Idaho Supreme Court

So the gag order in the Brian Koberger trial will remain.

The Idaho Supreme Court has weighed in and they have made their decision.

So let's dive into this article and let's take a look at the decision to uphold the gag order in the case of Brian Koberger.

This article was published by CBS News and this article was authored by Kerry Breen.

The Idaho Supreme Court on Monday rejected a request by 30 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 high court did not weigh on whether the gag order, which prohibits attorneys, prosecutors, law enforcement agencies and others involved in the case from talking to the news media, violates the First Amendment rights of a free press.

Instead, the unanimous Idaho Supreme Court justices said the news organizations should have brought their request to the magistrate judge who issued the gag order.

And this was the argument that was made by the state.

The case was moved earlier this month following a decision by Judge John Judge of the Idaho 2nd Judicial District that stipulated the high-profile trial be moved out of Latah County because of, among other things, a lack of resources.

He also stepped down from the case, leaving the Idaho Supreme Court to select a new venue and a new judge.

And I know that there were people that were critical of Judge John Judge, but be careful what you wish for.

We don't know what Hipler is going to be like.

So yeah, I completely understand the frustration by the families and the anger by some of them.

That hearing took place after the status conference, which ended without new trial dates being set.

Nay Papino, Idaho Supreme Court communications manager, told the Idaho statesman that Hipler likely would issue a written order once he had made a ruling.

So obviously we'll keep an eye on that.

It might be 20 minutes long, might be half hour, might be five minutes, but I don't think it will go any farther than that.

And then what he can possibly do then would make an appeal from that decision to the Idaho Supreme Court.

But I don't see it going any farther than this.

He may because what he's alleging really is that he had incompetent counsel and that he listened, unfortunately and unwisely to incompetent counsel.

Idaho Code Section 18-207 is not limited to the admission of either direct or rebuttal expert testimony to elements of the crime, State v. Samuel 165, Idaho, 2019.

Because of the statute's broad application, the Idaho Supreme Court has determined that Idaho Code Section 18-207 applies to legal proceedings before trial, including pretrial motions.

The threshold test for the admission of expert testimony is whether the scientific or other specialized knowledge of the expert will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact at issue.

IRE 702 The function of the expert is to provide testimony that is beyond the common sense, experience, and education of the average juror.

Idaho Code Section 18-207 is not limited to the admission of either direct or rebuttal expert testimony to elements of the crime, State v. Samuel 165, Idaho, 2019.

Because of the statute's broad application, the Idaho Supreme Court has determined that Idaho Code Section 18-207 applies to legal proceedings before trial, including pretrial motions.

The threshold test for the admission of expert testimony is whether the scientific or other specialized knowledge of the expert will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact at issue.

IRE 702 The function of the expert is to provide testimony that is beyond the common sense, experience, and education of the average juror.

You're listening to Idaho Matters.

The Idaho Supreme Court has once again stepped into a fight over how an abortion rights initiative will be described to voters this fall.

The court ruled unanimously Friday that Attorney General Raul Labrador and Secretary of State Phil McGrain failed failed to write clear and accurate statements explaining what a yes or no vote on Proposition 1 would actually do.

The justices said the original language left out important parts of the initiative and made some of those exceptions under Idaho's current abortion ban sound broader than they actually are.

It feels like on both sides now with that language.

Yeah, except for Justice Colleen Zahn dissented in one of those rare moves.

Usually the Idaho Supreme Court is pretty unanimous in its decision, but she made a dissent, wrote a few pages on that saying that You know, the no statement refers to fetuses as, quote, preborn children, which appears elsewhere in Idaho law and is defined as, you know, life begins at conception, et cetera, et cetera.

But it is not present in Idaho's abortion law.