Declaration of Wendy Olson

Electronically Filed
5/1/2023 4:57 PM

Second Judicial District, Latah County Julie Fry, Clerk of the Court
By: Jennifer Oliphant, Deputy Clerk Wendy J. Olson, Bar No. 7634 wendy.olson@stoel.com Cory M. Carone, Bar No. 11422 cory.carone@stoel.com
STOEL RIVES LLP

101 S. Capitol Boulevard, Suite 1900 Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: 208.389.9000
Facsimile: 208.389.9040 Attorneys for Intervenors
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE
STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LATAH

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff, Case No. CR29-22-2805 V. Declaration of Wendy J. Olson in Support of Motion to Vacate the Amended BRYAN C. KOHBERGER, Nondissemination Order Defendant.

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS; RADIO

TELEVISION DIGITAL NEWS

ASSOCIATION; SINCLAIR MEDIA OF

BOISE, LLC / KBOI-TV (BOISE); STATES

NEWSROOM DBA IDAHO CAPITAL SUN;

TEGNA INC./KREM (SPOKANE), KTVB

(BOISE) AND KING (SEATTLE);

EASTIDAHONEWS.COM; THE LEWISTON

TRIBUNE; WASHINGTON STATE

ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS;

IDAHO PRESS CLUB; IDAHO EDUCATION

NEWS; KXLY-TV / 4 NEWS NOW AND

KAPP / KVEW-TV — MORGAN MURPHY

MEDIA KXLY-TV / 4 NEWS NOW; SCRIPPS

MEDIA, INC., DBA KIVI-TV, A DELAWARE

Declaration of Wendy J. Olson in Support of Motion to Vacate the Amended Nondissemination Order-1

CORPORATION; THE SPOKESMAN-

REVIEW / COWLES COMPANY; THE NEW

YORK TIMES COMPANY; LAWNEWZ,

INC.; ABC, INC.; WP COMPANY LLC, DBA

THE WASHINGTON POST; SOCIETY OF

PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS; THE

MCCLATCHY COMPANY, LLC; and THE
SEATTLE TIMES,

Intervenors.

I, Wendy J. Olson, declare and state as follows:
1. I am a partner with the law firm of Stoel Rives LLP, counsel for Petitioners in the above-captioned matter. As such, I have personal knowledge of the facts and statements contained in this declaration. I submit this declaration in support of the Motion to Vacate or Amend the Amended Nondissemination Order.

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a filing in State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger, case no. CR29-22-2805.

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a filing in State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger, case no. CR29-22-2805.

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a filing in State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger, case no. CR29-22-2805.

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of a filing in State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger, case no. CR29-22-2805.

6. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of a filing in State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger, case no. CR29-22-2805.

7. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of a filing in Whitcom 911 v. Nash Holdings, LLC d / b / a The Washington Post, case no. 23-2-00042-38.

Declaration of Wendy J. Olson in Support of Motion to Vacate the Amended Nondissemination Order-2

8. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of a press release from the Moscow Police Department.

9. During the course of representing the media outlets who are challenging this Court's Gag Order, I have been informed of the following by them:
a. A victim's family wants to speak with the press about Mr. Kohberger's prosecution, but they feel bound by the gag order.

b. Major Christopher Paris of the Pennsylvania State Police told reporter Chris Ingalls that he could not answer whether police had launched any review of unsolved cases that could be linked to Mr. Kohberger because of the gag order.

c. Moscow Mayor Art Bettge told reporter Erica Zucco that the city attorney advised he could not answer questions about the overall community healing in Moscow because of the gag order.

d. Journalist Taylor Mirfendereski's public records requests were denied by the Latah County's Sheriff's Office, Moscow Police Department, Pullman Police Department, and Washington State Police Department because of the gag order.

e. Gary Jenkins, Chief of Police at Washington State University, and Matt Young, Communication Coordinator for the City of Pullman, told reporter Morgan Romero that they could not answer whether Mr. Kohberger applied for a graduate assistant research position with the Pullman Police Department because of the gag order.

f. The Moscow Police Department refused to advise a reporter from the Idaho Statesman how many cellphone towers are in the area near where the murders Declaration of Wendy J. Olson in Support of Motion to Vacate the Amended Nondissemination Order-3

occurred, the size of Mr. Kohberger's cell, the size of the Moscow jail, and the nature of Mr. Kohberger's meals because of the gag order.

g. Law & Crime reporter Angenette Levy was denied access to Kohberger's booking video from the Latah County Sheriff's Office because of the " court's non-dissemination order ".

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Idaho that the foregoing is true and correct.

DATED: May 1, 2023. STOEL RIVES LLP / s / Wendy J. Olson Wendy J. Olson Attorneys for Intervenors Declaration of Wendy J. Olson in Support of Motion to Vacate the Amended Nondissemination Order-4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 1st day of May 2023, I served a true and correct copy of the within and foregoing DECLARATION OF WENDY J. OLSON IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO VACATE OR AMEND THE AMENDED NONDISSEMINATION ORDER
upon the following named parties by the method indicated below, and addressed to the following:
Latah County Prosecutor's Office Hand Delivered William W. Thompson, Jr. Mailed Postage Prepaid Prosecuting Attorney Via Facsimile Latah County Courthouse U.S. Mail P.O. Box 8068 Via email Moscow, ID 83843 X Via iCourt efile & serve at:
paservice@latahcounty.id.gov Anne Taylor Hand Delivered Attorney at Law Mailed Postage Prepaid P.O. Box 9000 Via Facsimile Coeur d'Alene, ID 83816 U.S. Mail X Via email at ataylor@kcgov.us Via iCourt efile & serve at:
pdfax@kcgov.us Jeff Nye Hand Delivered Deputy Attorney General Mailed Postage Prepaid P.O. Box 83720 Via Facsimile Boise, ID 83720 U.S. Mail X Via email at jeff.nye@ag.idaho.gov Via iCourt efile & serve at:
Shanon Gray Hand Delivered 2175 N. Mountain View Road Mailed Postage Prepaid Moscow, ID 83843 Via Facsimile U.S. Mail Via email X Via iCourt efile & serve at:
shanon@graylaw.org / s / Wendy J. Olson Wendy J. Olson Declaration of Wendy J. Olson in Support of Motion to Vacate the Amended Nondissemination Order-5

EXHIBIT A

Electronically Filed
1/3/2023 3:48 PM

Second Judicial District, Latah County Tonya Dodge, Clerk of the Court
By: Tonya Dodge, Deputy Clerk Anne C. Taylor, Public Defender Kootenai County Public Defender PO Box 9000 Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816
Phone: (208) 446-1700; Fax: (208) 446-1701
Bar Number: 5836 iCourt Email: pdfax@kcgov.us Assigned Attorney:
Anne C. Taylor, Public Defender, Bar Number: 5836 Jay Weston Logsdon, Chief Deputy Litigation, Bar Number: 8759
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE
STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LATAH

STATE OF IDAHO, Case No. CR29-22-2805 Plaintiff,
V. STIPULATION FOR

NONDISSEMINATION ORDER

BRYAN C. KOHBERGER

Defendant.

COMES NOW, Bryan C. Kohberger, by and through his undersigned attorneys, Anne C.

Taylor, Public Defender and Jay Weston Logsdon, Chief Deputy Litigation, and Latah County Prosecutor William W. Thompson, Jr., and hereby stipulate to the issuance of a nondissemination order prohibiting attorneys, investigators, and law enforcement personnel from making any extrajudicial statement, written or oral, concerning this case, other than a quotation from or reference to, without comment, the public records of the Court in this case.

This stipulation is based on the Sixth Amendment and the Defendant's and State's interests under both the Idaho and U. S. Constitution. This Court has both a constitutional duty and the
STIPULATION FOR NONDISSEMINATION ORDER 1

inherent authority to " minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity " and " to ensure the efficacious administration ofjustice. " Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368,377 (1979); Hall v.

State. 151 Idaho 42,46 (2011).

As this Court is aware, this case involves matters that have received a great deal of publicity.

The United States Supreme Court has identified nondissemination orders as being properly narrowly tailored as well as the least restrictive means to ensure a fair trial in the view of First Amendment protections. Nebraska Press Ass ' nv. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976); Sheppard v.

Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333,361 (1966).

Therefore the parties stipulate that a nondissemination order be issued to protect against adversely affecting the integrity of the case to be presented at trial.

SO STIPULATED 1/3/2023

an
1/3/23 Anne C. Taylor William W. Thompson, Jr.

Kootenai County Public Defender Latah County Prosecuting Attorney
STIPULATION FOR NONDISSEMINATION ORDER 2

EXHIBIT В

Filed: 01/03/2023 17:20:41 Second Judicial District, Latah County Tonya Dodge, Clerk of the Court
By: Deputy Clerk-Dodge, Tonya
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIALDISTRICT OF THE

STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LATAH

STATE OF IDAHO, Case No. CR29-22-2805 Plaintiff,
V. NONDISSEMINATION ORDER

BRYAN C. KOHBERGER

Defendant.

The Court, by stipulation of the parties, enters its Order as follows:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties to the above titled action, including investigators, law enforcement personnel, attorneys, and agents of the prosecuting attorney or defense attorney, are prohibited from making extrajudicial statements, written or oral, concerning this case, other than a quotation from or reference to, without comment, the public records of the case.

This order specifically prohibits any statement, which a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication that relates to the following:
1. Evidence regarding the occurrences or transactions involved in this case;
2. The character, credibility, or criminal record of a party;
3. The performance or results of any exmninations or tests or the refusal or failure of a party to submit to such tests or exmninations;
NONDISSEMINATION ORDER 1

4. Any opinion as to the merits of the case or the claims or defense of a party;
5. Any other matter reasonably likely to interfere with a fair trial of this case, such as, but not limited to, the existence or contents of any confession, admission, or statement give by the Defendant, the possibility of a plea of guilt to the charged offense or a lesser offense, or any opinion as to the Defendant's guilt or innocence.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no person covered by this order shall avoid its proscriptions by actions that indirectly, but deliberately, cause a violation of this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order, and all provisions thereof, shall remain in full force and effect throughoutthese proceedings, until such time as a verdict has been returned, unless modified by this court.

SO ORDERED 1/3/2023 4:58:57 PM

Mashall Magistrate Judge
NONDISSEMINATION ORDER 2

EXHIBITC

Electronically Filed
2/24/2023 10:09 AM

Second Judicial District, Latah County Julie Fry, Clerk of the Court
By: Jennifer Oliphant, Deputy Clerk
LATAH COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, JR.

PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

Latah County Courthouse P.O. Box 8068 Moscow, ID 83843
Phone: (208) 883-2246 ISB No. 2613 paservice@latah.id.us
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE
STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LATAH

STATE OF IDAHO, Case No. CR29-22-2805 Plaintiff,
V. STIPULATION TO UNSEAL

WITH REDACTIONS

BRYAN C. KOHBERGER

Defendant.

COME NOW the State of Idaho, by and through the Latah County Prosecuting Attorney, and the above-named Defendant, by and through his undersigned attorney of record, and hereby stipulate to the Court unsealing the attached redacted copy of the " Memo " summarizing a January 13, 2023, In Chambers conference which was filed under seal on January 20, 2023. The redactions are pursuant to Idaho Court Administrative Rule 32 (i) (2) (D) in that, given the extent of threats and harassment of potential witnesses, disclosure of the redacted potential witnesses ' names and their representative's names at this
STIPULATION TO UNSEAL

WITH REDACTIONS: 1

time might threaten or endanger their life or safety.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 24 20 day of February, 2023.

William W. Thompson, Jr. Anne Taylor Prosecuting Attorney Attorney for Defendant
STIPULATION TO UNSEAL

WITH REDACTIONS: 2

The following is a summary of the in chambers Zoom meeting with Judge Marshall on January 13, 2023:
The following attorneys were present and attending by Zoom: Bill Thompson (Prosecutor), Ashley Jennings (Senior Deputy Prosecutor) attorney for ███████████████
██████████████████ (co-counsel / attorney for ███████████████████ attorney for
██████████████████ Shanon Gray (attorney or Goncalves family), and Anne Taylor (public defender for Bryan Kohberger). Judge Marshall's clerk, Jennifer Oliphant, was also present.

This meeting was off the record. Judge Marshall read the substantive parts the nondissemmation order that was issued on January 3, 2023. Judge Marshall reminded the parties that the order mirrors Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.6 which she then read.

Judge Marshall directed everyone's attention to the Commentary for the Rule, specifically subparagraphs 1 and 3.

Judge Marshall's states her reading of the Commentary 3 leads her to believe the rule applies to all lawyers participating in the Zoom meeting. This includes not only the State and the Defense, but also attorneys for witnesses.

Judge Marshall directed everyone's attention to the Commentary for the rule, specifically subparagraphs 5 and 7.

After a review of the Rule 3.6, Judge Marshall explained that the purpose for the meeting was in response to what she has been seeing and hearing from various media sources. She has tried to ignore most media covering the case since she will be presiding over the preliminary hearing. This case has garnered national and international attention. This is a high-profile case, and she wants to remind all attorneys not to engage in any conduct that would interfere with a fair trial.

Because of the nature of the case this will be a long process. She further advised it is not the responsibility of the attorneys in this case to disseminate information to the media. She is not ordering clients (i.e. witnesses) not to talk to the media but stressed this case should not be tried in the media but in the court of law. Lawyers involved need to " take their duties in utmost regard " when conducting themselves and advising their clients.

Judge Marshall stated she wanted to make her expectations clear regarding the lawyer's ethical duties (described above). If lawyers fail to adhere to their ethical duties, she will have to either find them in contempt of her order and / or report their actions to the Idaho State Bar.

Shanon Gray responded that he reached out after the Nondissemination Order was issued asking for clarification and he did not receive a response. He asked if the 1

order precludes victims / witnesses from speaking. Judge Marshall reiterated that her order does not preclude witnesses from speaking.

████████████████ responded that he expects his client, ████████████████ will be a witness in this case. He also expects that the decedents rammes win de witnesses in this case since it is a potential capital case and they would be called to testify.

He has handled numerous homicide cases, including capital cases, during his career. He assures the Court he has advised his client, ███████████ to decline all media and will continue to do that. He and his client and will not comment as it would be inappropriate to comment.

Judge Marshall appreciates ████████████ perspective. Judge Marshall reiterates she is not saying that clients cannot talk to the media but does question whether it is wise for them to talk to the media. Reminds lawyers they have a responsibility in giving advice to their clients. If any lawyer has questions about this, or takes issue with this, they should contact the Idaho State Bar and seek clarification.

Shanon Gray speaks about emailing the State and wanting to contact the Court to seek clarification. Mr. Gray stated he would seek clarity from the Idaho State Bar.

Judge Marshall responded that she appreciates Mr. Gray reaching out but that she has had limited accessibility with a full court calendar. This is why she scheduled this meeting.

Mr. Gray discusses PC Affidavit and alleges that information is getting leaked from the Prosecutor's Office.

Judge Marshall reminds the parties about IRPC 3.6 and the lawyers ' duties.

Lawyers should not be speculating. Judge Marshall clarifies that the public record is what is in the court's case file, it is not information reported by the media.

Judge Marshall clarifies that attorneys are not prohibited from advising their clients, but they are prohibited from speaking to the media (example: you can advise your client about what might happen at the status hearing; but you should not be speculating what will happen to the media).

Judge Marshall also reminds attorneys that their statements made must also be true.

Mr. Gray takes issue with the interpretation of " substantially prejudices " (referring to substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter). States his client (Goncalves) have kept " this story alive " and their " comments have helped the investigation. " Judge Marshall explains the necessity of convening an impartial jury in Latah County. The public is obsessed with this case and comments are harming the 2

ability to impanel a jury. All parties need to allow the judicial process to see this case through.

Mr. Gray responds that it is unrealistic to believe that we will find a jury in the U.S. that hasn't heard about this case. Mr. Gray takes issue that he was not given a lot of notice that we would be having this meeting. He was not given enough time to prepare.

Judge Marshall reminds the parties that the Constitution still applies in this case.

Lawyers have a duty to uphold the system and allow the system to see the case through.

████████████ reminds Mr. Gray that he is creating a record by his media interactions. His statements are being captured by the defense. All of his statements impact the case and advised Mr. Gray to exercise restraint. Mr. Gray takes issue with ████████████ s advice. Judge Marshall stops any argument.

Judge Marshall solicits final comments from those in attendance.

Prosecutor Thompson states that many of Mr. Gray's accusations are not true. The State is concerned about the ability to impanel a jury and have a fair trial. He is hopeful that all parties will begin to show professional responsibility.

███████████████████ states that she has advised ███████████████ not to comment. She takes ██████████████ position.

Anne Taylor thanks the court and expresses appreciation.

3

EXHIBIT D

CASE CLRK

JAN

NG OF

18
CR29-22-2805 DIST 2029

CT

DEPUTY PM4

.

LATAH: 29

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE
STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LATAH

STATE OF IDAHO, Case No. CR29-22-2805 Plaintiff,
VS. AMENDED

NONDISSEMINATION ORDER

BRYAN C. KOHBERGER,

Defendant.

There is a balance between protecting the right to a fair trial for all parties involved and the right to free expression as afforded under both the United States and Idaho Constitution. To preserve the right to a fair trial some curtailment of the dissemination of information in this case is necessary and authorized under the law. Therefore, based upon the stipulation of the parties and with good cause,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The attorneys for any interested party in this case, including the prosecuting attorney, defense attorney, and any attorney representing a witness, victim, or victim's family.

as well as the parties to the above entitled action