Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Mega Edition: Bryan Kohberger Requests That All Camera's Be Removed From The Courtroom (9/26/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Bryan Kohberger Requests That All Camera's Be Removed From The Courtroom (9/26/26) · Beyond The Horizon

0:00
Speaker 1: Up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. Things in
0:04
Speaker 1: the Brian Koberger trial continue to move at a quick pace. Recently,
0:10
Speaker 1: we had the trial suspended indefinitely, and also there have
0:14
Speaker 1: been a flurry of other filings behind the scenes. And
0:19
Speaker 1: one of those filings has to do with removing cameras
0:23
Speaker 1: from the courtroom. And there's been a lot of back
0:25
Speaker 1: and forth thus far between the media, between the prosecution
0:29
Speaker 1: and between the defense about cameras in the courtroom and
0:33
Speaker 1: what kind of access they're going to have. Now, one
0:36
Speaker 1: of the big problems with cameras in the courtroom, according
0:39
Speaker 1: to the defense, is that the cameras have a tendency
0:43
Speaker 1: to zoom in for a close up of the defendant
0:46
Speaker 1: for the whole entire proceeding. And this is what happened
0:49
Speaker 1: with Lori Vallow, according to Judge Boyce. So that's something
0:53
Speaker 1: that the defense has brought up. And what they're saying
0:56
Speaker 1: is going to happen here. Now, my opinion is they
1:00
Speaker 1: should just meet halfway. Cameras should be allowed in the courtroom,
1:04
Speaker 1: but it should be a wide shot. Have one camera
1:07
Speaker 1: crew in the back of the room, one big wide
1:10
Speaker 1: shot so we can all see what's going on and
1:12
Speaker 1: keep it moving. Because we don't need the camera zoomed
1:16
Speaker 1: in on Kohlberger, right? We all know who is on trial.
1:19
Speaker 1: We all know who he is. So what's the point
1:22
Speaker 1: in zooming in on him? So I understand that from
1:25
Speaker 1: the defense's point of view. This is a high profile
1:28
Speaker 1: case and you don't want to give the other side
1:30
Speaker 1: any sort of ground, right? So you want to make
1:34
Speaker 1: sure that you're pounding away at every little thing. chipping
1:37
Speaker 1: away at the facade, and hopefully you chip away enough
1:41
Speaker 1: that the jury starts to wonder if the narrative being
1:45
Speaker 1: presented by the prosecution is really that solid. And that's
1:49
Speaker 1: what they're attempting to do here. They're attempting to find
1:52
Speaker 1: a weakness so that they can utilize those technicalities and
1:57
Speaker 1: try and get their client off. Today's article is from
2:00
Speaker 1: ABC News and the headline, Brian Koberger's lawyers seek to
2:04
Speaker 1: remove cameras from the courtroom. This article was authored by
2:09
Speaker 1: Sasha Pezenik. Attorneys for Brian Koberger, the man accused of
2:13
Speaker 1: killing four University of Idaho college students last fall, have
2:18
Speaker 1: asked the judge to nix cameras in the courtroom for
2:21
Speaker 1: the remainder of the proceedings. And look, I know that
2:24
Speaker 1: the burden of proof is on the state, but if
2:27
Speaker 1: I was an innocent man, I'd want cameras in this room.
2:30
Speaker 1: I'd want the whole entire thing broadcast to the wide
2:33
Speaker 1: world to show them that I'm being railroaded. In a
2:38
Speaker 1: new court filing released Friday, the defense says the camera
2:42
Speaker 1: wielding courtroom observers have failed to obey an earlier directive
2:47
Speaker 1: not to focus exclusively on their client, pointing to photos
2:51
Speaker 1: that they said were a blatant violation and the headlines
2:55
Speaker 1: they called blatantly sensationalistic and prejudicial. Here we go with
3:00
Speaker 1: the prejudicial and sensationalistic stuff again. technicalities and loopholes. Oh,
3:06
Speaker 1: the jury pool's gonna be tainted. Meanwhile, in New York,
3:09
Speaker 1: they're calling Heuermann an ogre. They're calling him a killer,
3:13
Speaker 1: a cold-blooded monster. But Brian Kohlberger's rights are being stepped
3:17
Speaker 1: on because cameras are gonna be in the courtroom. Man,
3:20
Speaker 1: shut up. I don't know how much more clear I
3:22
Speaker 1: need to be about that. This dude's entering Ghislaine Maxwell
3:26
Speaker 1: territory with as much as he's relying on technicalities at
3:29
Speaker 1: this point, and it's gonna lead to a death sentence. That,
3:33
Speaker 1: the defense said, necessitates the expulsion of cameras from future proceedings.
3:39
Speaker 1: The defense stated cameras' continued exclusive focus on Kohlberger also
3:44
Speaker 1: provides fodder for those on social media who are not
3:47
Speaker 1: bound by notions of journalistic integrity, who have potentially an
3:51
Speaker 1: even greater reach than traditional media outlets. What that means
3:55
Speaker 1: is they can't control the narrative with people like me.
3:59
Speaker 1: So what they'll do is they'll come out and say, oh,
4:01
Speaker 1: this is all prejudicial to our client. No, it's not.
4:04
Speaker 1: The public is not bound by the same rules as
4:07
Speaker 1: the jury. We can sit around and talk about this
4:09
Speaker 1: one's guilty or that one's guilty as much as we want. What,
4:14
Speaker 1: you think Brian Kohlberger's getting a worse shake than Trump
4:17
Speaker 1: when it comes to that? I mean, come on. So
4:19
Speaker 1: I don't expect his attorneys to say anything else. But
4:22
Speaker 1: when you look around at some of the other cases
4:24
Speaker 1: of high profile, all the wringing of the hands and
4:27
Speaker 1: the gnashing of the teeth here about a potentially tainted
4:30
Speaker 1: jury pool is much ado about nothing. And I've told
4:34
Speaker 1: you that from the very beginning. Considering this is a
4:37
Speaker 1: capital case, it is not surprising defense counsel seeks to
4:41
Speaker 1: insulate the defendant as much as possible. David Calviero, a
4:45
Speaker 1: former New Jersey prosecutor who is now a criminal defense attorney,
4:49
Speaker 1: said in order to improve the client's chances of success
4:53
Speaker 1: in a capital case, it's imperative that they get a
4:55
Speaker 1: jury that knows little to nothing about the case. It
4:59
Speaker 1: doesn't help to have unflattering images of the defendant's face
5:03
Speaker 1: emblazoned in their memory. So how are you going to
5:06
Speaker 1: find a jury that fits those parameters for Donald Trump?
5:11
Speaker 1: And if you can find a jury for Donald Trump,
5:13
Speaker 1: you mean to tell me you can't find a jury
5:15
Speaker 1: for Brian Koberger? My answer is you're bullshitting. And my
5:19
Speaker 1: answer is stop it. There's going to be a jury.
5:22
Speaker 1: It's not going to be tainted. And Brian Koberger is
5:25
Speaker 1: going to get a fair shake. All of this is
5:28
Speaker 1: loophole and technicality strategy 101. Arguing that the rampant coverage
5:33
Speaker 1: could prejudice a potential jury pool, Kohlberger's lawyers said that
5:37
Speaker 1: the risk is wherever they go, viewable on their smartphones,
5:41
Speaker 1: and constantly updated by thousands of unchecked sources. Well, you
5:45
Speaker 1: wanted the gag order. Dumb dumb, if you didn't have
5:48
Speaker 1: the gag order, maybe people would have an idea what's
5:51
Speaker 1: going on. But since you guys have the gag order
5:54
Speaker 1: in place, we have to deal with tarot card readers, psychics,
5:57
Speaker 1: spirit box people, and a whole bunch of other clowns
6:01
Speaker 1: under this big tent of this circus that has shown
6:04
Speaker 1: up in Moscow. And furthermore, instead of complaining about a
6:07
Speaker 1: potentially tainted jerry pool, how about you work on your
6:10
Speaker 1: client's alibi? Far from constituting an undue and over-restrictive burden
6:16
Speaker 1: on the press right of free speech, Koberger's lawyers said, Mr.
6:20
Speaker 1: Koberger is entitled to defend himself against capital criminal charges
6:24
Speaker 1: without cameras focused on his fly. Well, those kids, Maddie, Zanna, Ethan,
6:30
Speaker 1: and Kaylee, they were all entitled to have a life.
6:33
Speaker 1: They were all entitled to still live. I think Koberger
6:36
Speaker 1: can suffer through some cameras in the courtroom. The judge
6:39
Speaker 1: has not yet weighed in on the request. Koberger's push
6:43
Speaker 1: to banish cameras from the court as the one-time doctoral candidate,
6:48
Speaker 1: now facing capital murder charges, has also just moved to
6:51
Speaker 1: dismiss the indictment against him for the second time, arguing
6:55
Speaker 1: in a separate court filing that prosecutors used inadmissible evidence
7:00
Speaker 1: in presenting their case to the grand jury, that they
7:03
Speaker 1: lack sufficient evidence and have withheld evidence that might aid
7:07
Speaker 1: Koberger in defending himself in the capital murder case he faces.
7:12
Speaker 1: And Kohlberger's team makes claim after claim and drops bomb
7:15
Speaker 1: after bomb, but they never have any evidence to back
7:18
Speaker 1: it up. Can you please point to me where all
7:21
Speaker 1: of this prosecutorial indiscretion occurred? Because I haven't seen any
7:26
Speaker 1: of it yet. A memo with further details has been
7:30
Speaker 1: filed under seal. But in their filing, Kohlberger's lawyers have
7:34
Speaker 1: cited select Idaho statutes that they say the prosecution violated
7:39
Speaker 1: during the grand jury process. One state rule of evidence
7:43
Speaker 1: they specifically point to says evidence must be proven authentic
7:47
Speaker 1: to back up their case, whether it's witness testimony, distinctive
7:51
Speaker 1: characteristics of the item taken together with all the circumstances,
7:56
Speaker 1: or an opinion identifying a person's voice, the rule says.
8:00
Speaker 1: Their public filing does not delve into the specifics of
8:04
Speaker 1: what Koberger's team alleges, but police have insisted that a
8:08
Speaker 1: critical eyewitness account on the night of the murder's links
8:11
Speaker 1: Kohlberger to the scene. And that obviously is the eyewitness
8:16
Speaker 1: account of Dylan Mortensen. She saw a man with bushy
8:20
Speaker 1: eyebrows that fits Kohlberger's description. So she's definitely going to
8:24
Speaker 1: testify come trial time. So what they're trying to do
8:27
Speaker 1: here is pull an end around on that and try
8:31
Speaker 1: and make it so her testimony doesn't really mean much.
8:34
Speaker 1: Because remember, it's a game of credibility, right? The whole
8:38
Speaker 1: idea is... You want your side to be more credible
8:41
Speaker 1: than the other side. That way the jury looks at
8:44
Speaker 1: the narrative that you're pitching and says to themselves, all right,
8:47
Speaker 1: this is the truth, obviously, and here's the evidence to
8:50
Speaker 1: back it up. Prosecutors allege that in the early morning
8:54
Speaker 1: hours of November 13th, 2022, Kohlberger, a criminology PhD student
9:00
Speaker 1: at nearby Washington State University, broke into an off-campus home
9:05
Speaker 1: and stabbed to death four University of Idaho students. Ethan Chapin,
9:10
Speaker 1: Madison Mogan, Zanna Kernodle, and Kaylee Gonsalves. Around the time
9:15
Speaker 1: the killings allegedly occurred, authorities say one of the surviving
9:19
Speaker 1: roommates in the home heard what she thought was crying
9:22
Speaker 1: coming from Kernodle's room and heard a male voice saying
9:26
Speaker 1: something to the effect of, It's okay, I'm going to
9:29
Speaker 1: help you. Imagine this sick, degenerate, disgusting animal. It's okay,
9:33
Speaker 1: I'm going to help you. And then murdering this poor girl.
9:37
Speaker 1: Opening her door, the roommate saw a figure clad in
9:39
Speaker 1: black clothing and a mask that covered the person's mouth
9:43
Speaker 1: and nose walking towards her. A figure she described as
9:46
Speaker 1: 5'10 or taller, male, not very muscular, but athletically built
9:51
Speaker 1: with bushy eyebrows, according to the affidavit. Authorities said Kohlberger's
9:56
Speaker 1: driver's license information and photograph indicates that Kohlberger is a
10:01
Speaker 1: white male with a head of six foot and weighs
10:04
Speaker 1: 185 pounds. Additionally, the photograph of Kohlberger shows that he
10:09
Speaker 1: has bushy eyebrows, which they said was consistent with the
10:13
Speaker 1: description of the male which the surviving roommate saw inside
10:17
Speaker 1: the King Road residence on the night of the killings.
10:20
Speaker 1: And if it was just her testimony that they were using,
10:23
Speaker 1: they wouldn't have a whole lot to go on here.
10:25
Speaker 1: She didn't see his face. She saw his likeness. But
10:28
Speaker 1: when you add up all of the other evidence and remember,
10:31
Speaker 1: you have to look at this as the totality of
10:34
Speaker 1: evidence collected, not just one single bit of evidence. It
10:37
Speaker 1: certainly puts things into a different context. Because with just
10:41
Speaker 1: one little piece of evidence such as this, you could
10:44
Speaker 1: say to yourself, well, there's enough reasonable doubt here that
10:48
Speaker 1: we could say it's not Brian Koberger. But when you
10:51
Speaker 1: add all the other stuff and then the DNA as
10:54
Speaker 1: the glue that binds it all together, I don't know
10:56
Speaker 1: how you arrive anywhere else besides at a destination that
11:00
Speaker 1: includes Brian Koberger looking guilty as hell. After a six-week
11:05
Speaker 1: hunt last winter, police zeroed in on Koberger as a suspect,
11:09
Speaker 1: saying they tracked his white Hyundai Elantra and cell phone
11:12
Speaker 1: signal data and recovered what authorities said was his DNA
11:16
Speaker 1: on a knife sheath found next to one of the
11:18
Speaker 1: victim's bodies. He was arrested on December 30th and indicted
11:23
Speaker 1: in May and charged with four counts of first-degree murder
11:26
Speaker 1: and one count of burglary. At his arraignment, he declined
11:30
Speaker 1: to offer a plea, so the judge entered a non-guilty
11:33
Speaker 1: plea on his behalf. If convicted, Kohlberger could face the
11:38
Speaker 1: death penalty. Though the trial was initially set for October 2nd,
11:42
Speaker 1: on Wednesday, Kohlberger waived his right to a speedy trial,
11:46
Speaker 1: postponing the trial indefinitely. Calvillo said, with their latest motion
11:51
Speaker 1: to dismiss, Kohlberger's team is attempting to poke holes in
11:55
Speaker 1: the case against their client. citing foundational rules that form
11:59
Speaker 1: the threshold for a legitimate claim as they try to
12:02
Speaker 1: show the case fails to be sufficient. Whether or not
12:06
Speaker 1: they'll succeed in this motion remains to be seen, and
12:09
Speaker 1: without knowing the details, we're left to speculate, but it
12:12
Speaker 1: tells us they may be upping the ante, especially now
12:15
Speaker 1: that they have more time to do so. Calvillo told
12:19
Speaker 1: ABC News, I mean, they can try all they want,
12:22
Speaker 1: and they can throw all the accusations they want out there,
12:25
Speaker 1: But the rubber's going to meet the road the second
12:28
Speaker 1: court starts. The day the proceedings begin, all that bullshit
12:32
Speaker 1: goes out the window. And if you don't believe me,
12:35
Speaker 1: just ask that Scafusa, Lori Vallow. One of the rules
12:39
Speaker 1: cited in Koberger's latest attempt to dismiss the indictment notes
12:42
Speaker 1: that evidence about a process or system should show that
12:46
Speaker 1: it produces an accurate result. Kohlberger's defense is repeatedly pushed
12:51
Speaker 1: for prosecutors to disclose more information about the investigative genetic genealogy,
12:57
Speaker 1: which eventually helped law enforcement link him to the crime scene. Yeah, sure.
13:02
Speaker 1: When you give us more information about the alibi. The
13:06
Speaker 1: prosecution's assertion that Kohlberger's DNA was found on the button
13:09
Speaker 1: of the snap of the knife sheath is a critical
13:12
Speaker 1: linchpin of their larger circumstantial case. Like I just said,
13:16
Speaker 1: that's the glue that binds everything together. And that's why
13:21
Speaker 1: Kohlberger's team is going so hard against the DNA. And
13:26
Speaker 1: Kohlberger's defense has attempted to cast doubt on the strength
13:29
Speaker 1: of investigators' DNA evidence and whether it pointed irrefutably to
13:34
Speaker 1: just their client. Kohlberger's defense has alleged that his DNA
13:38
Speaker 1: could have been put on the K-Bar knife sheath by
13:41
Speaker 1: someone other than him, for instance, During the investigation, which
13:45
Speaker 1: spanned hundreds of members of law enforcement and at least
13:48
Speaker 1: one lab, they suggested in a June court filing. So basically,
13:52
Speaker 1: they're taking the Mark Furman approach here and saying that
13:56
Speaker 1: somebody planted this evidence. Talk about grasping for straws. You
14:02
Speaker 1: want to talk about a drowning man looking for any
14:04
Speaker 1: debris to grab onto? Folks, you're seeing it here. This
14:08
Speaker 1: is not Koberger's first attempt at tossing out the indictment.
14:12
Speaker 1: In late July, they asked that the indictment be dismissed,
14:15
Speaker 1: arguing that the indictment is flawed because the grand jury
14:18
Speaker 1: was misled as to the standard of proof required. That
14:22
Speaker 1: motion is still pending. Responding to Koberger's second push to
14:26
Speaker 1: dismiss in a filing released Friday, prosecutors leading the case
14:30
Speaker 1: against him asked for more time to respond, pointing to
14:34
Speaker 1: their more than 100-page supporting argument Koberger's team included in
14:38
Speaker 1: their motion including detailed, factual, and evidentiary issues, which the
14:44
Speaker 1: prosecution team say required review of the grand jury transcript
14:49
Speaker 1: and complex scientific representations and disputes. The prosecution asked to
14:55
Speaker 1: address both his attempts to dismiss the charges against him
14:58
Speaker 1: in one hearing in late September. a request to which
15:01
Speaker 1: Koberger's attorney agreed. The judge has yet to weigh in
15:06
Speaker 1: on that motion as well. So as you can see here,
15:09
Speaker 1: things are in motion and this process is fully underway.
15:13
Speaker 1: And considering we're this far along in the process, I'm
15:17
Speaker 1: not very impressed with what Koberger has brought to the
15:19
Speaker 1: table thus far. And while the onus of proof is
15:22
Speaker 1: certainly on the prosecution, you should be showing up with
15:26
Speaker 1: a better strategy at the very least. Because the whole
15:29
Speaker 1: it wasn't me, That's not going to work out so
15:32
Speaker 1: well when all the evidence gets presented. So unless he
15:35
Speaker 1: has something up his sleeve and a different sort of
15:37
Speaker 1: strategy cooking somewhere, he might as well be climbing up
15:41
Speaker 1: Mount Everest with no shoes. All right, folks, that's going
15:45
Speaker 1: to do it for this one. All of the information
15:47
Speaker 1: that goes with this episode can be found in the
15:50
Speaker 1: description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program.
15:56
Speaker 1: In this episode, we're going to dive back into the
15:58
Speaker 1: court documents, and this time, we're taking a look at
16:01
Speaker 1: the state's brief on video and photographic coverage. Case number CR29-22-2805,
16:07
Speaker 1: State of Idaho Plaintiff, 1st Brian Christopher Koberger, the defendant.
16:15
Speaker 1: In the state's view, the decision of whether to allow
16:18
Speaker 1: video or photographic coverage of the proceedings in this case
16:22
Speaker 1: is left to the sound discretion of the court. Idaho
16:25
Speaker 1: Court Administrative Rule I.C.A.R. 45. The courts have not held
16:30
Speaker 1: that there is a First Amendment or other constitutional right
16:34
Speaker 1: of the media to broadcast or photograph a proceeding. In fact,
16:38
Speaker 1: there have been circumstances where the United States Supreme Court
16:42
Speaker 1: has held that extensive broadcasting and photographing of a proceeding
16:47
Speaker 1: to be violative of a defendant's due process rights. Siestas v.
16:52
Speaker 1: Texas 381 U.S. 532, 1965, and Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S., 560, 1981.
17:02
Speaker 1: As guidance, the state has attached the recent decision by
17:06
Speaker 1: the 7th Judicial District Judge, Stephen Boyce, in the case
17:10
Speaker 1: of State of Idaho v. Lori Noreen Vallow, a.k.a. Lori
17:14
Speaker 1: Noreen Vallow Daybell, case number CR 22-21-1624. A similar rationale
17:17
Speaker 1: may exist here. The state would further note that Federal
17:25
Speaker 1: Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 prohibits courtroom photographing and broadcasting
17:31
Speaker 1: except as otherwise allowed by rule or statute in federal cases.
17:36
Speaker 1: The state also has the following concerns about allowing broadcasting
17:40
Speaker 1: or photographing at the trial in this case. The state
17:44
Speaker 1: has a number of sensitive witnesses who would likely be intimidated, harassed,
17:48
Speaker 1: or harmed by a live broadcast of the trial, two
17:51
Speaker 1: jurors unless sequestered, would have off hours, access to the broadcast,
17:56
Speaker 1: which may include discussions which were outside of the jury's purview,
18:00
Speaker 1: and three, witnesses would have access to broadcast showing the
18:05
Speaker 1: specific testimony of other witnesses. Finally, if the court were
18:09
Speaker 1: inclined to allow video or photographic coverage, the state would
18:13
Speaker 1: recommend that the court control the positioning, location, and zoom
18:17
Speaker 1: of any camera, whether by order or by simply controlling
18:20
Speaker 1: any recording itself. To ensure the camera or photographing is
18:25
Speaker 1: not solely focused on one participant, that it does not
18:28
Speaker 1: capture any sensitive or inadmissible materials, and that it does
18:32
Speaker 1: not subject any trial participant to excessive coverage. Respectfully submitted
18:37
Speaker 1: this sixth day of June 2023, and this was signed
18:41
Speaker 1: by Bradley Rudley. The first document we're going to look
18:45
Speaker 1: at is the Memorandum Decision and Order Prohibiting Video and
18:49
Speaker 1: Photographic Coverage. Case number CR22-21-1624. State of Idaho plaintiff. First,
18:58
Speaker 1: Lori Noreen Vallow, a.k.a. Lori Noreen Vallow Daybell. Pending before
19:03
Speaker 1: the court is the defendant's motion to clarify media in
19:06
Speaker 1: the courtroom. Filed August 30th, 2022. Requesting cameras to be
19:11
Speaker 1: banned from future proceedings. On September 8th, 2022, several non-party
19:17
Speaker 1: media entities, media, sought and obtained permission. From the court,
19:21
Speaker 1: to file as interested persons a response to defendant's motion
19:25
Speaker 1: arguing media had at no time failed to comply with
19:29
Speaker 1: orders of this court governing media coverage of in-court proceedings.
19:33
Speaker 1: On September 12, 2022, the state filed a concurrence with
19:37
Speaker 1: the defendant's motion. On September 15, 2022, the court heard
19:42
Speaker 1: argument on the issue at a hearing. Having fully reviewed
19:46
Speaker 1: the record, relevant rules, and case law, and upon the
19:49
Speaker 1: request of A sacrosanct protection of the penal system in
19:41
Speaker 1: the United States of America is the insistence of a
19:44
Speaker 1: fair trial. by an impartial jury to those accused of
20:04
Speaker 1: even the most severe crimes as set forth in the
20:07
Speaker 1: Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In all criminal prosecutions,
20:12
Speaker 1: the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
20:15
Speaker 1: public trial by an impartial jury of the state and
20:19
Speaker 1: district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district
20:23
Speaker 1: shall have been previously ascertained by law and to be
20:26
Speaker 1: informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to
20:29
Speaker 1: be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory
20:33
Speaker 1: process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have
20:37
Speaker 1: the assistance of counsel for his defense. U.S. Constitution, Amendment No. 4.
20:43
Speaker 1: The court is presenting today with a joint request from
20:46
Speaker 1: the defendant and the state to disallow certain media activity
20:50
Speaker 1: in future courtroom proceedings in this case. Countering that request
20:54
Speaker 1: are several media entities, who have argued that the First
20:56
Speaker 1: Amendment affords the media certain rights and that those rights
21:00
Speaker 1: are best achieved by disseminating audio and video coverage of
21:04
Speaker 1: court proceedings. To be clear, no party has argued that
21:08
Speaker 1: the court should fully prescribe media coverage of this case
21:11
Speaker 1: by issuing a prior restraint on speech, such as a
21:14
Speaker 1: gag order, on media reporting. Rather, the request of the
21:18
Speaker 1: defendant and the state in its concurrence, is that the
21:22
Speaker 1: court clarify or reconsider the scope of the media's activity
21:26
Speaker 1: authorized by the court's order governing courtroom conduct issued in
21:30
Speaker 1: the case April 14, 2022. The instant case has garnered
21:35
Speaker 1: significant media attention worldwide. The court has previously considered the
21:41
Speaker 1: deluge of publicity, Shepard v. Maxwell, 384, U.S. 333-357, 1966,
21:49
Speaker 1: And upon determining that Idaho Criminal Rule 21A and Idaho
21:53
Speaker 1: Code Section 19-1801 applied, the court ordered a transfer of
21:57
Speaker 1: trial from Fremont County, Idaho, to the most populous county
22:01
Speaker 1: in the state, Ada County, in order to mitigate the
22:04
Speaker 1: effects of pretrial publicity and detrimental impact on selecting an
22:09
Speaker 1: impartial jury. 2. Standard of Adjudication Idaho Court Administrative Rule
22:15
Speaker 1: 45 I.C.A.R. 45 sets forth the procedures and considerations for
22:21
Speaker 1: trial courts to evaluate audio and visual coverage of public
22:26
Speaker 1: proceedings in Idaho courts. I.C.A.R.45A, the presiding judge, maintains the
22:33
Speaker 1: right to limit audio-visual coverage of any public hearing when
22:37
Speaker 1: the interests of the administration of justice requires. Authorization may
22:41
Speaker 1: be revoked at any time without prior notice. when in
22:45
Speaker 1: the discretion of the court it appears that audio-visual coverage
22:48
Speaker 1: is interfering in any way with a proper administration of justice. i.c.a.r.45b
22:56
Speaker 1: The presiding judge may, at his or her discretion, limit, restrict,
23:00
Speaker 1: or prohibit audio-visual coverage at any proceeding. Any decision regarding
23:05
Speaker 1: audio-visual coverage is not subject to appellate review. Part 3
23:11
Speaker 1: Discussion First, the court affirms that there is no indication
23:15
Speaker 1: that any order related to the conduct of the media
23:18
Speaker 1: during hearings in this case or the companion case, Fremont
23:22
Speaker 1: County case number CR 2221-1623, State of Idaho versus Chad Daybell,
23:29
Speaker 1: have been violated. The court has likewise witnessed no misconduct
23:33
Speaker 1: on any part of the media during hearings in these cases.
23:37
Speaker 1: The presence of media during the hearings has in no
23:40
Speaker 1: way interrupted those proceedings and and attending media have been
23:43
Speaker 1: respectful and professional. Notwithstanding, the court determines that the concerns
23:49
Speaker 1: raised in the defendant's motion to clarify media in the
23:52
Speaker 1: courtroom and the state's concurrence are well-founded. The court has
23:57
Speaker 1: carefully considered the arguments presented at the September 15, 2022
24:01
Speaker 1: hearing on this issue, including the arguments of Mr. Wright,
24:05
Speaker 1: counsel for numerous media clients. Subsequent to the hearing and
24:09
Speaker 1: upon request of counsel, the court also reviewed the video
24:12
Speaker 1: footage of an August 16, 2022 hearing as cited in
24:17
Speaker 1: the state's concurrence. The court concurs with the defendant's arguments
24:21
Speaker 1: that the footage of the August 16 hearing demonstrates an
24:24
Speaker 1: inordinate focus on the defendant zooming onto her face throughout
24:28
Speaker 1: the vast majority of the hearing, regardless of who was
24:31
Speaker 1: speaking or what was happening. This court has previously permitted
24:35
Speaker 1: cameras in the courtroom during this case. allowing both photography
24:40
Speaker 1: and video transmissions. But when the case is as sensational
24:44
Speaker 1: as this one, and tensions develop between the right of
24:47
Speaker 1: the accused to trial by an impartial jury and the
24:50
Speaker 1: rights guaranteed others by the First Amendment, Nebraska Press Association
24:54
Speaker 1: Stewart 427 U.S. 539-551. Further, the capacity of the jury
25:00
Speaker 1: eventually impaneled to decide the case fairly is influenced by
25:04
Speaker 1: the tone and extent of the publicity. Idaho at 554
25:09
Speaker 1: and 555. Such is precisely the conflict here. While the
25:14
Speaker 1: right to public access must be protected, the scope of
25:16
Speaker 1: the coverage cannot supersede the rights of all parties to
25:19
Speaker 1: the fair administration of justice in this case, relating to
25:23
Speaker 1: extensive media coverage. In this day and age, the problem
25:27
Speaker 1: is further exasperated when instantaneous access to coverage provided by
25:32
Speaker 1: traditional media outlets is quickly rebroadcast, repackaged, and reimagined. The
25:38
Speaker 1: court has previously been made aware and continues to be
25:41
Speaker 1: informed that documentaries, dramatizations, and fictionalized movies focusing on the
25:47
Speaker 1: defendants and allegations in this case have already been produced
25:51
Speaker 1: and continue to be disseminated to the public. All of
25:55
Speaker 1: this continues to occur in a case which has not
25:58
Speaker 1: yet been tried. The court is very concerned that continued
26:02
Speaker 1: visual coverage of this case will impede the ability of
26:05
Speaker 1: the parties to select fair and unbiased jurors. The court
26:08
Speaker 1: has refrained from delving into viewing the coverage in this case.
26:12
Speaker 1: The coverage is so extensive the court has had to
26:14
Speaker 1: proactively avoid viewing it, as it is routinely part of
26:18
Speaker 1: local and at times national news. The affidavit submitted by Mr.
26:23
Speaker 1: Wright confirms this. in that just one of Mr. Wright's
26:26
Speaker 1: 30-plus clients distributes footage from hearings in this case to
26:30
Speaker 1: dozens of media organizations and millions of viewers. In fully
26:35
Speaker 1: considering this decision, the court notes that the media have
26:38
Speaker 1: raised a compelling issue, public access for the citizens of
26:42
Speaker 1: Fremont and Madison counties. The excessive coverage of this case
26:46
Speaker 1: has already resulted in the court's determination that a trial
26:50
Speaker 1: will be held in Ada County, Idaho, as the court
26:53
Speaker 1: has previously concluded that it would be unlikely to obtain
26:56
Speaker 1: unbiased jury pool within the home county of this case,
27:00
Speaker 1: Fremont County. It is unfortunate that local citizens, including citizens
27:05
Speaker 1: of both Fremont and Madison Counties, who bear the cost
27:08
Speaker 1: of this case and should be given local access to
27:10
Speaker 1: this trial, should they wish to attend, now cannot do
27:14
Speaker 1: so without inconvenience. Upon full consideration of the arguments of
27:18
Speaker 1: the state and the defense, notably concurring with each other,
27:22
Speaker 1: the court is persuaded that further visual coverage of this
27:25
Speaker 1: case will run afoul of the court's consideration set forth
27:28
Speaker 1: plainly in I.C.A.R.45. The rule provides this court discretion to
27:34
Speaker 1: make this determination. I.C.A.R.45A states, in part, audio-visual coverage is
27:41
Speaker 1: authorized subject to the discretion of the presiding judge. I.C.A.R.45B states,
27:48
Speaker 1: in part, the presiding judge may at his or her
27:51
Speaker 1: discretion limit, restrict, or prohibit audiovisual coverage at any proceeding.
27:57
Speaker 1: The court determines herein that continued visual coverage of this
28:00
Speaker 1: case poses a great risk to the fair administration of
28:04
Speaker 1: justice in this case and co-defendant Chad Daybell's companion case,
28:08
Speaker 1: which cases are joined for trial. Therefore, continued visual coverage
28:13
Speaker 1: will no longer be permitted. The court determines that this
28:16
Speaker 1: decision applies to all future pretrial motions and trial, where
28:20
Speaker 1: continued coverage of pretrial motions will likely cause potential jurors
28:24
Speaker 1: to be biased, disqualifying them from service. Coverage during trial
28:29
Speaker 1: arises additionally and equally serious concerns. The court will not
28:34
Speaker 1: risk the loss of seated jurors who may intentionally or
28:37
Speaker 1: inadvertently review the very trial proceedings they are sworn to decide.
28:42
Speaker 1: where those jurors must make their decision only upon the
28:45
Speaker 1: evidence presented at trial. The court will not risk a
28:49
Speaker 1: potential loss of state or defense witnesses who may intentionally
28:53
Speaker 1: or inadvertently become tainted by viewing the trial proceedings before
28:57
Speaker 1: they testify, assuming their exclusion from the proceedings as is
29:01
Speaker 1: regularly ordered for material witnesses. The court further is concerned
29:06
Speaker 1: that at trial, the added unnecessary pressure witnesses and counsel
29:10
Speaker 1: will be subject to knowing their every expression, utterance, and
29:13
Speaker 1: appearance will be captured and circulated without their control and
29:17
Speaker 1: perpetuity is unwarranted and will likely interfere with fair administration
29:22
Speaker 1: of justice in this case. Subjecting trial participants, including attorneys
29:26
Speaker 1: and witnesses, to the added pressure may unfairly influence jurors
29:31
Speaker 1: who may incorrectly question credibility based on the reactions to
29:34
Speaker 1: that pressure. Therefore, in the discretion of the court, pursuant
29:38
Speaker 1: to I.C.A.R., and B, authorization of all video and photographic
29:43
Speaker 1: coverage in the courtroom in this case and at all
29:47
Speaker 1: further proceedings, including trial, is revoked. Audio recording of all
29:52
Speaker 1: future proceedings will be continued to be permitted, with the
29:55
Speaker 1: court utilizing the in-courtroom microphones operated by court personnel. Any
30:01
Speaker 1: third-party recording will be subject to future approval and, if approved,
30:05
Speaker 1: will be monitored to ensure that microphones are located to
30:09
Speaker 1: ensure that unwarranted conversations between counsel and clients are not recorded. Finally,
30:15
Speaker 1: in order to facilitate the attendance of the trial in
30:18
Speaker 1: Ada County by Fremont County and Madison County citizens who
30:21
Speaker 1: wish to attend and who have lost the ability to
30:24
Speaker 1: attend in person without great inconvenience, the court intends to
30:28
Speaker 1: provide enhanced access for Fremont and Madison County residents by
30:32
Speaker 1: providing designated seating at trial in a manner to be
30:35
Speaker 1: further determined. Conclusion, defendant's motion to clarify media in the
30:40
Speaker 1: courtroom together with the state's concurrence and expressed request to
30:44
Speaker 1: remove cameras from the courtroom is granted. All right, now remember,
30:49
Speaker 1: that's the order from the Lori Vallow trial, and they're
30:52
Speaker 1: just using this order as precedent, basically, for them trying
30:56
Speaker 1: to get cameras removed from the courtroom. And as we
30:59
Speaker 1: know now, it doesn't look like Judge Judge is going
31:02
Speaker 1: to go that way. But that's going to do it
31:05
Speaker 1: for this one for now. All of the information that
31:07
Speaker 1: goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
31:12
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. Yesterday,
31:16
Speaker 1: we were talking about the new ruling by Judge Judge
31:20
Speaker 1: that had to do with cameras in the courtroom. And
31:23
Speaker 1: just as we suspected, Judge Judge split the baby here
31:27
Speaker 1: and decided that we're going to have cameras in the courtroom,
31:30
Speaker 1: but they're not going to be cameras that are provided
31:34
Speaker 1: by the media. Instead, what he's going to do is
31:37
Speaker 1: use the baked-in system that the court already has. They
31:41
Speaker 1: have an audio system. They have a video system. And
31:45
Speaker 1: he's going to use that to broadcast this trial on
31:48
Speaker 1: a live stream. And when we were discussing this previously,
31:51
Speaker 1: that's what I said I thought would happen. I thought
31:54
Speaker 1: that Judge Judge would take control of the whole entire proceeding, basically,
31:58
Speaker 1: when it comes to video and photography inside of the courtroom.
32:03
Speaker 1: That way he has a better handle on what's going on,
32:05
Speaker 1: where the cameras are focusing, and what audio is being
32:09
Speaker 1: pumped out into the live stream, as opposed to having
32:13
Speaker 1: the media in charge where he really doesn't have a
32:15
Speaker 1: handle on things and can only put out orders, right,
32:19
Speaker 1: and hold people accountable. But the idea is for it
32:22
Speaker 1: never to get to that point. And to help make
32:24
Speaker 1: sure that doesn't occur, Judge Judge has decided that the
32:28
Speaker 1: best course of action here is for him to take
32:31
Speaker 1: over the proceedings as far as the video goes, as
32:34
Speaker 1: far as photography goes, and then that way everybody's needs
32:38
Speaker 1: are met. We as the public still get to take
32:41
Speaker 1: a look at what's going on. We get to see
32:43
Speaker 1: everything unfold like we should be able to. And at
32:47
Speaker 1: the same time, Judge Judge is protecting Brian Kohlberger's right
32:51
Speaker 1: to a fair trial. And as much as you might
32:53
Speaker 1: think that Brian Kohlberger might be guilty, he still deserves
32:57
Speaker 1: a fair trial, right? Just like anybody else. Today's article
33:00
Speaker 1: is from the Idaho Statesman and the headline, Judge Bans
33:05
Speaker 1: Media Cameras in Brian Kohlberger Case Offers New Way to
33:08
Speaker 1: Watch the Moscow Trial. This article was authored by Sally Krutzig.
33:14
Speaker 1: A court order from the judge overseeing the case against
33:17
Speaker 1: Brian Kohlberger, who's suspected of murdering four University of Idaho students,
33:22
Speaker 1: publicly released Monday, outlines his new rules regarding cameras in
33:26
Speaker 1: the courtroom during Kohlberger's trial. Judge John Judge, of Idaho's
33:31
Speaker 1: 2nd Judicial District in Latah County, previously said he would
33:35
Speaker 1: permit cameras but wanted to have more control over them.
33:39
Speaker 1: In the court order, Judge said he will grant Kohlberger's
33:42
Speaker 1: motion to remove cameras operated by the media, including both
33:46
Speaker 1: video and still photography. Instead, a court-operated camera will livestream
33:52
Speaker 1: the trial, which the public will be able to watch
33:55
Speaker 1: online on Judge's YouTube channel. And honestly, I don't really
33:59
Speaker 1: care where we're getting the stream from, the legacy media
34:03
Speaker 1: or the judge himself, whatever. As long as we have
34:06
Speaker 1: a window into that courtroom to see how everything breaks down,
34:11
Speaker 1: then that's all I really care about. And considering we're
34:14
Speaker 1: going to have this live feed, I'll probably do some
34:18
Speaker 1: live streams when we get to the point of this
34:21
Speaker 1: hitting trial. The judge said his order that this route
34:25
Speaker 1: will ensure the public still has access to see the
34:28
Speaker 1: proceedings for themselves if they cannot attend hearings in person.
34:32
Speaker 1: The ruling was filed at 5 p.m. on Friday and
34:35
Speaker 1: made public through the Idaho Judicial Branch website on Monday.
34:40
Speaker 1: And we had this episode added to the catalog yesterday
34:44
Speaker 1: as far as the order goes because it's very important, right?
34:48
Speaker 1: This is a very big order and it affects everybody
34:51
Speaker 1: who's following the case because there's been so much secrecy
34:55
Speaker 1: Dropped over this case, can you imagine the uproar if
34:59
Speaker 1: cameras were barred on top of there being a gag
35:01
Speaker 1: order and no transparency as it is? In a case
35:05
Speaker 1: that has garnered national interest, Koberger, 28, is accused of
35:09
Speaker 1: stabbing four U of I students to death at an
35:12
Speaker 1: off-campus Moscow home in November of 2022. The victims were
35:17
Speaker 1: seniors Kelly Gonsalves and Madison Mogan, both 21, and juniors
35:22
Speaker 1: Anna Karnodal and freshman Ethan Chapin, both 20. The decision
35:28
Speaker 1: comes after months of disagreement played out through court documents
35:31
Speaker 1: and hearings between the defense team and media outlets over
35:35
Speaker 1: whether cameras could prejudice a jury. And that's why we've
35:39
Speaker 1: been following along with all of those court documents. That way,
35:43
Speaker 1: when we get to a point like we're at now,
35:45
Speaker 1: we already understand what the whole entire argument is because
35:49
Speaker 1: we've been following along behind the scenes. And I think
35:53
Speaker 1: it's important, not only with this case, but with any
35:56
Speaker 1: case that we talk about, if there's court documents available,
35:59
Speaker 1: that we go through those as well, because those tell
36:02
Speaker 1: the official narrative, right? This is what the government has.
36:05
Speaker 1: This is what the government says occurred. Now, can they
36:08
Speaker 1: prove it? So whenever we have court documents and they're
36:12
Speaker 1: attached to a case that we're covering, you know, we're
36:15
Speaker 1: going to dive into those. And speaking on that, We're
36:18
Speaker 1: going to go into the Chad Daybell affidavit, his arrest warrant,
36:22
Speaker 1: later on. Because before you know it, that Shrek-looking MF-er
36:26
Speaker 1: is going to be standing up there and being judged
36:29
Speaker 1: by a jury of his peers. And if anybody's ever
36:32
Speaker 1: deserved to be guilty, it's that rat bastard right there.
36:35
Speaker 1: But whenever we have these court documents, you can guarantee
36:39
Speaker 1: that we're going to dive into them. Judge's order is
36:42
Speaker 1: unlikely to make either side happy. The defense had asked
36:45
Speaker 1: to ban all cameras, while media outlets asked to be
36:48
Speaker 1: allowed to take their own footage. And this is exactly
36:51
Speaker 1: what I expected. A lot of times, that's what you'll
36:54
Speaker 1: see the judge do. Especially at this juncture of the proceedings.
36:59
Speaker 1: He'll give both sides a bit of a victory, both
37:02
Speaker 1: sides will walk away angry, and then that means it
37:04
Speaker 1: was a good negotiation. If everybody walks away happy from
37:07
Speaker 1: a deal, then it wasn't a good deal. But with
37:11
Speaker 1: everybody walking away bummed out and nobody digging it, well,
37:14
Speaker 1: guess who wins? That's right, transparency. And I'd be a liar, honestly,
37:18
Speaker 1: if I told you that it wasn't a bit juicy
37:20
Speaker 1: that the legacy media is going to be barred from
37:23
Speaker 1: covering this from inside the courtroom as far as video
37:27
Speaker 1: and photography. Because honestly, we don't need them. Let's be
37:31
Speaker 1: very clear. And that's why I wanted a camera inside
37:34
Speaker 1: of that courtroom so we could follow along ourselves and
37:38
Speaker 1: we don't need a point man inside of that courtroom.
37:41
Speaker 1: So while both sides might not be happy with what
37:43
Speaker 1: went down here, I think as the public, this is
37:46
Speaker 1: the best that we could have expected. Kohlberger's defense team
37:50
Speaker 1: said media photographers and videographers had disobeyed judges' prior instructions
37:55
Speaker 1: to avoid focusing exclusively on Kohlberger, the Idaho statesman previously reported.
38:01
Speaker 1: The concept of removing this sort of almost sideshow from
38:05
Speaker 1: what's being put out there, we think, would be an
38:08
Speaker 1: important way, to kind of take away the sensationalization of
38:12
Speaker 1: this case and just kind of reduce it to hopefully
38:15
Speaker 1: the words on the page. Logsdon said in October at
38:19
Speaker 1: a court hearing, and that's what it should be, but
38:22
Speaker 1: we all know that people in general, in the general public,
38:26
Speaker 1: are going to look at cases like this and have
38:28
Speaker 1: an opinion. They should be more concerned about Vordire. They
38:33
Speaker 1: should be more concerned about finding jurors that are sympathetic
38:36
Speaker 1: to their cause. and not so worried about the public,
38:39
Speaker 1: the public, the public. But we always have to keep
38:42
Speaker 1: in mind, these lawyers are thinking about the long game.
38:45
Speaker 1: So a lot of this has to do with the
38:47
Speaker 1: appeal later on, when they know, or at least think,
38:50
Speaker 1: their client is going to be found guilty. The judge
38:53
Speaker 1: agreed with this assessment, in his order, noting that media cameras,
38:57
Speaker 1: both still and video, have continued to zoom on Kohlberger,
39:01
Speaker 1: despite a previous ruling that outlets not capture Kohlberger entering
39:06
Speaker 1: or exiting the courtroom. It is the intense focus on
39:09
Speaker 1: Kohlberger and his every move, along with adverse headlines and
39:13
Speaker 1: news articles, that leads the court to conclude that continued
39:16
Speaker 1: photograph and video coverage inside the courtroom by the media
39:21
Speaker 1: should no longer be permitted, Judge wrote, and they only
39:24
Speaker 1: have themselves to blame. The judge gave them enough rope,
39:28
Speaker 1: and well, what they do like usual the legacy media
39:31
Speaker 1: they hung themselves judge also acknowledged concerns that people could
39:35
Speaker 1: zoom camera lenses in on defense documents in court and
39:39
Speaker 1: present a burden for bailiffs who could be called on
39:42
Speaker 1: to monitor members of the media And of course, Judge
39:45
Speaker 1: said in that order that the bailiffs have other jobs
39:48
Speaker 1: to do besides being out here and checking in on
39:51
Speaker 1: the media to make sure they're doing the right thing.
39:54
Speaker 1: So I completely understand Judge's order. And honestly, I agree
39:58
Speaker 1: with it. While the Latah County Prosecutor's Office was more
40:02
Speaker 1: acknowledging of the media's importance, it too leaned toward banning
40:06
Speaker 1: cameras and said images and video of graphic evidence from
40:09
Speaker 1: the crime and vulnerable witnesses' testimony would be disseminated. Well,
40:14
Speaker 1: there's no doubt it would be. But now that the
40:16
Speaker 1: judge has control, he's going to be able to do
40:19
Speaker 1: what he wants. And when we have sensitive witnesses, you
40:23
Speaker 1: better believe that the cameras are going to be turned off.
40:27
Speaker 1: Wendy Olson, a former U.S. attorney for the state of Idaho,
40:30
Speaker 1: represented a coalition of about two dozen media outlets, including
40:34
Speaker 1: the Statesman, and argued at an October hearing in favor
40:38
Speaker 1: of allowing cameras. She argued for maintaining camera access in
40:42
Speaker 1: the courtroom on First Amendment grounds, saying it could help
40:45
Speaker 1: limit the publishing of misinformation about the case by non-journalist
40:49
Speaker 1: commentators the Statesman previously reported. The Gonsalves family and some
40:55
Speaker 1: members of the Kernodle family have also publicly supported cameras
40:59
Speaker 1: in the courtroom. The answer is not less sunshine, it's more,
41:03
Speaker 1: Olsen told the judge. The public and this community will
41:07
Speaker 1: be best served by having those cameras in the courtroom,
41:10
Speaker 1: or having a feed of some sort, and that's what
41:13
Speaker 1: we're going to get. And for my money, as long
41:17
Speaker 1: as we have that, then I'm totally fine, and it
41:19
Speaker 1: could even be a wide shot like we see on C-SPAN.
41:23
Speaker 1: We don't need to see all the particulars, all the nuance.
41:26
Speaker 1: All we need to see is the proceedings to make
41:28
Speaker 1: sure shit's going the right way. Judge denied that any
41:32
Speaker 1: media members had any First Amendment or other constitutional right
41:36
Speaker 1: to record Idaho court proceedings, according to the order. Koberger
41:40
Speaker 1: faces four counts of first-degree murder and one count of
41:43
Speaker 1: felony burglary. A trial date has yet to be set
41:47
Speaker 1: after Koberger waived his right to a speedy trial, but
41:50
Speaker 1: prosecutors have already stated Their intent? To pursue the death
41:54
Speaker 1: penalty if a jury finds him guilty, according to statesmen reporting.
41:59
Speaker 1: And there is no doubt that's a foregone conclusion. This
42:02
Speaker 1: dude is getting the death penalty if he's convicted, and
42:06
Speaker 1: it is not even a debate. If you go into
42:09
Speaker 1: somebody's home and murder them brutally like this, you deserve
42:14
Speaker 1: the death penalty. And I've said it a million times,
42:16
Speaker 1: I'm not really a big fan of capital punishment. I
42:20
Speaker 1: already think the state has too much power over the populace.
42:24
Speaker 1: But when you do something like this and the people
42:27
Speaker 1: of the state of Idaho have voted to have the
42:29
Speaker 1: death penalty on the books, I believe the saying is
42:32
Speaker 1: play stupid games and you win stupid prizes. All right, folks,
42:37
Speaker 1: that's going to do it for this one. All of
42:39
Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
42:42
Speaker 1: in the description box.