A Court’s Streaming of True Crime: State of Idaho v. Bryan Kohberger
This past October, at a hearing for the Idaho Student Murders case, Judge John Judge of the Second Judicial District Court of Idaho addressed the issue of broadcasting Bryan Kohberger’s upcoming criminal trial.[1] He stated that he does not support a ban on cameras, but rather advocates for more significant media control.[2] The Judge based his decision on the need to balance the public’s First Amendment rights with the defendant’s rights to a fair trial.[3] This decision highlights an ongoing debate over whether allowing cameras in the courtroom will still allude a fair trial.[4]
The use of courtroom cameras is not a new phenomenon.[5] In fact, two of the most infamous criminal trials in America had cameras in their courtroom.[6] Both the O.J. Simpson case and the Ted Bundy case in 1979 show the effects of cameras on the judicial process.[7] The O.J. Simpson case became an American obsession with its high level media coverage.[8] Many argued that cameras in the courtroom mixed with the media frenzy made the case last longer than it otherwise would of.[9] In both cases, the attention and recording created different narratives throughout the trials.[10] Specifically, that the cameras affected the behavior of lawyers, jurors, trial participants, and even witnesses themselves, who had to go back into their communities after giving live testimonies.[11] Meanwhile, in 1979, the Florida Supreme Court, as part of a pilot program, authorized the use of cameras and various recording equipment in courtrooms across the state. This decision came just in time for the serial killer, Ted Bundy’s, criminal trial.[12] For Bundy’s trial, the judge allowed cameras in the courtroom on the basis that the public already knew a great deal about the case and therefore had a right to know the type of information that would be exchanged in the courtroom.[13] “This was one of the most high-profile cases in America up to that time and people were interested in seeing justice unfold in the public courtroom as it was a national event of interest.”[14]
However, in 1978, the only certainty in this case was that the anonymity of Ted Bundy had received severe blow.[15]
As such, Mr. Bundy moved to restrict cameras in the courtroom for concern of being tried “before the big eye,” but his request was denied.[16] When asked how the cameras affected Mr. Bundy, one defense attorneys stated, “He was very conscious of the camera. Every time something would happen where it would logical to get a shot of him with the camera, he would look over at the camera and do his thing.”[17] Mr. Bundy was convicted of two murders, three counts of attempted fist-degree murder and was given two death sentences.[18]
State of Idaho v. Bryan Kohberger:
In the present case, State of Idaho v. Bryan Kohberger, four University of Idaho students were fatally stabbed around 4:00 am on November 13th, 2022 in Moscow, Idaho.[19] Bryan Kohberger, 28, of Pennsylvania is accused of killing the four victims at their off campus residence and has been charged with four counts of first-degree murder and a count of felony burglary.[20]
The Idaho murders took the media and world by storm last fall, with its mystery and unknowns plaguing this quite secluded community. There was no suspect, nor murder weapon, nor reason in the weeks following the deaths of Madison Mogen, 21, Kaylee Goncalves, 21, Xana Kernodle, 20, and Kernodle’s boyfriend, Ethan Chapin, 20.[21] This sparked intense scrutiny from the public with hundreds of thousands of tips sent to the FBI, students fleeing and refusing to return to Idaho’s campus and internet sleuths believing they had solved the murder.[22]
What was already becoming one of the nation’s most high-profile cases was exuberated by the extent of social media platforms today.[23] A Facebook group about the homicides had more than 32,700 members in which uses were dissecting pasts social media the victims made before their deaths.[24] Additionally, a forum on reddit has more than 27,000 members with users posing theories and on TikTok, posts with the hashtag #idhaomurders had more than 94.2 million views, where users were questioning if a serial killer was behind the deaths.[25]
While some internet participation can help, and while the public’s interest is understandable, there is also a line when media coverage becomes damaging to the actual case.[26] Most of the times it creates an unnecessary blame game that not only leads to situations of harassment, but wastes law enforcements time finding definite facts.[27] Both sides in this issue are similarly reflected in the debate over cameras in the courtroom. And with valid claims on either side, it is helpful to see where the law stands on this issue.
Legal Background:
“There is neither a constitutional prohibition against nor a constitutional presumption in favor of allowing cameras in the courtroom.”
In Chandler v. Florida, the Supreme Court made clear there was no constitutional right to have testimony recorded and broadcasted.[28] Quoting from its previous decision in Nixon v. Warner, the Court stated, “while the guarantee of a public trial, in the words of Mr. Justice Black, is a ‘safeguard against any attempt to employ our courts as instruments of persecution,’ it confers no special benefit on the press. Nor does the Sixth Amendment require that the trial––or any part of it––be broadcast live or on tape to the public.[29]The requirements of a public trial is satisfied by the opportunity to members of a public trial and the press to attend the trial and to report what they have observed.”[30] It carefully framed its holding to state that the due process clause does not prohibit electronic media coverage of judicial proceedings per se, while also rejecting that the first and sixth amendments mandate entry of electronic media into judicial proceedings.[31]
What is particularly interesting, is that the Supreme Court in Chandler, details their understanding of the psychological impact cameras in the courtroom have on testifying witnesses.[32] However, the Court’s actual holding, has nothing to do with the effect of cameras on witnesses, but focuses on the due process rights of the defendant.[33] The Supreme Court upheld its standard in Estes, where the question when deciding on cameras in the courtroom, is if the defendant faces deprivation “of the right under the Fourteenth Amendment to due process by the [continued] telecasting and broadcasting of his trial.”[34] The Court in Chandler went on to state that unless it’s to conclude that broadcast coverage of trials under all conditions is prohibited by the Constitution, the states must be free to experiment, and it must assume that states will be alert for any factors that might impair the fundamental rights of the accused.[35] Thus, State Judges are free to make their own decisions when it comes to banning or allowing cameras in their courtrooms. However, it remains precedent that federal courts prohibit broadcast covering of trials, “as the [Supreme Court’s] concept of fair trial does not tolerate this indulgence.”[36]
It is important to note, Estes’s judgment rested on the facts present during 1965 and not the hypothesis that ever-advancing techniques of public communication may one day change the effect of telecasting upon the fairness of criminal trials.[37] Despite the substantial number of advanced techniques in public communication since 1965, Estes’s precedent is upheld today. Snapchat, Instagram, TikTok all arose after the Supreme Court’s decisions in both Estes and Chandler, yet all three media platforms have had a considerable effect on Kohberger’s case.[38]
Motions to Ban Cameras from the Courtroom:
Kohberger’s defense argued that cameras in the courtroom risked dehumanizing Kohberger and denying him the right to a fair trial.[39] This past August, the Defense filed a Motion to Remove Cameras from the courtroom.[40] They argued that despite the court’s previous direction to press observers not to focus strictly on Mr. Kohberger when recording they have thus far failed to do so.[41] The Defense counsel further stated that these photos, which focused exclusively on Mr. Kohberger were later added to articles with “blatantly sensationalistic and prejudicial headlines and content.”[42] The motion also details the extraordinary risk of prejudice Mr. Kohberger’s case features as opposed to the case in Estes, given that risk of potential jurors watching the broadcasting is increased with the accessibility of smartphones and ability to constantly see updates by thousands of unchecked sources.[43] This videos and images appear on social media platforms such as TikTok and X (formally known as Twitter) where these accounts are not bound by the notions of journalistic integrity and who have potentially an even greater reach than traditional media outlets.[44] Finally, Defendants argued that the exact conduct found by the Estes Court to be circumstances depriving the petitioner of a fair trial, where the petitioner was subjected to intense characterization and electronic scrutiny from the press media, is conduct routinely shown, despite the Court’s directives, in Mr. Kohberger’s case.[45] As such the defense requested that cameras be expelled from the courtroom in order to prevent jeopardizing Mr. Kohberger’s ability to undergo fair judicial proceedings, free of undue prejudice and juror bias.[46]
On September 6th, the State responded to Defendant’s Motion by agreeing that the appropriate course of action would be for the court to prohibit cameras in the courtroom at a minimum during trial and during any other court proceeding at which victims such as described above might be called to testify.[47] The State explained their decision by acknowledging the enormous value that responsible media has on helping the public to understand the true facts of what occurs in court, however it believes that this can still be accomplished without the need camera/video images or the physical presence of cameras in the courtroom.[48] Importantly, the State stressed their concern of the substantial “chilling effect” the presence of cameras would have on the ability of witnesses to openly and fully testify.[49] As some of the witnesses, particularly the two surviving roommates, have been subjected to threats and harassments, including physical intrusions as a result of substantial traditional and social media coverage.[50]
On November 3rd, 2023, as stated above, the Judge in Mr. Kohlberg’s case ruled that for the time being he will continue to issue directives on the public’s broadcasting coverage, but will not prohibit cameras in the courtroom during trial or other court proceedings.[51]
Cameras in the Court Room with Social Media Today:
“While we may all watch the same thing, we don’t see the same thing.”[52]
The Idaho Student Murders were featured consistently on News platforms across the nation. Different than previous media attention from high-profile cases, is that with the present case there has been a tremendous amount of harassment, that followed not only the two surviving roommate, but anyone the conspiracy theorists and TikTok accounts believed might be the killer.[53] As is the case with most serial murders, there is a lot of information that is either unknown or undisclosed to the public. However, this did not stop the so called “Internet Trolls” who targeted the surviving roommates, Bethany and Dylan, ruthlessly.[54] So much so that one source claims Dylan is currently receiving physiatrist help to cope not only with the trauma from that night but from the hateful messaging and death threats she received from the Public.[55]
It begs the question if the cameras really won’t have any effect on the trial participants, especially Dylan and Bethany. Will their demeanor and ability to testify be altered knowing that the hundreds of thousands of people who bullied them now have a front row seat to their testimony? Does the continuous rise in social media suggest that courts should stop reading the legal standard in Estes as narrowly as they do?
Today there is no constitutional ban on cameras in the courtroom, the only exception being when it invades the defendant’s due process rights from the inability to prevent a jury’s uninfluenced bias.[56] However, Kohberger’s case suggests that cameras might not only be detrimental to the defendant. Given Judge John Judge’s recent decision, the witnesses will now have to face the millions of people who threatened and harassed them.[57]
Footnotes
