Kohberger attorney objects to media’s gag order request

Bryan Kohberger’s attorney objected to the media’s request that Latah County 2nd Judicial Court should promptly schedule a hearing on the gag order in the murder case.

Kohberger faces four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary in the November stabbing deaths of University of Idaho students Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin. Kohberger remains in Latah County Jail as he awaits his June 26 preliminary hearing.

A coalition of media organizations, including the Lewiston Tribune and the Moscow-Pullman Daily News, filed a motion in Latah County 2nd District Court to vacate the gag order that prohibits attorneys and law enforcement involved in the case from speaking publicly about it.

After Latah County Magistrate Judge Megan Marshall set a conference for May 22 to schedule a hearing, the media argued that is too long of a delay.

Attorney Wendy Olson filed a motion this week arguing that the gag order causes “irreparable harm” with each passing day. The media coalition maintains that the gag order violates its First Amendment rights. According to the gag order that was signed by Marshall, it is necessary to protect Kohbeger’s right to a fair trial.

Olson asked the court to either halt enforcement of the gag order or to quickly schedule a hearing at the next available date.

Kohberger’s attorneys objected to this and stated the media’s motion “raises factual issues that Mr. Kohberger requires additional time to prepare.”

“Because the media coverage of this case has been intense, and because Mr. Kohberger plans on providing expert testimony on its damaging effects, Mr. Kohberger will require additional time and will not be prepared for such a hearing on May 22, 2023,” the motion states.

Olson has already prepared a response to this objection. She writes that Kohberger was able to attain the gag order without submitting supporting evidence to the court.

“He says he now has evidence to support his request for gag order, but he needs time to put it together — even though gag order has been in place for over four months,” Olson wrote. “And he asks the court to continue to enforce a gag order while he collects his evidence.”

She stated that if an evidentiary hearing is the next step to determine if a gag order is needed, then the gag order should not be enforced in advance of that hearing.

Kuipers can be reached at akuipers@dnews.com.