Mega Edition: Wendy Olson's Declaration In Support Of Removing The Kohberger Gag Order (8/9/26)

Wendy Olson’s declaration, filed on behalf of the Associated Press and the other media organizations challenging the nondissemination order in the Bryan Kohberger case, was designed to show that the restrictions were having real consequences far beyond simply preventing attorneys from talking about the evidence. Olson documented numerous instances in which journalists had been unable to obtain information because government officials, law-enforcement agencies and others believed the gag order prevented them from speaking or releasing records. A victim’s family had indicated that it wanted to speak publicly about Kohberger’s prosecution but believed it was restricted by the order, while a Washington agency sought judicial guidance over whether it could even release 911 recordings in response to public-records requests. Pennsylvania State Police officials declined to discuss whether investigators were reviewing unsolved cases for possible connections to Kohberger, citing the nondissemination order, and Moscow Mayor Art Bettge said he had been advised that he could not answer questions about how the community was recovering after the murders. Reporters also described public-records requests being denied by the Latah County Sheriff’s Office, Moscow Police Department, Pullman Police Department and Washington State Patrol because of the restrictions. Olson’s declaration therefore attempted to demonstrate that the order was not merely controlling courtroom participants, but was effectively choking off legitimate avenues of newsgathering surrounding one of the most important criminal cases in Idaho.Olson argued that those examples demonstrated why the media coalition believed the order was excessively broad and constitutionally problematic. Journalists said they were prevented from obtaining even relatively routine information, including details surrounding Kohberger’s incarceration and booking, with Law&Crime reporter Angenette Levy reporting that the Latah County Sheriff’s Office refused to provide Kohberger’s booking video because of the court’s order. The declaration supported the coalition’s larger argument that the court had imposed and later expanded the restrictions without first taking evidence or making specific factual findings demonstrating that such sweeping limitations were necessary to protect Kohberger’s right to a fair trial. Olson and the media organizations maintained that there were less restrictive ways to address concerns about prejudicial publicity without cutting reporters off from sources and public records. Their position was not that Kohberger’s fair-trial rights should be ignored, but that those rights could not automatically override the First Amendment rights of the press and public without evidence showing that the restrictions were actually necessary. Olson’s declaration was therefore important because it put concrete examples behind what otherwise could have been an abstract constitutional argument: according to the media coalition, the gag order was already preventing journalists from gathering basic information, discouraging people from speaking publicly and creating uncertainty among government agencies about what information they were legally permitted to release.to contact me:[email protected]