Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. So
Speaker 1: Judge Judge decided that it was in the best interest
Speaker 1: of justice when it comes to Brian Colberger and his
Speaker 1: trial to move that trial out of Moscow. Well, in
Speaker 1: this episode, we're going to begin taking a look at
Speaker 1: the order that turned that venue change from a possibility
Speaker 1: into a reality. Case Number CR twenty nine Dash twenty
Speaker 1: two Dash twenty eight oh five, the Order granting Defendant's
Speaker 1: motion to change venue. State of Idaho Plaintiff versus Brian C. Coburger,
Speaker 1: the defendant one introduction. On January thirtieth, twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: Defendant Bryan C. Coburger filed a motion for a change
Speaker 1: of venue pursuant the Idaho Criminal Rule twenty one Idaho
Speaker 1: Section nineteen Dash eighteen oh one, Article one, Section one, six, seven, thirteen,
Speaker 1: and eighteen of the Idaho Constitution. In the fifth, sixth, eighth,
Speaker 1: and fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. On February eighth,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, the state filed an objection to Coburger's motion.
Speaker 1: The hearing on Coburger's motion was originally scheduled for June
Speaker 1: twenty seventh, twenty twenty four. Thereafter, the party stipulated to
Speaker 1: continuing the hearing to August twenty ninth, twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: On July twenty second, twenty twenty four, Coburger filed a
Speaker 1: memorandum in support of motion to change venue with various
Speaker 1: exhibits attached. The state filed an additional objection on August twelfth,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, and Coburger filed a reply on August nineteenth,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, with additional exhibits. A change of hearing
Speaker 1: venue was held on August twenty ninth, twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: Colberger was present and represented by Anne Taylor, Elisa Massoth,
Speaker 1: and Jay Logsden. The State was represented by William Thompson
Speaker 1: Junior and Ashley Jennings Leta County Prosecutor's Office and Ingrid
Speaker 1: Beatty in jeff nine, Office of the Attorney General. At
Speaker 1: the hearing, defendant presented expert testimony from James Todd Murphy,
Speaker 1: doctor Amani L. Aliley, and doctor Brian Edelman and doctor
Speaker 1: Veronica to hear. The State did not call any witnesses.
Speaker 1: The Court has spent many months carefully considering the legal
Speaker 1: and logistical concerns with the trial of this length and magnitude,
Speaker 1: carefully reading each submission, listening to each expert, and evaluating
Speaker 1: each party's position based upon the totality of factors, Defendant's
Speaker 1: motion for change of venue is granted. Background. On November thirteenth,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two, four University of Idaho students Kaylee Gonsalvis,
Speaker 1: Madison Mogan, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin were found deceased
Speaker 1: in Gonsalves, Mogan, and Kernodle's off campus home in Moscow, Idaho.
Speaker 1: The cause of death for each was ruled as a homicide.
Speaker 1: As news of the tragedy broke, media outlets from around
Speaker 1: the country descended upon Moscow. As law enforcement investigated, news stations, newspapers,
Speaker 1: and social media were flooded with stories and speculations about
Speaker 1: the homicides. Throughout the course of the investigation, the Moscow
Speaker 1: Police Department, in partnership with the University of Idaho, the
Speaker 1: Leta County Prosecutor's Office, and the Idaho State Police, held
Speaker 1: press briefings to answer questions and to reassure the public appropriately.
Speaker 1: The information released was limited to protect the integrity of
Speaker 1: the ongoing investigation. On December thirtieth, twenty twenty two, Coburger
Speaker 1: was arrested in charge with four counts of murder in
Speaker 1: the first degree and one count of burglary. Again, media
Speaker 1: outlets descended upon Moscow, and the news coverage quickly focused
Speaker 1: on Coburger. That same day, an order governing courthouse and
Speaker 1: courtroom conduct was entered to help alleviate any potential prejudicial photography,
Speaker 1: audio or video recordings and interviews within this courthouse. The
Speaker 1: conduct order has remained in place throughout the proceedings. Because
Speaker 1: of the extensive media coverage from the outset of the homicides,
Speaker 1: a non dissemination order was quickly put into place by
Speaker 1: stipulation of the parties on January three, twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: to help protect Colburger's right to affair trial by an
Speaker 1: impartial jury. The non dissemination order, as amended, has remained
Speaker 1: in place throughout the duration of this case. In an
Speaker 1: additional effort to help protect Coburger's right to affair trial,
Speaker 1: on November seventeenth, twenty twenty three, this court entered an
Speaker 1: order removing cameras from the court room. Since that time,
Speaker 1: the proceedings have been streamed via the court's YouTube channel,
Speaker 1: which in theory allows the public access to the proceedings
Speaker 1: while minimizing prejudicial photographs and videos focusing solely on Coburger
Speaker 1: and his every move. Despite efforts by the parties in
Speaker 1: the court to protect the jury pool from being inundated
Speaker 1: with information that is potentially prejudiced and false, extensive media
Speaker 1: coverage by mainstream media sources such as newspapers, radio stations,
Speaker 1: and television news outlets has continued throughout the state and nationally. Additionally,
Speaker 1: and perhaps more challenging, is the ongoing spread of prejudicial misinformation,
Speaker 1: rumors and patently false theories of the case on social
Speaker 1: media outlets such as Facebook, podcasts, and blogs. And just
Speaker 1: to interject real quick, this is why we offer all
Speaker 1: sides of the story here on this podcast. We don't
Speaker 1: just come here to railroad people. We come here to
Speaker 1: get to the truth. There have also been numerous television
Speaker 1: shows and documentaries produced about the homicides, and at least
Speaker 1: one book has already been published. The parties agree the
Speaker 1: case is generated extensive coverage by the media, Internet, slews
Speaker 1: and others trying to capitalize on the tragedy, but disagree
Speaker 1: on how the court should attempt to remedy this issue
Speaker 1: to ensure Colberger is tried by a fair impartial jury. Well,
Speaker 1: here's an idea, get rid of the gag order. What
Speaker 1: they're doing is blaming everybody else for there being no
Speaker 1: information or for their being a lack of good information,
Speaker 1: when it's really their own fault. You're the ones who
Speaker 1: put the gag order in place. What you think people
Speaker 1: aren't going to speculate in some Coburger argues that the
Speaker 1: venue must be changed from Lata County to a location
Speaker 1: with a larger population that is geographically distant from where
Speaker 1: the homicides occurred. The state asserts that a larger juror pool,
Speaker 1: extensive juror questionnaires, and vorder are sufficient remedies that will
Speaker 1: result in a fair and impartial jury in Layta County.
Speaker 1: In addition to the issue of juror prejudice resulting from
Speaker 1: extensive coverage of the homicides and Coburger by the media
Speaker 1: and others, and the smaller population of Leata County. The
Speaker 1: defense also asserts the trial should be moved outside of
Speaker 1: Layta County for the convenience of the parties and witnesses
Speaker 1: and the interest of justice. The State disagrees that moving
Speaker 1: the trial would be in the interest of justice or
Speaker 1: convenient to the parties and witnesses. Part three the evidence.
Speaker 1: As noted above. At the change of anual hearing, Coburger
Speaker 1: presented expert testimony from James Todd Murphy, doctor Amani l Aleiley,
Speaker 1: doctor Brian Edelman, and doctor Veronica the hear. Additionally, Coburger
Speaker 1: submitted several exhibits depicting news stories, news clips, and social
Speaker 1: media posts for this court's review. The state did not
Speaker 1: call any witnesses or submit any evidence. The Court will
Speaker 1: summarize the key takeaways from testimony offered by each of
Speaker 1: Coberger's experts. One James Todd Murphy. James Todd Murphy is
Speaker 1: the president of Truscope North America. Truscope provides media monitoring
Speaker 1: services that offer information to help understand the impact of
Speaker 1: media coverage on a particular community. Truscope looks only at
Speaker 1: mainstream media sources such as newspapers and new stations of
Speaker 1: the mainstream media coverage and IDAHO of this case, thirty
Speaker 1: six percent of that coverage has been within Leata County.
Speaker 1: This would include media like the Moscow Pullman Deli News,
Speaker 1: Lewiston Tribune, and the television news station out of Spokane, Washington.
Speaker 1: Colberger requests this case to be moved to Ada County,
Speaker 1: which has thirty four percent of the mainstream media coverage
Speaker 1: in Idaho. While the media coverage percentages are similar between
Speaker 1: the two counties, Ada County has a much larger population
Speaker 1: than Lata County. According to Murphy, this means that the
Speaker 1: media coverage in Aida County is much more diluted, while
Speaker 1: Layta County is saturated with such coverage. Stated differently, media
Speaker 1: coverage in Layta County offered twice as many opportunities to
Speaker 1: be seen per person then in Ada County. The higher
Speaker 1: volume of coverage in Layta County, coupled with the smaller
Speaker 1: pool of eligible jurors, means people in Lata County had
Speaker 1: twice as many chances to be exposed to the case
Speaker 1: versus those residing in Ada County. When looking at the
Speaker 1: volume of media coverage over time, Ada County had a
Speaker 1: higher volume of media coverage from February twenty twenty three
Speaker 1: to June twenty twenty three. However, since that time, Ada
Speaker 1: County has consistently had the higher volume of media coverage,
Speaker 1: with the two counties being similar overall in their current
Speaker 1: coverage of the case. All of this, taken together, means
Speaker 1: that the probability of Leta County resident being exposed to
Speaker 1: media coverage of the case is much higher than the
Speaker 1: probability of an Ada County resident being exposed to media
Speaker 1: coverage of the case. Two. Doctor Amani l Alailee doctor
Speaker 1: Omani l Aleiley is a social psychologist and social cognition researcher.
Speaker 1: As part of her research, doctor Laliley evaluates how publicity
Speaker 1: about a case can shape potential jurors attitudes. Doctor l
Speaker 1: Aleiley has found that the more publicity a case generates,
Speaker 1: the more likely potential jurors are to dislike the defendant
Speaker 1: and view the defendant as guilty. Doctor lla Ley believes
Speaker 1: that the publicity in Leayta County residents that they've been
Speaker 1: exposed to make some biased against Coburger for several reasons,
Speaker 1: even if that bias is subconscious. First, Leayta County authority
Speaker 1: figures have publicly spoken about Coburger's guilt in absolute terms.
Speaker 1: The former Moscow Police Department Chief James Fry, who was
Speaker 1: the police chief during the investigation into the homicides publicly
Speaker 1: declared that he had no doubt that the right guy
Speaker 1: had been arrested for the crimes. After Coburger's arrest, the
Speaker 1: University of Idaho President Scott Green stated publicly that the
Speaker 1: university community once again felt safe. Generally speaking, individuals are
Speaker 1: more likely to trust and believe authority figures, so these
Speaker 1: statements by Layta County authority figures are particularly impactful to
Speaker 1: Layta County residents. Second, because Leayta County is a small,
Speaker 1: close knit community, community members feel a sense of loyalty
Speaker 1: to community views and fellow community members. For example, the
Speaker 1: Layta County jurors may feel an inner clash or conflict
Speaker 1: if they felt the state had not proven that Coburger
Speaker 1: is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, because they may feel
Speaker 1: voting not guilty would cause community outrage or once again
Speaker 1: cause fear within the community. Thus, the inner clash may
Speaker 1: cause jurors to vote guilty even when they believe there
Speaker 1: is reasonable doubt as to the guilt. This inner clash
Speaker 1: may be even greater when personal connections within Laytak County
Speaker 1: are considered. Similarly, given the small size of Leata County,
Speaker 1: Leaiyta County residents had a much more emotional experience surrounding
Speaker 1: the homicides and therefore or much more invested in the case.
Speaker 1: For example, when Coburger was arrested, Laytak County residents who
Speaker 1: had been fearful experienced a sense of relief, which equates
Speaker 1: the believing Coburger is guilty. Next, the extensive negative publicity
Speaker 1: surrounding Colburger leads potential jurors to think of Coburger negatively.
Speaker 1: Stated differently, before Coburger's arrest, if one was to hear
Speaker 1: the name Brian Kolberger, the reaction would have been neutral. Now,
Speaker 1: after Coburger's name and picture have been associated with terms
Speaker 1: like murderer, evil killer, and stalker. When individuals hear the name,
Speaker 1: there is negative association. This impact is greater in Leayta
Speaker 1: County because of the saturation of the extensive media coverage. Finally,
Speaker 1: given all of this, doctor l Aliale opined that it
Speaker 1: was arguably impossible for residents of Leata County to be
Speaker 1: asked to serve as impartial jurors because they are biased
Speaker 1: against Colburger, even if they do not want to be
Speaker 1: biased or think they are biased. This is particularly difficult
Speaker 1: for the defense to overcome because when humans process information
Speaker 1: while experiencing emotions like fear and anger, it's difficult to
Speaker 1: change the initial opinions formed, even in the face of
Speaker 1: contradictory evidence. Instead, we as humans pay greater attention to
Speaker 1: information that backs up a bist preconceived ideas and opinions
Speaker 1: taken together. Doctor L. Aaliley stated that, in her expert opinion,
Speaker 1: the best way to ensure Colberger is tried by affair
Speaker 1: and impartial jury is to find jurors who are both
Speaker 1: physically and psychologically removed from Leyta County. All Right, we're
Speaker 1: gonna wrap up this episode right here, and in the
Speaker 1: next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up
Speaker 1: with three Doctor Brian Edelman. All of the information that
Speaker 1: goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
Speaker 1: this episode, we're picking up where we left off with
Speaker 1: the order by Judge Judge for the venue to change three.
Speaker 1: Doctor Brian Edelman. Doctor Brian Edelman is a social psychologist
Speaker 1: who works as a trial consultant for a jury selection
Speaker 1: and pre trial research. In this case, the Defense hired
Speaker 1: doctor Edelman to conduct a survey of Leta County residents,
Speaker 1: Ada County residents, Canyon County residents, and Bannett County residents
Speaker 1: to determine if a change of venue motion was warranted.
Speaker 1: The key findings from the survey show that case recognition
Speaker 1: is high throughout Idaho. Ninety eight percent of survey respondents
Speaker 1: in Leayta County recognize the case, ninety three percent of
Speaker 1: survey respondents in Ada County recognize the case, ninety percent
Speaker 1: of survey respondents in Canyon County recognize the case, and
Speaker 1: eighty four percent of survey respondents in Bannett County recognize
Speaker 1: the case. In Lata County, of the ninety eight percent
Speaker 1: of respondents that recognize the case, sixty seven percent reported
Speaker 1: they believe Coburger is guilty. Twenty four point seven percent
Speaker 1: reported that they believe that Coburger is definitely guilty. Similarly,
Speaker 1: in Ada County, sixty eight percent of respondents who recognize
Speaker 1: the case believe Coburger is guilty. Twenty two percent reported
Speaker 1: believing Coburger is definitely guilty. Sixty nine percent of respondents
Speaker 1: in Canyon County believe Coburger is guilty. Twenty three percent
Speaker 1: reported Colburger is definitely guilty, and seventy six percent of
Speaker 1: respondents in Bane County believe Colburger is guilty. Nineteen percent
Speaker 1: reported Coburger is definitely guilty. In Layta County, twenty nine
Speaker 1: percent of survey respondents were reported following the case very
Speaker 1: closely and thirty eight point five percent reported following the
Speaker 1: case somewhat closely. In Ada County, forty nine percent reported
Speaker 1: they believe death was the appropriate sentence. Fifty seven percent
Speaker 1: of respondents in Canyon County reported that they believe death
Speaker 1: was the appropriate sentence, and fifty three percent in Banitt
Speaker 1: County reported that they believe death was the appropriate sentence.
Speaker 1: In Layta County, twenty nine percent of survey respondents reported
Speaker 1: following the case very closely and thirty eight point five
Speaker 1: percent reported following the case somewhat closely. In Ada County,
Speaker 1: fifty eight percent of respondents reported following the case very
Speaker 1: closely or somewhat closely, while that number fell to fifty
Speaker 1: one percent in Canyon County and forty six percent in
Speaker 1: Bannit County. Thirty nine percent of survey respondents in Leayta
Speaker 1: County indicated they experienced higher levels of stress, anxiety, or
Speaker 1: fear during the search for the person responsible for the killings.
Speaker 1: This contrasts with seventeen percent of Ada County respondents who
Speaker 1: answered yes to the question, eleven percent of Canyon County
Speaker 1: respondents who answered yes, and eleven percent of Bannitt County
Speaker 1: respondents who answered yes. Additionally, a higher number of Leata
Speaker 1: County residents reported talking about the case with others living
Speaker 1: in Moscow when the homicides occurred, having ties to the
Speaker 1: University of Idaho, and having ties to law enforcement who
Speaker 1: investigated the crimes. Finally, Doctor Edelman considered the population sizes
Speaker 1: of the county surveyed, with Ada County having sixty six,
Speaker 1: nine hundred and eleven residents and Leata County having thirty
Speaker 1: two thousand, five hundred and fifteen residents. Based on all
Speaker 1: the information obtained from the survey, Doctor Edelman upon the
Speaker 1: case recognition and presumption of guilt is and will continue
Speaker 1: to be high throughout Idaho given the extensive media coverage
Speaker 1: the case is generated. In his opinion, population size matters.
Speaker 1: For example, if roughly fifty percent of Leayta County residents
Speaker 1: presume Coburger is guilty. That leaves approximately fifteen thousand Layta
Speaker 1: County residents who do not hold this presumption. Of those,
Speaker 1: not all are eligible to serve as a jur In
Speaker 1: contrast to fifty percent of Ada County residents presume Coburger
Speaker 1: is guilty. That leaves over two hundred thousand residents who
Speaker 1: do not hold such a presumption. Thus, Ada County has
Speaker 1: a much larger pool of non biased potential jurors. Even
Speaker 1: more important to doctor Edelman, though, was the issue of
Speaker 1: personal connections within Leayta County and the personal impact this
Speaker 1: case has had on Leyta County residence. The feelings of fear, stress,
Speaker 1: and anxiety surrounding the homicides where significantly greater in Leaytah
Speaker 1: County than in other counties. This was also true for
Speaker 1: the connections to the University of Idaho and local law enforcement.
Speaker 1: Doctor Edelman testified that these connections and experiences are the
Speaker 1: real issue when it comes to seating an impartial jury
Speaker 1: in Leata County. Based on the results of his surveys,
Speaker 1: doctor Edelman opining that in his expert opinion, there is
Speaker 1: a reasonable likelihood the presumption of guilt prevails in Laytah County,
Speaker 1: and that a change of venue is appropriate. Number four
Speaker 1: Doctor Veronica the Hear. Doctor Veronica to Hear was called
Speaker 1: by the defense to offer her expert opinion as to
Speaker 1: the validity of the survey work done by doctor Edelman.
Speaker 1: In this case. Doctor d'her testified that the surveys were
Speaker 1: conducted in accordance with applicable standards and the results were sound.
Speaker 1: Five media articles and video clips. The defense also submitted
Speaker 1: numerous media articles in video clips demonstrating the sheer of
Speaker 1: volume of coverage this case is generated. The court agrees
Speaker 1: and the State does not dispute that the coverage of
Speaker 1: this case by both mainstream media and social media outlets
Speaker 1: has been extensive in Letah County, throughout Idaho, and nationally.
Speaker 1: While some of the mainstream reporting has been appropriate and
Speaker 1: based on information from the court record, there has been
Speaker 1: extensive coverage that is prejudicial to Coburger and likely it
Speaker 1: admissible at trial. Part four the standard both the Idaho
Speaker 1: Constitution and the United States Constitution protect a defendant's right
Speaker 1: to a fair trial by an impartial jury. To help
Speaker 1: achieve a constitutionally sound trial, Idaho Criminal Rule twenty one
Speaker 1: allows transfer of a case for trial. In certain instances,
Speaker 1: Idaho Criminal Rule twenty one a states that on a
Speaker 1: motion of either party, the court must transfer the proceeding
Speaker 1: to another county if the court is satisfied that affair
Speaker 1: and impartial trial cannot be had in the county where
Speaker 1: the case is pending. Similarly, Idaho Codes Section nineteen eighteen
Speaker 1: oh one states that a criminal action prosecuted by indictment
Speaker 1: may be removed from the court in which it's pending
Speaker 1: on the application of the defendant, on the ground that
Speaker 1: a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the
Speaker 1: county where the indictment is pending. Idaho Criminal Rule number
Speaker 1: twenty one also allows transfer for convenience. On motion of
Speaker 1: the defendant, the court may transfer proceedings to another county
Speaker 1: for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the
Speaker 1: interest of justice. A motion for change of venue pursuant
Speaker 1: to Idaho Criminal Rule twenty one is left to the
Speaker 1: discretion of the trial court. Part five Analysis one prejudice.
Speaker 1: In deciding a motion for change of venue, the court
Speaker 1: determines whether the totality of the circumstances duror exposure to
Speaker 1: pre trial publicity will result in a trial that is
Speaker 1: not fundamentally fair. The critical in is whether the nature
Speaker 1: of their exposure to pre trial publicity caused the prospective
Speaker 1: jur to form an opinion about the defendant's guilt and
Speaker 1: as a result, they are unable to serve as an
Speaker 1: unbiased juror. In determining whether a criminal defendant actually received
Speaker 1: a fair trial, the Idaho Supreme Court considers the following factors.
Speaker 1: One the existence of affid David's indicating prejudice or an
Speaker 1: absence of prejudice in the community where the trial took place.
Speaker 1: Two the testimony of the jurors at jury selection regarding
Speaker 1: whether they had formed an opinion based upon adverse pre
Speaker 1: trial publicity. And three whether the defendant challenged for cause
Speaker 1: any of the jurors finally selected. Four the nature and
Speaker 1: content of the pre trial publicity, and five the amount
Speaker 1: of time elapsed between pre trial publicity and the trial.
Speaker 1: Some of these factors can only be evaluated during or
Speaker 1: after jury selection, while others can be evaluated by the
Speaker 1: trial court in deciding an earlier emotion to change venue
Speaker 1: a actual prejudice. In evaluating actual juror prejudice, the relevant
Speaker 1: question is not whether the community remembered the case, but
Speaker 1: whether the jurors at trial had such fixed opinions that
Speaker 1: they would not judge impartially the guilt of the defendant.
Speaker 1: Stated differently, courts must evaluate whether, in the totality of
Speaker 1: the existing circumstances, juror exposure to pre trial publicity resulted
Speaker 1: in a trial that was not fundamentally fairer. The defendant
Speaker 1: bears the burden of proving prejudice or showing reasonable likelihood
Speaker 1: that there was prejudice. In reviewing case law, a finding
Speaker 1: of actual juror prejudice rests on examination of the jury
Speaker 1: selection process. This includes evaluating how jurors answered screening questionnaires,
Speaker 1: the testimony during Vordeer as the whole, and the jurors
Speaker 1: eventually seated, and any juror seated despite a four cause
Speaker 1: challenge by the defense. These factors are considered along with
Speaker 1: evaluating pre trial pay publicity itself and the timing of
Speaker 1: that publicity. Here, the defense argues that the survey work
Speaker 1: of doctor Edelman establishes actual prejudice within Leayta County. However,
Speaker 1: actual prejudice cannot be evaluated at this juncture based on
Speaker 1: a survey of some four hundred Blayta County residents who
Speaker 1: are anonymous, did not answer questions in court and were
Speaker 1: not subject to questioning by the state without attempting to
Speaker 1: see a jury. There is no real evidence, such as
Speaker 1: juris screening questionnaires and testimony during Vordeer for this court
Speaker 1: to evaluate actual prejudice. B presume prejudice. Adverse pre trial
Speaker 1: publicity can create such a presumption of prejudice that the
Speaker 1: jurors claim that they can be impartial should not be believed.
Speaker 1: Unlike with actual prejudice, finding a presumed prejudice means that
Speaker 1: the court need not consider a juris screening questionnaires or
Speaker 1: testimony during Vordeer before declaring a jury verdict void or
Speaker 1: in this case, declaring a change of venue appropriate based
Speaker 1: on PUREJJ. It is the defendant's burden to establish a
Speaker 1: reasonable likelihood prejudicial news coverage prevented or will prevent a
Speaker 1: fair trial in violation of the sixth Amendment to the
Speaker 1: United States Constitution. In cases where juror prejudice has been presumed,
Speaker 1: the following factors have been examined. One, the size and
Speaker 1: characteristics of the community in which the crime occurred, whether
Speaker 1: news stories contained a confession or other blatantly prejudicial information
Speaker 1: of the type readers or viewers could not reasonably be
Speaker 1: expected to shut from sight three, the lapse of time
Speaker 1: between the prejudicial news coverage and the trial and for
Speaker 1: what the jury actually found. As far as guilt is concerned,
Speaker 1: the amount of time elapse between the pre trial publicity
Speaker 1: and the trial. When reviewing the nature and content of
Speaker 1: pre trial publicity, the trial court should be concerned with
Speaker 1: the accuracy of the pre trial publicity, the extent to
Speaker 1: which the articles are inflammatory, inaccurate, or beyond the scope
Speaker 1: of admissible evidence, and the number of articles, and whether
Speaker 1: the jurors were so incessantly exposed to such articles that
Speaker 1: they had subtly become conditioned to accept a particular version
Speaker 1: of the facts at trial had in one fifty two
Speaker 1: Idaho at three seventy seven two seventy one, p Dot
Speaker 1: three d at twelve thirty three. All right, we're going
Speaker 1: to wrap up right here, and in the next episode,
Speaker 1: we're going to finish this bad boy off. All of
Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
Speaker 1: in the description box. What's up everyone, and welcome back
Speaker 1: to the program. In this episode, we're going to finish
Speaker 1: off taking a look at Judge John Judge's order to
Speaker 1: change the venue in the Brian Koberger trial. First as
Speaker 1: to the size and characteristics. First, as to the size
Speaker 1: and the characteristics of the community. Leta County is a
Speaker 1: relatively small community with a population of approximately forty one thousand,
Speaker 1: twenty four, nine hundred and sixty three who are eligible
Speaker 1: to say serve on a jury. The state argues that
Speaker 1: this is enough to in Panel eighteen impartial individuals. The
Speaker 1: defense argues at the small, tight knit community makes it
Speaker 1: impossible to fined in impartial individuals. Because of the extensive publicity,
Speaker 1: Leayta County residents have been exposed to the emotional experience
Speaker 1: and feelings of fear residence experienced in the wake of
Speaker 1: the homicides, feelings of loyalty to the community, and community connections.
Speaker 1: The defense position is supported by the testimony of Todd Murphy,
Speaker 1: doctor L. Aalailey, and doctor Edelman. As mister Murphy testified,
Speaker 1: thirty six percent of all mainstream news coverage of this
Speaker 1: case throughout Idaho has been in Leayta County. This, coupled
Speaker 1: with the smaller population in Leata County makes the probability
Speaker 1: of Leata County residence exposure to such coverage higher than
Speaker 1: in Ada County, Bannet County, or Canyon County. Doctor l
Speaker 1: Alailee testified that the more publicity one is exposed to,
Speaker 1: the more likely an individual is to dislike Coburger and
Speaker 1: view him as guilty, while doctor Edelman survey results suggests
Speaker 1: that similar percentages of survey respondents throughout the counties surveyed
Speaker 1: knew of the case and presume Coburger was guilty to
Speaker 1: share a number of individuals in the larger counties increase
Speaker 1: the chances of impaneling affair and impartial jury. Further, both
Speaker 1: doctor l Aaliley and doctor Edelman expressed great concern over
Speaker 1: the emotional experiences, feelings of fear, and personal connections of
Speaker 1: Leyta County residents. These issues are unique to Leayta County
Speaker 1: and are increased by the small size of the community potential.
Speaker 1: Jurors in Ata County, for example, did not experience the
Speaker 1: same level of fear caused by the homicides as Leyta
Speaker 1: County residents. Similarly, it's far more likely for jurors in
Speaker 1: Leyta County to know someone involved in the investigation of
Speaker 1: the case or otherwise related to the case, and more
Speaker 1: likely that Leaytai County residents have discussed the case with
Speaker 1: each other. Additionally, the smaller town makes it more difficult
Speaker 1: to keep the identity of jurors private, which, as doctor
Speaker 1: Lay testified, may hinder some jurors in their decision making
Speaker 1: because of feelings of loyalty to the community. Next is
Speaker 1: discussed above. It's disputed that there has been significant media
Speaker 1: coverage in this case throughout the state and nationally. While
Speaker 1: some of the coverage has been neutral reporting of court proceedings,
Speaker 1: much of the coverage has been sensationalized and prejudicial to Coburger.
Speaker 1: By way of example, the defense provided the court with
Speaker 1: two hundred and twenty two pages of news articles covering
Speaker 1: the case from one local newspaper. One article published after
Speaker 1: Coburger's arrest includes statements from Washington State University students who
Speaker 1: are reported feeling weird having sat in class with Coburger
Speaker 1: and felt relieved knowing Coburger had been arrested. Another article
Speaker 1: starts out by referring to Colberger as the man accused
Speaker 1: of slaughtering for University of Idaho students. The title of
Speaker 1: yet another article refers to Colberger as the UI killer.
Speaker 1: While the issue is extensive, sensationalized coverage is not unique
Speaker 1: to Leayta County, it's potentially more impactful given the volume
Speaker 1: of coverage coupled with the smaller population, as the lapse
Speaker 1: of time between the coverage and trial and information provided
Speaker 1: by mister Murphy demonstrates that coverage has overall waned since
Speaker 1: February twenty twenty three. However, there is an uptick in
Speaker 1: coverage before and after hearings and court decisions. This is
Speaker 1: especially true for Leayta County, with Ada County following a
Speaker 1: similar trajectory. The court does not anticipate this trend will
Speaker 1: change heading up to trial and anticipates the coverage will
Speaker 1: substantially increase in the weeks and days before the start
Speaker 1: of the trial. Finally, while this court does not have
Speaker 1: affid David's demonstrating prejudice in Leayta County, the court must
Speaker 1: consider the results of the survey doctor Edelman prepared. Again,
Speaker 1: while the presumption of guilt was similar across the all
Speaker 1: counties surveyed, the number is more impactful in Laytai County
Speaker 1: given the smaller population some sixty seven percent of Layta
Speaker 1: County survey respondents reported believing that Coburger is guilty, with
Speaker 1: fifty one percent of those indicating it would be hard
Speaker 1: for Coburger to convince them of his innocence. While a
Speaker 1: similar percentage answered these questions the same in Ada County.
Speaker 1: The impact of these numbers when considering the population size
Speaker 1: are drastically different. Leayta County has approximately twenty four thousand
Speaker 1: residents who are eligible for jury service. If fifty percent
Speaker 1: of those are qualified or disqualified for having fixed opinions
Speaker 1: as to Coburger's guilt, only twelve thousand individuals remain. This
Speaker 1: is before andy have been excused for hardships such as illness, breastfeeding,
Speaker 1: loss of wages for a three month long trial, sole
Speaker 1: child care provider for young children, et cetera. Thus, one
Speaker 1: can save during the prejudice in Leayta County demonstrated in
Speaker 1: doctor Edelman survey and the population size of Leayta County together,
Speaker 1: the court is concerned that if the venue is not
Speaker 1: changed now, it will be asked to reconsider its decision
Speaker 1: during jury selection, which, if granted at that juncture, would
Speaker 1: very likely result in the trial being delayed many months.
Speaker 1: Considering the undisputed evidence presented by the defense, the extreme
Speaker 1: nature of the news coverage in this case, the smaller
Speaker 1: population in Leayta County, the defense is met the rather
Speaker 1: low standard of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that prejudicial news
Speaker 1: coverage will compromise a fair trial in Layta County. Thus,
Speaker 1: the Court will grant Coburger's motion to change venue for
Speaker 1: presumed prejudice two convenience and interest of justice, even without
Speaker 1: a finding of presumed prejudice. Venue in this case must
Speaker 1: be changed for the convenience of parties and witnesses and
Speaker 1: in the interests of justice. While this issue was summarily
Speaker 1: addressed by the parties, the court has considered the logista
Speaker 1: while the motion for change of venue was pending. While
Speaker 1: Leaytai County Court staff and court security are ready and
Speaker 1: willing to facilitate the trial to the best of their ability,
Speaker 1: there are serious issues that cannot be resolved no matter
Speaker 1: how much planning and preparations done. First, and perhaps most important,
Speaker 1: is the issue of safety and security for the parties, witnesses, victims, families, jurors,
Speaker 1: and the Latai County community. The Leatai County Sheriff's Office,
Speaker 1: which is currently fully staffed, simply lacks the number of officers
Speaker 1: needed to provide security for the trial while also continuing
Speaker 1: to perform their day to day duties of patrol and
Speaker 1: responding to calls. One solution is to ask the Idaho
Speaker 1: State Police and the Moscow Police Department to help. However,
Speaker 1: officers from both ISP and MPD were heavily involved in
Speaker 1: the investigation of the homicides, and it's anticipated that several
Speaker 1: officers will be called to testify a trial. Additionally, it
Speaker 1: is the court's understanding that both of those agencies are
Speaker 1: currently understaffed. Pulling local officers away from their normal duties
Speaker 1: for three months to provide trial security would potentially put
Speaker 1: the Leayta County community at risk. Further, in the event
Speaker 1: of a natural disaster such as a wildfire, or a
Speaker 1: large emergency like an active shooter or a multiple vehicle wreck,
Speaker 1: there is very real possibility that officers tasked with trial
Speaker 1: security would be pulled away to deal with other issues. Thus,
Speaker 1: while our local law enforcement is ready and willing to
Speaker 1: do what they need to do to ensure a safe trial,
Speaker 1: there are not enough officers to ensure the safety of
Speaker 1: the parties or the safety of witnesses, victims, families, jurors
Speaker 1: for a three month period. Similarly, Leytai County does not
Speaker 1: have enough court clerks to efficiently manage the jury selection process.
Speaker 1: It's anticipated that general qualification questions will need to be
Speaker 1: sent out to some six thousand individuals. The court clerks
Speaker 1: will be tasked with the entering jur information from those
Speaker 1: six thousand individuals into an electronic system. This task, a loan,
Speaker 1: will require several clerks and will take time. Leayta County
Speaker 1: has only one court clerk currently familiar with the process,
Speaker 1: and she has several other day to day responsibilities outside
Speaker 1: of her role as jury commissioner. Thus, to accomplish this task,
Speaker 1: Leaytai County would have to bring clerks in from other
Speaker 1: counties to help, along with extra computer equipment for those
Speaker 1: clerks to perform their work. After the initial process, the
Speaker 1: court would summons in some eighteen hundred individuals to fill
Speaker 1: out extensive jury questionnaires. Again, this process would require both
Speaker 1: court clerks and court security to take attendance, manage and
Speaker 1: move the individuals where they need to go to fill
Speaker 1: out questionnaires. In privacy scan questionnaires and quickly get the
Speaker 1: questionnaires to the court and council. Again. While Leayta County
Speaker 1: Court staff are willing to do what needs to be done,
Speaker 1: the reality is that we do not have enough individuals
Speaker 1: to perform the task of jury selection of effectively and efficiently. Further,
Speaker 1: the Leta County Courthouse itself poses significant issues for a
Speaker 1: trial of this length and magnitude. The courthouse lacks the
Speaker 1: space needed by both state and defense. While the state
Speaker 1: has a dedicated space within the courthouse, the state would
Speaker 1: still be faced with the challenge of escorting sensitive witnesses
Speaker 1: through public spaces in the courthouse to get to the courtroom. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the defense does not have a dedicated space within the
Speaker 1: courthouse and there are limited options available. The few options available,
Speaker 1: ie the district court meeting room or a pre trial room,
Speaker 1: are small, located in public areas, and are not sound proof.
Speaker 1: These locations do not provide the defense with the privacy
Speaker 1: it needs during trial to meet with each other and witnesses. Further,
Speaker 1: the jury room itself is problematic in terms of its size.
Speaker 1: Fitting twelve to thirteen jurors in the jury room for
Speaker 1: a routine trial is crowded. Fitting eighteen jurors in the
Speaker 1: jury room for three months would be uncomfortable at best. Additionally,
Speaker 1: the door between the jury room and the courtroom is
Speaker 1: not sound proof. Further, court security would be tasked with
Speaker 1: trying to bring the jury into the courthouse in a
Speaker 1: fashion that ensured the jurors privacy while also ensuring the
Speaker 1: court's privacy. The only option for bringing the jury into
Speaker 1: the courtroom is through the public hallway or directly past
Speaker 1: the court's chambers. Neither are good options. Further, there is
Speaker 1: also an issue of continuing day to day operations in
Speaker 1: Letah County Courthouse. The magistrate judge will continue to have
Speaker 1: daily hearings, a district judge will continue with the day
Speaker 1: to day operations of the district court, and the juvenile
Speaker 1: and CPS caseloads will have to continue. Additionally, the Clerk's
Speaker 1: office must continue with its day to day operations of
Speaker 1: processing case filings, taking payments, and assisting the public. All
Speaker 1: these normal court operations will undoubtedly be strained by the
Speaker 1: resources required for this trial in terms of space and personnel.
Speaker 1: While traveling to another county for three months is indeed
Speaker 1: inconvenient for the attorneys the court, some family members of
Speaker 1: the victims, and some witnesses. Having the trial at the
Speaker 1: Letai County Courthouse would also be inconvenient in numerous ways,
Speaker 1: and beyond that would present serious safety risks. Thus, the
Speaker 1: interest of justice requires that the trial be moved to
Speaker 1: a venue with the resources, both in term of personnel
Speaker 1: and space, necessary to effectively and efficiently handle a trial
Speaker 1: of this magnitude and length, so that the parties in
Speaker 1: the court can focus on the case and not on
Speaker 1: the peripheral issues. Six Conclusion and order. Coberger's motion to
Speaker 1: change venue is granted pursue into Idaho Criminal Rule twenty
Speaker 1: one A and twenty one B. Consistent with the language
Speaker 1: of Idaho Criminal Rule twenty one C two B, this
Speaker 1: Court orders a transfer of venue without specifying the new
Speaker 1: place of venue, and refers the case to the Administrative
Speaker 1: Director of the Court for assignment by the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: to a court of proper venue in another judicial district
Speaker 1: and assignment of a specific judge to preside in the
Speaker 1: criminal proceedings. This was dated September sixth of twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: and it was signed by Judge Judge all Right. So
Speaker 1: not only are we getting the venue moved. We might
Speaker 1: be getting a new judge, and I'll have a little
Speaker 1: bit more on that later on, but for now, we're
Speaker 1: going to wrap up right here, and all of the
Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
Speaker 1: the description box.