Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
this episode, we're going to continue on with the Brian
Edelman declaration in support of Brian Kohberger. I think the
reaction would be horrible. Most people are convinced that he's guilty.
I think it would be very hard. People would be
very upset. I think everyone pretty much decided it was him.
There would be another media storm on how the system failed.
Because most everyone I know believes he's guilty, and he
has been tried in the media. There is going to
have to be a lot of compelling evidence to find
him not guilty. So if there is to be proven innocent,
then that's the justice system. A lot of negativity on
our local government feel like he's already been condemned. Residents
in community would be very negative with that. I think
he probably would be killed. Riots parents will take care
of him. People may or may not take things into
their own hands. I think that people will be very angry.
Coburger will be in danger if they do not find
them guilty. They would probably find him and kill him.
Several would be on the hunt for him to make
sure that he gets what's coming to him. They would
likely be a riot, and he wouldn't last long outside
because someone would do the good old boy justice. They
would give him street justice. Oh my goodness, I think
it would be terrible. With all the evidence that they
say they have, there would have to be some sort
of punishment, pretty much not getting out alive. I think
they'd be really upset. Probably somebody would find them and
take them out in their woods, hang them. That's the
kind of country we live in. That would be ugly,
and I'm sure a street justice would happen. One of
the family members or friends would take care of them.
He would have a hard time finding a place for peace.
He'd better go back to Pennsylvania real quick. I don't
think it would be good at all. Coburger would have
to leave the state for good. That would be a
horrible thing, devastating to the community. Pretty sure the city
will be in an uproar. I think they would ask
for the prosecutor's job. I think they would react negatively.
There wouldn't be riots or anything, but people would be
vocally upset. Maybe an impact on the who the city
prosecutor is some pul impacts. It would be seen as
a pretty big error. Would reflect negatively on the city prosecutor.
If he couldn't get a conviction, people would be scared
again and very mad at the police. It would raise
concerns about the police department, enraged, strong opinions firing officers.
I feel that there is something wrong and there was
some corruption. They would lose their minds and be very
upset with law enforcement. That would really be hard on
people here. We want closure. I think it would be
an uprising and a lot of disagreement. I think that
would just crush our community. It would be anarchy, and
University of Idaho would not have a lot of students
that want to come here. We would be very upset
and disappointed and let down and confused. Everyone would be
very afraid. We would be appalled that there would possibly
be a murderer on the loose. It would be very bad.
It would most likely cause an uproar in Moscow and
some uncertainty. I believe fear would fall over the community again.
If he is found not guilty, it would freak a
lot of people out. It makes people really uneasy. They
would be outraged, and it would have an even more
negative effect on our community. I don't want to think
about it, but I think it would create an uproar
and a horrible outcome for our community. They would not
react kindly, probably would be riots. Eighty five percent would
be upset. I think it would be devastating and very disappointing.
An uproar would rise in our community. There would be
protesting in the streets. It would be horrific, and the
community would lose their minds, and that would bring about
more deeper fear within the community. I think they would
find it very difficult, and people in our community would
probably be outraged to a degree and would want clear
answers as to why residents would have an uprising. I
think they would be shocked. We would want to be
told why and if a good answer wasn't given, and
it would likely cause an uproar in our community, and
the fear we had would probably rise in us Again.
I can't imagine what pain and anger and hurt and
disappointment would come about if that happened. The newspapers have
been very open about all of it the whole time,
and I appreciate them reporting to the community, but it
does not inform the community of all the evidence. Comparison surveys.
The comparison survey also found significant case recognition and prejudgment
and other potential venues. Canyon County is the second most
populated county in Idaho, with one hundred and eighty four thousand,
six hundred and sixty residents over the age of eighteen.
Approximately ninety percent of the jury eligible population there had read, seen,
or heard about the case, and fifty one percent followed
the case somewhat or very closely. Sixty nine percent of
Canyon County survey respondents believe Brian Colberger is guilty of murder,
and fifty seven percent reported that he would have a
difficult time convincing them otherwise. In addition, fifty seven percent
of those familiar with the case believed the defendant should
be sentenced to death, and fifty nine percent indicated that
he would have a difficult time convincing them that he
should not be executed. The Bannett County Courthouse is five
hundred and thirty two miles from Moscow. It's in a
different media zone and was exposed to less coverage about
the murders. Approximately eighty four percent of Bannett County survey
respondents recognize the case, some fourteen percentage points lower than
in Leta County. Just forty five percent of survey respondents
followed the case somewhat or very closely, and fifty nine
percent were familiar with five or more of the media
items tested in the survey. However, seventy six percent of
those familiar with the case believe Colburger is guilty of murder,
and fifty three percent of those individuals reported that he
would have a difficult time convincing them otherwise. In addition,
fifty three percent believe the jury should sentence Colburger to
death and fifty percent maintained that the defense would have
a difficult time persuading them that he should receive a
life sentence. This data shows that there are differences across
the venues in Idaho. However, Bannick is a small county
with just sixty six, nine hundred and eleven residents over
the age of eight. In addition, like Moscow, it has
a large university that plays an important role in the
local community. Idaho State University's student body makes up eighteen
percent of the county's population and is the second largest employer.
Given Bana County size and similarities to Layta County, it's
likely that the local jury pool would be inundated with
media coverage if the case were transferred there. Ada County
is the largest in Idaho, with four hundred and six thousand,
sixty eight residents over the age of eighteen. Its population
is more than twelve times larger than Leayta County. While
Boise State University is in Ada County, its student body
of twenty two thousand, one hundred and thirteen students composed
just five percent of the population over the age of eighteen.
Ada County was also exposed to significant media coverage surrounding
this case, which is reflected in the ninety three percent
recognition rate. In addition, the pre judgment rate sixty eight percent,
mirrored that which was found among Layta County survey respondents,
up approximately fifty six percent reported that Colburger would have
a difficult time convincing them that he is not guilty.
In addition, forty nine percent of Aida County survey respondents
who recognized the case believe that Coburger should receive the
death penalty, and fifty five percent maintained that he would
have a difficult time convincing them otherwise. However, there were
important differences between the Lata and Ada County jury pools.
Ada County residents are far less invested in this case.
Only fifteen percent reported that they followed the case very closely,
compared to twenty nine percent of prospective jurors in Leayta County.
They were also less familiar with prejudicial media items. Approximately
sixty three percent had read, seen, or heard that police
found the knife sheath and one of the victim's beds,
compared to eighty one percent in Layta County. In addition,
fifty two percent had heard that DNA on the knife
sheath matched the defendant, fifteen percentage points lower than their
Leayta County counterparts. Ada County survey respondents were also less
familiar with prejudicial misinformation reported by the media. For example,
thirty five percent had heard that Colberger allegedly followed one
of the victims on social media. Ada County residents had
fewer personal connections to the case and Moscow community. Only
twenty percent lived or knew someone who lived in Moscow
when the murders occurred. Just four percent reported that they
had a family member who was a student or employee
at the university. In addition, only two percent of survey
respondents or employed or no someone employed by a law
enforcement agency involved in the murder investigation. Finally, Aida County
residents did not experience the degree of emotional distress during
the six week search for the killer, which was found
in Leayta County. Approximately thirty one percent reported that they
or someone they know experienced higher levels of stress, anxiety,
or fear before the Coburger arrest, twenty five percentage points
lower than prospective jurors in Leata County. Part seven Bill
to Select a Fair and Partial Jury and venues saturated
with media coverage. When a jury pool has been exposed
to prejudicial media coverage, the trial court and parties are
faced with unique challenges which are not present in most cases.
In most high profile cases, many prospective jurors enter the
courtroom with extensive knowledge and attitudes about the case, defendant,
and the victims. However, it's often difficult for prospective jurors
to predict how case specific knowledge and opinions may affect
them over the course of a trial. Prospective jurors may
also unintentionally omit exposure to specific media items during bordere
when asked what they recall hearing about the case, These items, however,
may become salient and recalled from memory once witness testimony begins.
The research also shows that the information learned from media
exposure can be misattributed as evidence presented at trial. Given
these factors, it's important to ferret out during Vordere the
full extent of exposure to pre trial publicity, case specific attitudes,
impressions of the defendant, and potential motivations to serve. However,
the prejudicial effects of pre existing attitudes can occur at
both a conscious and subconscious level, meaning jurors who profess
impartiality may not be fully aware of their bias or
how it may affect them as the trial unfolds. This
can make it difficult to identify potential prejudice during the
jury selection process. The Supreme Court has recognized the limitations
of the voor Deer process as a remedy where potentially
prejudicial pre trial publicity is an issue. All right, we're
going to wrap up right here, and in the next episode,
we're going to pick up with Irvin versus Dowd. All
of the information that goes with this episode can be
found in the description box.