Follow your favourite podcasts, listen offline and in the car with CarPlay and Android Auto, and always pick up where you left off. Free to try.
Idaho prosecutors sought permission to have Bryan Kohberger examined by their own mental-health expert after the defense disclosed plans to use neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence during a potential penalty phase. The state argued that once Kohberger put his mental condition at issue through experts such as Dr. Rachel Orr and Dr. Eileen Ryan, Idaho law gave prosecutors the right to conduct an independent examination. Kohberger did not dispute that basic right, but his attorneys objected to how broad the state’s proposed evaluation could become, arguing prosecutors wanted testing that went beyond what the defense experts had done and could generate entirely new aggravating evidence. Judge Steven Hippler ultimately allowed the state examination while placing limits on its scope and addressing how the resulting opinions could be used.
After Kohberger pleaded guilty, a separate fight erupted over the long-standing nondissemination order that had restricted attorneys, investigators and law-enforcement officials from publicly discussing the case. Media organizations asked the court to lift it, arguing that there was no longer a jury trial to protect, but Kohberger opposed that request and urged Hippler to keep the order in place through sentencing. His lawyers said continued restrictions were necessary to protect the integrity of the proceedings, reduce the media frenzy and safeguard the parties, victims’ families, court staff and attorneys. Hippler ultimately disagreed, ruling on July 17, 2025 that the guilty plea had largely eliminated the fair-trial justification for the gag order and that the public’s interest in information had become paramount, clearing the way for officials connected to the case to speak publicly.
