Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Bryan Kohberger Judge Lifts Gag Order Amid Threats to Admitted Killer

Episode Date: July 17, 2025

A media coalition has asked the judge presiding over Bryan Kohberger's case to vacate the non-dissemination order that has prevented the parties from granting interviews and releasing records. Prosecutor Bill Thompson had asked that the gag order remain in place until Kohberger is sentenced but then changed course. Meanwhile, Kohberger's lawyers has asked that the order remain in place citing threats to her client and an ongoing investigation into a leak of evidence. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy goes through the hearing in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code CRIMEFIX at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: http://incogni.com/crimefixHost:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest:Jack Greiner https://x.com/jackcgreinerProducer:Jordan ChaconCRIME FIX PRODUCTION:Head of Social Media, YouTube - Bobby SzokeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinVideo Editing - Daniel CamachoGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this law and crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand view's shadows.

Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in the supernatural thriller that will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. The publicity in this case is so extensive and emotions are already so high that adding fuel to the fire of media interviews would only increase the concerns that the defense

has. Brian Coburgers-Lehrs pushing back against the media's request to lift an order barring the state and the defense from talking about the case and releasing records about the investigation into the murders on King Road. The media frenzy, as it has been described, will continue regardless. described will continue regardless. Welcome to Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. Since Brian Koberger's arrest for the murders of four University of Idaho students in late December of 2022, we've had so many questions for police and prosecutors about the case and

they've not been willing to answer any of them because they agreed to a non-dissemination order, a gag order, if you will, proposed by Coburger's defense team. Now, that agreement barred the release of any information or public statements about the case that didn't come from court documents. But now, Coburger has pleaded guilty.

He's admitted that he broke into the house on King Road around 4 a.m. on November 13, 2022 and stabbed to death four people that he didn't know and from what prosecutors have said, had absolutely no relationship to whatsoever. Coburger stood up a few weeks ago in open court and admitted to stabbing Maddie Morgan, Kayleigh Gonsalves, Zanna Kernodel, and Ethan Chapin. All were killed within a matter of minutes. At the end of the plea hearing, Judge Hippler proposed lifting that non-dissemination order. Any reason why I should not rescind the non-dissemination order at this time?

I think that given the history of this case, it would be best if that remained in place through sentencing. So we have time to make sure there's the ability to completely answer questions. That would be the state's preference and recommendation. Would have no objection for the order to remain in place for some time. I will at this point, the idea to keep it until sentencing, which time it would be withdrawn in order to give the parties the space and time to prepare to meet what I'm sure will be the deluge of media requests. That's at least my preliminary decision at this point.

So after that, the media coalition, which law and crime is a part of, filed a motion asking for a hearing and requesting that the non-dissemination order be lifted. The coalition's attorneys wrote, Mr. Coburger's plea sharply changed the Sixth Amendment Fair Trial slash First Amendment balance in this case. Mr. Coburger will never face a jury to determine his guilt, nor will a jury have any role in determining whether the death penalty is the proper punishment. All that remains is for the court, not a jury, to impose a sentence. But even

then, the parties have waived a pre-sentence investigation, and Mr. Koberger has agreed that he will not argue for anything less than consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole. Now, Prosecutor Bill Thompson, he has since changed his mind about the non-dissemination order, and he filed a response saying he agrees

that the order is no longer needed, but he said he will not be making any public statements until after sentencing. The Coburger's lawyer, Anne Taylor, she wants that order to remain in place until sentencing. Taylor wrote, the revised order recognized that Mr. Coburger's rights extend beyond the question of guilt or innocence to his right to a fair sentencing proceeding, regardless of whether the proceeding is reached via a jury verdict or a plea. So our content really shows you how important personal safety is, and that's especially true,

when it comes to protecting your privacy online. You would be shocked at how much of your personal information is out there, like your address and phone number. Ever wonder why you get so many spam calls and emails? That's because this information, it's all public. That's where our sponsor, Incogni, comes in. It's a service that helps you take control of your online privacy by removing your personal data from data brokers. Those are huge companies that sell and trade your info without your permission. Incognito actually found more than 50 brokers with my information. And here's the kicker. These data brokers have to remove you from their database if you ask them to. Now you're probably thinking, Anjanette, who in the heck has time to contact a data broker?

Well, that again is where Incognito comes in. They contact those companies for you to get your online safety back. You don't have to do a thing, and then they alert you after the request has been completed. After signing up, I get virtually no spam now, so I highly recommend giving Incogni a try. Right now, anyone who uses the code crimefix at incogni.com slash crimefix gets 60% off. That's code crimefix at incognito.com slash crimefix gets 60% off.

That's code crimefix at incognito.com slash crimefix for 60% off an annual incognito plan. Taylor also wrote that threats have been made against Brian Koberger and others in releasing information could make it worse. Taylor wrote, further release would only serve to gin up the anger and violent rhetoric already at a fever pitch.

Again, this court is well aware of the threats posed not only to Mr. Koberger, but to his family and to court staff. Taylor also brought up concerns over courthouse security. She wrote, court security resources were at maximum capacity on July 2nd, 2025. The sentencing hearing, scheduled for two days, promises to be even more taxing on those resources. Lifting the non-dissemination order now is likely to change the atmosphere near the courthouse and may well push security needs beyond capacity.

And there are portions of Taylor's response that are redacted that appear to address the leak to Dateline and an investigation into who leaked that material about Coburger to NBC. So let's take a look at the arguments from the hearing. Ms. Olson, was there anything you felt was important to add that was not contained within your briefing? Your Honor, we would just briefly say in response to the defendant's brief, we certainly understand the expressed concern about the media coverage of their client. We don't think continuing the Donn dissemination order helps that at all.

It simply continues to limit the ability of the members of the press to reach out to the people who know the most about the case. It doesn't obligate them to say anything. We also understand that they expressed that there was a due process right to the sentencing. We read the case that they submitted. I think that there is obviously a due process right at sentencing, but I don't think that case is really

on, it doesn't provide any guide support here because that was about information provided to the court and given the very limited scope, and we understand it's very important, but given the very limited scope what's to be decided at the sentencing, we don't think the arguments that Mr. Koberger made should outweigh at this stage the First Amendment rights of our clients. Thank you, Your Honor. Now, I'm going to tell you something. The defense, they really knew they were fighting an uphill battle here, but they were asked whether they had anything to add

in addition to the documents they had filed. I would only say, Your Honor, as this court is well aware, that publicity in this case is so extensive and emotions are already so high that adding fuel to the fire of media interviews or a rush to interview people as they leave the courthouse or enter the courthouse would only increase the concerns that the defense has. And even though the plea has a specific sentence attached to it. As this court is well aware, things happen in plea hearings and, excuse me, sentencing hearings.

And to minimize the possibility of that, we requested this order stay in place. And really the entire time, Brian Koberger, he was attending this Zoom hearing from his jail cell. You could see him up there in the corner wearing the jail jumpsuit. And you could see him kind of making some faces, but he may be expected to lose this.

Judge Hipler said that he actually had anticipated a motion from someone to vacate this non-dissemination order. So take a listen. Frankly, the court was prepared at the time the plea was entered to lift the non-dissemination order in order to give the parties time to evaluate that and to ensure I wasn't missing anything when both sides objected. I agreed to continue the non-dissemination order.

I also indicated that I would have the potential to look at that again before sentencing because frankly, I anticipated the motion from somebody, in this case, the Ms. Olson and her clients, was likely to be coming. And at this point, I do not believe the purpose of the non-dissemination order, the primary purpose, which is to ensure that we can seat an impartial jury is any longer at play.

The concerns identified by the defendant, while certainly not to minimize those, they are concerns and they are significant concerns. I do not think, however, the non-dissemination order and the right of the public to information is outweighed or outweighs those rights, I should say. And frankly, I don't think that lifting the non-dissemination order will meaningfully impact those concerns. I mean, the media frenzy, as it has been described, will continue regardless. It is a little bit like a, you know, water will find low ground in this case, the media is going to write about something regardless

about this case. Lifting the non-dissemination order does not require the council or others who were previously bound by it to speak, and the state has indicated they don't intend to until after the sentencing. At this point, I just don't think that I can justify the continuation of the non-dissemination order. I think the rights of the public to information in this case is paramount,

given the fact that a plea has been entered in this case. And so I'm going to lift the non-dissemination order. So I want to bring in Jack Reiner. He is a First Amendment attorney based in Cincinnati, Ohio. He's fought a lot of these battles. I've fought a couple of them with him and we've won. He is with the Farooqui law firm. Jack, your response to the defense wanting to keep this gag order in place until sentencing. Well, I think that it seemed to me to be kind of a halfhearted effort on their part. There's very little case law cited. There's very little justification for it. The best they can seem

to be able to come up with is that, you know, Mr. Coburn will be in danger because the public will get stirred up if they get access to the prior proceedings in the case. And I'm not aware of much precedent that would support that. You know, this case was originally, the gag order was put in place to protect his fair trial rights and to avoid tainting the jury pool. And now that he's, you know, pled and the judge will be doing the sentencing, the judge is presumably seeing all of this stuff. So it's not like the gag order is prohibiting the judge from seeing this information. There's really no reason for it. And the idea that a person who's pled guilty to, you know, brutal murders of what four people might be in some

sort of danger. Well, yeah, they might. But I don't mean to make light of it. But the idea that that gives him some sort of almost they're almost arguing that he has a privacy right which I think is just absurd you know he's a public figure he's admitted to brutal crimes and the notion that he has some sort of right to privacy that would preclude a court from releasing public information to the public I think it's just a very weak argument. Judge Hippler, in this case, has really erred on the side of the public and the public's right to know, which I've really found very refreshing because in this case, both sides were filing a lot of stuff under seal. And he came out at one point and he said, hey, knock it off.

You know, redact stuff if you think it needs to be redacted, but you know, you need to err on the side of having things be public. And so I appreciated that. And so they started redacting things instead of just filing everything under seal. And so he was loathe to keep this thing in place during the plea hearing.

He suggested lifting it and he wanted to lift it and he let them have some time. And I've seen cases, I've covered cases where a gag order remained in place until after sentencing. Typically, though, that happens when a trial had been had. And who knows why people want to do that? Maybe they just don't want to deal with the press. But Judge Hippler said during the hearing where he lifted the gag order,

I was inclined to lift it, but I gave you guys some time and I anticipated a motion and I thought a motion would be coming to vacate this. And he said the public has a right to know. So I found that really refreshing. Yeah. Well, I think when there's a trial, there is a public airing of the material. I mean, it's very, very, very, very rare to keep the public out of a trial. Right. So the trial. So when there's a trial, the public is going to get information about the case. They're going to see evidence and exhibits and that sort of thing. So I think when there's a

plea and there's not a trial to keep the gag order in place, it just really increases the harm to public transparency because there's not the public airing that would take place in a trial. And so, you know, the public's inability to get this information while it's fresh, while it's still newsworthy is really problematic. And I'm not, I think that the idea of a defendant getting an unfair trial because there's a lot of pre-trial, is generally overblown and most of the time, the defense, when they move for that, have a hard time justifying it when they're pressed

to present some evidence that it's going to unfairly taint the jury pool. And the Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court has said that before you issue a gag order,'ve got to do other things like a very detailed voir dire of the jurors. To find 12 jurors who have not kept up with the news, not that hard really. I mean, we seem to think, you know, you and I, we're on top of a case like this, but the average person in the public who's

just trying to get through life and work and pay bills really isn't that steeped in it. So you've got that. You've got the possibility of a change of venue. You can sequester the jurors to make sure they don't receive information about the case. And you have to do that. I mean, the Supreme Court has said you have to go through those steps before you can prohibit or you can issue a gag order. So, in my experience, jurors tend to, you can find 12 jurors that don't know much about

the case, even a highly publicized case. I really believe that. But the thing about this case, Jack, was that the gag order, the non-dissemination order, is what they really call it, was issued immediately, pretty much immediately after the arrest of Brian Coburger. The defense asked for it pretty much immediately, and the state agreed to it. And so that was before, you know, any voir dire took place or anything like that. So this thing has been in effect, essentially. There was a revised amended non-dissemination order,

I think that went into effect in June of 2023, but this thing has essentially been in effect since January of 2023. That's a really long time. But it's a long time and that's essentially a news blackout for that, you know, for that. And I just think that, you know, when you have a, the other, the other, just from a policy perspective, when you've got a very high profile case like this, when you, when you issue a gag order, what you're doing is sequestering the facts, really. And so you create this vacuum,

and what Phil said, vacuum is speculation and gossip, and it works. I mean, I think it would be better to have accurate information out there, because if you don't, it's gonna get talked about, but the talk is going to be uninformed and speculative and gossipy. I think that's worse. Yeah, it is much worse.

I think that they saw that in this case in the very beginning. The first three days after the homicides, there was no really word from the Moscow Police Department and that did allow a lot of rumors to circulate. you know, after the homicides, there was no really word from the Moscow police department. And that did allow a lot of rumors to circulate. They came out, you know, three days after the homicides and had a press conference, but you know, you know, the genie was out of the bottle as far as rumors and stuff go.

So I think that these things in some ways can have unintended consequences and do more harm than good. You know, one thing that I found interesting too is that Judge Hippler basically said too that he will be unsealing records. He's not going to do it immediately as far as court records go. But he is going to do it. He'll have to review those. He will do that. But you know, he's going to start with the newest ones because he's most to review those. He will do that. But he's going to start with the newest ones because he's most familiar with those and then work his way back. So, it's not going to be an immediate mass unsealing because he has to review this stuff, but he has to

do it after sentencing. Brokamp Well, he sounds like a pretty thoughtful judge and hopefully, you know, we'll get the right decision ultimately here But it has obviously been delayed which is which is unfortunate So any any further delay is not a good thing and hopefully, you know, we'll get to Maybe get some I'm sure there'll be some interesting information that comes out Is it possible to that? You know I was talking to someone last night who we were kind of

going back and forth when we were reading the defense's opposition to lifting the gag order and we were thinking to ourselves, you know, this case, the brutality of it is just so it's beyond the pale. Is it possible the defense knows it's worse than anybody really thinks and they just want to delay as long as possible the facts, you know, maybe some of the details getting out because they're concerned. They're concerned about possibly things getting out before sentencing and this mass gathering at the courthouse.

Yeah. There's already been leaks apparently that the judge mentioned or that was mentioned in the motions. And there's obviously a lot of high interest. James Patterson has some interest in this case. I think Amazon was doing a show about it. Yeah, I mean, as I say, I think that the defense had an uphill battle to try to keep the non-dissemination order in place. I don't think their effort was all that stellar, but I just don't think they had much of a hand to play really at this point. And certainly when the state said, yeah, we're fine with lifting the dissemination order,

that was problematic for them. If the state had held to their position, I think they'd be in a better spot. Yeah, they likely would. But again, this is a judge who's erred on the side of transparency, on the side of making things public, and he's been very no-nonsense. And so, you know, a big loss for Brian Coburger, but probably not an unexpected one. And we will watch as the sentencing occurs next week. Jack Greiner, First Amendment attorney with Farooqui Law, thank you so much.

Okay. My pleasure, Angelina. Thank you. So there you have it. That non-dissemination order is no longer in place. And Brian Coburger, he will be sentenced on July 23rd and Law and Crime will be there at the courthouse in Ada County that's in Boise, Idaho. I'm Anjana Levy.

I will see you here next time. Thanks so much for joining us for this episode of Crime Fix.