BOISE, Idaho — An Idaho judge has denied a request from roughly two dozen news organizations to lift a gag order in the criminal case of a man accused of stabbing to death four University of Idaho students. However, the judge significantly reduced the gag order in response to concerns from news organizations.
The ruling was handed down late Friday afternoon.
In it, 2nd District Judge John Judge said it was legally prudent to restrict attorneys from making some statements about the case in order to preserve Bryan Kohberger’s right to a fair trial. Still, the judge also said the original gag order, which also prohibited law enforcement officers and others tangentially connected to the case from speaking to the press, was «possibly too broad and vague in some areas.»
Kohberger, 28, is charged with four counts of first-degree murder and robbery in connection with the stabbing deaths in Moscow, Idaho. Prosecutors have yet to reveal whether they intend to seek the death penalty.
The bodies of Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin were found on November 13, 2022, in a rental home across the street from the University of Idaho campus. The killings shocked the rural Idaho community and neighboring Pullman, Washington, where Kohberger was a graduate student studying criminology at Washington State University.
The case garnered wide publicity, and in January Latah County Magistrate Judge Megan Marshall issued a sweeping gag order that has prohibited attorneys, law enforcement and others associated with the case from speaking or writing about it. he.
A coalition of 30 news organizations, including The Associated Press, petitioned the Idaho Supreme Court earlier this year to throw out the gag order, arguing it violates First Amendment rights to a free press. The high court declined to comment on whether the gag order violates the constitutional rights of news organizations, saying the media coalition must first ask the lower court to lift the order before asking the Idaho Supreme Court to intervene. .
“This Court has long respected the role of the media in our constitutional republic and has fulfilled the promises of both the Idaho Constitution and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Justice Gregory Moeller wrote in the decision. of the higher court. He went on to cite a federal case ruling that said responsible press coverage “protects against miscarriage” by subjecting the judicial system and those within it to public scrutiny.
In Friday’s ruling, the 2nd District Judge said the gag order served a legitimate purpose and that «the very limited side effects of the restrictions of speech on the First Amendment rights of the media are overridden by compelling interest.» to guarantee a fair trial by an impartial jury”.
The new gag order, formally called a «non-disclosure order,» prohibits any attorney representing parties, victims, or witnesses in the case from making statements that may have a «substantial likelihood of materially injuring or otherwise influencing the case.» result of the case».
Attorneys may comment on matters such as procedural issues, scheduling, and making statements that an attorney would reasonably believe are required to protect their client from the materially detrimental effects of recent publicity; For example, they may be able to make public comments to correct misinformation about their customer. .
They may not express opinions about a defendant’s guilt or innocence outside of the courtroom and may not share information that they know would not be allowed in court. They also cannot discuss the character of a witness, expected testimony, the likelihood of a plea deal, or other matters related to the case.
“We are pleased that the Court significantly reduced the non-disclosure order, a clear acknowledgment that the initial order was too broad,” said Wendy Olson, the attorney representing the media coalition. “We all agree that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights are important, but that by preserving those rights, neither the parties nor the courts can fully set aside First Amendment rights of the press. The press in cases like this provides important transparency into how the criminal justice system works.»
The judge also denied a request related to a gag order from a lawyer representing one of the victims’ families. Shanon Gray, who represents the Goncalves family, asked to be excluded from the gag order so she could speak to the press on behalf of the family.
In the ruling, the judge noted that, as a lawyer, Gray could have access to confidential information about the case that would be damaging if made public.