Judge Limits but Maintains Gag Order in University of Idaho Student Murders Case

68

An Idaho judge has rejected a plea from approximately two dozen news organizations to lift a gag order in the criminal trial of a man accused of brutally killing four University of Idaho students. However, in response to the concerns raised by the news organizations, the judge has significantly narrowed the scope of the gag order.

The judge’s decision was announced on Friday afternoon.

In his ruling, Judge John Judge of the 2nd District acknowledged the importance of safeguarding Bryan Kohberger’s right to a fair trial by imposing certain limitations on attorneys’ statements about the case. However, he also acknowledged that the original gag order, which extended to law enforcement officers and other individuals tangentially connected to the case, was potentially overly broad and vague in some aspects.

Kohberger, 28, faces charges of first-degree murder and burglary in relation to the stabbing deaths that occurred in Moscow, Idaho. The prosecution has not yet disclosed whether they will seek the death penalty.

The bodies of Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin were discovered on November 13, 2022, at a rental home near the University of Idaho campus. These killings shook both the rural Idaho community and neighboring Pullman, Washington, where Kohberger was a criminology graduate student at Washington State University.

The case gained extensive media attention, prompting Latah County Magistrate Judge Megan Marshall to issue a sweeping gag order in January, prohibiting attorneys, law enforcement agencies, and others associated with the case from discussing or writing about it.

Earlier this year, a coalition of 30 news organizations, including The Big Big News, appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court to invalidate the gag order, arguing that it infringed upon the First Amendment rights of the press. However, the Supreme Court declined to rule on whether the gag order violated the news organizations’ constitutional rights, instructing the media coalition to first seek the lifting of the order from the lower court before involving the Idaho Supreme Court.

In their decision, the Supreme Court acknowledged the vital role of the media in our constitutional republic and cited a federal case ruling stating that responsible press coverage “guards against the miscarriage of justice” by subjecting the court system and its participants to public scrutiny.

In the recent ruling, the 2nd District judge stated that the gag order served a legitimate purpose, and any limited impact it had on the media’s First Amendment rights was outweighed by the compelling interest in ensuring a fair trial by an impartial jury.

The revised gag order, now referred to as a “nondissemination order,” prohibits attorneys representing parties, victims, or witnesses in the case from making statements that could significantly prejudice or influence the outcome of the trial. Attorneys may still comment on procedural matters, scheduling, and provide statements necessary to protect their clients from the prejudicial effects of recent publicity, such as correcting misinformation about their clients.

However, they are prohibited from expressing opinions on the defendant’s guilt or innocence outside the courtroom and from sharing information that would be inadmissible in court. Additionally, they cannot discuss the character of witnesses, expected testimony, the likelihood of a plea deal, or other case-related details.

“We are pleased that the court has significantly narrowed the nondissemination order, recognizing that the initial order was overly broad,” said Wendy Olson, the attorney representing the media coalition. “While we acknowledge the importance of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights, it is crucial that in preserving those rights, neither the parties nor the courts completely disregard the First Amendment rights of the press. The media’s coverage in cases like this provides important transparency about how the criminal justice system operates.”

The judge also rejected a request from an attorney representing one of the victims’ families to be

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about gag order

More about gag order

• Idaho judge denies request to lift gag order
• University of Idaho student slayings case
• First Amendment rights and the gag order
• Idaho Supreme Court’s decision on the gag order
• Details of the new “nondissemination order”