An Idaho judge ruled on Thursday that the gag order in the Bryan Kohberger murder trial was likely violated, pointing to a breach of confidentiality by someone associated with law enforcement or the prosecution. The court’s determination was prompted by a recent TV episode that aired in May, which aired new details about the case, including sensitive information shared by officials. This episode, part of a Dateline special titled “Car Similar to Bryan Kohberger’s Seen Near Victims’ Home Multiple Times Just Before Alleged Killings,” brought new evidence such as cell phone records, search logs, and surveillance footage into the public sphere, raising significant concerns about the integrity of the trial. The judge, Steven Hippler, warned that such breaches could undermine the judicial process and make it significantly harder to find an impartial jury.
Hippler’s ruling came after the episode’s broadcast, which featured the first public release of information previously sealed under the gag order. The judge ordered that anyone involved in the prosecution or law enforcement in the case must retain all communications and data related to the investigation, emphasizing the need for greater transparency and accountability. He also noted that any future violations of the gag order could lead to the appointment of a special prosecutor, who could seek a subpoena to obtain more details. Despite not explicitly mentioning the episode during the hearing, Hippler expressed openness to exploring this option as a means to ensure that the trial remains free from prejudicial information.
The episode’s impact on the trial was evident in the judge’s decision to increase the number of alternate jurors from six to eight, reflecting the heightened sensitivity of the case. Hippler highlighted that the release of such information not only compromises the judicial process but also increases the financial burden on Latah County taxpayers by extending the trial and potentially requiring lengthy juror sequestration. This has led to a growing concern about the need to protect the integrity of legal proceedings while balancing the public’s right to information.