Court Filing
Electronically Filed
8/27/2026 6:48 PM
Fourth Judicial District, Ada County Trent Tripple, Clerk of the Court
By: Caterina Moritz Gutierrez, Deputy Clerk Gregory R. Rauch, ISB # 7389 Magyar, Rauch & Associates, PLLC 326 E 6th Street Moscow Idaho 83843
Tel: (208) 882-1906
Fax: (208) 882-4540 nppd@mralegal.com Attorneys for Petitioner
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE
OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ADA
BRYAN KOHBERGER, Case No.: CV01-26-15094 Petitioner, MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE
PURSUANT TO I.R.C.P. 40.1
VS.
STATE OF IDAHO,
Respondent.
COMES NOW Petitioner Bryan Kohberger (" Kohberger "), by and through undersigned counsel, Magyar, Rauch & Associates, PLLC, and respectfully moves pursuant to Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 40.1 (a) (1) (B) for an order changing the venue of this post-conviction proceeding to Latah County, Idaho.
Petitioner does not contend that this action was improperly commenced in Ada County.
The conviction was entered in Ada County, and Idaho Code sections 19-4902 (a) and 19-4907 (a) therefore required the post-conviction application to be filed and initially heard in the court in which the conviction took place. The narrower question presented by this motion is whether, after proper commencement, the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by transferring the civil post-conviction proceeding to Latah County.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE PURSUANT TO I.R.C.P. 40.1-1
CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS RELEVANT TO MOTION
1. The underlying criminal charges originated in Latah County, where Kohberger was indicted on four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary.
2. On September 6, 2024, the Honorable John C. Judge granted Kohberger's motion to change venue for the criminal trial. The order was based principally on concerns regarding the ability to seat an impartial jury in Latah County and the resources required to conduct the anticipated capital jury trial. A copy of that Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
3. Following the change of venue, the criminal case proceeded in Ada County before the Honorable Steven J. Hippler.
4. Kohberger signed a plea agreement on June 30, 2025, and entered guilty pleas in Ada County on July 2, 2025. Judgment was entered in Ada County on July 23, 2025.
5. Kohberger therefore properly commenced this post-conviction action in Ada County, the court in which the convictions were entered.
6. Both Petitioner's current counsel and Respondent's counsel maintain their offices in Moscow, Idaho. The underlying investigation and prosecution were centered in Latah County, and a substantial portion of the anticipated fact witnesses and custodians connected to the underlying investigation are located in or near northern Idaho.
7. Several attorneys whose conduct and advice are expected to be material to the ineffective-assistance and plea-related claims are also located in northern Idaho, including Anne Taylor and Jay Logsdon in Coeur d'Alene.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE PURSUANT TO I.R.C.P. 40.1-2
ARGUMENT
I. THE POST-CONVICTION ACTION WAS PROPERLY COMMENCED IN
ADA COUNTY, BUT I.R.C.P. RULE 40.1 EXPRESSLY PERMITS A LATER
DISCRETIONARY CHANGE OF VENUE.
Idaho Code section 19-4902 (a) provides that a post-conviction proceeding is commenced by filing a verified application " with the clerk of the district court in which the conviction took place. " I.C. §19-4907 (a) likewise provides that the application “ shall be heard in, and before any judge of, the court in which the conviction took place. ” Those provisions made Ada County the proper place to commence this case because Kohberger entered his pleas and the judgments of conviction were entered there.
That does not end the venue inquiry. Post-conviction actions are civil proceedings, and the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act expressly makes civil pretrial procedures available to the parties. I.C. § 19-4907 (a); see also I.C.R. 39 (b) (a post-conviction petition is filed as a separate civil case and processed under the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure except as otherwise ordered by the trial court). Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 40.1 (a) (1) (B), in turn, authorizes a court to change venue when satisfactory proof demonstrates that “ the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change. " Accordingly, Petitioner does not argue that Ada County was an “ improper county ” for the commencement of these proceedings. He asks the Court to exercise the discretionary authority Rule 40.1 (a) (1) (B) expressly provides.
II. THE 2024 CRIMINAL-TRIAL VENUE ORDER DOES NOT MAKE ADA
COUNTY THE PERMANENT FORUM FOR THE LATER CIVIL POST-
CONVICTION ACTION.
The September 6, 2024, order addressed a different problem in a different procedural setting. The criminal case was then headed toward a capital jury trial. Judge Judge concluded
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE PURSUANT TO I.R.C.P. 40.1-3
that the circumstances warranted transfer under Idaho Criminal Rule 21 because of concerns involving an impartial jury pool and the practical resources necessary to conduct the trial.
This proceeding presents no jury selection issue. A post-conviction evidentiary hearing is a bench proceeding that will be adjudicated and decided by an impartial judge. See I.C. § 19- 4907 (a). The local publicity and jury-pool concerns that justified moving the criminal trial from Latah County therefore do not carry the same force here. That is to say the only reasons the proceedings were transferred to Ada county in the criminal case are wholly absent in the civil PCR case. The two proceedings serve different purposes and present materially different logistical considerations.
III. THE CONVENIENCE OF MATERIAL WITNESSES AND THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE FAVOR LATAH COUNTY.
The practical center of gravity of this post-conviction litigation is substantially different from that of the capital jury trial contemplated in 2024. Current PCR counsel is located in Moscow. Respondent is represented by the Latah County Prosecuting Attorney's Office in Moscow. The underlying investigation originated in Latah County, and many of the lawenforcement officers, records, and fact witnesses whose conduct or knowledge may bear on the pleaded and anticipated claims are associated with Latah County or northern Idaho. The persons who served as lead counsel and associate counsel for the Defense team in the criminal case are located in North Idaho.
Petitioner does not claim that Latah County eliminates all jurisdictional costs, however with the majority of the witnesses, sites, opposition, the majority of costs should be reduced, as well as just the convenience of having the case in the initial proper jurisdiction for the parties and witnesses.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE PURSUANT TO I.R.C.P. 40.1-4
The relevant question under Rule 40.1 (a) (1) (B) is comparative: whether moving the case would promote witness convenience and the ends of justice. For the core northern-Idaho witnesses and counsel likely to participate repeatedly in this proceeding, Latah County materially reduces distance and logistical burden.
The ends of justice point in the same direction. This PCR action will require intensive review of the investigation and defense work that originated in northern Idaho, consultation with former counsel, and potentially testimony from persons involved in the original Latah County investigation and prosecution. Conducting the evidentiary phase in the county where that work was centered reduces unnecessary travel and expense without recreating the jury-related concerns that required transfer of the criminal trial.
Petitioner recognizes that Ada County has an important connection to the criminal case:
the pleas, judgments, and sentencing occurred there. But Rule 40.1 does not ask whether the current county has no connection. It asks whether the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by a change. On the circumstances presented here, they would.
IV. IDAHO'S REPORTED POST-CONVICTION CASES CONFIRM THAT A
CRIMINAL TRIAL'S CHANGE OF VENUE DOES NOT NECESSARILY FIX
THE VENUE OF THE LATER POST-CONVICTION CASE.
Published Idaho cases provide useful practical illustrations. In Marsalis v. State, 166 Idaho 334, 338, 458 P.3d 203, 207 (2020) the petitioner's criminal case had been transferred from Blaine to Ada County for the jury trial where the petitioner was convicted. The docket from the PCR case that followed shows that the PCR case-like this case-was filed in this Court and then the Trial Court Administrator for this Court transferred the case back to Blaine where the original indictment had been found. Jeffrey Marsalis, Plaintiff vs State of Idaho, Defendant (CV-
PC-2012-23490).
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE PURSUANT TO I.R.C.P. 40.1-5
. A similar practice was followed in the PCR cases for the defendant in State v. Stuart, 110 Idaho 163, 715 P.2d 833 (1985). The venue was changed from Orofino to Moscow following lots of pretrial publicity. Id. at 167, 715 P.2d at 837. The PCR cases that followed were adjudicated in Clearwater County where the crime had been originally charged. See dockets (CV- 2002-443) and (CV-2002-473).
Those cases demonstrate that returning a post-conviction action to the originating county after a criminal trial was transferred elsewhere is not only procedurally workable but consistent with normal Idaho practice. That same practice has also been followed in a case handled by undersigned counsel: in Lankford v. State, Case No. CV25-24-0232, the underlying criminal case originated in Idaho County, was transferred to Canyon County for trial, and the later postconviction action was brought back to Idaho County.
Thus, it is customary that PCR cases are typically adjudicated in the courts where the criminal charges originate, even if the criminal trial was transferred to ensure an impartial jury.
There are likely many reasons for this, the most obvious being that PCR cases are separate proceedings decided by an impartial judge and thus there is no risk that the PCR case will be impacted by local discord in the community. Also, it makes sense financially to not have the original county incur needless expense litigating in another county's venue when the case can more easily and efficiently be adjudicated by an impartial judge in the forum county.
Kohberger thus requests this Court to adhere to the common practice of having a PCR case adjudicated in the county where the charges in the criminal case first originated. Transfer is warranted in a case like this where “ the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change. " I.R.C.P. Rule 40.1 (a) (1) (B). It would also be congruent with the language of the Rule 1 which requires that the rules of procedure “ be construed and administered
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE PURSUANT TO I.R.C.P. 40.1-6
to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding. " I.R.C.P. Rule 1.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Kohberger respectfully requests that the Court grant the Motion for Change of Venue pursuant to I.R.C.P. 40.1 (a) (1) (B), change venue of this postconviction action to Latah County, and refer the matter for assignment in accordance with I.R.C.P. 40.1 (c) (2).
Respectfully submitted, DATED this 26th Day of August, 2026.
MAGYAR, RAUCH & ASSOCIATES P.L.L.C.,
/ s / Gregory Rauch Gregory Rauch, ISB # 7389 Attorney for Petitioner
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE PURSUANT TO I.R.C.P. 40.1-7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 27th day of August 2026, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing to be served on the following in the manner indicated below:
Prosecutor: () U.S. Mail Latah County Prosecutor's Office () Overnight Mail
Email: paservice@latahcountyid.gov (X) Odyssey () e-mail () Courthouse Mail
By: / s / Matt Ruck Matt Ruck, Paralegal to Mr. Rauch
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE PURSUANT TO I.R.C.P. 40.1-8
EXHIBIT 1
Filed: 09/06/2024 16:55:18 Second Judicial District, Latah County Julie Fry, Clerk of the Court
By: Deputy Clerk-Mottern, Beth
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LATAН
STATE OF IDAHO,)
) Case No. CR29-22-2805 Plaintiff,)
) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
VS.) MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE
)
BRYAN C. KOHBERGER,)
) Defendant.)
I. INTRODUCTION
On January 30, 2024, Defendant Bryan C. Kohberger filed a Motion for Change of Venue pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 21, Idaho Code § 19-1801, Article I, sections 1, 6, 7, 13, and 18 of the Idaho Constitution, and the 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution. On February 8, 2024, the State filed an Objection to Kohberger's motion. The hearing on Kohberger's motion was originally scheduled for June 27, 2024. Thereafter, the parties stipulated to continuing the hearing to August 29, 2024. On July 22, 2024, Kohberger filed a Memorandum in Support of Motion for Change of Venue with various exhibits attached.
The State filed an additional objection on August 12, 2024, and Kohberger filed a reply on August 19, 2024, with additional exhibits.
A change of venue hearing was held on August 29, 2024. Kohberger was present and represented by Anne Taylor, Elisa Massoth, and Jay Logsdon. The State was represented by William Thompson, Jr., and Ashley Jennings, Latah County Prosecutor's Office, and Ingrid Batey and Jeff Nye, Office of the Attorney General.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE-1
At the hearing, Defendant presented expert testimony from James Todd Murphy, Dr.
Amani El-Alayli, Dr. Bryan Edelman, and Dr. Veronica Dahir. The State did not call any witnesses. The court has spent many months carefully considering the legal and logistical concerns with a trial of this length and magnitude, carefully reading each submission, listening to each expert, and evaluating each party's position. Based upon the totality of the factors, Defendant's Motion for Change of Venue is granted.
II. BACKGROUND
On November 13, 2022, four University of Idaho students, Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin, were found deceased in Goncalves, Mogen, and Kernodle's off-campus home in Moscow, Idaho. The cause of death for each was ruled a homicide.
As news of the tragedy broke, media outlets from around the country descended upon Moscow. As law enforcement investigated, news stations, newspapers, and social media were flooded with stories and speculation about the homicides. Throughout the course of the investigation, the Moscow Police Department, in partnership with the University of Idaho, the Latah County Prosecutor's Office, and the Idaho State Police, held press briefings to answer questions and reassure the public. Appropriately, the information released was limited to protect the integrity of the ongoing investigation.
On December 30, 2022, Kohberger was arrested and charged with four counts of Murder in the First Degree and one count of Burglary. Again, media outlets descended upon Moscow and the news coverage quickly focused on Kohberger. That same day, an Order Governing Courthouse and Courtroom Conduct was entered to help alleviate any potentially prejudicial photography, audio or video recordings, and interviews within the courthouse. The conduct order has remained in place throughout the proceedings.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE-2
Because of the extensive media coverage from the outset of the homicides, a nondissemination order was also quickly put into place by stipulation of the parties on January 3, 2023, to help protect Kohberger's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. The non-dissemination order, as amended, has remained in place throughout the duration of this case.
In an additional effort to help protect Kohberger's right to a fair trial, on November 17, 2023, this Court entered an order removing cameras from the courtroom. Since that time, the proceedings have been streamed via the Court's YouTube channel, which in theory allows the public access to the proceedings while minimizing prejudicial photographs and videos focusing solely on Kohberger and his every move.
Despite efforts by the parties and the Court to protect the jury pool from being inundated with information that is potentially prejudicial and false, extensive media coverage by mainstream media sources such as newspapers, radio stations, and television news outlets has continued throughout the state and nationally. Additionally, and perhaps more challenging, is the ongoing spread of prejudicial misinformation, rumors, and patently false theories of the case on social media outlets such as Facebook, podcasts, and blogs. There have also been numerous television shows and " documentaries " produced about the homicides and at least one book has already been published.
The parties agree the case has generated extensive coverage by the media, internet sleuths, and others trying to capitalize on the tragedy, but disagree on how the Court should attempt to remedy the issue to ensure Kohberger is tried by a fair, impartial jury. In sum, Kohberger argues that venue must be changed from Latah County to a location with a larger population that is geographically distant from where the homicides occurred. The State asserts that a larger juror pool, extensive juror questionnaires, and voir dire are sufficient remedies that will result in a fair and impartial jury in Latah County.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE-3
In addition to the issue of juror prejudice resulting from extensive coverage of the homicides and Kohberger by the media and others and the smaller population of Latah County, the defense also asserts the trial should be moved outside of Latah County " for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice. " The State disagrees that moving the trial would be in the interest of justice or convenient to the parties and witnesses.
III. EVIDENCE
As noted above, at the change of venue hearing, Kohberger presented expert testimony from James Todd Murphy, Dr. Amani El-Alayli, Dr. Bryan Edelman, and Dr. Veronica Dahir.
Additionally, Kohberger submitted several exhibits depicting news stories, news clips, and social media posts for this Court's review. The State did not call any witnesses or submit any evidence.
The Court will summarize the key takeaways from the testimony offered by each of Kohberger's experts.
1. James Todd Murphy James Todd Murphy is the President of Truescope North America. Truescope provides media monitoring services that offer information to help understand the impact of media coverage on a particular community. Truescope looks only at mainstream media sources such as newspapers and news stations.
Of the mainstream media coverage in Idaho of this case, 36% of that coverage has been within Latah County. This would include media like the Moscow Pullman Daily News, Lewiston Tribune, and the television news stations out of Spokane, Washington. Kohberger requests this case be moved to Ada County, which has 34% of the mainstream media coverage in Idaho. While the media coverage percentages are similar between the two counties, Ada County has a much larger population than Latah County. According to Murphy, this means that the media coverage in Ada
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE-4
County is much more diluted while Latah County is saturated with such coverage. Stated differently, “ [m] edia coverage in Latah County offered twice as many opportunities to be seen per person than in Ada County. The higher volume of coverage in Latah County coupled with the smaller pool of elig