Thread by @ChanleyCourtTV

#BryanKohberger just walked back inside the courtroom for a Second Hearing of the Day...

This one is expected to focus on the Media Coalition's effort to vacate the extensive gag order over the case..

@CourtTV

First order of business – the Judge grants the Media Coalition Motion to Intervene for the limited purposes of challenging the gag order

Media Coalition Attny refers 2the Non-dissemination order order as a gag order & that it "has rendered harm to our clients interest..."
Judge: I find that to be inaccurate and distasteful name for the order (aka gag order). It’s not called that; I would appreciate not using term

Judge now inclined to grant Defense motion to take judicial notice of press coverage.

The defense says it has two witnesses for the hearing, including “a professor of psychology to talk about why we care”

The State has no position on these matters…

Media Attorney: Concedes she understands the defense concerns w/having gag order, but “This court has tools to non-dissemination orders to ensure best change to get jury. There is probing voir dire, jury questionnaires, change of venue, passage of time…"

During the hearing, #BryanKohberger sits with his elbows are the arm rests of his chair, intently watching the speakers...

I haven't seen him chat or jot notes or anything with his attorneys while in the courtroom...he is stoic

Judge proposes that he can fix the order if it is indeed overly broad order by clarifying "Who this order touches, what people can say/can’t say..."

Judge is going to grant the defense request to take judicial notice of the media coverage of the case and take testimony today on the issue of the gag order, saying the media attorney would have the opportunity to come back if need to for reconsideration

Judge: What are you after that media doesn’t already have?
Media Attny: it would allow a party 2respond to a question like defense did 2day when explain' why #Kohberger stood silent @ plea…& better info avail to reporters..plus nothing stops attnys from not answering a question

Defense Witness 1: Jean Saucier, an expert from Truescope, Inc.
Provides media intel data to profit and non-profits..

ON THE SCREEN:  Report of data from 11/13/22 - 6/6/2023

- Total volume of media coverage (that we’re tracking) 46K
- Total potential impressions (what potential readership might be) 2.1 Billion
- 4.2K unique authors

Defense: So, there’s never a time when publications aren’t publicizing about case...Why does impressions bump go up in january and falls off as volume and engagement goes up?
Saucier: It will rise if there’s been a significant event on day/time period.

Media Attorney asking questions of Saucier questions..

Media attorney: There’s no guarantee on impressions that anybody actually read the stories? Correct.
There’s nothing that tells us what was written/said in the story other than that it included certain terms? Correct.

After a short break, the Defense calls Witness #2
Dr. Amani El-Alayli, Professor of Social Psychology at Eastern Washington University..

"When people are exposed to prejudicial pre-trial publicity it does effect guilty verdicts..."

#BryanKohberger nods his head in agreement

Dr. El-Alayli: its not possible for someone to answer accurately if they've been exposed to pre-trial publicity as some may be subconscious

-Our default is to be bias

Dr. El-Alayli: It is extremely difficult to set aside a bias in a potential juror even when they say they can in jury selection
- We should prevent that bias in the first place

Media attorney now asking this defense expert questions...

You don’t have research for jury bias in your CV? Correct.