Law&Crime Sidebar - Bryan Kohberger Scores Bombshell Win in Court as Judge Pushes Trial Out of Latah County

Episode Date: September 14, 2024

Idaho’s Judge John Judge granted Bryan Kohberger’s motion to move his trial out of Latah County. The defense argued that a fair and impartial jury could not be found in the same county where four University of Idaho students were found brutally murdered. The family of Kaylee Goncalves, one of the victims, called out Judge Judge in a statement about the change in venue, saying his rulings always favored the defense. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber has details on why the move is happening and what it could mean going forward.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Save money and time for your business today with Odoo! → https://www.odoo.com/LCSidebarHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger and Christina FalconeScript Writing & Producing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY 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 Wondry 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 Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this 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. We're here on a motion to change venue from Latow County to Ada County filed by the defense. The trial of Brian Coburger, the man accused of murdering four college students in Idaho will be moved to a different county. This is a very big deal. We are going to do a full breakdown of why the judge decided to grant the defense's motion to change venue and whether this will help the defense or the prosecution. Welcome to Sidebar. Presented by Law and Crime, I'm Jesse Weber.

The trial for accused quadruple murderer Brian Coburger has been moved to a different venue. That's right. No longer will it be in Laita County where the killings took place. This is a major, major development. Now I'm going to lay out why this happened, what the impact could be, and who does this benefit, the prosecution of the defense. Now, Brian Koeberger, of course, is the former Washington State University grad student who was arrested in charge with the murders of four University of Idaho students. They were brutally stabbed death in an off-campus rental home in Moscow, Idaho back on November 13th, 2022, Madison Mogan, Kaley Gonzalez, Xanacernodal, Ethan Chapin. And by the way, Coburger is also charged with burglary for allegedly breaking

in and committing these crimes as well. Now, Coburger, he was arrested six weeks after the killings and authorities connected him through a mountain of evidence. And one of the main issues has been, will this trial happen in Latak County? You see, the challenge, of course, with this case is the fact that you know about it, that you're watching it, the notoriety of this case. And as the court notes, it's not just the recognition of the case, that's the problem, but how extensive the media coverage has been, particularly negative information about Brian Coburger, rumors, false information, there's TV shows, there's documentaries,

as a book. This can all prejudice a potential jury. That's what we're talking about. Now, the prosecution doesn't really deny this. They acknowledge that this is a very high-profile case, but they had argued that this trial should not be moved out of Latak County. That what you have to do is choose from a larger jury pool, submit an extensive juror questionnaire, that you conduct a thorough voir dire or jury selection process to will, down potential jurors to get to 18, that that's going to be sufficient to get a fair and impartial jury in Laetoc County? The defense disagreed.

They argued that won't work, that the trial needs to be moved to a different venue, a larger population away from where these killings took place. And in the end, the judge, Laetoc County magistrate judge, John Judge, yes, that's his name, Judge John Judge, sided with the defense. and granted their motion for a change of venue. Very big development in this case. Judge John Judge wrote in his order, quote, The court has spent many months,

carefully considering legal and logistical concerns with a trial of this length and magnitude, carefully reading each submission, listening to each expert, and evaluating each party's position. Based upon the totality of the factors, defendants' motion for change of venue is granted. So, what are those factors, right?

Well, it is clear the judge was persuaded by a number of defense experts who testified at an August 29th hearing. So, for example, there was James Todd Murphy, the president of True Scope North America that provides media monitoring services. 36% of that coverage, or just over 36% of that, was seen or had the opportunity to be seen in Maytown County. On the right side, you have another pie charts that show the population of Idaho, and it shows what percentage LATOC County represents of the total percentage of Idaho, which is 2.75%. So as the court explains in its order granting this motion, Murphy's main takeaway was that of the media coverage of Coburger's case in the state of Idaho, 36% of that coverage is within Lata County. And when you look at Ada County, which the defense has asked this case to be moved to,

and Boise is a part of Ada County, 34% of the media coverage is in Ada. Now you might be saying 36%, 34%, that's pretty comparable, right? Here is the problem. Lata has a population of around 41,000. Ada has over 518,000. So as the judge writes, according to Murphy, this means that the media coverage in Ada County is much more diluted, while Lata County is saturated with such coverage. Stated differently, media coverage in Lata County offered twice as many opportunities to be seen per person than in Ada County. The higher volume of coverage in Lata County, coupled with the smaller pool of eligible jurors, means people in Lata County had twice as many chances to be exposed to this case versus those residing in Ada County. One little side note, by the way, I mentioned the total populations of these counties.

Not every single person in that population can be an eligible juror for a variety of reasons. So even if you have 41,000 people, it might only be 25,000 people that could be eligible jurors. So that really becomes an important factor as well. Hey, by the way, we really, really appreciate you guys. And one of the things that we like to do is share with you the great benefits from our sponsors because they offer services and products that may really help you out. And that includes Odu. So for you business owners out there, or those of you thinking of starting a business,

Odu is a free all-in-one business management software that provides you with a range of applications that helps with the day-to-day of owning a business. You know, believe it or not, there are a lot of moving parts here at Law and Crime. Our HR manager can use Odu to manage PTO when new hires info. First time I've ever been in there, by the way, I swear. Our sales guy can use Odu's CRM platform. He's a special individual. Now, here's the kicker.

You can try Odu for free right now without entering your credit card. You can even get free lifetime access to one of the apps in the Odu suites. So click our link, Odu.com slash LC Sidebar in the description and pinned in the comments and try Odu for free right now. But now going back to other witnesses, experts that were presented by the defense during the course of this hearing, that it seems the court was really. focusing on and really taking to heart, we heard from Dr. Amani L. Alali, a social psychologist and social cognition researcher who analyzes how publicity about a case can shape

potential jurors' attitudes. The fact that if you get exposed to publicity, you're more likely to render a judgment of guilt and less likely to or have lower liking for the defendant and have higher ratings of their criminality. So the doctor's conclusion here was that the more a case is publicized, the more likely potential jurors will dislike the defendant and believe that the defendant is guilty. According to the doctor, LATAC County residents have been exposed to so much publicity about this case that they subconsciously are biased against Brian Coburger, even if they don't think

they are. Why? First, officials in the county, who the doctor says that residents are more likely to trust, have spoken about Brian Coburger's guilt in absolute terms. So, for example, quote, the former Moscow police department chief, James Frye, who was the police chief during the investigation into the homicides, publicly declared he had no doubts that the right guy had been arrested for the crimes. Second, there has been so much negative publicity about Koberger that Laita residents will associate him with terms that have been amplified, like murderer, evil, killer, stalker. Now, again, this happens all the time in a million cases, right?

It's not like every time a killing like this happens that the case has to be moved to a different venue, but the size of this population, the tight-knit community, that's what's key here. And that leads me to the third point brought up by the doctor. And this is a really important one that the court seemed to side with and brings up. The pressure on those in the community to find Brian Coburger guilty. That makes sense, right? The man accused of brutally killing four innocent young people to death, wouldn't it be hard for these residents, these neighbors, these community members, to acquit him.

The orator reads, quote, Laetoc County is a small, close-knit community. Community members feel a sense of loyalty to community views and fellow community members. For example, Laetoc County, jurors may feel an inner clash or conflict if they felt the state had not proven Koberger's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because they may feel voting not guilty would cause community outrage or once again cause fear within the community.

Thus, the inner clash may cause jurors to vote guilty even when they believe there is reasonable doubt as to guilt. The fourth point brought up by this doctor, and this is something the prosecution had highlighted in a different way because the prosecution had said, look, the residents of this community, they should decide this case because of their attachment to it. But the doctor highlighted that this community is emotionally invested in this case, that they are affected by it. After all, the doctor explains that when Coburger was arrested, there was a sense of relief in the community that the danger was over, that the guy was caught.

In other words, there is already a belief in this community that Coburger is guilty. So all in all, according to this doctor, it is impossible for Laita residents to be impartial. Then we have the testimony of Dr. Brian Edelman, a social psychologist and trial consultant that conducted pre-trial surveys regarding, the Brian Coburger case. Case like this, you're talking about inundated with pre-child publicity over a significant amount of time repeating information and then new information that's sensational. And so it's constantly reactivating those memories and making those knowledge structures more accessible, most consciously and unconsciously.

So according to his surveys, 98% of survey respondents in Leyta County recognized the Brian Coburger case, 98%. And out of that number, a whopping 67% stated that they believe Brian Coburger is guilty. Now, 51% said Coburger would have a very difficult time convincing them that he's not guilty. And by the way, that number was higher than all of the other counties polled. So taking all of that testimony into consideration, how did the judge make his decision? Well, let's talk a little bit of the law and what the standard is.

Under Idaho law, in order to protect a defendant's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury, there is a constitutional right to that. A case can be transferred to another venue if the trial court determines that pre-trial publicity will result in a trial that is not fundamentally fair. And one of the ways that you can show this, And as Judge Judge will explain, is through presumed prejudice, meaning there is such adverse pre-trial publicity that it creates a presumption of prejudice that is so strong that you can't overcome it, that you can't believe it when jurors say they can be impartial.

So here, as the court explains, and as we heard from the testimony, Lata County is small. There is extensive media coverage with a high probability that people will be exposed to the case. in Leyta, that includes a voluminous amount of negative coverage of Brian Coburger, the defendant, that there are innate biases and fears and conflicts and personal connections to the case, that there's high emotions in Layta County, and you have these problematic results of the surveys. But the court did not end there. There is one other consideration that we have not talked about yet. Logistics. So in the judge's order, it reads, quote, even without a finding of presumed prejudice, venue in this case, must be changed for the convenience of parties and witnesses

and in the interest of justice. So the court explains that the Latek County Sheriff's Office doesn't have the manpower to ensure the safety and security of the parties, the witnesses, the victims, the families, the jurors, that there are not enough court clerks to manage the jury selection process, especially if there are potentially a jury pool of 6,000 people, the courthouse. It doesn't have enough space for the jurors and the safe transport of witnesses. And additionally, a massive trial like this will affect the day-to-day operations at the courthouse too. And I will tell you one of the things that you know how amplified this trial is and how

high profile it is, you're going to have a lot of people, a lot of reporters that need come there, where are they going to be housed? Where are they going to stay? It's complicated. And I'll tell you one of the other things that came up during the course of this conversation is we have to remember that this isn't a college town. And one of the reasons that this has been delayed for so long is they wanted to schedule this trial when there was no semester, when semester was in recess. So moving it out of this jurisdiction, moving it away from the people who were affected by this case and the students who were affected by this case. It can also make sense as well.

And in the judge's order, it says, quote, while traveling to another county for three months is indeed inconvenient for the attorneys, the court, some family members of the victims, and some witnesses, having the trial at the Latak County Courthouse would also be inconvenient in numerous ways and beyond that would present serious safety risks. Thus, the interest of justice requires that the trial be moved to a venue with the resources, both in terms of personnel and space, necessary to effectively and efficiently handle a trial of this magnitude and length so that the parties and the court can focus on the case and not on peripheral issues.

And for all of that, the judge granted the motion for change of venue. Now, is this surprising? Well, this is a judge who has made a concerted effort to ensure that Brian Cobur, right to a fair trial is not impacted. Obviously, that's important in every case here. It's heightened, though, because of just how high profile this case is, and it's arguably the biggest case that Judge Judge has ever handled or that maybe LATO County has ever seen, so there is a need to get this right. But when I say that the judge has made a concerted effort to protect the integrity of this case and the defendant's rights, as Judge Judge points out

in his ruling, there was a non-dissemination or gag order that was put in place. Cameras were removed from the courtroom and the proceedings have only been streamed through the court's YouTube channel, which for anybody who's watched these hearings knows, it's not the most ideal visual medium or angles that we see. But again, that happened because the camera beforehand was apparently focusing too much on Brian Coburger, and there was a concern that that visual would be prejudicial to him. So the bottom line is if Judge Judge is doing everything he can to ensure that Coburger's rights are protected, changing venue makes sense.

And while changes of venue motions happen all the time in cases all across this country, the Brian Coburger case is a unique one. Now, on the other hand, he did seem to indicate he didn't want to delay this case any further. And while he had previously set a trial date of June 2025, Will this change of venue delay that in any way? This order makes clear we don't know what venue will be chosen or which judge will preside over the case or when these decisions will happen. That's going to be left at the discretion of the Idaho Supreme Court. And by the way, if this does go to another venue and goes to another judge, won't the judge need a little bit of time to get caught up on everything that's happening to?

Will this delay the case? And in that part, it's frustrating. It's frustrating particularly and especially for the victim's families. In fact, the Gonzalez family released a statement after the judge granted this motion for a change of venue, and I'd like to read it for you right now. It says, quote, the family is incredibly disappointed in the judge's ruling granting the change of venue. The only good thing about this decision is it will be Judge Judge's last decision in this case. The family has always felt that Judge Judge favored the defense, and it was a common theme that whatever the defense wanted the defense got. The written decision is even more informative. If the judge knew

Laita County could not handle this trial for safety reasons, not enough court clerks, logistics, and lacking space, why did we waste over a year in a county he knew was not going to handle the trial? The points he mentioned didn't all of a sudden jump up and bite him in the rear. Another issue was the poor cross-examination by the state of the defense expert witnesses. A judge can only rely on evidence presented and when you don't properly cross-examine expert witnesses or present any of your own, you are left relying on the opinions of the defense. Then, let's not forget, the massive contradiction of having a University of Idaho employee as an expert witness and at the same time allowing Scott Green, the University of Idaho president, to write a book claiming to be an

integral part of your investigation. Finally, what was the point of non-dissemination order, private hearings, closed-door tactics, allowing the defendant to be dressed in a suit for every televised hearing, if not to keep the trial in Latak County. As victims' families, you are left to just watch like everyone else, and really you have little rights or say in the process, and at the same time, you are most vested in the outcome. We have always felt that a fair and impartial jury could be found in Latak County and still believe that is where the trial deserves to be held to help the community heal. Thank you again for all of your support and prayers. And that makes sense, right? Even if you think 25,000 people in Latak County

were eligible, you couldn't find 18 that were impartial, but you also heard all the logistical reasons as well. Look, they make some very, very valid points. Look, on one hand, they want a quick resolution of this case. They don't really care about Brian Koberger and his rights. It seems to me that the family makes a strong argument that, well, what about the logistical and practical considerations that the court mentioned, like staffing and space and security, you knew about this from the start. That seems pretty fair. It seems the court knew this from the beginning. They didn't have to wait to decide if there was a compelling reason to move the venue. On the other hand, from a legal point of view, let's talk about this. Under the Idaho rules,

a judge may change venue only upon motion by any party. So the rules seem to indicate that he could couldn't unilaterally just change this. And it wasn't until January 30th, 2024, that Brian Koberger, his team moved to change venue. And then the state objected and then the hearing didn't happen until last month. Look, the defendant has rights. And there does need to be a proper hearing on a change of venue with witness testimony. And a lot of the testimony was based on studies that needed time to be compiled. There's a process. There's a process. It's a frustrating reality, but there is a legal process. It takes time. We have hearings. This is one of the reasons why trials don't happen for years from when the commission of the crime happened. But of course,

the family's frustration 100% completely understandable. Now, I do want to highlight one final point, and this is my take. Who does this benefit? Well, taking the defense's experts at their word, listening to the defense's arguments. Clearly, getting the trial moved is a win for that, right? Potentially larger jury pool that hasn't been inundated with negative coverage of the case, the removed from the area where this happened, less chance that they hold prejudicial views of Brian Coburger. Obviously, that's a benefit to Brian Coburger to get a fair and impartial jury. Okay. I will say, though, in my opinion, this is actually better news. for the prosecution in the long run. Why?

The evidence in this case, I think, would be fair to say, is quite strong against Brian Coburger. That evidence doesn't change if you go to Latah or you go to Ada. From the DNA to the surveillance footage, to the cell phone data, to the potential eyewitness, you can make the argument that it would be sufficient to convict him, no matter where the trial is if you can seat a fair and impartial jury. Now, of course, he's presumed innocent. He has a right to defend himself, but you can see how Brian Kohlberger could be convicted based on this evidence if there are no issues of its admission into trial.

It's strong evidence, whether we ask someone from California to New York, people across this country have been talking about this evidence. Since saying, they believe Brian Koberger did this, that he's guilty. Now, barring, of course, particularities in certain court rules, the evidence really doesn't change, whether you have this in Ada, whether you have this in LATO. people's conclusions about the evidence doesn't change. So, for prosecutors, if the name of the game is seeking a conviction that won't be overturned on appeal, in my view, it is better for them to win a conviction in another venue in this case because then it would be incredibly difficult for the defense to say their client wasn't treated fairly and didn't have a fair and impartial jury.

They got this change of venue. If Brian Kohlberger was convicted in LATOC County, given everything that we just laid out, the defense could have legitimate grounds to say that the trial should have been moved and his conviction overturned. But with a change of venue and conviction, advantage prosecution. And thinking of the families, you know what would be really bad for them? If Brian Koberger was convicted after a long, exhaustive, painful taxing trial, and for his conviction to be overturned because he mounted an argument that he never got a fair

and impartial jury and that this case should have been moved. Having to relive this trial again for a second time, that can be very tough. That would be an incredibly, emotionally taxing blow to the families who are seeking finality here. And I say this all the time, but both sides should want to make sure defendants' rights are as protected as possible.

If you believe that someone is guilty and you want justice, you want to make sure that the defendant's rights are not violated in any way because you want a clean conviction. So let's see where the Idaho Supreme Court decides to move this, and that will be the next step in what has been a very long and arduous process.

That's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.