Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Mega Edition: The Debate Over Transparency In The Kohberger Court Room (8/23/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: The Debate Over Transparency In The Kohberger Court Room (8/23/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: this episode, we're going to dive back into the court documents,
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: and this time we're taking a look at the state's
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: brief on video and photographic coverage. Case number CR twenty
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: nine DASH twenty two DASH twenty eight oh five, State
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: of Idaho, Plaintiff First Brian Christopher Coberger, the defendant. In
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: the State's view, the decision of whether to allow video
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: or a photographic coverage of the proceedings in this case
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: is left to the sound discretion of the Court. Idaho
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: Court Administrative Rule I dot C dot A dot R
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: forty five. The courts have not held that there is
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: a First Amendment or other constitutional right of the media
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: to broadcast or photograph a preceding. In fact, there have
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: been circumstances where the United States Supreme Court has held
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: that extensive broadcasting and photographing of a proceeding to be
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: violative of a defendant's due process rights. C Estis versus
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: Texas three US five point thirty two, nineteen sixty five
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: and Chandler versus Florida four forty nine US five sixty
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: nineteen eighty one. As guidance, the State has attached the
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: recent decision by the Seventh Judicial District Judge Stephen Boyce
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: in the case of State of Idaho versus LORI noreen
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: Valo aka LORII nouren Valo Dabel Case number CR twenty
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: two Dash twenty one, DASH sixteen twenty four, a similar
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: rationale may exist here. The state would further note that
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure fifty three prohibits courtroom photographing
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: and broadcasting, except as otherwise allowed by rule or statute
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: in federal cases. The state also has the following concerns
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: about allowing broadcasting or photographing at the trial. In this case,
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: the state has a number of sensitive witnesses who would
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: likely be intimidated, harassed, or harmed by a live broadcast
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: of the trial. Two jurors, unless questered, would have off
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: hours access to the broadcast, which may include discussions which
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: were outside of the jury's perview, and three witnesses would
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: have access to broadcast showing the specific testimony of other witnesses. Finally,
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: if the court were inclined to allow video or photographic coverage,
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: the state would recommend that the court control the positioning, location,
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: and zoom of any camera, whether by order or by
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: simply controlling any recording itself, to ensure the camera or
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: photographing is not solely focused on one participant, that it
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: does not capture any sensitive or inadmissible materials, and that
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: it does not subject any child participant to excessive coverage.
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: Respectfully submitted this sixth day of June twenty twenty three,
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: and this was signed by Bradley Rudley. The first document
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: we're going to look at is the memorandum Decision and
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: Order prohibiting video and photographic coverage. Case number CR twenty
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: five two DASH twenty one DASH sixteen twenty four, State
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: of Idaho, Plaintiff first Lori nouren Valo aka Lori nouren
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: Valo DA Bell. Pending before the Court is the defendant's
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: motion to clarify media in the courtroom, filed August thirtieth,
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty two, requesting cameras to be banned from future proceedings.
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: On September eighth, twenty twenty two, several non party media
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: entities Media sought and obtained permission from the court to
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: file as interested persons a response to Defendant's motion, arguing
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: media had at no time failed to comply with orders
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: of this Court governing media coverage of in court proceedings.
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: On September twelfth, twenty twenty two, the State filed a
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: concurrence with the defendant's motion. On September fifteenth, twenty twenty two,
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: the Court heard argument on the issue at a hearing.
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: Having fully reviewed the record, relevant rules and case law,
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: and upon the request of Council, this Court enters the
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: following or the background. A sacricinct protection of the penal
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: system in the United States of America is the insistence
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: of a fair trial by an impartial jury to those
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: accused of even the most severe crimes, as set forth
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: in the sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation,
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: to be confronted with the witnesses against them, to have
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: have the assistance of counsel for his defense US Constitution
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: Amendment number four. The Court is presented today with a
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: joint request from the defendant and the State to disallow
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: certain media activity in future courtroom proceedings in this case.
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: Countering that request or several media entities who have argued
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: that the First Amendment affords the media certain rights and
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: that those rights are best achieved by disseminating audio and
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: video coverage of court proceedings. To be clear, no party
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: has argued that the Court should fully prescribe media coverage
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: of this case by issuing a prior restraint on speech,
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: such as a gag order on media reporting. Rather, the
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: request of the defendant and the State in its concurrence
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: is that the Court clarify or reconsider the scope of
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: the media's activity authorized by the Court's Order governing court
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: room conduct issued in the case April fourteenth, twenty twenty two.
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: The instant case has garnered significant media attention worldwide. The
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: Court has previously considered the Deluge of publicity Shepherd versus Maxwell,
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: three eighty four US three thirty three, three fifty seven,
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: nineteen sixty six, and upon determining that Idaho Criminal Rule
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: twenty one a in Idaho Code Section nineteen eighteen oh
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: one applied. The Court ordered a transfer of trial from
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: Fremont County, Idaho, to the most populous county in the state,
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: Ada County, in order to mitigate the effects of pre
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: trial publicity and detrimental impact on selecting an impartial jury.
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: Two standard of adjudication. Idaho Court Administrative Rule forty five
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: I dot seed dot A dot R forty five sets
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: forth the procedures and considerations for trial courts to evaluate
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: audio and visual coverage of public proceedings. In Idaho courts
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: I dot seed dot A dot R forty five A,
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: the presiding Judge maintains the right to limit audio visual
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: coverage of any public hearing when the interests of the
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: administration of Justice requires authorization, may be revoked at any
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: time without prior notice, when in the discretion of the Court,
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: it appears that audio visual coverage is interfering in any
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: way with a proper administration of justice I C dot
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: A dot R forty five B. The presiding Judge may,
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: at his or her discretion, limit, restrict, or prohibit audio
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: visual coverage at any proceeding. Any decision regarding audio visual
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: coverage is not subject to appellate review. Part three discussion. First,
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: the Court affirms that there is no indication that any
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: order related to the conduct of the media during hearings
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: in this case or the companion case Fremont County Case
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: number CR twenty two, twenty one DASH sixteen twenty three,
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: State of Idaho of ver As Chad Dabel, have been violated.
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: The Court has likewise witnessed no misconduct on any part
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: of the media during hearings in these cases. The presence
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: of media during the hearings has in no way interrupted
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: those proceedings, and attending media have been respectful and professional. Notwithstanding,
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: the Court determines that the concerns raised in the defendant's
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: motion to clarify media in the court rus and the
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: State's concurrence are well founded. The Court has carefully considered
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: the arguments presented at the September fifteenth, twenty twenty two
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: hearing on this issue, including the arguments of mister Wright,
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: Council for numerous media clients. Subsequent to the hearing, and
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: upon request of counsel, the Court also reviewed the video
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: footage of an August sixteenth, twenty twenty two hearing, as
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: cited in the state's concurrence, the Court concurs with the
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: defendant's arguments that the footage of the August sixteenth hearing
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: demonstrates an inordinate focus on the defendant, zooming onto her
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: face throughout the vast majority of the hearing, regardless of
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: who was speaking or what was happening. This court has
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: previously permitted cameras in the court room during this case,
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: allowing both photography and video transmissions. But when the case
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: is as sensational as this one, and tensions developed between
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: the right of the accused trial by an impartial jury
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: and the rights guaranteed others by the First Amendment Nebraska
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: Press Association Stewart, four twenty seven US. Five point thirty nine,
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: five to fifty one. Further, the capacity of the jury
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: eventually impaneled to decide the case fairly is influenced by
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: the tone and extent of the publicity Idaho at. Five
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: fifty four and five fifty five, such as precisely the
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: conflict here. While the right to public access must be protected,
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: the scope of the coverage cannot supersede the rights of
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: all parties to the fair administration of justice. In this case,
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: courts have historically struggled with the issue of permitting cameras
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: in the court room. Going back decades, cases have been
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: overturned by the US Supreme Court because of issues relating
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: to extensive media coverage. In this day and age, the
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: problem is further exasperated when instantaneous access to coverage provided
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: by traditional media outlets is quickly rebroadcast, repackaged, and reimagined.
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: The Court has previously been made aware and continues to
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: be informed, that documentary dramatizations and fictionalized movies focusing on
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: the defendants and allegations in this case have already been
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: produced and continue to be disseminated to the public. All
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: of this continues to occur in a case which has
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: not yet been tried. The Court is very concerned that
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: continued visual coverage of this case will impede the ability
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: of the parties to select fare and unbiased jurors. While
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: the Court has refrained from delving into viewing the coverage
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: in this case, the coverage is so extensive the Court
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: has had to proactively avoid viewing it, as it is
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: routinely part of local and at times national news. The
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: Avid David submitted by mister Wright confirms this in that
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: just one of mister Wright's thirty plus clients distributes footage
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: from hearings in this case to dozens of media organizations
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: and millions of viewers. In fully considering this decision, the
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: Court notes that the media have raised a compelling issue
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: public access for the citizens of Fremont and Madison Counties.
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: The excessive coverage of this case has already resulted in
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: the Court's determination that a trial will be held in
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: Ada County, Idaho, as the Court has previously concluded that
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: it would be unlikely to obtain unbiased jerrypool within the
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: home county of this case, Fremont County. It is unfortunate
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: that local citizens, including citizens of both Fremont and Madison Counties,
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: who bear the cost of this case and should be
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: given local access to this trial should they wish to attend, now,
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: cannot do so without inconvenience. Upon full consideration of the
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: arguments of the State and the defense, notably concurring with
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: each other, the Court is persuaded that further visual coverage
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: of this case will run a foul of the Court's
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: consideration set forth plainly and I dot S dot A
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: dot R forty five. The rule provides this Court discretion
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: to make this determination. I dot se dot A dot
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: R forty five A states, in part, audio visual coverage
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: is authorized sub to the discretion of the presiding Judge.
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: I dot A dot R forty five Best states in part,
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: the presiding Judge may, at his or her discretion, limit, restrict,
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: or prohibit audio visual coverage at any proceeding. The Court
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: determines herein that continued visual coverage of this case poses
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: a great risk to the fair administration of justice in
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: this case and co defendant Chad Dabell's companion case, which
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: cases are joined for trial. Therefore, continued visual coverage will
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: no longer be permitted. The Court determines that this decision
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: applies to all future pre trial motions and trial where
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: continued coverage of pre trial motions will likely cause potential
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: jurors to be biased, disqualifying them from service. Coverage during
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: trial arises. Additionally, and equally serious concerns. The Court will
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: not risk the laws of ceded jurors, who may intentionally
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: or inadvertently review the very trial proceedings they are sworn
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: to the same where those jurors must make their decision
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: only upon the evidence presented at trial, the Court will
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: not risk a potential loss of state or defense witnesses
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: who may intentionally or inadvertently become tainted by viewing the
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: trial proceedings before they testify, assuming their exclusion from the
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: proceedings as is regularly ordered for material witnesses. The Court
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: further is concerned that at trial, the added unnecessary pressure
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: witnesses and council will be subject to, knowing that every expression, utterance,
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: and appearance will be captured and circulated without their control
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: and perpetuity, is unwarranted and will likely interfere with fair
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: administration of justice. In this case, Subjecting trial participants, including
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: attorneys and witnesses, to the added pressure may unfairly influence jurors,
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: who may incorrectly question credibility based on the reactions to
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: that pressure. Therefore, in the discretion of the Court PURSUANTOI
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: dot Ce dot A dot R. Forty five A and B,
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: authorization of all video and photographic coverage in the courtroom
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: in this case, and that all further proceedings, including trial,
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: is revoked. Audio recording of all future proceedings will be
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: continued to be permitted with the Court utilizing the in
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: courtroom microphones operated by court personnel. Any third party recording
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: will be subject to future approval and, if approved, will
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: be monitored to ensure that microphones are located to ensure
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: that unwarranted conversations between council and clients are not recorded. Finally,
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: in order to facilitate the attendance of the trial in
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: aid A County by Fremont County and Madison County citizens
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: who wish to attend and who have lost the ability
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: to attend in person without great inconvenience, the Court intends
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: to provide enhance access for Fremont and Madison County residents
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: by providing designated seating at trial in a manner to
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: be further determined. Conclusion, defendant's motion to clarify media in
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: the courtroom, together with the state's concurrence and express requests
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: to remove cameras from the courtroom is granted. All right. Now,
• 15:06
  Speaker 1: remember that's the order from the Lori Valo trial, and
• 15:09
  Speaker 1: they're just using this order as precedent basically for them
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: trying to get cameras removed from the courtroom. And as
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: we know now, it doesn't look like Judge Judge is
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: gonna go that way, but that's gonna do it for
• 15:23
  Speaker 1: this one. For now, all of the information that goes
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: and welcome back to the program. We're gonna dive back
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: into the court document in this episode and now we're
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: going to get the state's response on video and photographic coverage.
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: Case number c R twenty nine DASH twenty two DASH
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: twenty eight oh five States Brief on Video and photographic coverage,
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: State of Idaho Plaintiff versus Brian Christopher Coberger, the defendant.
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: In the States view, the decision of whether to allow
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: video or photographic coverage of the proceedings in this case
• 16:04
  Speaker 1: is left to the sound discretion of the Court. Idaho
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: Court Administrative Rule I dot s Dot A dot R.
• 16:11
  Speaker 1: Forty five. The courts have not held that there is
• 16:14
  Speaker 1: a First Amendment or other constitutional right of the media
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: to broadcast or photograph of preceding. In fact, there have
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: been circumstances where the United States Supreme Court has held
• 16:26
  Speaker 1: that extensive broadcasting and photographing of a proceeding to be
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: a violation of a defendant's due process rights. See Estes
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: versus Texas, three eighty one US five thirty two, nineteen
• 16:39
  Speaker 1: sixty five and Chandler verse Florida four forty nine US
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: five sixty nineteen eighty one as guidance. The state has
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: attached the recent decision by Seventh Judicial District Judge Stephen
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: Boyce in the case of State of Idaho versus LORI
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: Noreen Valo aka LORII Noreen Valoda bel Case number CR
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: twenty two Dash twenty one, DASH sixteen twenty four. A
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: similar rationale may exist here. The state would further note
• 17:10
  Speaker 1: that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure fifty three prohibits courtroom
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: photographing and broadcasting except as otherwise allowed by rule or
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: statute in federal cases. So once again looks like the
• 17:24
  Speaker 1: state is rolling shotgun with Brian Kohberger to keep the
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: proceedings under wraps and under this shroud of secrecy, and
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: then you'll get the same people complaining that there's a
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: bunch of conspiracy theories that are popping up all over
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: the place. The state also has the following concerns about
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: allowing broadcasting or photographing at the trial in this case. One,
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: the state has a number of sensitive witnesses who would
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: likely be intimidated, harassed, or harmed by a live broadcast
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: of the trial. Two jurors, unless sequestered, would have off
• 17:57
  Speaker 1: hours access to the broadcast, with which may include discussions
• 18:01
  Speaker 1: which were outside of the jury's purview. And three witnesses
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: would have access to broadcasts showing the specific testimony of
• 18:10
  Speaker 1: other witnesses. Sure, they'd have all of that, but how
• 18:14
  Speaker 1: can you state that they're going to access all of
• 18:17
  Speaker 1: that you don't know. That's like saying that the coverage
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: is going to be prejudicial before the coverage ever even occurs. Finally,
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: if the court were inclined to allow video or photographic coverage,
• 18:30
  Speaker 1: the State would recommend that the Court control the positioning, location,
• 18:34
  Speaker 1: and zoom of every camera, whether by order or by
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: simply controlling any recording itself, to ensure the camera or
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: photographing is not solely focused on one participant, that it
• 18:46
  Speaker 1: does not capture any sensitive or inadmissible materials, and that
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: it does not subject any trial participant to excessive coverage.
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: Respectfully submitted this sixth day of June of twenty twenty three,
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: and this was signed by Bradley Rudley, Chief Civil Deputy
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: Prosecuting Attorney. The next document we have is the memorandum
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: Decision and Order prohibiting video and photographic coverage State of
• 19:13
  Speaker 1: Idaho Plaintiff versus Lori Noreene Valo aka Lori Noreen Valo dabel.
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: So this is the precedent that they're using for stating
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: that they don't want camera coverage inside of the courtroom.
• 19:27
  Speaker 1: So what they're doing is pointing to the order that
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: was just made by Judge Boyce in the Lori Valo
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: case recently, so that gives this court precedent to make
• 19:37
  Speaker 1: this move. Pending before the Court is the defendant's motion
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: to clarify media in the courtroom, filed August thirtieth, twenty
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: twenty two, requesting cameras to be banned from future proceedings.
• 19:50
  Speaker 1: On September eighth, twenty twenty two, several non party media
• 19:54
  Speaker 1: entities sought and obtained permission from the court to file
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: as interested persons or response to Defendant's motion, arguing the
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: media had at no time failed to comply with orders
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: of this Court governing media coverage of in court proceedings.
• 20:10
  Speaker 1: On September twelfth, twenty twenty two, the State filed a
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: concurrence with the defendant's motion. On September fifteenth, twenty twenty two,
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: the Court heard argument on the issue at a hearing.
• 20:22
  Speaker 1: Having fully reviewed the record, relevant rules and case law,
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: and upon request of Council, this Court enters the following
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: order background. Section one. A sacrosanc protection of the penal
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: system in the United States of America is the insistence
• 20:39
  Speaker 1: of a fair trial by an impartial jury to those
• 20:42
  Speaker 1: accused of even the most severe crimes, as set forth
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: in the sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation,
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have
• 21:12
  Speaker 1: compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to
• 21:16
  Speaker 1: have the assistance of Council for his defense. The Court
• 21:20
  Speaker 1: is presented today with a joint request from the defendant
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: and the State to disallow certain media activity in future
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: courtroom proceedings. In this case, Countering that request are several
• 21:32
  Speaker 1: media entities who have argued that the First Amendment affords
• 21:35
  Speaker 1: the media certain rights and that those rights are best
• 21:38
  Speaker 1: achieved by disseminating audio and video coverage of court proceedings.
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: To be clear, no party has argued that the Court
• 21:47
  Speaker 1: should fully prescribe media coverage of this case by issuing
• 21:51
  Speaker 1: a prior restraint on speech, such as a gag order
• 21:54
  Speaker 1: on media reporting. Rather, the request of the defendant and
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: the State in its concurrent prance is that the Court
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: clarify or consider the scope of the media's activity authorized
• 22:06
  Speaker 1: by the Court's Order governing courtroom conduct issued in the
• 22:10
  Speaker 1: case April fourteenth, twenty twenty two. And for me, I
• 22:15
  Speaker 1: don't think you should have both. It's either a gag
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: order or no cameras in the courtroom because the public
• 22:21
  Speaker 1: has a right to know what's going on, and the
• 22:23
  Speaker 1: public has a right to see for themselves what's going on.
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: The instant case has garnered significant media attention worldwide. The
• 22:32
  Speaker 1: Court has previously considered the deluge of publicity Shepherd versus Maxwell,
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: three eighty four US three thirty three, three fifty seven,
• 22:40
  Speaker 1: nineteen sixty six, and upon determining that Idaho Criminal Rule
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: twenty one A and Idaho Code Section nineteen Dash eighteen
• 22:48
  Speaker 1: oh one applied. The Court ordered a transfer of trial
• 22:52
  Speaker 1: from Fremont County, Idaho, to the most populous county in
• 22:55
  Speaker 1: the state, Ada County, in order to mitigate the effects
• 22:59
  Speaker 1: of pre trial p publicity and its detrimental impact on
• 23:03
  Speaker 1: selecting and impartial jury. Section two Standard of Adjudication. Idaho
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: Court Administrative Rule forty five I dot see dot A
• 23:13
  Speaker 1: dot R forty five sets forth the procedures and considerations
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: for trial courts to evaluate audio and visual coverage of
• 23:21
  Speaker 1: public proceedings. In Idaho courts I dot S dot A
• 23:25
  Speaker 1: dot R forty five A, the presiding Judge maintains the
• 23:28
  Speaker 1: right to limit audio visual coverage of any public hearing
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: when the interests of the administration of Justice requires authorization
• 23:37
  Speaker 1: may be revoked at any time without prior notice, when
• 23:41
  Speaker 1: in the discretion of the Court, it appears that audio
• 23:43
  Speaker 1: visual coverage is interfering in any way with a proper
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: administration of justice I dot S dot A dot R
• 23:52
  Speaker 1: forty five B. The presiding Judge may, at his or
• 23:55
  Speaker 1: her discretion, limit, restrict, or prohibit audio visual coverage at
• 24:00
  Speaker 1: any proceeding. Any decision regarding audio visual coverage is not
• 24:05
  Speaker 1: subject to appellate review, so that means the judge's decision
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: in the matter is final. Section three discussion. First, the
• 24:14
  Speaker 1: Court affirms that there is no indication that any orders
• 24:18
  Speaker 1: relating to the conduct of the media during the hearings
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: in this case or the companion case Fremont County Case
• 24:25
  Speaker 1: number c R twenty two DASH twenty one DASH sixteen
• 24:29
  Speaker 1: twenty three, State of Idaho versus Chad Guy Dabel have
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: been violated. The Court has likewise witnessed no misconduct on
• 24:37
  Speaker 1: any part of the media during hearings in these cases.
• 24:40
  Speaker 1: The presence of media during the hearings has in no
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: way interrupted those proceedings, and attending media have been respectful
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: and professional. Notwithstanding, the Court determines that the concerns raised
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: in the defendant's motion to clarify media in the courtroom
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: and the State's concurrence are well founded. The Court has
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: carefully considered the arguments presented at the September fifteenth, twenty
• 25:05
  Speaker 1: twenty two hearing on this issue, including the arguments of
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: mister Right Council for numerous media clients. Subsequent to the hearing,
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: and upon request of Council, the Court also reviewed the
• 25:17
  Speaker 1: video footage of an August sixteenth, twenty twenty two hearing,
• 25:21
  Speaker 1: as cited in the state's concurrence. The Court concurs with
• 25:25
  Speaker 1: Defendant's argument that the footage of the August sixteenth hearing
• 25:29
  Speaker 1: demonstrates an inordinate focus on the defendant, zooming onto her
• 25:33
  Speaker 1: face throughout the vast majority of the hearing, regardless of
• 25:37
  Speaker 1: who was speaking or what was happening. This Court has
• 25:41
  Speaker 1: previously permitted cameras in the court room during this case,
• 25:45
  Speaker 1: allowing both photography and video transmission. But when the case
• 25:49
  Speaker 1: is a sensational one, tensions developed between the right of
• 25:53
  Speaker 1: the accused trial by an impartial jury and the rights
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: guaranteed others by the First Amendment Nebraska Press Association versus Stuart,
• 26:02
  Speaker 1: four twenty seven US five point thirty nine five point
• 26:05
  Speaker 1: fifty one. Further, the capacity of the jury eventually in
• 26:09
  Speaker 1: panel to decide the case fairly is influenced by the
• 26:12
  Speaker 1: tone and extent of the publicity id at five point
• 26:17
  Speaker 1: fifty four Dash five. Such is precisely the conflict here.
• 26:21
  Speaker 1: While the right to public access must be protected, the
• 26:24
  Speaker 1: scope of the coverage cannot supersede the rights of all
• 26:27
  Speaker 1: parties to the fair administration of justice. In this case,
• 26:32
  Speaker 1: they all say the same thing, right, the right to
• 26:34
  Speaker 1: public access has to be protected. They mutter out of
• 26:38
  Speaker 1: one side of their mouth, while out of the other
• 26:40
  Speaker 1: they make a ruling that basically just tramples on people's
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: right to know what's going on. And again, I'm talking
• 26:48
  Speaker 1: about the cameras here. There should be cameras in these courtrooms.
• 26:51
  Speaker 1: We should be able to see what's going on, and
• 26:53
  Speaker 1: there should be certain rules that they have to follow. Right,
• 26:56
  Speaker 1: you can't focus on somebody's face for the whole proceeding. Okay, fine,
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: don't do that. Pretty simple. How about a wide shot
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: from the back of the rum or whatever that's showing
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: us the proceedings. Pretty simple if you ask me, And
• 27:08
  Speaker 1: you would think that if you have an innocent client,
• 27:10
  Speaker 1: that they'd want the whole world to see that they're
• 27:13
  Speaker 1: innocent and that they're getting railroaded. Courts have historically struggled
• 27:17
  Speaker 1: with the issue of permitting cameras in the courtroom. Going
• 27:21
  Speaker 1: back decades, cases have been overturned by the US Supreme
• 27:25
  Speaker 1: Court because of issues relating to extensive media coverage in
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: this day and age. The problem is furthered when instantaneous
• 27:33
  Speaker 1: access to coverage provided by traditional media outlets is quickly rebroadcast, repackaged,
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: and reimagined. The court has previously been made aware and
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: continues to be informed, that documentaries, dramatizations, and fictionalized movies
• 27:50
  Speaker 1: focusing on the defendants and allegations in this case have
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: already been produced and continue to be disseminated to the public.
• 27:59
  Speaker 1: And I understand the essence here. I understand what they're
• 28:01
  Speaker 1: trying to accomplish by not having a quote unquote tanted Jerry,
• 28:05
  Speaker 1: but I think it's a fool's Errand at this point,
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: how are you going to stop people from learning about
• 28:10
  Speaker 1: cases like this before they're unpaneled as jurors. Now, after
• 28:14
  Speaker 1: they're ajur that's a whole different story. They have a
• 28:18
  Speaker 1: set of rules that they have to follow, and if
• 28:20
  Speaker 1: those rules aren't followed, the jur should be penalized for it.
• 28:24
  Speaker 1: But previously, I think it's ridiculous in this day and
• 28:28
  Speaker 1: age to think that people aren't going to be exposed
• 28:30
  Speaker 1: to these big stories because it's one hundred percent going
• 28:34
  Speaker 1: to happen. All of this continues to occur in a
• 28:37
  Speaker 1: case which has not yet been tried. Well, guess what.
• 28:41
  Speaker 1: The court of public opinion is not held to the
• 28:43
  Speaker 1: same standards as what the courtroom is, and the court
• 28:46
  Speaker 1: of public opinion is going to do what it's going
• 28:49
  Speaker 1: to do. And I think that all of the time
• 28:52
  Speaker 1: that's wasted by defense attorneys here trying to have this fight,
• 28:55
  Speaker 1: I think it's an absolute waste of time. I think
• 28:58
  Speaker 1: that that time could be better served trying to come
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: up with a strategy to figure out how to get
• 29:02
  Speaker 1: your client off. Maybe if Lori Vaalo and her team
• 29:06
  Speaker 1: weren't so worried about cameras in the courtroom, they would
• 29:09
  Speaker 1: have actually had a defense to put forward. But we
• 29:12
  Speaker 1: know they didn't have one, did they concern that continued
• 29:15
  Speaker 1: visual coverage of this case will impede the ability of
• 29:18
  Speaker 1: the parties to select fair and unbiased jurors while the
• 29:22
  Speaker 1: court is refrained from delving into viewing the coverage. In
• 29:25
  Speaker 1: this case, the coverage is so extensive the court has
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: had to proactively avoid viewing it, as it is routinely
• 29:32
  Speaker 1: part of local and at times national news. The affidavit
• 29:36
  Speaker 1: submitted by mister Wright confirms this in that just one
• 29:40
  Speaker 1: of mister Wright's thirty plus clients, distributes footage from hearings
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: in this case to dozens of media organizations and millions
• 29:48
  Speaker 1: of viewers, who all have a right to know what's
• 29:50
  Speaker 1: going on. In fully considering this decision, the Court notes
• 29:54
  Speaker 1: that the media having raised a compelling issue public access
• 29:58
  Speaker 1: for citizens of Fremont and Madison Counties. The excessive coverage
• 30:03
  Speaker 1: of this case has already resulted in the Court's determination
• 30:06
  Speaker 1: that the trial will be held in Ada County, Idaho,
• 30:10
  Speaker 1: as the Court has previously concluded that it would be
• 30:13
  Speaker 1: unlikely to obtain an unbiased jury pool within the home
• 30:16
  Speaker 1: county of this case, Fremont County. It is unfortunate that
• 30:20
  Speaker 1: local citizens, including citizens of both Fremont and Madison Counties,
• 30:25
  Speaker 1: who bear the cost of this case and should be
• 30:27
  Speaker 1: given local access to this trial should they wish to attend,
• 30:30
  Speaker 1: now cannot do so without inconvenience. Upon full consideration of
• 30:36
  Speaker 1: the arguments of the State and the defense, notably concurring
• 30:39
  Speaker 1: with each other, the Court is persuaded that further visual
• 30:43
  Speaker 1: coverage of this case will run a foul of the
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: Court's considerations as set forth plainly and I dot seed
• 30:50
  Speaker 1: dot A dot R forty five that rule provides this
• 30:54
  Speaker 1: Court discretion to make this determination. I dot seed dot
• 30:58
  Speaker 1: A dot R forty five A state, in part, audio
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: visual coverage is authorized subject to the discretion of the
• 31:05
  Speaker 1: presiding judge. I do C dot A dot R forty
• 31:09
  Speaker 1: five Beast states in part, the presiding Judge may, at
• 31:13
  Speaker 1: his or her discretion, limit, restrict or prohibit audio visual
• 31:17
  Speaker 1: coverage at any proceeding. The Court determines herein that continued
• 31:21
  Speaker 1: visual coverage of this case poses a great risk to
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: the fair administration of justice in this case and co
• 31:27
  Speaker 1: defendant Chad Dabell's companion case, which cases are joined for trial. Therefore,
• 31:34
  Speaker 1: continued visual coverage will no longer be permitted. But the
• 31:38
  Speaker 1: evidence coming out that's not prejudicial to Chad daybel pretty
• 31:42
  Speaker 1: sure that every one of us who follow that trial
• 31:44
  Speaker 1: knows that he's guilty at this point, and this is
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: a classic case of the horse already leaving the barn.
• 31:51
  Speaker 1: The Court determines that this decision applies to all future
• 31:54
  Speaker 1: pre trial motions and trial where continued coverage of pre
• 31:58
  Speaker 1: trial motions will likely call potential jurors to be biased,
• 32:02
  Speaker 1: disqualifying them from service. Coverage during trial raises additional and
• 32:06
  Speaker 1: equally serious concerns. The Court will not risk the loss
• 32:10
  Speaker 1: of seated jurors who may intentionally or inadvertently review the
• 32:15
  Speaker 1: very trial proceedings they are sworn to decide, where those
• 32:18
  Speaker 1: jurors must make their decision only upon the evidence presented
• 32:22
  Speaker 1: at trial. The Court will not risk the potential loss
• 32:26
  Speaker 1: of state or defense witnesses who may intentionally or inadvertently
• 32:30
  Speaker 1: become tainted by viewing the trial proceedings before they testify,
• 32:34
  Speaker 1: assuming their exclusion from the proceedings as is regularly ordered
• 32:38
  Speaker 1: for material witnesses. The Court further is concerned that at trial,
• 32:43
  Speaker 1: the added and unnecessary pressure witnesses and counsel will be
• 32:47
  Speaker 1: subject to knowing that every expression, utterance, and appearance will
• 32:51
  Speaker 1: be captured and circulated without their control and perpetuity is
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: unwarranted and will likely interfere with the fair administration of
• 33:00
  Speaker 1: justice in this case. I disagree a bazillion percent. Do
• 33:04
  Speaker 1: you really think that cameras in the Loris Fallow courtroom
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: would have changed the damn thing. The evidence is what
• 33:10
  Speaker 1: it is, and the public has a right to know
• 33:13
  Speaker 1: what's going down in that courtroom, and they should be
• 33:15
  Speaker 1: able to see it. For themselves not have to rely
• 33:18
  Speaker 1: on somebody reporting it. Secondhand audio recording of all future
• 33:24
  Speaker 1: proceedings will continue to be permitted, with the court utilizing
• 33:28
  Speaker 1: the in court microphones operated by court personnel. Any third
• 33:33
  Speaker 1: party recording will be subject to future approval and, if approved,
• 33:37
  Speaker 1: will be monitored to ensure that microphones are located to
• 33:40
  Speaker 1: ensure that unwarranted conversations between council and clients are not recorded. Finally,
• 33:46
  Speaker 1: in order to facilitate the attendance of the trial in
• 33:49
  Speaker 1: Ada County by Fremont County and Madison County citizens who
• 33:53
  Speaker 1: wish to attend and who have lost the ability to
• 33:55
  Speaker 1: attend in person without great inconvenience, the Court intends to
• 33:59
  Speaker 1: provide enhance access for Fremont and Madison County residents by
• 34:04
  Speaker 1: providing designated seating at a trial in manner to be
• 34:08
  Speaker 1: further determined. Conclusion, defendant's motion to clarify media in the courtroom,
• 34:13
  Speaker 1: together with the state's concurrence and express requests to remove
• 34:17
  Speaker 1: cameras from the courtroom, is granted. So what this tells
• 34:21
  Speaker 1: us is expect the same thing here in the Brian
• 34:23
  Speaker 1: Cooberger case. Because now that they have precedent like this
• 34:27
  Speaker 1: They're going to ride that bad boy all the way
• 34:29
  Speaker 1: to the finish line. All right, folks, that's going to
• 34:32
  Speaker 1: do it for this one. All of the information that
• 34:34
  Speaker 1: goes with the episode can be found in the description
• 34:37
  Speaker 1: box