Wendy J. Olson

While we are disappointed that the court denied the petition, the media coalition now has a clear path under Idaho law to challenge the gag order and vindicate these important First Amendment rights.

Wendy Olson, the attorney representing the news coalition, said the Idaho Supreme Court ruling means the news coalition could now go to the magistrate judge to ask her to reconsider the gag order.

The coalition has not yet announced any next steps, so it's going to be interesting to see what they do.

and getting slapped down at the Supreme Court, well, that's not the end of it, like it says here.

But when you get a bit overbroad like this and you exceed the scope of what the gag orders are supposed to be and what they're supposed to do, that's when I take issue.

Despite great public interest in the investigation of the murders and now the prosecution of Mr. Kohlberger, there have not been any notable leaks or dissemination of extrajudicial information that would prejudice Mr. Kohlberger's right to a fair trial, said Wendy Olson, the attorney representing the coalition, in a statement to the court.

And she's correct.

All of the so-called quote-unquote leaks that we have seen so far, they really aren't going to bear much, right? They're not going to turn the case one way or the other.

That is, the Idaho Supreme Court declined to exercise its original jurisdiction to because both the state and federal courts often permit the media to intervene in criminal cases on a limited basis, or at least file a motion as interested parties in the defense of public access and free speech, including in Idaho.

Following the Idaho Supreme Court's directive, and for the reasons provided in the memorandum, a coalition of media companies, the Associated Press, Radio Television, Digital News Association, Sinclair Media of Boise, LLC, KBOI-TV, Boise, States Newsrooms, DBA, Idaho Capital Sun, Tegna Incorporated, KREM Spokane, KTVB Boise, and King Seattle, EastIdahoNews.com, The Lewiston Tribune, Washington State Association of Broadcasters, Idaho Press Club, Idaho Education News, KXLY-TV4, NewsNow, and KAPP-KVEW-TV, Morgan Murphy Media, KXLY-TV4, NewsNow, and Scripps Media Incorporated, KIVITV, a Delaware corporation, The Spokesman Review, Cal's corporation, The New York Times Company, Law News, Inc., ABC, Inc., WP Company, LLC, The Washington Post, Society of Professional Journalists, The McClatchy Company, LLC, and The Seattle Times, collectively interveners, moved to intervene for the limited purpose of vindicating their First Amendment rights by filing a contemporaneous motion to vacate the amended non-dissemination order.

This was dated on May 1st, 2023, and it was signed by Wendy Olson, who is the attorney for the interveners.

The next document we have is the motion to vacate the amended non-dissemination order.

If indeed an evidentiary hearing is the next step to determine whether a gag order is needed, no gag order should be enforced in advance of that hearing.

And this document was signed by Wendy Olson, who is the lawyer for the AP and the media.

Document is the order setting briefing schedule and scheduling oral argument.

State of Idaho plaintiff versus Brian Kohlberger, the defendant.

What's up with people who are tuning in? Why would anyone want to listen to what a psychic has to say about a murder case like this? Unless, of course, again, you're chasing your own bias.

Wendy J. Olson, the professor's attorney... called the statements false, plain and simple.

She said her client sent the TikTok creator two cease and desist letters, but she has continued to make false statements knowing they are false.

And it's one thing to be wrong, right? And to admit when you're wrong and say, hey, look, I should take that content down.

What's up with people who are tuning in? Why would anyone wanna listen to what a, a psychic has to say about a murder case like this? Unless, of course, again, you're chasing your own bias.

"Wendy J. Olson, the professor's attorney, called the statements false, plain, and simple.

She said her client sent the TikTok creator two cease and desist letters, but she has continued to make false statements knowing they are false." And it's one thing to be wrong, right? And to admit when you're wrong and say, "Hey, look, I should take that content down.

That was wrong.

What's up with people who are tuning in? Why would anyone wanna listen to what a, a psychic has to say about a murder case like this? Unless, of course, again, you're chasing your own bias.

Wendy J. Olson, the professor's attorney, called the statements false, plain and simple.

She said her client sent the TikTok creator two cease and desist letters, but she has continued to make false statements knowing they are false.

And it's one thing to be wrong, right? And to admit when you're wrong and say, "Hey, look, I should take that content down.