Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Mega Edition: Bryan Kohberger And The State Of Idaho Trade Motion After Motion (10/7/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Bryan Kohberger And The State Of Idaho Trade Motion After Motion (10/7/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. We're
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: finally getting some new court documents up in Idaho when
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: it comes to Brian Kohlberger and his trial. So in
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: this episode, we're going to update the catalog and add
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: several of these new court documents. And the first one
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: that we're going to take a look at is the
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: motion to rescind order for failure to provide due process.
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: Case number CR29-22-2. The state of Idaho, plaintiff, versus Brian C. Koberger,
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: the defendant. Comes now, Brian C. Koberger by and through
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: his counsel of record, and hereby moves this court to
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: rescind the order issued on March 22, 2024, without providing
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: due process. On March 22, 2024, late on a Friday afternoon,
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: the state filed its motion to prevent contact with potential jurors.
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: The motion included attachments. The late Friday afternoon filing was
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: a strategic action by the state. The state was well
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: aware of the survey taking place long before its late
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: filing on March 22, 2024. Reading the state's filing, it's
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: clear that the state was aware of the survey process
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: by March 8, 2024. By the time the parties met
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: on March 21, 2024, the state had at least one
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: transcript of the survey and knew the questions that were asked.
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: At no time during the 13 days, between March 8th
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: and March 21st, did the state determine an emergency existed
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: that must be brought to the court's attention. On March 21st, 2024,
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: counsel for the state and defense met. The defense provided
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: a curriculum vitae for its expert and discussed the survey
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: and its content. The defense informed the state surveys such
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: as these were common practice. The state could have easily,
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: and likely did, find that this very expert did similar
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: survey work in Idaho on at least two other occasions.
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: Surveys such as these meet the standard of care required
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: of the defense in a capital case. Yet the state
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: told the defense it wanted to tell the judge about this.
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: The defense agreed to attend an on-the-record in-chambers meeting to
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: discuss the defense work being done. The state chose not
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: to wait. Counsel asked the state to refrain from giving
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: the attachments to the court prior to a meeting where
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: the defense could be heard because the court may take
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: action thus prohibiting Mr. Kohlberger an opportunity to be heard. Unfortunately,
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: through its letter writing to the court, the state has
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: achieved previous action from the court without Mr. Kohlberger receiving
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: due process. The state knew what it was doing when
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: it filed a late afternoon motion with attachments. Mr. Kohlberger
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: quickly filed an objection and stated further information would be coming.
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: The court issued an order halting defense work without giving Mr.
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: Kohlberger any opportunity to be heard. This is a violation
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: of Mr. Kohlberger's constitutional rights pursuant to the 14th Amendment
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 13
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: of the Idaho State Constitution. The right to a procedural
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: due process requires that when a constitutionally protected interest is
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: at stake, a person involved in the judicial process be
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: given meaningful notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard and
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: that judicial proceedings be fundamentally fair. State v. Blair 149,
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: Idaho 720, 722, 239, P. 3D, 825, 827 Circuit Court 2010
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: State v. Sloninka 171, Idaho 949, 528, P. 3D, 552, 556
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: The Court of Appeals 2023, Review Denied, May 16th, 2023.
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: The opportunity to be heard must occur at a meaningful
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: time and in a meaningful manner in order to satisfy
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: the due process requirement. Aberdeen Springfield Canal Company, 133, Idaho,
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: at 91-982-P.2D-917-926-1999, citing Castaneda v. Brighton Corp., 130, Idaho, 923-923, 927, 950, P. 2D, 1262, 1266, 1988,
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: see also City of Boise vs. Industrial Commons, 129, Idaho, 906, 935, P. 2D, 169, 1997,
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: and Bradbury vs. Idaho Judicial Council, 136, Idaho, 63, 72, 28, P. 3D, 1006, 1015, 2001.
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: At a bare minimum, there must be some process to
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: ensure that the individual is not arbitrarily deprived of his
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: rights in violation of the state or federal constitutions. This
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: requirement is met when the defendant is provided with notice
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: and opportunity to be heard. Aberdeen Springfield Canal Company at 926,
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: citing State v. Rhodes, 121, Idaho 63, 72, 822, P. 2D, 960,
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: For the court to take action without ensuring Mr. Kohlberger
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: has an opportunity to be heard stops the defense from
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: preparing to meet its deadline for filings in support of
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: its motion for a change of venue. The order damages Mr.
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: Kohlberger in carrying out his work to ensure a properly
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: prepared defense and ensuring a fair trial by an impartial jury.
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: The order also prejudices the state because the survey work
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: is complete for Latah County, but it's not complete in
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: other counties for comparison. No court order should be entered
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: without procedural due process or unless the parties stipulate. This
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: was dated March 26th of 2024 and it was signed
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: And in the next document, we're going to take a
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: look at the objection to the defendant's motion to rescind
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: order for failure to provide due process. The state objects
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: to defendant's motion challenging this court's order prohibiting further contact
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: with prospective jurors, which was entered after the state filed
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: a motion to rescind order for failure to provide due process.
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: and the defendant filed an objection. Defendants claim that this
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: court failed to provide due process is both belied by
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: both the applicable law and the facts surrounding this court's order.
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: Defendants' factual recitation in support of his motion leaves much
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: to be desired, leaving out critical facts that are fatal
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: to his argument. Most glaringly, defendant fails even to mention
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: this court's revised amended non-dissemination order, which the court entered
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: more than six months ago after briefing by the parties
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: and oral argument. As relevant here, the non-dissemination order prohibits
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: certain out-of-court statements, including out-of-court statements that relate to the
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: identity or nature of evidence expected to be presented at
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: trial or any sentencing phase of the proceedings. On March 8th, 2024,
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: more than six months after this court entered the non-dissemination order,
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: the state received information from a Latah County resident who
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: received an unsolicited telephone survey regarding this case. Declaration in
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: response to defendant's motion to rescind order for failure to
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: provide due process. The state had little information about the
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: call at that point and did not yet have reason
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: to believe the defense had violated the non-dissemination order. By
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: March 19th, however, the state had learned that multiple other
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: Latah County residents had had been called and learned that
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: the callers were disclosing information about evidence that would be
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: presented at trial. Equipped with this new information, the state
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: had serious concerns that the defense was violating the non-dissemination
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: order and, given the defense the benefit of the doubt,
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: decided to contact defense counsel prior to raising the issue
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: with the court. The defense confirmed that the calls were
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: being made on their behalf and the state expressed its
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: concerns regarding the calls and informed the defense that the
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: issue needed to be raised with the court. The state
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: filed a motion seeking an order prohibiting further contact with
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: the prospective jurors and asserted as the sole legal basis
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: for its motion that the contact violated the non-dissemination order.
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: State's motion for order prohibiting contact with prospective jurors absent
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: leave of court File March 22, 2024. Defendant filed an
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: objection the same day that conceded the defense had conducted
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: such a survey and indicated that a memorandum in support
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: and affidavit were forthcoming. Objection to the state's motion for
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: order prohibiting contact with prospective jurors absent leave of the
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: court filed March 22, 2024. The court then entered an
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: order prohibiting either party from contacting prospective jurors. The order
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: states that the court had reviewed the material submitted by
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: both parties and that a hearing on the issue will
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: be held as soon as possible. The court has now
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: scheduled a hearing for April 4, 2024, less than two
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: weeks after entering the order prohibiting contact. This fuller explanation
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: of the facts demonstrates that the court has provided defendant
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: due process. Due process is satisfied when the defendant is
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: provided with notice and an opportunity to be heard. State vs. Head, 172, Idaho, 564.
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: Bradbury v. Idaho Judicial Council 136 Idaho 63 72 28 P. 3d 1006, 1015, 2001.
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: Due process is a flexible concept calling for such procedural
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: protections as are warranted by this particular situation. This court
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: has complied with due process on the issue by providing
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard at every
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: stage related to attorney contact with the public. Early in
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: the case, defendant stipulated that a non-dissemination order be issued
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: to protect against adversely affecting the integrity of the case
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: to be presented at trial. And then defendant briefed and
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: argued in favor of the non-dissemination order. The state's recent
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: motion asserted its sole legal basis that the defense may
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: have violated the non-dissemination order by including certain questions in
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: the jury survey that disclosed information about the case and
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: the defense's objection to filed prior to the court entering
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: its order, conceded that the defense conducted the survey. In
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: light of that information, this court's subsequent decision to prohibit
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: any additional contact with prospective jurors, at least until further
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: order of the court, allow for a defendant to provide
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: an affidavit and memorandum in support of the objection and
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: quickly schedule a hearing at which defendant can be heard,
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: plainly protecting defendant's right to due process as warranted by
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: particular situation. Bradbury 136, Idaho at 7228 P3D at 1015. Conclusion.
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: This court should deny defendant's motion for the reasons stated above.
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: Respectfully submitted this 29th day of March 2024. And this
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: was signed by William Thompson and Jeff Nye. All right, folks,
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: that's going to do it for this one. All the
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome back to
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: the program. On this episode, we have some more court
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: documents to get to, and they have to do with
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: the conflict of interest hearing that Judge Marshall had with
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: Ann Taylor. So let's just dive right in. The first
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: document we're going to look at is the motion to
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: unseal court record regarding conflict issues of defense counsel. Case
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: number CR29-22-2805. The state of Idaho plaintiff versus Brian Koberger,
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: the defendant. Comes now. Counsel for the victim's family, Gonsalves,
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: Shannon Gray, and moves the court for an order to
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: unseal the record regarding the conflict issues of defense counsel.
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: This request is based on the grounds and for the
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: reasons set forth in the memorandum attached hereto and by
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: this reference incorporated herein. And this motion was signed by
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: Shannon Gray. Our next document is the memorandum in support
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: of motion to unseal court record regarding conflict issues of
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: defense counsel. Case number CR 29-22-2805. State of Idaho plaintiff
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: versus Brian Koberger, the defendant. I, Shannon L. Gray, am
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: an attorney licensed in the state of Idaho. I represent
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: victim Kaylee Gonsalves' family in the above referenced matter. I
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: make this memorandum in support of the motion to unseal
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: the court record regarding conflict issues in defense counsel. The
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: court held a hearing regarding conflict issues of defense counsel
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: and Taylor on January 27th, 2023. The parties present were
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: Defense Counsel and Ashley Jennings, representing the Latah County Prosecutor's Office.
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: I am not aware of any other counsel that was
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: present at the hearing. I am also not aware that
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: anyone other than the parties mentioned above were even notified
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: of the hearing on this matter. The Gonsalves family and
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: I only became aware that there was a hearing on
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: this matter from a meeting with the Latah County Prosecutor's
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: Office and investigators on February 8, 2023, or we would
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: have never known such a hearing took place. Legal Authority
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: Idaho Court Administrative Rule 32 governs the release, exemption from release,
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: and limitations upon release of judicial records. Specifically, I.C.A.R.32 states,
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: outlines the procedure for sealing court records. In ruling on
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: whether specific records should be disclosed, redacted or sealed by
• 15:13
  Speaker 1: the order of the court, the court shall determine and
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: make a finding of fact as to whether the interest
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: in privacy or public disclosure predominates. If the court redacts
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: or seals records to protect predominating privacy issues, it must
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: fashion the least restrictive exception from disclosure consistent with privacy interests.
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: Before a court may enter an order redacting or sealing records,
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: it must also make one or more of the following
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: determinations in writing. One, that the documents or materials contain
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: highly intimate facts or statements, the publication of which would
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: be highly objectionable to a reasonable person, or two, that
• 15:59
  Speaker 1: the documents or materials contain facts or statements that the
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: court fines might be libelous, or 3. that the documents
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: or materials contain facts or statements, the dissemination of publication,
• 16:12
  Speaker 1: of which would reasonably result in economic or financial loss
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: or harm to a person having an interest in the
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: documents or materials, or compromise the security of personnel, records,
• 16:26
  Speaker 1: or public property of or used by the judicial department,
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: or 4. that the documents or materials contain facts or
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: statements that might threaten or endanger the life or safety
• 16:40
  Speaker 1: of individuals. Or five, that it is necessary to temporarily
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: seal or redact the documents or materials to preserve the
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: right to a fair trial. State v. Allen, 156, Idaho, 332, 336, 325, p. 3d
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: 673 677 court of appeals 2014 that rule provides the
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: public has a right to examine and copy the judicial
• 17:10
  Speaker 1: department's declaration of law and public policy and to examine
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: and copy the records of all proceedings open to the
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: public i.c.a.r 32 a idaho code section 74 101 memorializes
• 17:29
  Speaker 1: Idaho's Public Records Act. In determining whether a record should
• 17:33
  Speaker 1: be sealed, there should also be consideration of whether the
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: place and process have historically been open to the press
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: and general public and whether public access plays a significant
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question.
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: Press Enterprise Company v. Superior Court 478 U.S. 1986. Argument.
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: Since the record has been sealed regarding the conflict issues
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: regarding defense counsel Ann Taylor on this matter and the
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: fact that the Latah County prosecutor's office did not offer
• 18:13
  Speaker 1: any objections or evidence at the time of the hearing,
• 18:17
  Speaker 1: we will presume there is a minimal record of findings
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: and conclusions. It is also my understanding that there were
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: no witnesses called during the hearing and and no other
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: outside testimony was given to the court other than that
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: of defense counsel and Taylor. In determining whether to seal
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: the record of the hearing on the conflict issues of
• 18:38
  Speaker 1: defense counsel and Taylor, the court would have to analyze
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: and apply I.C.A.R. 32 and public policy case law. Conflict
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: issues in this case would involve Ms. Taylor's ability to
• 18:53
  Speaker 1: represent Mr. Koberger after previously representing Cara Kernodle, the mother
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: of one of the victims, in this case, Zanna Kernodle,
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: as well as any other actual or potential conflicts with
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: any other clients. In addition, the court would have to
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: address any issues regarding why Ms. Taylor withdrew from Ms.
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: Cara Kernodle's representation as a current client in order to
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: take on Mr. Koberger. That would include if there has
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: been a waiver filed by Kara Kernodle and or possibly
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: eliciting testimony from Kara Kernodle to determine the extent of
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: any contact and information relayed to Ms. Taylor during the representation. Additionally,
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: the court should have considered the potential for a conflict
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: to arise at different stages of the criminal proceedings based
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: on Ms. Taylor's prior representation of any witnesses or parties
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: involved in this matter. Upon gathering this information, the court
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: have first determined whether the sealing the record of the
• 20:01
  Speaker 1: conflict hearing is consistent with openness and public policy. Secondly,
• 20:07
  Speaker 1: The court should have determined whether sealing the record of
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: the conflict hearing is consistent with the type of hearing
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: being historically that has been open to the press and
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: general public. Finally, the court would need to have applied I.C.A.R.32I
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: and made a finding of fact regarding the applicable issue
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: and fashion the least restrictive exception consistent with privacy issues.
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: Taking into consideration the the information the court reviewed in
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: this case, which was merely defense counsel and Taylor's testimony
• 20:42
  Speaker 1: to the court, the scope of the information obtained by
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: the court from Ms. Taylor, and the lack of any
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: findings on this matter, the court must unseal the court
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: record regarding the conflict issues with defense counsel. In applying
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: the above considerations, it is not common to seal records
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: regarding conflict issues of attorneys. At this stage of the
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: criminal proceeding, conflict issues should be open to the public.
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: This avoids any actual or potential conflicts the court may
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: not be aware of and helps ensure any actual or
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: potential conflicts may be avoided. By opening the record to
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: the public, the court can fully analyze all conflicts, not
• 21:26
  Speaker 1: just those recognized by defense counsel. The number of witnesses
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: and the scope of this case is massive. and the
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: possibility of other conflicts regarding defense counsel should be thoroughly investigated.
• 21:39
  Speaker 1: In applying I.C.A.R.32I, the court must have made a determination
• 21:45
  Speaker 1: that the record of the conflict issues contained one or
• 21:49
  Speaker 1: more of the following. One, highly intimate facts or statements
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: the publication of would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person,
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: or two, the record contains facts or statements that the
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: court finds might be libelous. Or 3. The record contains
• 22:06
  Speaker 1: facts of statements that may compromise financial security or economic
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: or financial loss to a party having an interest in
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: the proceeding. Or 4. The record contains facts or statements
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: that might threaten or endanger the life or safety of individuals.
• 22:23
  Speaker 1: Or 5. The sealing of the record is necessary to
• 22:26
  Speaker 1: preserve the right to a fair trial. Or 6. The
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: record contains personal data, identifiers that should have been redacted.
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: I cannot see any fact pattern applying the above determinations
• 22:40
  Speaker 1: that would justify the court sealing the records of the
• 22:43
  Speaker 1: conflict matter in this case. It appears the only testimony
• 22:47
  Speaker 1: given at the hearing was Ms. Taylor's. Additionally, the Latah
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: County Prosecutor's Office failed to do any due diligence prior
• 22:55
  Speaker 1: to the hearing regarding any conflicts and failed to inquire
• 22:59
  Speaker 1: or object directly at the time of the hearing to
• 23:02
  Speaker 1: clarify or identify any actual or potential conflicts. The proper
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: remedy for the court, if they believe that protected information
• 23:12
  Speaker 1: had been provided, would have been to redact that information
• 23:16
  Speaker 1: and then provide the full record to the public. Therefore,
• 23:21
  Speaker 1: on behalf of my clients, the Gonsalves family, we would
• 23:24
  Speaker 1: request that the court unseal the court record regarding the
• 23:28
  Speaker 1: conflict issues of defense counsel in this matter. This was
• 23:33
  Speaker 1: signed by Shannon L. Gray. All right, so there is
• 23:37
  Speaker 1: the motion to unseal the court record regarding the conflict
• 23:41
  Speaker 1: issues of the defense counsel and the memorandum in support
• 23:46
  Speaker 1: of it. All of the information that goes with this
• 23:49
  Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
• 23:54
  Speaker 1: and welcome back to the program. In this episode, we're
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: going to dive into a few more of the court
• 23:59
  Speaker 1: documents and get caught up on the most recent court filings.
• 24:04
  Speaker 1: And to do that, we're going to start with a
• 24:06
  Speaker 1: motion to stay proceedings. Case number CR 29-22-0002805. State of
• 24:16
  Speaker 1: Idaho plaintiff versus Brian C. Koberger, the defendant. Comes now.
• 24:22
  Speaker 1: Brian C. Koberger buying through his attorney. and C. Taylor,
• 24:26
  Speaker 1: public defender, and hereby moves this court to stay all
• 24:29
  Speaker 1: proceedings in this case pursuant to Idaho Code Section 2-213.
• 24:36
  Speaker 1: Procedural Background Mr. Koberger was indicted by a grand jury
• 24:41
  Speaker 1: on May 16th of 2023. He filed a motion to
• 24:44
  Speaker 1: make available the record of all proceedings of the grand
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: jury pursuant to I.C.R. 6.2 and the motion requesting releasing
• 24:54
  Speaker 1: of grand jury materials under qualified protective order. On May
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: 19th of 2023, the state then filed their state's response
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: to defendant's motions regarding grand jury record and transcript and
• 25:08
  Speaker 1: the proposed order on May 30th of 2023. The parties
• 25:13
  Speaker 1: were not able to reach an agreement regarding the release
• 25:16
  Speaker 1: of grand jury materials. In further opposition of Mr. Koberger's
• 25:20
  Speaker 1: motion for the preparation of grand jury records, On June
• 25:25
  Speaker 1: 6th of 2023, the state filed their state's supplemental response
• 25:30
  Speaker 1: to defendants' motions regarding grand jury record and transcript. A
• 25:35
  Speaker 1: hearing is scheduled for June 26th of 2023 to argue
• 25:39
  Speaker 1: this contested matter. Mr. Kohlberger stood silent at his initial
• 25:44
  Speaker 1: arraignment to preserve his right to contest the indictment. He
• 25:48
  Speaker 1: also asserted his right to a speedy trial pursuant to
• 25:51
  Speaker 1: the United States and Idaho constitutions. Jury trial is scheduled
• 25:55
  Speaker 1: to begin October 2nd, 2023. Time is of the essence.
• 26:01
  Speaker 1: And that shows you a little bit there why he
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: stood silent. Remember we were all wondering what the strategy is?
• 26:07
  Speaker 1: Ann Taylor just released it in this new court filing.
• 26:11
  Speaker 1: He stood silent that way he could challenge this indictment
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: by the grand jury. Argument. By the time this court
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: hears arguments on the preparation of the grand jury proceedings,
• 26:23
  Speaker 1: almost six weeks will have passed from the time of
• 26:26
  Speaker 1: the indictment. Preparation of the grand jury record will then
• 26:30
  Speaker 1: take additional time. Mr. Kohlberger has the right and intends
• 26:33
  Speaker 1: to contest the indictment. Idaho Code Section 2-213 allows the
• 26:39
  Speaker 1: defense to seek a stay of proceedings. Within seven days,
• 26:43
  Speaker 1: after the moving party discovers, or by the exercise of diligence,
• 26:48
  Speaker 1: could have discovered the grounds, therefore, and in any event
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: before the trial jury is sworn to try the case,
• 26:56
  Speaker 1: a party may move to stay the proceedings, and in
• 26:58
  Speaker 1: a criminal case, to quash the indictment, or for other
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: appropriate relief, on the ground of substantial failure, to comply
• 27:06
  Speaker 1: with the chapter in selecting the grand or trial jury. Mr.
• 27:10
  Speaker 1: Koberger seeks to stay the proceedings as appropriate relief while
• 27:14
  Speaker 1: the matter of the grand jury record is argued and prepared.
• 27:18
  Speaker 1: He is exercising due diligence to discover the grounds upon
• 27:22
  Speaker 1: which to file a motion to dismiss related to how
• 27:25
  Speaker 1: the grand jury was selected. He is being delayed through
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: no fault of his own. Conclusion Mr. Kohlberger's request to
• 27:33
  Speaker 1: stay proceedings until the grand jury record is prepared and
• 27:37
  Speaker 1: he has adequate time to contest the indictment should be granted.
• 27:41
  Speaker 1: The remedies allowed in Idaho Code Section 2-213-3 are the
• 27:47
  Speaker 1: exclusive means by which a person accused of a crime
• 27:50
  Speaker 1: may challenge a grand jury on the grounds that the
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: jury was not selected in conformity with this chapter. a
• 27:57
  Speaker 1: stay of proceedings is appropriate. This was signed on the
• 28:00
  Speaker 1: 13th of June of 2023, and it was signed by
• 28:05
  Speaker 1: Ann Taylor. The next document we have is the state's
• 28:09
  Speaker 1: response to defendant's motion for an exception or in the
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: alternative to extend time for compliance with Idaho Code Section 19-519,
• 28:18
  Speaker 1: case number CR29-22-2805. State of Idaho plaintiff versus Brian C. Kohlberger,
• 28:29
  Speaker 1: the defendant. Comes now. The state of Idaho by and
• 28:33
  Speaker 1: through the Latah County prosecuting attorney and respectfully submits the
• 28:37
  Speaker 1: following response to the defendant's motion for an exception or
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: in the alternative to extend time for compliance with I.C.
• 28:45
  Speaker 1: Section 19-519 filed herein on June 9th of 2023. The
• 28:53
  Speaker 1: state acknowledges that the discovery in this case is substantial
• 28:56
  Speaker 1: and ongoing. The state also recognized that this case is
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: currently set for a jury trial projected to last four
• 29:04
  Speaker 1: to six weeks and starting in less than four months.
• 29:07
  Speaker 1: Balancing the above, the state has no objection to a
• 29:11
  Speaker 1: reasonable extension of time for the defense to comply with
• 29:14
  Speaker 1: its obligations under Idaho Code 19-519-1. with the understanding and
• 29:20
  Speaker 1: expectation that the state will likewise have a reasonable period
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: of time to respond to any proffered notice of alibi,
• 29:27
  Speaker 1: and with the additional understanding that any defense compliance with
• 29:31
  Speaker 1: Idaho Code 19-519 occur by July 24th of 2023. And
• 29:32
  Speaker 1: this was dated on the 13th of June of 2023
• 29:42
  Speaker 1: and signed by William Thompson. The next document we have
• 29:47
  Speaker 1: is the amended motion to stay the proceedings. Case number
• 29:51
  Speaker 1: CR 29-22-0002805. State of Idaho Plaintiff. vs. Brian C. Koberger,
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: the defendant. Comes now. Brian C. Koberger, by and through
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: his attorney, and C. Taylor, public defender, and hereby moves
• 30:08
  Speaker 1: this court to stay all proceedings in this case pursuant
• 30:12
  Speaker 1: to Idaho Code Section 2-213, procedural background. Mr. Koberger was
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: indicted by a grand jury on May 16, 2023. He
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: filed a motion to make available the record of all
• 30:25
  Speaker 1: proceedings of the grand jury pursuant to I.C.R. 6.2 and
• 30:30
  Speaker 1: the motion requesting release of grand jury materials under qualified
• 30:35
  Speaker 1: protective order. On May 19th of 2023, the state then
• 30:39
  Speaker 1: filed their state's response to defendant's motions regarding grand jury
• 30:44
  Speaker 1: and transcript and proposed order on May 30th of 2023.
• 30:49
  Speaker 1: The parties are not able to reach agreement regarding the
• 30:52
  Speaker 1: release of grand jury materials. In further opposition of Mr.
• 30:57
  Speaker 1: Koberger's motion for the preparation of grand jury records on
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: June 6, 2023, the state filed their state supplemental response
• 31:06
  Speaker 1: to defendants' motions regarding grand jury record and transcript. A
• 31:11
  Speaker 1: hearing is scheduled for June 27, 2023 to argue this
• 31:13
  Speaker 1: contested matter. Mr. Kohlberger stood silent at his initial arraignment
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: to preserve his right to contest the indictment. He also
• 31:23
  Speaker 1: asserted his right to a speedy trial pursuant to the
• 31:26
  Speaker 1: United States and Idaho constitutions. Jury trial is scheduled to
• 31:30
  Speaker 1: begin October 2nd, 2023. Time is of the essence. Argument.
• 31:38
  Speaker 1: By the time this court hears argument on the preparation
• 31:41
  Speaker 1: of the grand jury proceedings, almost six weeks will have
• 31:44
  Speaker 1: passed from the time of the indictment. Preparation of the
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: grand jury record will then take additional time. Mr. Koberger
• 31:51
  Speaker 1: has the right and intends to contest the indictment. Idaho
• 31:55
  Speaker 1: Code Section 2-213 allows the defense to seek a stay
• 31:59
  Speaker 1: of proceedings. Within seven days after the moving party discovers
• 32:05
  Speaker 1: or by the exercise of diligence could have discovered the grounds, therefore,
• 32:09
  Speaker 1: and in any event before the trial jury is sworn
• 32:12
  Speaker 1: to try the case, a party may move to stay
• 32:15
  Speaker 1: the proceedings and in a criminal case to quash the
• 32:18
  Speaker 1: indictment or for other appropriate relief on the grounds of
• 32:22
  Speaker 1: substantial failure to comply with this chapter in selecting the
• 32:26
  Speaker 1: grand jury or trial jury. Mr. Kohlberger seeks to stay
• 32:30
  Speaker 1: the proceedings as appropriate relief while the matter of the
• 32:34
  Speaker 1: grand jury record is argued and prepared. He is exercising
• 32:38
  Speaker 1: due diligence to discover the grounds upon which to file
• 32:42
  Speaker 1: a motion to dismiss related to how the grand jury
• 32:46
  Speaker 1: was selected. He is being delayed through no fault of
• 32:49
  Speaker 1: his own. Conclusion. Mr. Koberger's request to stay proceedings until
• 32:55
  Speaker 1: the grand jury record is prepared and he has adequate
• 32:58
  Speaker 1: time to contest the indictment should be granted. The remedies
• 33:02
  Speaker 1: allowed in Idaho Code Section 2-213 are the exclusive means
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: by which a person accused of a crime may challenge
• 33:10
  Speaker 1: a grand jury on the grounds that the jury was
• 33:13
  Speaker 1: not selected in conformity with this chapter. A stay of
• 33:17
  Speaker 1: proceedings is appropriate. Dated this 15th of June, 2023 and
• 33:23
  Speaker 1: signed by Ann Taylor. And the last document we have
• 33:27
  Speaker 1: is the Clarification to State Supplemental Response to Defendant's Motion,
• 33:31
  Speaker 1: regarding grand jury record and transcript. Case number CR 29-22-2805.
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: The state of Idaho plaintiff versus Brian C. Kohlberger, the defendant.
• 33:45
  Speaker 1: Comes now. The state of Idaho, by and through the
• 33:48
  Speaker 1: Latah County prosecuting attorney, and respectfully submits the following clarification
• 33:53
  Speaker 1: of the state's position on the grand jury records and
• 33:57
  Speaker 1: transcripts issued. The defendant's reply to state supplemental response to
• 34:01
  Speaker 1: defendant's motions regarding grand jury record and transcript dated June 13th, 2023,
• 34:08
  Speaker 1: suggests that the defense believes the state wishes to limit
• 34:11
  Speaker 1: the transcript record to the evidentiary presentations and list of
• 34:17
  Speaker 1: grand jury votes. Note at the bottom of the first page.
• 34:20
  Speaker 1: Of the defendant's above-reference reply, the defense refers to the
• 34:24
  Speaker 1: grand juror notes, although this is likely a typographical error
• 34:28
  Speaker 1: the state wishes to note that the individual notes of
• 34:31
  Speaker 1: jurors are not available for inspection by any party. To clarify,
• 34:36
  Speaker 1: it's the state's position that the record or transcript of
• 34:39
  Speaker 1: the grand jury proceeding include everything that was done on
• 34:43
  Speaker 1: the record and recorded by the clerk and or court reporter,
• 34:47
  Speaker 1: including the jury selection process. Were this a situation where
• 34:51
  Speaker 1: the grand jury was a standing grand jury that was
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: not impaneled specifically for this case, the state would likely
• 34:57
  Speaker 1: take a different position. However, because this grand jury was
• 35:00
  Speaker 1: impaneled specifically for the case at bar, the state believes
• 35:04
  Speaker 1: that the transcript record should include the jury selection process.
• 35:08
  Speaker 1: In essence, the state's position... is that the transcript record
• 35:12
  Speaker 1: begins when the assigned judge first goes on the record
• 35:15
  Speaker 1: and continues for all reported recorded events through the discharge
• 35:20
  Speaker 1: of the grand jury. The state respectfully submits that this
• 35:24
  Speaker 1: addresses the defendant's interest in the questioning of prospective jurors,
• 35:28
  Speaker 1: as well as the nature and quality of evidence presented,
• 35:32
  Speaker 1: including whether exculpatory evidence was included, as described by the
• 35:36
  Speaker 1: defense in the first full paragraph on page 3, of
• 35:39
  Speaker 1: their reply. This was signed by William Thompson and dated
• 35:44
  Speaker 1: on the 15th of June of 2023. All right, folks,
• 35:48
  Speaker 1: that's going to do it for this one. All of
• 35:50
  Speaker 1: the information that goes with the episode can be found
• 35:54
  Speaker 1: in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome back
• 35:57
  Speaker 1: to the program. In this episode, the dive continues into
• 36:01
  Speaker 1: those court documents, and this time, we're taking a look
• 36:05
  Speaker 1: at the supplemental memorandum in support of motion to vacate
• 36:08
  Speaker 1: the amended non-dissemination order. Case number CR 29-22-2805. State of
• 36:17
  Speaker 1: Idaho Plaintiff, 1st Brian C. Koberger, the defendant. On May 1st, 2023,
• 36:24
  Speaker 1: interveners filed a motion to intervene and a motion to
• 36:27
  Speaker 1: vacate the amended non-dissemination order along with supporting memorandum. At
• 36:32
  Speaker 1: a May 22, 2023 scheduling conference on these motions, the
• 36:37
  Speaker 1: court set a motion hearing for June 9, 2023 and
• 36:41
  Speaker 1: ordered that intervenors could file a supplemental memorandum in support
• 36:45
  Speaker 1: of their pending motions and submit a memorandum on the
• 36:48
  Speaker 1: separate issue of whether cameras should be allowed in the courtroom.
• 36:53
  Speaker 1: Intervenors are contemporaneously filing a separate memorandum on the camera issue.
• 36:59
  Speaker 1: On the motion to intervene and the motion to vacate,
• 37:02
  Speaker 1: Intervenors stand by the memoranda they filed on May 1st, 2023,
• 37:07
  Speaker 1: but they offer three points here to further the colloquy
• 37:11
  Speaker 1: with the court during the May 22nd, 2023 scheduling conference
• 37:16
  Speaker 1: about the motion to vacate. First, intervenors respect Mr. Koberger's
• 37:21
  Speaker 1: right to a fair trial, and they do not contend
• 37:23
  Speaker 1: that their First Amendment rights are the only constitutional rights
• 37:27
  Speaker 1: that are at issue here. Intervenors stand by their prior
• 37:31
  Speaker 1: assertions that when defining the bounds of the First Amendment,
• 37:35
  Speaker 1: an orderly society must also consider a criminal defendant's right
• 37:39
  Speaker 1: to a fair trial, and that the court's task when
• 37:42
  Speaker 1: considering a gag order is to ensure a proper balance
• 37:45
  Speaker 1: between the First and Sixth Amendments. Memorandum in support to
• 37:49
  Speaker 1: motion to vacate the amended non-dissemination order, Page 6 intervenor's
• 37:54
  Speaker 1: argument is that those rights... were improperly balanced when a
• 37:58
  Speaker 1: gag order initially was entered and when it was amended
• 38:01
  Speaker 1: in this case. Interveners agree that their First Amendment rights
• 38:05
  Speaker 1: yield to Mr. Kohlberger's Sixth Amendment rights, but only when Mr.
• 38:10
  Speaker 1: Kohlberger's Sixth Amendment rights will actually be infringed by intervener speech.
• 38:16
  Speaker 1: Strict scrutiny analysis teases out where that line lies, and
• 38:20
  Speaker 1: the amended non-dissemination order dated January 18, 2023, gag order,
• 38:26
  Speaker 1: fails under that test. Interveners agree that there has been
• 38:30
  Speaker 1: and will continue to be great publicity surrounding this case,
• 38:34
  Speaker 1: but publicity alone is not prejudicial. Any statement concerning this
• 38:39
  Speaker 1: case is not prejudicial. Statements can be exculpatory, inculpatory, or irrelevant.
• 38:46
  Speaker 1: The state and Mr. Koberger's failure to present any evidence
• 38:49
  Speaker 1: of prejudicial news coverage and the court's failure to consider
• 38:53
  Speaker 1: alternative measures means the competing constitutional rights here were improperly
• 38:58
  Speaker 1: balanced and the gag order should be vacated. If anything,
• 39:02
  Speaker 1: the gag order prejudices Mr. Kohlberger by depriving the public
• 39:06
  Speaker 1: of quality information, creating a vacuum for rampant online speculation. Second,
• 39:12
  Speaker 1: interveners have properly cited the Idaho Supreme Court's decision in
• 39:16
  Speaker 1: petition for writ of mandamus or writ of prohibition, number 50482-2023, WL3050829, Idaho,
• 39:21
  Speaker 1: April 24, 2020. 24th, 2023. Two lines from the Idaho Supreme
• 39:32
  Speaker 1: Court's opinion are particularly relevant to the intervener's pending motion
• 39:36
  Speaker 1: to vacate. If the amended non-dissemination order is vague, overbroad,
• 39:42
  Speaker 1: unduly restrictive, or not narrowly drawn, it would be an
• 39:46
  Speaker 1: unconstitutional obstacle to their gathering of such information. The media's
• 39:51
  Speaker 1: concern and the order's provisions are vague, overbroad, unduly restrictive,
• 39:57
  Speaker 1: and not narrowly drawn, are not merely contrived, and if established,
• 40:01
  Speaker 1: could improperly infringe on the press's constitutional right to report
• 40:06
  Speaker 1: on the case. Whether the gag order at issue here
• 40:09
  Speaker 1: is vague, overbroad, unduly restrictive, or not narrowly drawn, that
• 40:13
  Speaker 1: is the task for this court. But the Idaho Supreme
• 40:16
  Speaker 1: Court did hold that, in the abstract, a gag order
• 40:19
  Speaker 1: that is vague, overbroad, unduly restrictive, or not narrowly drawn
• 40:24
  Speaker 1: would be an unconstitutional obstacle and could improperly infringe on
• 40:29
  Speaker 1: the press's constitutional right to report on the case. That
• 40:33
  Speaker 1: is what interveners intended to convey in the opening section
• 40:37
  Speaker 1: of their May 1st, 2023 memorandum. Interveners used gag order
• 40:42
  Speaker 1: in the lowercase to reference What the Idaho Supreme Court
• 40:46
  Speaker 1: said about gag orders generally and interveners intentionally did not
• 40:50
  Speaker 1: use the capitalized gag order, the defined term for the
• 40:54
  Speaker 1: amended non-dissemination order dated January 18th, 2023, because the Idaho
• 40:59
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court did not decide whether the gag order is vague, overbroad,
• 41:04
  Speaker 1: unduly restrictive, or not narrowly drawn. It is for the
• 41:08
  Speaker 1: reasons provided in interveners May 1st, 2023 memorandum. Third, The
• 41:14
  Speaker 1: court should decide the motion to vacate based on the
• 41:17
  Speaker 1: factual record that existed when the gag order was issued
• 41:21
  Speaker 1: and the new evidence that interveners have provided to show
• 41:24
  Speaker 1: the gag order's chilling effect. With a motion to vacate,
• 41:27
  Speaker 1: interveners submitted a declaration with counsel's factual understanding of how
• 41:32
  Speaker 1: the gag order has affected interveners. Submitted with this memorandum
• 41:37
  Speaker 1: are declarations from the reporters themselves. The reporters' declarations largely
• 41:42
  Speaker 1: confirm that counsel's prior understanding of the facts, but in
• 41:46
  Speaker 1: full candor, there are a few corrections. Morgan Romero was
• 41:50
  Speaker 1: not provided information about whether Mr. Koberger was ever offered
• 41:54
  Speaker 1: a job with the Pullman Police Department, as opposed to
• 41:57
  Speaker 1: whether he was interviewed, and only the Latah County Sheriff's
• 42:00
  Speaker 1: Office and Moscow Police Department denied Taylor Mifurendensky's public records
• 42:06
  Speaker 1: request because a gag order in this case. Other agencies
• 42:10
  Speaker 1: cited public record exemptions. While the facts that interveners rely
• 42:15
  Speaker 1: on came into existence after a gag order was issued,
• 42:18
  Speaker 1: the state and Mr. Kohlberger could have submitted any evidence
• 42:22
  Speaker 1: that in their view suggests a gag order is necessary
• 42:25
  Speaker 1: when they submitted their request for a gag order to
• 42:27
  Speaker 1: the court. The state and Mr. Kohlberger thus should not
• 42:32
  Speaker 1: be allowed to submit new evidence supporting the gag order
• 42:35
  Speaker 1: with their response brief or at the June 9, 2023
• 42:38
  Speaker 1: motion hearing. When the state and Mr. Kohlberger first requested
• 42:43
  Speaker 1: the gag order, that was their opportunity to carry their
• 42:46
  Speaker 1: burden to create a record to support their request. Intervenors'
• 42:50
  Speaker 1: motion to vacate challenges the validity of the gag order
• 42:54
  Speaker 1: based on the record before the court at the time
• 42:57
  Speaker 1: that the order was issued. Six months later, the state
• 43:01
  Speaker 1: and Mr. Kohlberger should not be allowed to ambush intervenors
• 43:04
  Speaker 1: and the court with evidence, particularly expert evidence, that they
• 43:09
  Speaker 1: could have and should have disclosed and presented much earlier.
• 43:13
  Speaker 1: Intervenors otherwise urged the court to vacate the gag order
• 43:17
  Speaker 1: for the reasons set forth in their motion and memoranda
• 43:21
  Speaker 1: filed on May 1st, 2023 and on the declarations filed
• 43:25
  Speaker 1: contemporaneously herewith. This was signed by Wendy J. Olson and
• 43:31
  Speaker 1: it was dated June 2nd, 2023. And the final document
• 43:36
  Speaker 1: we're going to look at Is the order granting motion
• 43:39
  Speaker 1: to intervene for limited purpose. Case number CR 29-22-2805. Order
• 43:47
  Speaker 1: granting motion to intervene for limited purpose. State of Idaho Plaintiff.
• 43:53
  Speaker 1: Brian C. Kohlberger, the defendant. On May 1st, 2023, a
• 43:57
  Speaker 1: coalition of 20 media outlets, Associated Press, filed a motion
• 44:02
  Speaker 1: to intervene and a motion to vacate the amended non-dissemination order.
• 44:07
  Speaker 1: Oral argument was heard on June 9, 2023, and the
• 44:11
  Speaker 1: state was represented by William W. Thompson Jr. and Bradley J. Rudley,
• 44:15
  Speaker 1: Latah County Prosecutor's Office. Defendant was represented by Ann C.
• 44:21
  Speaker 1: Taylor and Jay Logsdon, Kootenai County Public Defender's Office. The
• 44:25
  Speaker 1: Associated Press was represented by Wendy Olson and Corey Carone.
• 44:31
  Speaker 1: The parties had no objections to the motion to intervene
• 44:33
  Speaker 1: and for the limited purpose of challenging the amended non-dissemination order. Thus,
• 44:39
  Speaker 1: the motion to intervene is granted for the limited purpose
• 44:42
  Speaker 1: of allowing the Associated Press to challenge the amended non-dissemination order.
• 44:48
  Speaker 1: This was dated on the 23rd of June, and it
• 44:51
  Speaker 1: was signed by Judge Judge. All right, folks, that's going
• 44:55
  Speaker 1: to do it for this one. All of the information
• 44:57
  Speaker 1: that goes with this episode can be found in the
• 45:00
  Speaker 1: description box.