I am oblivious to any statements that LaBar has made that put a fair trial at risk.
Would you mind citing?
In his interview with Brian Entin he publicly questioned the merits of the evidence in the PCA, broke it down and told how he can poke holes in it with details of possible trial strategies. He said he doesn’t think BK can get a fair trial in Idaho.
He says he did not speak to BK about the case but it’s easy for the public to believe he has inside information of the case whether it’s true or not.
He said he’s been in contact with the Idaho Public Defense Commission. He mentions speaking with the Idaho public defender which could get
them in trouble for LeBar’s interviews. Why are they speaking with him if he’s not an agent of this case? While the Idaho public defender was filing their own request for the first gag order, LeBar was asking BK if it was ok to put out an official statement attesting to his innocence.
LeBar’s statement to the press that BK was “calm and intelligent” during questioning is one example of evidence not permissible in court, (“e” in the order). His privileged conversations with his client are inadmissible as he can not be a witness.
All of these things can influence a jury pool.
That’s why both parties agreed to the order, to ensure a fair trial based on the admissible evidence.
No one wants a verdict effected by public perception that is based on opinions of attorneys with insider information attached to this case.
Non-dissemination Order
Evidence regarding the occurrences or transactions involved in the case;
b. The character, credibility, reputation, or criminal record of a party, victim, or witness, or the identity of a witness, or the expected testimony of a party, victim, or witness;
c. The performance or results of any examination or test or the refusal or failure of a person to submit to an examination or test;
d. Any opinion as to the merits of the case or the claims or defense of a party;
e. Any information a lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial and that would, if disclosed, create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial;
f. Any information reasonably likely to interfere with a fair trial in this case
afforded under the United States and Idaho Constitution, such as the existence
or contents of any confession, admission, or statement given by the Defendant, the possibility of a plea of guilt, or any opinion as to the Defendant‘s guilt or innocence.
Edited to add: Jmo