Mega Edition: The Order Denying The AP's Motion To Remove The Kohberger Gag Order (8/9/26)

Judge John Judge denied the Associated Press coalition’s motion to completely vacate the amended nondissemination order in Bryan Kohberger’s case, finding that restrictions on certain public statements remained necessary to protect Kohberger’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial before an impartial jury. The court emphasized that the order did not prohibit the media from reporting on the case, conducting its own investigations or publishing information it independently obtained. Instead, it restricted certain attorneys and people acting on their behalf from making out-of-court statements that could materially prejudice the proceedings. Judge Judge rejected the argument that the restrictions amounted to a gag order on the press itself and concluded that the court had the authority to regulate the speech of lawyers participating in the case when necessary to prevent prejudicial publicity from influencing potential jurors. The ruling placed substantial weight on the extraordinary public attention surrounding the murders and the danger that statements from attorneys or other official participants could carry additional credibility with prospective jurors. In the court’s view, Kohberger’s constitutional right to have his case decided by an impartial jury justified maintaining some limitations on what those directly connected to the prosecution could say publicly.

At the same time, Judge Judge did not simply leave the existing order untouched. He acknowledged concerns that portions of it were too broad or unclear and issued a revised amended nondissemination order that narrowed both the people covered and the subjects they were prohibited from discussing. The revised order focused on statements that a lawyer or covered individual knew, or reasonably should have known, created a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the case, including public discussion of evidence expected at trial, potential testimony, opinions about guilt or innocence and other information capable of influencing the proceedings. The court therefore attempted to balance the media’s First Amendment interests against Kohberger’s Sixth Amendment protections rather than treating either right as absolute. The AP coalition succeeded in forcing the court to reconsider and clarify the scope of the restrictions, but it did not succeed in eliminating them altogether. The ultimate ruling was that some restraint on public commentary remained justified because the possibility of prejudicing the jury pool was sufficiently serious, but those restrictions had to be more precisely tailored than they had been under the earlier version of the order.


to contact me:


[email protected]