Top left: Madison Mogen. Bottom left: Kaylee Goncalves. Center: Ethan Chapin. Bottom right: Xana Kernodle (Law&Crime Network file photos). Right: Bryan Kohberger (Latah County Jail).
Bryan Kohberger, the suspect accused of stabbing four University of Idaho students as they slept at inside an off-campus house in Moscow nearly two years ago, will not be standing trial in the county where the murders were committed, as a judge has concluded after “many months carefully considering the legal and logistical concerns” a chance at a fair trial has been compromised by “presumed prejudice” and “extreme” news coverage.
In an order, Judge John C. Judge sided with defense change of venue arguments and determined that reasons legal and practical compelled him to let the state’s Supreme Court decide which county would best serve the interests of justice and ensure that Kohberger can get a fair trial in the Nov. 13, 2022, stabbing murders of Ethan Chapin, 20, Xana Kernodle, 20, Kaylee Goncalves, 21, and Madison Mogen, 21.
In recent weeks, the prosecution attempted to make the case that selecting an impartial jury in the “relatively small community” could be done by expanding the juror pool and conducting “extensive juror questionnaires” to allay any concerns about potential violations of Kohberger’s rights. On the other hand, Kohberger’s defense claimed that moving the venue to a county with “a larger population that is geographically distant from where the homicides occurred” was of paramount importance.
In the order that followed, the judge agreed that “extensive” and at times “extreme” news coverage of the case amounted to a “presumed prejudice” requiring the change of venue as a matter of inevitability.
“Considering the undisputed evidence presented by the defense, the extreme nature of the news coverage in this case, and the smaller population in Latah County, the defense has met the rather low standard of demonstrating ‘a reasonable likelihood’ that prejudicial news coverage will compromise a fair trial in Latah County,” Judge wrote. “Thus, the Court will grant Kohberger’s motion to change venue for presumed prejudice.”
The judge added that he thought if the trial venue wasn’t changed now it would be eventually — leading to substantial delays.
“[T]he Court is concerned that if venue is not changed now, it will be asked to reconsider its decision during jury selection which, if granted at that juncture, would very likely result in the trial being delayed many months,” he said.
That the judge had these concerns is not surprising considering the way he took control of trial coverage to help “alleviate the concerns raised by both the defense and the State.”
“It is the intense focus on Kohberger and his every move, along with adverse headlines and news articles, that leads the Court to conclude that continued photograph and video coverage inside the courtroom by the media should no longer be permitted,” the judge wrote last November. “This step should help ensure Kohberger’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury and achieve a proper administration of justice.”
But Judge has now said there were reasons other than publicity that made Latah County ill-suited to handle a trial in a case this high-profile.
“First, and perhaps most important, is the issue of safety and security for the parties, witnesses, victims’ families, jurors, and the Latah County community. The Latah County Sheriff’s Office, which is currently fully staffed, simply lacks the number of officers needed to provide security for the trial while also continuing to perform their day-to-day duties of patrol and responding to calls,” he wrote.
In addition, the judge continued, the courthouse in Latah County just doesn’t have enough space.
“Further, the Latah County courthouse itself poses significant issues for a trial of this length and magnitude. The courthouse lacks the space needed by both the State and the defense. While the State has a dedicated space within the courthouse, the State would still be faced with the challenge of escorting sensitive witnesses through public spaces in the courthouse to get to the courtroom,” he said. “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.”
Read the order here.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
