There was some surprise news at the start of this fall’s first IDOG government transparency workshop on Aug. 30: Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane, who was welcoming the audience and introducing the series of four sessions this fall, said, “As of this morning, I have a confession to make.”

“At 9 a.m. today, the State Board of Land Commissioners, of which I am one, just announced a special meeting on Friday at 9 a.m. to cure a mistake in a motion on open meetings. There was a mistake regarding the open meeting law, and so we’re working to cure that.”

McGrane noted that both he and the day’s lead speaker, state Controller Brandon Woolf, serve on the Land Board. Both also are outspoken advocates of government transparency. “So, to kick off IDOG and highlight openness in government … we want to kick it off by making sure we are open and transparent,” he said, “and hopefully encouraging not just state officials but local officials all around the state of Idaho to do the same.” 

As reported by the Idaho Press, the violation occurred during the board’s  Aug. 15 meeting in which board member Attorney General Raúl Labrador made a motion to go into executive session but did not cite the exemption under the Idaho Open Meeting Law that justified the closed-door meeting. The law requires that the code section be included in the motion. The violation was cured at the Sept. 1 special meeting by formally acknowledging the error by unanimous vote of the board, and re-doing the business at issue. 

McGrane noted that the four IDOG sessions this fall, over four months, will cover transparency in finance, issues regarding lobbying and campaign finance, open meeting laws and public records.

Betsy Russell, IDOG president, also welcomed the participants, 80% of whom were participating online via Idaho Public Television’s InSession streaming service. “IDOG’s mission is to foster open government, supervised by an informed and engaged citizenry,” she said. “We believe that we all benefit when the public, the media and government officials are fully aware of the public’s rights to access government information and observe the conduct of the public’s business.”

Russell then introduced Woolf, who is in his third full term as the state’s elected controller. “Brandon started Transparent Idaho in 2012 to provide better access for Idaho citizens to state government financial data, and it has expanded significantly since then,” she said. “He has made government transparency a hallmark of his tenure as state controller.”

Woolf then discussed how public trust in government has been declining nationwide, after hitting a peak in 1964, and how transparency can restore trust, along with other benefits including deterring fraud and increasing accountability.

Woolf shared this quote: “Obscurity is the best friend of conspiracy.” That followed several other quotations shared by McGrane in his introduction, including this quote from Mother Teresa: “Honesty and transparency make you vulnerable. Be honest and transparent anyway.”

Woolf led participants through the Transparent Idaho website, transparent.idaho.gov; its features; and the extensive, searchable, up-to-date financial data available there, from public employee salaries to expenditures of taxpayer dollars. In addition to state government and agency financial information, along with data from the state’s four-year colleges and universities, the site now is in the process of adding local government and school district data as well.

Woolf also covered Townhall Idaho, townhall.idaho.gov, a site he and Gov. Brad Little launched in 2022 to serve as an online one-stop-shop for all public meeting information for state executive branch agencies.

At the close of his presentation, with McGrane and Russell as moderators, Woolf fielded questions from participants, including both those present in person in the Capitol’s Lincoln Auditorium and those participating online, who submitted their questions via email. Among the questions were some seeking information that’s not yet available on Transparent Idaho; Woolf pledged to continue increasing the data posted on the site, and said some of the information sought, including community college financial data, isn’t yet on the site but is on his team’s “to-do list.”

Here are some comments from the evaluations completed by participants in the Aug. 30 session:

From a citizen: “Congratulations on a fantastic job! I am very much heartened by the commitment to transparency and the encouragement of citizen engagement. Thank you to all for this fantastic tool and for educating us!”

From a state employee: “There is way more information on Transparent Idaho than I realized.”

From a reporter: “I didn’t know the Transparent Idaho website existed, which as a local reporter will be very useful. I look forward to looking at salaries and natural resource expenditures in each county.”

From a local elected official: “Thanks so much for putting this on! Sorry I couldn’t attend in person like I originally planned, but the online streaming option was SO convenient and worked perfectly.”

From a member of the news media: “There’s more data about local government entities available on the Transparent Idaho website than I realized. I can never get (my local) county officials to comply with requests for salary information. But, it’s on the Transparent Idaho website, so I can now easily find it. I look forward to that being the case for school districts as well.”

From a state employee: “I learned how to navigate the Transparent Idaho site and that some of the requests for information that we receive may be available there.”

From a citizen: “I plan to get more involved in state and local government now that I am retired and I believe some of what is available online as explained in the training will be helpful to me as I do that.”

From a citizen: “I am looking for employment, so knowing salaries of various state employees is helpful.”

From a former reporter and retired PIO: “I learned that Transparent Idaho is good for much more than finding out salaries. I particularly liked the primer on local government data.”

From a citizen: “Thank you for continuing this excellent programming!”

The full video of the Aug. 30 event, along with Woolf’s Powerpoint slides, are available for viewing at IDOG’s website, www.openidaho.org.

From the Idaho Capital Sun

BY: CLARK CORBIN

Attorney General Raúl Labrador did not cite the section of law authorizing an Aug. 15 executive session.

The Idaho Board of Land Commissioners met briefly Friday morning to acknowledge and cure a violation of Idaho’s open meeting law. 

During Friday’s meeting at the Idaho Department of Lands downtown Boise office, Gov. Brad Little said the violation occurred during the land board’s most recent meeting on Aug. 15.

“I move the board acknowledge that the Aug. 15 motion for executive session violated the open meeting law by failing to specifically identify the specific subsection of Idaho code authorizing the executive session,” Little said during Friday’s meeting.

To remedy, or cure, the violation, the land board voted to void the Aug. 15 executive session and re-do the motion by identifying the section of Idaho code authorizing the executive session. The land board then went into an executive session for about five minutes Friday to meet with its legal counsel to discuss pending litigation. When the land board members returned to open session a few moments later, they announced they took no action during the executive session and then adjourned their meeting. 

An executive session is a closed-door meeting of a governing body, which is allowed under Idaho law only under a specific set of narrow circumstances. Those circumstances include meeting with legal counsel to discuss legal options for litigation or pending litigation, acquiring property not owned by a public agency, considering hiring a public officer or employee or considering disciplining or dismissing a public officer, employee or public school student. 

The violation occurred after Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador made a motion to go into executive session on Aug. 15 but did not cite the specific subsection of Idaho law authorizing the executive section, the Idaho Press reported Thursday. 

Idaho Statesman opinion editor Scott McIntosh noticed the violation and contacted the land board about it on behalf of the Idaho Press Club’s First Amendment Committee earlier this week, the Press reported. 

The land board is made up of Idaho’s top statewide elected officials, including Little, Labrador, Superintendent of Public Instruction Debbie Critchfield, Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane and Idaho Controller Brandon Woolf. The land board’s job is to provide direction to the Idaho Department of Lands for managing more than 2.5 million acres of state endowment lands. 

From the Idaho Capital Sun

From the Idaho Press

by LAURA GUIDO 

The Idaho State Board of Commissioners announced it would be holding a special meeting Friday to rectify an Open Meetings Law violation.

The violation was made during its Aug. 15 meeting in which board member Attorney General Raúl Labrador made a motion for an executive session but did not cite the exemption under the law that justified the closed-door meeting. The exemption was cited in the agenda, but Idaho Code requires that it be included in the motion.

The violation was flagged by Idaho Statesman Opinion Editor Scott McIntosh on behalf of the Idaho Press Club’s First Amendment Committee. He wrote to Land Board members in an Aug. 29 email to highlight the violation and asked that the board cure the violation.

Board member Secretary of State Phil McGrane, who had seconded the motion at the Aug. 15 meeting, responded and said he would “work with the board both to remedy the situation and ensure it doesn’t happen again.”

McGrane told the Idaho Press that the Friday special meeting will note the violation and what the motion should have said.

Beth Cahill, communication director for the attorney general’s office, said in an emailed statement that there is “no question of public transparency” in the Aug. 15 meeting because the agenda and minutes identified the correct citation of code.

“The Land Board is doing the right thing in this matter,” Cahill wrote. “A board or commission should quickly cure a violation in open meetings laws. Technical omissions happen from time to time, and when they occur government boards should work to remedy it.”

The motion had been unanimously approved by the other board members who were present: Gov. Brad Little and Superintendent of Public Education Debbie Critchfield. State Controller Brandon Woolf is also a member but had left the meeting prior to the motion being made.

Toward the end of the meeting, Labrador said, “We have an executive session. My attorney needs to talk to the board members real quick.”

Little responded that a motion was required as well as a roll-call vote.

Labrador said, “So, motion to go into executive session.”

The section of Idaho Code that allows for narrow exemptions to the Open Meetings Law states, “The motion to go into executive session shall identify the specific subsections of this section that authorize the executive session.”

The agenda cited Idaho Code and wrote that the session was “to communicate with legal counsel for the public agency to discuss the legal ramifications of and legal options for pending litigation, or controversies not yet being litigated but imminently likely to be litigated.”

Labrador is currently litigating an alleged Open Meetings Law violation against the State Board of Education, arguing it improperly held an executive session during negotiations in the University of Idaho’s bid to purchase the University of Phoenix.

A judge recently ruled that Labrador and two other employees in his office could not pursue this litigation against the board, because of information they may have obtained in a privileged phone call, but that other attorneys in the office may continue in the case.

Labrador, in response to the ruling, said in an Aug. 28 statement that the judge “upheld the right of my office to hold state agencies accountable for Open Meetings Law violations.”

“I am very pleased with the Court’s decision because it ensures that I can do my job and represent the people of Idaho,” Labrador wrote. “Idaho law makes the Attorney General the sole enforcer of the Open Meetings Law against state agencies like the Idaho State Board of Education, and the Court agreed.”

The Land Board special meeting will be held 9 a.m. Friday.

From the Idaho Press

From the Coeur d’Alene Press

By KAYE THORNBRUGH

COEUR d’ALENE — It appears Laura Rumpler, North Idaho College’s chief communications and government relations officer, has tendered her resignation.

Attorney Art Macomber informed NIC President Nick Swayne and college trustees Monday that Rumpler notified him she would be resigning effective Sept. 8, the college confirmed Tuesday.

An automatic reply from Rumpler’s NIC-provided email address indicates that she is currently on leave and provides no return date.

After The Press reached out to Rumpler on Tuesday morning to inform her the newspaper was working on an article about her pending resignation, and to give her the opportunity to comment on the matter, Macomber emailed the newspaper Tuesday afternoon.

“For reasons unknown to me, you requested by text to Laura Rumpler a comment by her on her employment status,” Macomber said via email. “As you know, matters related to employment of people at NIC are strictly controlled for privacy reasons.”

For public employees in Idaho, employment status is a matter of public record under the Idaho Public Records Act.

“That said, Ms. Rumpler remains employed at her position as Chief Communications & Government Relations Officer for NIC. I trust the CdA Press will refrain from libel or rumor in your newspaper,” wrote Macomber in the email.

At the time of that email, NIC had already confirmed Macomber notified the college president and trustees of Rumpler’s pending resignation.

NIC trustees Greg McKenzie, Todd Banducci and Mike Waggoner voted last week to hire Sandpoint-based attorney D. Colton Boyles as general legal counsel for the college and to retain Macomber’s services in three specific areas: NIC policies, the college president’s summer 2023 evaluation and an investigation into an unspecified personnel matter.

Multiple sources have indicated to The Press that the personnel matter under Macomber’s purview is related to Rumpler and may involve allegations of retaliation against her by Swayne.

Macomber did not immediately answer when asked by email by The Press whether he reached out to the newspaper as legal counsel for North Idaho College or as legal counsel for Rumpler.

Rumpler’s resignation announcement comes in the middle of a two-year employment contract, according to public records obtained by The Press.

In July, following a lawsuit, First District Judge John T. Mitchell ordered NIC to turn over a number of employment agreements to The Press, including Rumpler’s.

The Press submitted a public records request Jan. 4 for the employment contracts of some members of the president’s cabinet, as well some temporary hires who were brought on board by former interim president Greg South.

NIC denied the requests on the grounds that the contracts were “personnel records” and therefore exempt from disclosure under Idaho’s sunshine laws. Rumpler was also the college’s public records custodian.

In late January, the college launched a new “resource page” on its website, which stated “NIC does not release contracts or agreements or any other documents within an employee’s personnel file.”

The Press sued the college and Rumpler for the records in February.

Rumpler testified in July that she understands Idaho public record laws to mean that any documents in any employee’s personnel file cannot be released, including employment agreements.

The court disagreed.

“It is quite clear to the court that the employment contracts are not exempt,” Mitchell said.

Examination of the records revealed that Rumpler’s contract is different, not only from the other employment agreements requested by the newspaper, but from nearly all other NIC employment agreements.

Rumpler began employment at North Idaho College on Jan. 9, 2017, with a starting salary of $103,668. Her annual pay increased to $133,794, effective June 19 of this year. That date is consistent with the effective date of the annual pay increase for most other college staff.

She signed a two-year “retention contract” for employment that runs from April 30, 2022, to June 23, 2024.

The contract, which was signed by former interim president Michael Sebaaly, says NIC would reclassify Rumpler’s position to align with “the level of responsibility, autonomy, decision-making, skillset and representation of an associate vice president or vice president.”

NIC later confirmed that Rumpler’s position was no longer being reclassified.

No one else received a “retention contract” for employment within the last year, NIC confirmed. With the exception of Rumpler, only the college president and interim president have contracts longer than one year.

Unlike other NIC employment agreements reviewed by The Press, Rumpler’s was notarized.

North Idaho College is reportedly working to cover Rumpler’s responsibilities on an interim basis, and it will likely publically post the position in a few weeks.

From the Coeur d’Alene Press

From the Idaho Press

By LAURA GUIDO

BOISE — A judge has ruled that neither Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador nor his solicitor general is allowed to prosecute a case against the State Board of Education in an open meetings law case.

Ada County District Court Judge Jason Scott entered the ruling Friday, court documents show. To pursue litigation against the board for executive sessions regarding the University of Idaho’s bid to purchase the University of Phoenix, Labrador will need to appoint either outside counsel or someone else in his office.

The ruling was first reported by Idaho Education News.

The ruling came one day after the judge heard arguments on the board’s motion to disqualify Labrador from the case, alleging he sought confidential information from the board’s executive director before disclosing his intent to sue. The defendants also argued his office had a conflict because a deputy attorney general assigned to the board had advised members that the closed meetings in question were legal.

Labrador, in a statement posted to Twitter, said he was “pleased with the Court’s decision because it ensures I can do my job and represent the people of Idaho.”

He said the decision confirmed his office’s authority to enforce Idaho’s Open Meetings Law.

“This is an important ruling that will bring greater transparency and accountability to state government,” Labrador wrote. “… I respect the Court’s decision to act cautiously and have ordered certain attorneys in my office to be screened from participating in the Open Meetings lawsuit against the Board. The rest of my office will vigorously enforce the law and defend the people’s right to transparent government.”

Scott wrote in his ruling that the main issue was the phone call that took place with Labrador, Solicitor General Theo Wold, Deputy Attorney General Jenifer Marcus, and board Executive Director Matt Freeman on June 20, hours before the lawsuit against the board was filed.

The judge noted that the accounts of the call provided to the court are distinctly different; Freeman wrote that he “shared information openly and candidly” with Labrador in response to “probing questions” about the meetings in question, and didn’t learn of the lawsuit until the end of the call. Wold wrote in his testimony that the lawsuit was disclosed at the beginning of the conversation and that they at no point sought privileged or confidential information.

Labrador and Marcus did not submit their own accounts of what happened on the call.

Scott wrote he found Freeman’s account “more plausible.”

“(Freeman) says he spoke freely,” the ruling states. “A person in his position would be expected to clam up in response to an announced intention to file suit.”

He also wrote that the claim that Labrador sought no privileged information was “of dubious accuracy,” because by law, Labrador and his employees are lawyers for the state board and communications between the lawyers and their client are privileged.

“The prospect that the Attorney General’s office could or would use client confidences in litigation against a client undermines the trust placed in the office by government agencies and the public alike,” Scott said.

Scott disagreed with the defendants’ argument that Marcus’ conflict in the case was a reason to disqualify the rest of the office.

“Though it is jarring for an attorney general to sue a client of his office for following the advice of one of his deputies, Attorney General Labrador and members of his office other than Deputy Attorney General Marcus are not ethically prohibited from serving as counsel simply because he is suing the Board of Regents for following her advice.”

Scott also disqualified attorney Timothy Longfield from the case but denied the board’s request to disqualify everyone in the office.

Labrador has until Sept. 5 to appoint new counsel or the case will be dismissed.

THE CASE

The lawsuit centers on an executive session held by the state board, acting in its capacity as the Board of Regents for the University of Idaho, in regard to a proposed acquisition of the online higher education school.

The meeting was held May 15 under Idaho’s exemption under the Open Meetings Law that allows closed meetings to “consider preliminary negotiations involving matters of trade or commerce in which the governing body is in competition with governing bodies in other states or nations.”

Labrador’s lawsuit alleges that the negotiations at that point weren’t “preliminary,” because the board voted three days later to allow the deal to move forward. It also argues that no other entities were in competition for the sale at that point.

UI and the University of Phoenix have since told the court that negotiations were still considered preliminary, especially because the deal has not yet been finalized, and that there are other entities still interested in purchasing the online school.

Those involved in negotiations had been under strict non-disclosure agreements, and many other officials and the public were largely unaware of the proposal until the day before the board voted to move it forward.

The May 18 vote allowed the university to create a not-for-profit corporation that would execute the sale and oversee the university if the transaction goes forward.

The transaction still requires approval from both schools’ accreditors.

From the Idaho Press

From the Coeur d’Alene Press

Shortly after Idaho’s attorney general was sworn in, The Press made a request on behalf of all Idahoans.

The Jan. 22 Press editorial opened with this:

“Here’s a formal request to new Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador to continue something his predecessor did, resulting in great public benefit.

“For years, former AG Lawrence Wasden and his right-hand lawyer, Brian Kane, joined esteemed journalist Betsy Russell in taking their public records/open meetings show on the road.”

Impetus for the editorial was this newspaper’s difficult decision to sue an institution it usually defends ardently. North Idaho College attorney Art Macomber and the NIC employee responsible for fulfilling public record requests illegally withheld information The Press had rightfully requested, an assertion upheld some six months later by Judge John T. Mitchell.

The Press editorial request in January persuaded Labrador not one bit. While Labrador looks the other way on serious public record and open meeting issues — except in his bitter dispute with the University of Idaho and the State Board of Education — former champions of transparency and public service are stepping up once again.

Kane and Russell are resurrecting a statewide campaign to help everyone — elected officials, public employees and the constituents they serve — understand how the state’s public records and open meetings laws work.

Only this time, instead of former AG Wasden, their transparency quest is being bolstered by two other outstanding state officials: Controller Brandon Woolf and Secretary of State Phil McGrane.

Kane and Russell will explain public record and open meeting laws in separate workshops, while Woolf will dive into accessing all kinds of public information and McGrane will explain campaign finance and lobbying rules and ways to get that data.

The Press applauds all four of these individuals and Idaho Citizens for Open Government. It’s our hope that people from all sectors of public and private life take advantage of these live-streamed opportunities to make our state stronger.

Here’s the transparency workshop schedule:

Wednesday, Aug. 30, 9 a.m. Pacific time — Transparent Idaho/Townhall Idaho: How to access public data, meeting info online for free. Presenter: Brandon Woolf, Idaho State Controller.

Wednesday, Sept. 27, 9 a.m. — Campaign Finance & Lobbying: The rules and how to access data. Presenter: Phil McGrane, Idaho Secretary of State.

Wednesday, Oct. 25, 9 a.m. — Idaho Open Meeting Law. Presenters: Brian Kane, former Chief Deputy Idaho Attorney General, and Betsy Russell, IDOG president.

Wednesday, Nov. 28, 9 a.m. — Idaho Public Records Act. Presenters: Brian Kane, former Chief Deputy Idaho Attorney General, and Betsy Russell, IDOG president.

To register for the sessions, visit https://openidaho.org/ or contact the Controller’s Office at 208-334-3100, Option 0.

And here’s the Jan. 22, 2023 Press editorial: https://shorturl.at/dxTVX

From the Coeur d’Alene Press

From the Coeur d’Alene Press

COEUR d’ALENE — A Kootenai County judge has ordered North Idaho College to turn over certain public records to the Coeur d’Alene Press, following a lawsuit.

Judge John T. Mitchell ruled Wednesday that NIC must produce a number of employment contracts, as well as several unredacted invoices from college legal counsel.

The lawsuit, filed in February by attorneys for the Coeur d’Alene Press, alleged that NIC and chief communications officer Laura Rumpler violated Idaho’s public record laws multiple times by not fulfilling in whole, or in part, lawful requests for public records made by the newspaper.

The suit also alleged that NIC and Rumpler failed to comply with mandatory timeframes for responding to the newspaper’s public records requests.

North Idaho College denied the requests for employment agreements on the grounds that the contracts were “personnel records” and therefore exempt from disclosure under Idaho’s sunshine laws. The court rejected this reasoning.

“It is quite clear to the court that the employment contracts are not exempt,” Mitchell said Wednesday.

The Press also requested copies of invoices from NIC’s legal counsel, including the December 2022 and January 2023 invoices from attorney Art Macomber. When NIC provided the invoices, they were heavily redacted with many lines blacked out.

After reviewing fully unredacted invoices that were filed under seal with the court, Mitchell determined that several of the redactions made by NIC must be removed.

Mitchell requested briefs from each of the attorneys detailing arguments whether the court should award attorney fees to the Coeur d’Alene Press. The judge will consider the issue Aug. 3.

From the Coeur d’Alene Press

From the Associated Press

By REBECCA BOONE – Associated Press

An Idaho judge has denied a request from roughly two dozen news organizations to lift a gag order in the criminal case of a man accused of stabbing four University of Idaho students to death. The judge did, however, significantly narrow the gag order in response to the news organizations’ concerns.

The ruling was handed down late Friday afternoon.

In it, 2nd District Judge John Judge said it was legally prudent to restrict attorneys from making some statements about the case in order to preserve Bryan Kohberger’s right to a fair trial. Still, Judge also said the original gag order — which also barred law enforcement officers and other people tangentially related to the case from speaking to the press — was “arguably overbroad and vague in some areas.”

Kohberger, 28, is charged with four counts of first-degree murder and burglary in connection with the stabbing deaths in Moscow, Idaho. Prosecutors have yet to reveal if they intend to seek the death penalty.

The bodies of Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin were found on Nov. 13, 2022, at a rental home across the street from the University of Idaho campus. The slayings shocked the rural Idaho community and neighboring Pullman, Washington, where Kohberger was a graduate student studying criminology at Washington State University.

The case garnered widespread publicity, and in January Latah County Magistrate Judge Megan Marshall issued the sweeping gag order that has barred attorneys, law enforcement agencies and others associated with the case from talking or writing about it.

A coalition of 30 news organizations including The Associated Press asked the Idaho Supreme Court earlier this year to reject the gag order, contending it violates the First Amendment rights of a free press. The high court declined to weigh in on whether the gag order violates the news organizations’ Constitutional rights, and said the media coalition should first ask the lower court to lift the order before asking the Idaho Supreme Court to step in.

“This Court has long respected the media’s role in our constitutional republic, and honored the promises in both the Idaho Constitution and First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” Justice Gregory Moeller wrote in the high court’s decision. He went on to quote a ruling from a federal case that said responsible press coverage, “guards against the miscarriage of justice” by subjecting the court system and those who are a part of it to public scrutiny.

In Friday’s ruling, the 2nd District judge said the gag order served a legitimate purpose and “the very limited incidental effects of the speech restrictions on the media’s First Amendment rights are overridden by the compelling interest in ensuring fair trial by an impartial jury.”

The new gag order — formally called a “nondissemination order” — prohibits any attorneys representing parties, victims or witnesses in the case from making statements that could have a “substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing or otherwise influencing the outcome of the case.”

The attorneys are allowed to comment about things like procedural issues, scheduling and make statements that a lawyer would reasonably believe is required to protect their client from substantial prejudicial effects of recent publicity — for instance, they can likely make public comments correcting misinformation about their client.

They cannot express opinions about the guilt or innocence of a defendant outside of the courtroom, and they can’t share information that they know wouldn’t be allowed in court. They also can’t talk about the character of a witness, expected testimony, the likelihood of a plea deal or other case-related matters.

“We are pleased that the Court significantly narrowed the nondissemination order, a clear recognition that the initial order was overbroad,” said Wendy Olson, the attorney representing the media coalition. “We all agree that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights are important but that in preserving those rights, nether the parties nor the courts can completely cast aside the First Amendment rights of the press. The press in cases like this one provide important transparency regarding how the criminal justice system works.”

The judge also denied a gag order-related request from an attorney representing one of the victims’ families. Shanon Gray, who represents the Goncalves family, asked to be excluded from the gag order so that he could talk to the press on the family’s behalf.

In the ruling, Judge noted that as an attorney, Gray could have access to confidential information about the case that would be prejudicial if it was released to the public.

From the Associated Press

From the Moscow-Pullman Daily News

by ANTHONY KUIPERS

Originally published June 7 in the Moscow-Pullman Daily News.

The media coalition urging Latah County 2nd District Court to end a gag order in the Bryan Kohberger case filed another motion arguing it creates “a vacuum for rampant speculation online.”

Since Magistrate Judge Megan Marshall signed a gag order in January prohibiting attorneys and law enforcement involved in the case from speaking publicly about it, media organizations argue it violates their First Amendment rights.

According to the gag order, as well as Kohberger’s attorneys, it is necessary to protect Kohberger’s right to a fair trial.

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.

His jury trial is scheduled for Oct. 2.

On Friday, Latah County District Judge John Judge will preside over a hearing where the media coalition will make its argument to vacate the order. Judge will also hear arguments from the Goncalves family attorney, Shanon Gray, who sought a hearing to amend the gag order so he can speak to the public on behalf of his clients.

Wendy Olson and Cory Carone, the attorneys for the media coalition, wrote a recently released memorandum to support the argument that the gag order should be vacated. They are urging the judge to balance the First Amendment right with Kohberger’s Sixth Amendment right.

“The State’s and Mr. Kohberger’s failure to present any evidence of prejudicial news coverage, and the Court’s failure to consider alternative measures, means the competing constitutional rights here were improperly balanced and the Gag Order should be vacated,” the memorandum says. “If anything, the Gag Order prejudices Mr. Kohberger by depriving the public of quality information, creating a vacuum for rampant speculation online.”

Olson and Carone argue that Kohberger and the Latah County Prosecutor’s Office did not submit evidence when the gag order was first issued. Therefore, the memorandum states, they should not be allowed to “ambush” the media with evidence they should have disclosed earlier.

The media coalition also filed statements from reporters giving examples of ways they were denied information because of the gag order. The examples include police officials declining to answer their questions and denying public records requests.

A June 27 court date has been set to discuss Kohberger’s request to release the record of the grand jury proceedings, including transcripts and the list of jurors. Kohberger was indicted by a grand jury May 17, which led to his arraignment May 22. Judge entered a not guilty plea on Kohberger’s behalf during his arraignment after Kohberger chose to stand silent rather than enter a plea.

From the Moscow-Pullman Daily News