Two hearings were held in the Latah County Courthouse regarding the non-dissemination order (gag order) issued to the Kohberger vs. State of Idaho case on June 9. The two parties challenging the gag order were the Goncalves family’s attorney, Shanon Grey, and a nonparty media coalition.
Grey argued that attorneys of victim’s families should not be held to the conduct of the gag order because they are not involved in litigation. His basis was that it violated the first amendment, and that the gag order was too broad in terms of who it applies to. The gag order was so strict that the Goncalves family didn’t even learn about the grand jury that indicted Kohberger until they read the headline in the news.
Judge John Judge responded to Grey’s motion by stating: “I have a job to protect the First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment. There is a balance.” The prosecution, consisting of Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson and Idaho Attorney Bradley Rudley responded by saying the gag order is not “too broad”, and that specific parties must follow the conduct of the order to keep the integrity of the investigation, and to protect the Sixth Amendment. No decision was made by Judge Judge yesterday, but a written decision will be submitted soon.
The person who represented the nonparty media coalition was Wendy Olsen, the former U.S. District Attorney for Idaho. In the second hearing, she brought up reasons why the gag order should be lifted. Her reasoning being that Lawyers and Public officials would already have to follow court conduct, and not give away sensitive information. She also used the First Amendment as a basis of her argument. The judge, defense and prosecution then all brought up concerns about the Sixth Amendment and tainting the jury pool.
The Defense brought two witnesses, a media monitor and a professor in behavioral psychology. Both witnesses testified that there has been a massive amount of volume and impressions of media concerning the case, with over 46,000 different media pieces and around 2.1 billion impressions. They also testified that pretrial media coverage of a case has potential to form biases in people’s heads before the trial starts, tainting the jury pool and giving the defendant an unfair trial.
Olsen dismissed both witnesses, claiming they had nothing to do with the case. She also argued that although there is a massive number of media pertaining to the case, there isn’t a way to measure how much of it was the truth or misinformation. She also argued that press coverage of the case could lead to more people familiarizing themselves with the court process, and access to more accurate information could help journalists and reporters spread more accurate information.
Both the defense and the prosecution agreed that the best way to proceed with this case is to keep the gag order the way it is, and that the safest area to share sensitive information is in the courtroom. Olsen disagreed with them and believed that without the gag order, court conduct would keep sensitive information safe, and allow reporters and journalists educate the public with the truth.
The last part of the hearing was arguments from Olsen, the defense and the prosecution about whether cameras should be allowed in the courtroom. Olsen argued that the public who can’t make it have the right to see the trial, and that cameras should be allowed. She also argued that having cameras during the trail would give the chance to educate the public on how the court works. Both the defense and the prosecution agreed that having cameras during the trial has the possibility to taint the jury pool, expose sensitive witnesses, and make the trial unfair. No decision on the non-dissemination order, or cameras during the trail, was made, but Judge Judge will submit a written response soon.
Ben DeWitt can be reached at [email protected] and on twitter @BenDeWitt321