistrate Court has a duty to protect mister
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: Coburger's rights, it must necessarily balance his rights against the
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: rights of the public and the media. Thus, the magistrate
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: Court is a conflicted party in this matter, and mister
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: Coberger seeks to protect his rights through intervention. Argument number one.
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: Mister Coburger should be permitted to intervene pursuant to Idaho
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: Appellate Rule seven dot one because he is a real
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: party in interest and is affected by the outcome of
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: the petition. Idaho Appellate Rule seven dot one allows for
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: intervention by a real party in interest. The rule provides
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: any person or entity who is a real party in
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: interest to an other appeal or proceeding governed by these rules,
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: or whose interest would be affected by the outcome of
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: an appeal or proceeding under these rules, may file a
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: verified petition with the Supreme Court asking for leave to
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: intervene as a party to appeal or proceeding, and serve
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: a copy thereof upon all parties to the appeal proceeding.
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: The petition shall be processed as a motion in accordance
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: with Rule thirty two of these rules. And if the
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court finds that such a petitioning person or entity
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: is a real party in interest or would be affected
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: by the outcome of the appeal or proceeding, the Court may,
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: in its discretion grant leave to the petitioning party to
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: intervene as a party, appellent or respondent. And if leave
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: is so granted, such petitioning party shall thereafter be a
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: party to the appeal or proceedings for all purposes under
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: these rules, see I dot A dot R seven dot one.
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: A real party in interest is one who has a real, actual, material,
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: or substantial interest in the subject matter of the action.
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: Kahi versus George Jensen's Sons seventy four Idaho one thirty two,
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: one thirty four, one thirty five, two fifty eight p
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: Dot two, D three fifty seven, three fifty nine, nineteen
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: fifty three Laar seven dot one is similar to the
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: statute that was at issue in Curley versus Weatherall sixty one,
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: Idaho thirty one ninety six p. Dot three D five
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: zero three five zero seven, nineteen thirty nine, which this
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: Court held was to be construed liberally. Since nineteen thirty nine,
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: this Court has held that courts have inherent power to
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: grant intervention to persons who may be adversely affected by
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: the outcome of a preceding or when equitable principles otherwise require.
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: City of Boise versus Ada County one forty seven seven
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: ninety four eight oh three, two thousand and nine, citing
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: sixty seven a ce JS Parties ninety three, two thousand
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: and nine, the six guarantees to the criminal defendant the
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: right to a speedy trial and public trial by an
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: impartial jury. US Constitution Amended Article four. What the media
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: seeks with its petition is to upend the theory of
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: our system. The theory of our system is that the
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: conclusions to be reached in a case will be induced
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: only by evidence and argument in open court, and not
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: by any outside influence, whether of private talk or public print.
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: Patterson versus the State of Colorado Attorney General, two zero
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: five US four fifty four four sixty two, nineteen oh seven.
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: An outcome in this case, like in Col's Publishing Company versus.
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: The Magistrate Court of the First Judicial District of State
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: of County of Kotney one eighteen Idaho seven fifty three,
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: nineteen ninety, would necessarily set out a new test for
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: this state as to how all courts should implement non
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: dissemination orders. While the Magistrate Court and this Court both
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: undoubtedly desire to protect that system, it is mister Kohberger's
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: right to a fair trial that is at stake here,
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: a trial for four counts of first degree murder with
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: a possibility of the death penalty, as the United States
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court is held. With his life at stake, it
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: is not requiring too much the defendant to be tried
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: in an atmosphere undisturbed by so huge a wave of
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: public passion. Irvin versus Dowd To sixty six US seven
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: seventeen seven twenty eight, nineteen sixty one. Mister Coberger's life
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: depends on this system remaining intact. He must be permitted
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: to fight for it. If this Court decides to consider
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: the media's petition conclusion, mister Coberger is on trial for
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: his life. This Court should not relegate him to seeking
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: redress for prejudicial media coverage in other forums. If this
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: Court wishes to consider the proper standards for necessary orders,
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: such as the non dissemination order, in this case, it
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: can only benefit the Court to hear from the person
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: most uniquely affected by its decision. Mister Coberger is both
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: the real party in interest and a party who would
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: be affected by the outcome of the proceeding, and is
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: properly allowed to intervene in this matter. Alternatively, if this
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: Court rules otherwise, this Court should grant mister Coberger leave
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: the file and amici cure brief and participate an oral argument.
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: This memorandum was signed by Jay Weston Lodgson. All Right,
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: so onto our second document, and this document is the
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: order granting petitions to intervene. Supreme Court Docket number five
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: zero four A two Dash two zero two three, County
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: of Leta number c R twenty nine Dash twenty two
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: Dash twenty eight zero five one, in order responding to
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: a petition of a writ for mandamus or a writ
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: for prohibition, was entered by this Court on February seventeenth,
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty three. Which set the due date for the
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: Respondent's Answers and Response brief end, as well as petitioners
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: Reply Brief. Two. A petition to intervene as a real
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: party in interest and a memorandum in support of a
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: petition to intervene as a real party in interest were
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: filed by Council for a Proposed Intervener, Brian C. Coberger,
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: on February seventeenth, twenty twenty three, requesting to intervene as
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: a respondent in this action Number three. A verified petition
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: for leave to intervene by State of Idaho, Layta County
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: Prosecutor and a memorandum in support of petition for leave
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: to intervene by State of Idaho, Laytak County Prosecutor were
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: filed by Council for a Proposed Intervener, State of Idaho,
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: Laytak County Prosecutor on February seventeenth, twenty twenty three, requesting
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: to intervene as a respondent in this action Number four.
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: A notice of non opposition to the petitions to intervene
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: was filed by the Council four Respondents on February twentieth,
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty three. Therefore, after due consideration. It is ordered
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: that the petition to intervene as real party and interest
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: and the verified petition for leave to intervene by State
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: of Idaho Leyta County Prosecutor are granted. It is further ordered,
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: pursuant to I Dot A DOT R five D one
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: Intervener Responders by Brian Kolberger and State of Idaho Leyta
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: County Prosecutor shall file response briefs to the petition for
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition no
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: later than March third, twenty twenty three. The response briefs
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: shall not exceed twenty pages in length. Two petitioners shall
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: file reply briefs within seven days after the filing of
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: the intervener respondents response briefs. The reply briefs shall not
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: exceed fifteen pages in length. It is further ordered that
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: the Court may issue a final writ based on the
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: record or after oral argument, which may be scheduled at
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: the discretion of the Court. If oral argument is scheduled,
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: the extent of the intervener's participation in the argument will
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: be set forth in a future order. It is further
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: ordered that the caption in the above entitled appeal shall
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: be amended. This order was signed by Judge G. Richard Bevin,
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: the Chief Justice. All Right, folks, that's going to do
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: it for this latest addition to our court documents that
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: we've been working our way through. So we have a
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: couple more to go and then we'll be up to
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: date as far as the media and their challenge to
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: the gag order. All of the information that goes with
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: the episode can be found in the description box of
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: everyone and welcome back to the program. In this episode,
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: we're going to dive back into those court documents and
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: take a look at a few of the new court
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: documents to hit the dock it. And the first document
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: we're going to look at is the motion to intervene
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: Case number CR twenty nine Dash twenty two DASH twenty
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: eight oh five, State of Idaho Plaintiff Brian C. Coburger,
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: the defendant. On June twenty three, twenty twenty three, this
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: Court entered in order allowing twenty media outlets with the
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: associated Presses the lead media outlet, to intervene in this
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: case for the limited purpose of challenging the then in
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: place amended non Dissemination Order Order granting motion to intervene
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: for limited purpose at one in two, A nearly identical
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: media coalition at this time consisting of thirteen outlets Outlets
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: again seeks to intervene, this time for the limited purpose
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: of opposing Brian C. Colberger's motion to remove cameras from
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: the court room file doug Is twenty fourth, twenty twenty
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: three and currently set for hearing on September one, twenty
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: twenty three, and for any other proceedings affecting media access
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: to the proceedings, including whether cameras will be allowed in
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: the courtroom at trial. The Idaho Supreme Court, in the
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: Associated Press Verse, Second Judicial District, five twenty nine p.
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: Dot three d. Twelve fifty nine, Idaho twenty twenty three
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: made clear that even absent a specific rule in Idaho,
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: intervention by the media on a limited basis is appropriate
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: to defend the public's right to access and free speech
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: Idaho at. Twelve sixty seven. Here, intervention is particularly appropriate
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: where the court previously sought input from the media coalition
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: regarding cameras in the courtroom, but ultimately a reserve ruling.
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: Given the high profile nature of this case, the public's
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: interest in watching what is happening in the courtroom and
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: Coburger's fundamental right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.
• 15:03
  Speaker 1: Order reserving ruling on the issue of cameras in courtroom
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: at two, Mister Cohberger asks this Court to remove cameras
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: in the courtroom on the grounds that the media have
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: failed to heed the Court's admonishment not to focus strictly
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: on mister Colberger and to show a wide shot of
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: the courtroom if they wish to continue filming court proceedings
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: live motion. At two. Mister Cohberger's subsequent citations to various
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: media and social media publications do not support his position. However,
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: For example, mister Coburger cites to a Fox News article
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: that describes the court statement to photographers and camera persons
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: that they should not focus exclusively on mister Cohberger. That
• 15:49
  Speaker 1: Fox News story does not focus strictly on mister Colberger. However,
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: it includes photos of a mister Cohberger and defense counsel
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: Jay Logsden and n during the courtroom, b defense counsel
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: and Taylor and alyssa massof entering the courtroom, c Leta
• 16:08
  Speaker 1: County Prosecuting Attorney Bill Thompson in the courtroom, and d
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: the murder victims e mister Coberger entering the courtroom and
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: deaf a still photo from video of an Indiana law
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: enforcement stop of the vehicle mister Coburger and his father
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: were in on December fifteenth, twenty twenty two. In addition,
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: although mister Coberger argues that he is entitled to defend
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: himself against capital charges without cameras focused on his fly
• 16:39
  Speaker 1: motion at five, that assertion misstates the role that courtroom
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: camera coverage played in the x formerly Twitter social media
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: post that appears at page three of his motion. No
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: photographs or camera coverage focused on mister Coberger's fly. Rather,
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: one random ex user modified photo showing mister Coberger and
• 17:02
  Speaker 1: a deputy entering the courtroom by cropping it to a
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: very small size, focused on his belt, and adding a
• 17:09
  Speaker 1: reference to mister Coberger's fly motion at three. Even the
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: crop photo itself does not focus on mister Coberger's fly
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: and a broader review of media coalition stories following this
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: Court's June twenty seventh, twenty twenty three statement shows that
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: media coalition participants and other longtime media outlets have followed
• 17:32
  Speaker 1: the Court's direction. For example, a KTVB story covering the
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: August twenty third, twenty twenty three hearing showed a variety
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: of camera shots, including a broad shot that showed the
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: entire courtroom, both council tables and the bench, b a
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: close up of the judge c a slightly zoomed in
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: shot of mister Coberger and his council in which the
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: zoom feed could also be seen, d still shall the
• 18:00
  Speaker 1: victims and e in interview of a legal analyst, and
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: ABC News coverage on Good Morning America in August showed
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: a variety of shots of the courtroom and the defendant,
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: with still photos and stock footage of earlier developments in
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: the case. The coverage also provided balance coverage of the
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: states and mister Coberger's position on the motion before the court.
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: These stories did not focus exclusively on footage or close
• 18:29
  Speaker 1: ups of mister Coburger. Finally, many of the outlets who
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: seek to intervene have significant experience broadcasting live courtroom proceedings,
• 18:39
  Speaker 1: including a high profile trials that resulted in both acquittals
• 18:43
  Speaker 1: Wisconsin versus Kyle Rittenhouse, Ohio versus Skyler Richardson and conviction
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: South Carolina versus Alec Murda. Their camera equipment and operators
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: are experienced and not the large, clunky, numerous camera equipment
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: and operators that the Supreme Court expressed concern about in
• 19:04
  Speaker 1: Estes versus State of Texas three eighty one US five
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: point thirty two, nineteen sixty five. In Estes, there were
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: at least twelve camera operators in the courtroom for a
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: pre trial hearing, and the equipment journalists used was noisy,
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: required cables lying through the courtroom, and that trial involved
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: some newsreel style cameras Idaho at five point thirty six.
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: The Court can take judicial notice that similar equipment is
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: not involved here. Plainly, the Supreme Court's concerns in Estes
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: do not require removal of the more modest, less intrusive
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: camera equipment being used by reporters in this case. Accordingly,
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: the Media Coalition seeks to intervene for the limited purpose
• 19:49
  Speaker 1: of opposing mister Coberger's motion to remove cameras from the
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: courtroom and to make full argument and briefing on this issue.
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: This was signed by Wendy J. J. A Olsen, who
• 20:01
  Speaker 1: is the lawyer for the Media Coalition. The next document
• 20:05
  Speaker 1: we have is the order regarding notice of hearing Zoom
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: information sam It's Coalition, State of Idaho plaintiff versus Brian C. Coberger,
• 20:15
  Speaker 1: the defendant. The Court is mindful that limited courtroom capacity
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: and potential travel restrictions may interfere with the victims and
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: the defendants' families ability to observe the court proceedings in
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: this case on September one, twenty twenty three, at one
• 20:33
  Speaker 1: pm Pacific Time. Therefore, in the event that they are
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: unable or prefer not to attend the preceding in person,
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: the Court finds it necessary to make the court proceedings
• 20:43
  Speaker 1: available via zoom for the victims and the defendants immediate
• 20:47
  Speaker 1: family members under the following restrictions. It is hereby ordered
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: that one the victims and the defendants immediate family members
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: may observe the court proceedings in person or via zoo Zoom. Two.
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: The zoom information above shall not be disseminated to anyone
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: other than the victims and the defendant's immediate family members.
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: Number Three. Any recording or live streaming of the preceding
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: is prohibited. And this document was dated on August twenty ninth,
• 21:19
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, and also signed by Judge Judge and
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: the final document for this episode is the Notice of
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: intent not to cross examined defense witnesses, District Court decision
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: and records to explain witness contact Case number CR twenty
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: nine DASH twenty two DASH twenty eight oh five, State
• 21:41
  Speaker 1: of Idaho Plaintiff first Brian C. Coberger, the defendant. At
• 21:47
  Speaker 1: the hearing on the state's motion for a protective order
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: and the defendant's third motion to compel, held on August eighteenth,
• 21:54
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, the court allowed the state to reserve
• 21:57
  Speaker 1: cross examination of two witnesses, Gabrielle of Vargas, who the
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: defense disclosed without a CV the day before the hearing,
• 22:05
  Speaker 1: and Leah Larkin, for whom the defense disclosed a PowerPoint
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: presentation for the first time during her direct examination. The
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: state has determined that it need not cross examine either
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: of these witnesses, and in addition, the state mentioned during
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: its argument at the hearing that Judge Whitney in Canyon
• 22:25
  Speaker 1: County ruled on a similar issue one week prior to
• 22:29
  Speaker 1: the hearing and that the state would provide the written
• 22:32
  Speaker 1: ruling once available. The transcript of that hearing is now available,
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: and the relevant portion of the transcript is attached as
• 22:40
  Speaker 1: Exhibit A. Finally, at the hearing on August twenty third,
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, Defense Council suggested in open court that
• 22:48
  Speaker 1: the State had improperly contacted Miss Vargas. The State has
• 22:53
  Speaker 1: attached under seal as Exhibit B, the reports and other
• 22:57
  Speaker 1: records that explain the contact. The State would ask this
• 23:00
  Speaker 1: court to grant the requested protective order or permit the
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: State to present the information it seeks to protect the
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: court in an in camera hearing. This was signed by
• 23:13
  Speaker 1: Jeff Nye and William Thompson, and it was dated on
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: August twenty ninth of twenty twenty three. All Right, folks,
• 23:21
  Speaker 1: that's going to do it for this one. All of
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
• 23:27
  Speaker 1: in the description box. Airline credit