The University of Idaho Murders: First Person: Special Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Josh Hurwit

Summary

Podcast Summary: Murder Sheet

Episode: The University of Idaho Murders: First Person — Special Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Josh Hurwit

Date: September 2, 2025
Hosts: Áine Cain (A), Kevin Greenlee (B)
Guest: Josh Hurwit (C), Special Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

---

Overview

This episode of the Murder Sheet features a rare, in-depth interview with Special Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Josh Hurwit, who joined the prosecution team in the University of Idaho murders case after stepping down as U.S. Attorney for Idaho. Hurwit provides detailed insights into the legal strategy, collaboration among law enforcement agencies, handling high-profile cases under public scrutiny, jury selection plans, plea negotiations, and the challenges — both personal and professional — inherent in prosecuting one of Idaho’s most notorious crimes. The discussion is frank, nuanced, and at times, emotionally charged, offering a unique first-person perspective on the pursuit of justice in a case that shook a community.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Josh Hurwit's Legal Background and Role in the Case

[05:56-07:46]

• Hurwit details his journey from Harvard Law School through various high-level legal positions to becoming U.S. Attorney for Idaho, and eventually, joining the University of Idaho murders prosecution.
  • Quote:
    “I was gainfully unemployed…when I got the call from Bill and Ashley...they needed another attorney on the case. And I jumped at that opportunity for a variety of reasons.” — Josh Hurwit [07:36]
• Past experience in prosecuting complex crimes, financial fraud, drug cartels, child sexual abuse, and hate crimes.
  • Quote:
    “Fentanyl was one of the things…tearing families and communities apart. So we built relationships with local law enforcement…to make a difference.” — Hurwit [11:19]

2. Legal Collaboration and Team Dynamics

[12:19-14:12; 22:34-26:06]

• The seamless collaboration among local, state, and federal agencies was a hallmark of both the investigation and the prosecution.
  • Quote:
    “We’re very collaborative…The Coburger case also reflects this. My goal…wasn’t to do something flashy…it was, what does Idaho need?” — Hurwit [10:29]
• The prosecution team: Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, Deputy Ashley Jennings, Jeff Nye (State AG’s office), and key paralegals Kim Workman, Stacy Osterberg, Mallory Strigel.
  • Quote:
    “They were also changed by this case forever…ran towards the danger, not away from it.” — Hurwit [22:43]

3. Hurwit’s Motivation and Transition to the Case

[14:12-15:37]

• Hurwit accepted the role hoping to serve justice for both professional fulfillment and a sense of civic duty.
  • Quote:
    “The harm, the horror…most people, if they had the chance to help serve justice in a case like this, they would. It was a no brainer for me.” — Hurwit [14:44]

4. Challenges of the Case: Complexity, Emotional Toll, and Evidence Review

[18:31-21:00]

• The volume and nature of evidence was daunting—this was Hurwit’s first murder case and first state court case in Idaho.
  • Quote:
    “…my first murder case. It was my first state court case in Idaho…But the process is the same…learn everything you can about what happened…” — Hurwit [19:31]
• Emotional impact of reviewing graphic material: “Everyone who worked on this case…dedicated themselves to seeking justice knowing full well that they would be forever changed…” — Hurwit [21:07]

5. Jury Selection and Trial Strategy

[26:06-30:11]

• A massive jury pool (10,000+), extensive questionnaires, careful weeding out of those who might have bias from media saturation or strong views on capital punishment.
  • Quote:
    “The plan…was to call in 10,000 potential jurors…to help the attorneys…select a jury…what do you know about this case? What are your opinions?” — Hurwit [26:14]
• Division of labor by geography and topic, but with intentional overlap for collaborative strategy.
  • “You want more than one mind on one issue…collaborative strategy rather than just saying, okay, you’re the cell phone guy…” — Hurwit [29:09]

6. Media Scrutiny, Internet Sleuths, and Social Media “Circus”

[30:56-33:01]

• The team intentionally ignored internet commentary, focusing solely on the evidence and court proceedings.
  • Quote:
    “The internet sleuths can do their thing, and we do our thing with real evidence…We had no real issue pushing that aside.” — Hurwit [31:36]
• Only the Dateline leak was cited as a media event that truly impacted the courtroom.

7. Plea Negotiations and Defense

[33:01-36:24]

• Defense was “zealous,” filing all requisite motions.
• The plea agreement (life sentences, no parole, no appeal) was ultimately initiated after a judge’s form prompted the defense to query prosecution.
  • Quote:
    “If that’s something he wants to do, let us know. And then it became clear that’s what he was willing to do. The offer was made, discussions with families occurred…” — Hurwit [34:30]
• Secrecy and speed of plea were necessary to prevent tainting the jury pool and ensure focus.
• Hurwit was surprised by the outcome—“I joined the case expecting the trial and gearing up for trial…that was my full focus.” [36:30]

8. The Absence of a “Why”: Motive and Defendant’s Explanation

[37:22-41:33]

• The legal system rarely compels an explanatory confession; the team doubted anything useful or truthful would come from it.
  • Quote:
    “Knowing what we knew…there’s nothing we felt would come out of his mouth that would be the truth or would be helpful to anyone.” — Hurwit [39:46]
• Hurwit sees the search for a motive as ultimately futile:
  • “No one would do this for any reason that has any rationality to it…there isn’t a…neat, wrapped-up-in-a-bow explanation…” [40:33]

9. Observations in Court and Sentencing

[41:33-45:37]

• Koberger: “Flat affect…just doesn’t have normal human emotions…which matches with what he did.” [41:56]
• Sentencing was deeply emotional; Hurwit, like others in court, was visibly affected.
  • “It was a gut-wrenching day as part of a gut-wrenching case…I was reaching for Kleenex at times…” — Hurwit [43:00]
• Families, even those who disagreed on the plea, ultimately showed unity and respect for the prosecution’s work.

10. Enduring Lessons: Collaboration and Community Healing

[46:29-49:31]

• The Idaho model of law enforcement collaboration was critical:
  • “No one’s ego got in the way of the ultimate mission. That’s less common…than we’d like…” — Hurwit [48:46]
• Release of records: Transparency balanced against privacy for survivors, families, and wrongly suspected individuals.

11. Survivors, Victims, and Community

[51:32-54:04]

• Hurwit expresses deep empathy and admiration for the two surviving roommates and the victims’ families.
  • “They have just inspired me…I’m sure everyone who worked on this case…with what they’ve gone through and how they’ve been able to honor the lives and turn…I’m sure it has to be anger…into positive emotions and hopefully healing…” — Hurwit [52:34]
• Reminds listeners of the vibrant lives lost and the unique community built by the students.

12. Personal Impact

[54:04-55:41]

• The trauma of prosecuting such a horrific case lingers; Hurwit acknowledges the mental health toll of such work.
  • “It’s traumatic…now I kind of understand a little bit more about the mental health for people that work in law enforcement and in prosecution…” — Hurwit [54:24]
• “True crime is fine, but it needs to be within the context of honoring the lives involved.” — Hurwit [55:26]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Joining the Case:
  “The harm, the horror…for a case like this…it was a no brainer for me.” — Hurwit [14:44]

• On the Goal of Prosecution:
  “My goal as a U.S. attorney wasn’t to do something flashy…it was, what does Idaho need from the U.S. Attorney’s office?” — Hurwit [10:29]

• On Evidence Review:
  “Everyone who worked on this case…selflessly dedicated themselves to seeking justice, knowing full well that they would be forever changed by what…they were seeing.” — Hurwit [21:07]

• On Motive:
  “No one would do this for any reason that has any rationality to it, because there is no rational reason that anyone could ever imagine…” — Hurwit [40:33]

• On Courtroom Observations:
  “Flat affect…doesn’t have normal human emotions which matches with what he did.” — Hurwit [41:56]

• On Media and Social Media:
  “The internet sleuths can do their thing, and we do our thing with real evidence…” — Hurwit [31:36]

• On Survivors’ Treatment:
  “It’s unfathomable…it’s discouraging to know that there are people that would take those shots…on the Internet, right, where there’s no consequence to themselves.” — Hurwit [51:43]

• On Legacy and Learning:
  “Hopefully that part of the story here is how people put aside territory, jurisdiction, egos, and were solely focused on solving this crime.” — Hurwit [48:46]

---

Important Timestamps

• [05:56-07:46] — Hurwit’s legal background and journey to this case
• [09:54-12:19] — Approach to collaboration, crime-fighting in Idaho
• [21:00-22:17] — The emotional toll of the case on the prosecution team
• [26:06-30:11] — Plans for jury selection in the face of high publicity
• [33:47-36:24] — The internal and public dynamics of the plea agreement
• [37:45-41:33] — The rarity and rationale behind requiring “explanations” in criminal pleas
• [43:00-45:37] — Sentencing hearing: outpourings from families and community unity
• [46:40-49:31] — Lessons learned about collaboration in U.S. law enforcement
• [51:32-54:04] — Messages to survivors, families, and the healing community
• [54:18-55:41] — Lasting personal and professional impact on Hurwit

---

Final Reflections

Hurwit’s candor and depth — along with the hosts’ sharp, respectful questioning — provide an exceptional window into one of the most notorious U.S. murder cases in recent memory. The episode highlights the burdens shouldered by public servants in crisis, the power of inter-agency cooperation, and the ongoing challenge of seeking justice while honoring victims and survivors. At every point, the conversation remains grounded, humane, and thoughtful, never losing sight of the human cost of crime or the community’s need for truth and healing.

Transcript

[A]

Fall's pretty much here and I for one am celebrating the cooler temperatures because this means I can finally break out my Quince Mongolian cashmere sweaters. I love sweaters in general and these are two of my all time favorites.

[B]

We love our sponsor Quince. We shop there all the time. We love getting luxury goods for less. They cut out the middlemen. These are fashion staples that will not go out of style and will really elevate your wardrobe for half the price of similar brands.

[A]

Think washable silk tops, skirts, tailored denim, lots of cool options, all at shockingly low prices. I for one am about to go on another Quints shopping spree. Kevin's excited about it too.

[B]

I'm desperate to have Anya buy another hat.

[A]

Maybe. But right now I'm loving my black V neck sweater and dark blue turtleneck sweater. They're so soft and comfortable and easy to maintain. I think they look really stylish, but they're also just easy to sort of throw on with anything. And frankly, that's the kind of high quality, low effort vibe I'm going for this year. So get your Mongolian cashmere sweaters starting at $50 so we can all match.

[B]

Keep it classic and cozy this fall with long lasting staples from quince. Go to quince.com msheet for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com msheet to get free shipping and 365 day returns.

[A]

Quince.com msheet content warning this episode contains discussion of murder.

[B]

Josh Hurwit is an attorney with an extensive resume. After graduating from Stanford University, he got his JD From Harvard Law School. Ultimately, after clerking for Judge Naomi Buchwald of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and gaining some private practice experience with large law firms, he headed to Idaho. Only this time he'd be serving as a federal prosecutor. Hurwitz spent years working as an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Idaho. President Joe Biden appointed him as U.S. attorney for Idaho in 2022. After his confirmation, he got to work tackling several different issues. Think combating fentanyl deaths, cartel activity, the sexual exploitation of children, hate crimes, white supremacists, as well as working with the five federally recognized Native American tribes in Idaho. Mr. Hurwitz stepped down from the U.S. attorney's office in 2025, as is custom when a new administration takes over. But he did not stop working. He joined the team that prosecuted one of the Most high profile and heinous crimes that Idaho has ever seen. The University of Idaho murders.

[A]

In the early morning hours of November 13, 2022, University of Idaho students Madison Mogan, Kelly Gonzalez, Ethan Chapin, Zenna Kernodle were murdered in a house in Moscow, Idaho. Investigators from multiple agencies, local, county, state and federal leapt into action. On December 30, 2022, a Washington State University PhD student who's not worth naming like we're just not going to give him attention anymore, was arrested. The case against him was strong and complex, involving witness testimony from two of the victim's roommates who survived phone data and DNA found on a knife sheath next to one of the victim's bodies. Trying the case fell to Lato County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, but he had help. One of those attorneys who came on board to help tackle the case was Josh Hurwit.

[B]

Mr. Hurwit was kind enough to speak with us last week. We talked about his professional background, how Prosecutor Thompson approached him about joining the team, his focus in the case, the prosecution's plans for jury selection and trial, and his overall views on the case.

[A]

Now that the gag order is lifted and the sentencing hearing is done, Mr. Hurwood is free to speak about his experiences with the University of Idaho murders case. These episodes are part of our first person interview series. If you had a direct role in the case and are open to talking to us, email [e-mail] this is part of our ongoing efforts to report on the University of Idaho murders. For many years, we have not gotten the chance to hear directly from some of the principal figures in this case. That all changes now. My name is Anya Cain. I'm a journalist.

[B]

And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney.

[A]

And this is the Murder Sheet.

[B]

We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases.

[A]

We're the Murder Sheet.

[B]

And this is the University of Idaho murders first person Special Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Josh Hurwit.

[A]

First of all, thank you so much for coming on the murder sheet. We really appreciate it.

[C]

Yeah, my pleasure. Thanks for having me.

[A]

And can you just tell us about a bit about your background and sort of legal experience because it's quite considerable.

[C]

Yeah, I want to do it, do it briefly. So we'll start with law school. I went to Harvard Law School and worked at, you know, big international coastal law firms and did a clerkship in New York City with the federal judge. Ended up in San Francisco at some law firms and moved to Boise, Idaho. To pursue, really, my dream of becoming a federal prosecutor, you know, somewhere out west. I'm from Oregon originally, so, you know, Idaho is next door in a place that was always on my radar and loved moving here. Back in 2012, my entire career up until the case we're talking about in Idaho was at the U.S. attorney's office. So I was an Assistant United States Attorney, worked in the civil division first for a couple years and switched to criminal, which was kind of my passion, to do financial cases, complex investigations. Did that until 2022, when I was nominated by President Biden and confirmed by the Senate to be the United States Attorney for Idaho during the past administration, and held that position until February of 2025, which I'm sure you're aware of. You know, when administration has changed, it's. It's normal for US Attorneys to be replaced. And so as part of that process, I was gainfully unemployed, planning my next steps, when I got the call from Bill and Ashley, who I'd gotten to know as a U.S. attorney. And they explained they needed another attorney on the case. And I jumped at that opportunity for a variety of reasons.

[A]

Absolutely. I do want to ask you a little bit, and you mentioned your dream was to become a federal prosecutor. I guess. How did that sort of develop up?

[C]

Yeah, you know, I always. I went. I went to law school, you know, for a bunch of reasons. One main one, I think, or probably the main one, was I love this country and believe that it's most of what it has to offer and what it has going for it is based on our legal system, you know, at some level. Right. And so going to law school was, for me, a way to try to participate in what makes our country function and such a great place. And so didn't know exactly what that meant, what that would mean in terms of a job other than being a lawyer. I mentioned the clerkship I had in New York that was with the Southern District of New York, a judge there. And I got to observe federal prosecutors, assistant United States Attorneys, AUSAs, as I'm sure you know, they're referred to. And I kind of had the light bulb go off and said, oh, that's what I want to be when I grow up. And so, you know, to be able to represent our country, our fellow citizens in court, especially on the criminal side, you know, seek justice, protect our communities. That was my goal. And like I said, you know, somewhat for personal reasons, wanted to do it out West. And so that was how I got sort of on the path to pursuing that part of my career, you mentioned.

[B]

You did a lot of work in complex financial crimes, Covid fraud stuff. And when I was looking at your work as the U.S. attorney, your office really did. You really have quite an impressive record on busting up some networks connected to drug cartels. Did a lot of great work on fentanyl, a lot of great work on child sexual abuse materials, a lot of great work on hate crimes. I mean, in Idaho, I believe you have five Native American tribes. Can you talk a little bit about that work and some of those cases and what really sticks out to you?

[C]

Yeah. How much time do we have? Yeah, I think you're right. You really summarized, I think, some of the high level initiatives that I focused on as a U.S. attorney, but also that my predecessors, and I'm sure my successors in that role will also focus on. And I want to give credit to the office and the men and women, the lawyers, the, the support staff, our, let's say our victim witness coordinators, we call them, but they're the ones that work with victims and witnesses so we can actually get the evidence to court. There's folks that work on the financial side, making sure A, that the lights are on and B, that we collect, you know, any judgments that we obtain. So there's so much work going on. And I think some of those initiatives that you mentioned, less a function of me, more a function of the way that we work here in Idaho. And I think the Coburger case also reflects this. We're very collaborative. And my goal as a U.S. attorney wasn't to do something flashy or do something that I thought would be the coolest work. It was, what does Idaho need from the U.S. attorney's office and through partnerships, through relationship building. You know, I travel around, I hit 40 of 44 counties in person in Idaho, which is a lot of time on the road, not a lot of airports here, to learn what the problems were and how we could make a difference. So fentanyl was one of the things that we saw in rural communities as much as in urban communities, tearing families and communities apart. And so we built relationships with local law enforcement, with state law enforcement policymakers, and then of course, federal law enforcement to not just do those cases, but to raise awareness, to train, you know, let's say your patrol officer how to respond to an overdose, which historically had been viewed as an overdose, but is also a crime scene. Right. And so how you can preserve evidence right away and start a quick investigation to find the ultimate source of that drug. So that's just one Example of the collaborative approach that, yeah, I think has been the mantra of the office well before I even started, but something I was proud to be able to continue with the support of my colleagues.

[A]

You mentioned the collaboration and you also mentioned sort of knowing Bill Thompson and Ashley Jennings before all this happened. And can I just ask you, what was your sort of perception of them or what was that relationship like, even predating working on this case?

[C]

Yeah. So I think I had a bit of a head start in getting to know them. The way the U.S. attorney's offices are set up, there's the U.S. attorney and there's what's called the first assistant, which essentially think of it as like the Chief Deputy. Right. Or the Vice President or whatever, what have you. So my first assistant's name is Justin Walcott. He right now is the Acting U.S. attorney as we wait for our next U.S. attorney to be sent from the Senate. But Justin, a little bit older than me, I'm happy to say, and has been an Idaho prosecutor since he was in law school. And his first internship was, was with Bill up in Moscow. He was at the University of Idaho Law School. So I knew of Bill's reputation through Justin and sort of saw the proof in the pudding because the person I put trust in to help lead my office was essentially trained, you know, from his formative years or formative period with Bill. And so then when I got to know Bill, I hadn't, you know, worked cases with him or done legal work together, but I knew how he approached the role of a prosecutor through Justin and, you know, saw the compatibility there, obviously, and so had a lot of faith that this would be successful. And then of course, I knew a bit about the investigation through, through the FBI and trying to support Bill by supporting the FBI.

[A]

Absolutely. And, and so can you tell us a little bit about your decision to then, you know, go from being someone who's maybe, you know, just collaborating generally to actually joining the team?

[C]

Yeah, yeah. So I was able to do that because I was, you know, between things or unemployed to be blunt about it, you know, so silver lining of know, being replaced as a US Attorney or being asked to leave as a US Attorney was that I was planning to take, you know, three or four month break before I jumped into my next, next career move. And you know, I, I love vacation. I love taking some time to, to be with my, be by myself and with my family, but I'm also pretty energetic and I'm not likely to be sitting around no matter what. And so when Bill kind of broached the subject. I knew what the commitment would mean. But as a trial lawyer, as a prosecutor, as someone who loved being a prosecutor, and then as just an Idahoan who followed this case probably the way others did, the harm, the horror of it, the tragedy of it, was something that, you know, I think most people, if they had the chance to help serve justice in a case like this, they would. And so it was a no brainer for me and something that obviously my family supported me in doing as well. And so that's kind of it. I mean, it's sort of a happenstance that I wasn't otherwise occupied and available. And then, you know, hopefully it comes through. I was very motivated to do it.

[A]

When you're into true crime, you know all too well that bad stuff happens in real life. There's danger out there. So it's no surprise that home security can prevent the worst from happening.

[B]

That's why Anya and I trust SimpliSafe. This is the home security system we use in our own home to keep ourselves, our dog Lani and our property safe. And we're not alone. You can join us and 4 million other Americans who also trust Simplisafe with their home security.

[A]

SimpliSafe keeps you in mind. No long term contracts. Agents monitor your home and they can intervene before the break in even happens. Seriously, they just will hop on the two way audio and confront the possible intruder. Set off sirens and spotlights. And by preventing break ins before they even happen, they're improving your peace of mind.

[B]

Try out SimpliSafe. You won't regret it. Plus they've got a 60 day money back guarantee. We've used Simplisafe for years and love it.

[A]

Visit simplisafe.com msheet to claim 50% off a new system. That's simplisafe.com msheet there's no safe like SimpliSafe. Listen, we're all trying to save money without compromising on quality these days. Frankly, Kevin and I need to ensure that Lani gets her fancy dog food brand, which is for lap dogs, even though she's a rather formidable looking lady.

[B]

That's why Ani and I made the switch to Mint Mobile. This is a company that offers us reliability for an extremely reasonable price. Between taking sudden calls from sources to wrangling with records departments for documents, we need a mobile service that we can rely on. You never want to be on the phone with someone talking about a horrible murder and have the line go dead. It's concerning for everyone. It's like something out of a bad movie.

[A]

And that's why we made the switch. I use Mint Mobile and you should too. For a limited time, Mint mobile is offering three months of its unlimited premium wireless service for only $15 a month. And there's something for everyone. All of their plans boast unlimited talk and text and high speed data from the nation's largest 5G network.

[B]

This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your 3 month unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a [e-mail] msheet that's mintmobile.com.

[A]

Msheet Upfront payment of $45 required, equivalent to $15 a month limited time. New customer offer for first 3 months only. Speeds may slow above 35gb on unlimited plan. Taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.

[B]

What, what is it like? Because that case is so complicated and to kind of jump in in midstream. What was that like? And how did you bring yourself up to speed?

[C]

Yeah, great question. I mean, I think that's one of the great parts about being a lawyer in my mind is that you're always learning, right? You know, when I was in private practice, I was learning about a milk company, then I was learning about intellectual property, then I was doing pro bono work on homelessness issues, right? And so I'm not an expert in any of those issues, right. But you get trained to basically go to school on a case or a subject matter. And so I sort of prided myself on being able to do that throughout my career, including as a prosecutor if I was doing an environmental case involving a, a dairy, you know, I'm not a dairy man, but, you know, I learned what I needed to know with the help of experts. And so in this case, it's, it's complex and it's of a magnitude and probably fair to say, unlike most everything I'd ever done before. It was my first murder case. It was my first state court case in Idaho. So a lot of sort of new, new things for me. But the process is the same, I think, for any lawyer in any case, which is you try to learn everything you can about what happened and about how the court proceeding is moving forward so that you can be ready to go. And So I started April 1st. I spent a week in Moscow and Bill and Ashley and the team were great. You know, they didn't really throw a lot on my plate other than go into this in this conference room. Here's all the evidence you know, come out when you have questions and so it was a really productive start in terms of just allowing me to come at this from an outside perspective, which I think is always helpful to a case and, you know, dig in and then ask questions.

[B]

You say this was your first murder case, and then you talk about going into this room with all of these files and evidence, and I imagine some of that must have been very unpleasant to look at or read about. As someone who's never done a murder case before, what was it like to just suddenly be in the middle of all of that in a room by yourself?

[C]

Yeah, you know, this case was hard for that reason because of what happened and the nature of it. And I think I'm no different than anyone else. Even the folks that may have done murder cases. Right. You know, every case, when you see what happened, these are individuals, these are families, this is a community. And so I don't know that it would be different if I had done 20 murder cases before, but it certainly had an impact. And I think I've said this before, and I know Bill and Ashley Pep said it too. You know, everyone who worked on this case, you know, selflessly dedicated themselves to seeking justice, knowing full well that they would be forever changed by what, you know, what they were seeing. So, hopefully that answers your question about kind of what it was like at first. But, you know, it was a privilege to be able to work on this case. And, you know, it comes with the job. It's still a mission. It's a job. It's a calling, really, I think, for prosecutors and law enforcement. And, you know, some people are probably better than others at compartmentalizing things that you see. I think over time, I sort of got there on this case to be able to, you know, not be affected by the goriness of it, even though, you know, certainly was affected.

[A]

I was curious. You mentioned working with prosecutor Thompson and Ashley Jennings, the deputy there. I also understand Jeff Nye was working on the team in this case. I guess. Am I missing anyone and sort of. Can you tell us a little bit about the team dynamic and what working with these folks was like?

[C]

Yeah, absolutely. So, you know, as a lawyer and I think talking about cases. Right. We sort of focus on the lawyers. But let me sort of take a moment and acknowledge and try to do justice to the other folks on Bill's staff who, you know, I think we're also changed by this case forever, and also ran towards the danger, not away from it, and also dedicated themselves every day since these murders happened to seeking justice. So there's three Other folks that worked on the Lato county team, supported by the entire office as well. Right. Everyone pitched in, everyone supported the work of the office and this case to make it happen. But the three kind of support folks that were assigned to the case, paralegal named Stacy Osterberg who, you know, really just sort of was everything and everywhere, you know, making meetings happen, helping us process court filings, being aware of what was going on, being a community, being a liaison with the families. So great. Kim Workman was, is these people are still there, still doing well. Kim Workman was at the Latho county and is the Lathe county witness coordinator. So you know, she was sort of the main support from our office for the victims and their families, the main liaison to getting them the information that they needed, that they were entitled to, that we wanted to share, that we could share. And you know, I think she was for that reason, subject as much as anybody, not more to the emotional stresses that everyone was going through. And she did a fantastic job. Mallory Strigel was another paralegal who basically knew where every piece of discovery and evidence was. Sort of had her mad scientist spreadsheets that we could just rely on to make sure that when we needed something, it was there. And you know, just a really, really professional group, sophisticated, doing sophisticated work. And you know, I worked and talked about sort of the folks in my office at the U.S. attorney's office and you know, not working with the county, like what would that level of support be? And it was just as great as, you know, I could have hoped for. And then you mentioned Jeff Nye. Jeff Nye is the, I think criminal division chief is his title at the state AG's office. He had been working with Bill and Ashley on the pre trial litigation, so the genealogy genetics work, for example. He was, I think, the main attorney arguing those issues. And sort of my role came about because he was not going to be able to be on the trial team for the lengthy trial that we expected. And so he sort of stepped back from the trial part of it, but was still supporting the case with legal advice, legal research through his office, Jeff and then another attorney in that office, Madison Gourley, were going to assist us with jury selection, which we can talk about, but that was going to be a herculean task. And so they were going to put some teams together from the AG's office to help us get through jury selection.

[B]

Talk about that. Very interested in how you plan to deal with jury selection.

[C]

Yeah. And you know, didn't happen. Right. We didn't actually get there. So, you know, we were still kind of figuring it out and probably would have, I'm guessing, had to pivot at certain times. But the plan of the court was to call in 10,000 potential jurors and have them fill out questionnaires to really figure out two main things, right. To help the attorneys in the court select a jury. When it came to the in court part of it, one was, you know, what do you know about this case? What are your opinions? Because everyone knew about it, right. You know, I still believe that most people were open minded and could have served as impartial jurors. But then you have, I'm sure some people that read all the books, watched all the documentaries, did all the Reddit, whatever, who knows, kind of what, what they think. So trying to figure out that part of the potential jurors viewpoints. And then of course, in a death penalty case, do people have views on the death penalty one way or the other that just cannot be overcome to allow them to be impartial and follow the law when it comes to a potential death penalty? So the questionnaires are pretty lengthy and the plan was to just bring in tons and tons of jurors kind of on a rolling basis. And we would have to look at their questionnaires kind of in real time. And if there's someone that you know would be disqualified, you know, consult with court and defense team to try to narrow it down to a smaller group that then could be brought into court for more wholesome voir dire. The other thing too is, you know, with a trial that was scheduled to go from August through early November, a lot of people just can't serve on a jury like that because of family issues, health issues, and maybe they're self employed. Right. And they can't take four months off of work. So that was another part of the process was to hopefully pretty quickly figure out who had a legitimate, what's called hardship that would prevent them from serving.

[A]

One question I have that's also sort of was in anticipation of a trial that didn't happen. But what were, did you all divide things up as far as topics that you were going to tackle and what was your sort of assignment?

[C]

Yeah, we didn't do it necessarily like topic by topic, although certain buckets kind of emerged. Bill and Ashley, you know, obviously live and work in Moscow where many of the witnesses are. I was living and working in Boise and there's many of the witnesses here. So that was kind of the first just division of labor is you know, Josh, you take the witnesses who live in Boise because you can go meet with them much easier. Right. And it wouldn't have to be virtual. So that's kind of how we did it. And as a function of that, I actually ended up spending topic wise, much of my time with the Idaho State Police Forensic Services lab, which did the DNA testing on the sheath, did blood testing from the scene, other types of testing, fingerprints and so forth. And so that was kind of a big bulk of what I was going to do. But other than that, it wasn't necessarily siloed into different areas. And I think that's kind of by design. And I think, you know, for any trial lawyer listening out there, something that I find effective is you want more than one mind on one issue. Right. And so, you know, Ashley, for example, was going to do some of the, you know, cell phone forensics, but Bill was too. And so like, each of them would sort of know what the other is doing very intimately and be able to advise and come up with a, a collaborative strategy rather than just saying, okay, you know, you're the cell phone guy, go do your work, we'll see how it comes out at trial. That's, that's not something that I think any of us would, would want to have happen.

[A]

Right. No, that, that, that certainly makes sense. You're mentioning you're in Boise there, in Moscow. How are you making that work? And just in terms of like, are you driving out to Moscow a lot or is it a lot zoom or teams?

[C]

Yeah, I made a few trips, but a lot of zoom teams, meetings just to make sure that we're all talking, we're talking every day and you know, we're still, you know, from April to June, you know, writing filings and pretrial motions and then had sort of the last, last motions hearing. You probably know better than I do sometime in June, maybe early July, and I'd made two or three trips to Moscow to really kind of sit together and brainstorm.

[A]

And you mentioned Reddit earlier. And so I do have to ask, this was one of those cases that unfortunately, in our view, garnered a bit of a circus around it on the Internet, in social media. But at the same time, like compared to some other high profile cases that had the same thing happened, it, at least from the outside, it didn't seem to necessarily be affecting the case so much of what was going on in the courtroom. And I guess, what's your view on that? Was that affecting you all on the ground or were you just trying to ignore It.

[C]

Yeah, I mean, I think we're so busy that, you know, even if I had wanted to learn about what was being said about the case, I didn't have time then. Also, you know, as a professional, the Internet sleuths can do their thing, and we do our thing with real evidence and what's actually admissible and what actually has substance to it. So, yeah, we had no real issue pushing that aside, you know, in terms of anything affecting court. The Dateline leak, and it should not happen. Right. It was disruptive and upsetting to Bill and everyone involved, including, rightfully so, the court. And so that's really the only incident where I felt that the outside coverage had an impact on what was going on in court.

[A]

Were people who you knew, like, asking you about it, or do they just know not to do that?

[C]

Because, yeah, you know, I think people know me well, know not to ask me. And then, you know, it's some people that don't quite understand the limits of what lawyers can do or that there was a gag order in this case, but, you know, not for any reasons other than just trying to make conversations like, oh, what do you think about this? Like, well, you know, can't. Can't talk about the case. There. There's a gag order. That's sort of how it. How it goes. You know, throughout my career as a lawyer, you know, you can hardly say much about what's going on in pending litigation.

[A]

I want to ask you something that might sound a little controversial, but just how would you rate the defense team's performance in this case?

[C]

Yeah, I mean, I kind of have a policy where I don't try to, like, say, good, bad, or the other against any defense attorneys or opposing counsel. But, you know, I will say that they represented their client zealously and, you know, filed the motions that they felt were necessary to. To make the record, to make the arguments they wanted to make. You know, I. I think that's probably fair way to summarize it is they represented him zealously, and they did everything possible in his defense.

[B]

How did the plea come about?

[C]

Yeah, the judge, as is, I think, not uncommon, provided the defense with a form that was going to require Coburger to say whether he had been advised of any offers, and that's to protect the record. We had not made any offers. There was no reason to make any offers because he had been maintaining his innocence throughout. And so a little bit after that form was presented by the court, after, I think, maybe the final round of rulings denying the motion to Continue. For example, the defense approached us and said, do you have an offer to make? And we basically said, made it clear. Well, we all know the only potential resolution here, which is ultimately what happened, right? Which is life sentences with no parole, no appeal. If that's something he wants to do, let us know. And then it became clear that's what he was willing to do. The offer was made, discussions with families occurred. Discussions with families occurred before the offer was made, and then he accepted it pretty quick. And I know that. I think for people that don't know the legal system super well, there's been a couple things that have been said, which is, one, it was secretive, and two, it happened really fast. Well, all plea negotiations are secretive, right? Especially in a case like this, because if it got out that he was interested in potentially pleading, then you have really tainted the jury pool and you have some real issues. And that's just the way it is in all criminal cases and most civil cases, right. When they resolve, it's because of a confidential settlement that no one knows about until it happens. And then in terms of the speed of the plea agreement, like I said, there wasn't any negotiations, really. You know, there wasn't bargaining. It wasn't like, well, if you plead to this charge, we'll take off this charge. It was, no, no, no. You plead to everything, and we're going to put you in prison and throw away the key, or we're going to go to trial and seek the death penalty. So there wasn't a need for a lengthy back and forth about what the agreement would be. And we also didn't want to give him time to delay or distract the court or even his own lawyers from preparing for trial. So that's why it happened quickly.

[A]

Were you surprised that that was the ultimate outcome, that he took the plea instead of going to trial?

[C]

Yeah, I was. Especially at first, now that it's been, you know, a couple months, maybe. Yeah, a couple months, you maybe sort of see the. The rationale. But, you know, for me, I. I joined the case expecting the trial and gearing up for the trial, and that was my full focus. And same thing with Bill and Ashley and everybody else. Um, so I don't know if they were surprised, but I was surprised just because my mindset more than maybe anything had been, we have a trial in a couple weeks, and I'm getting my witnesses ready, we're getting ready for opening statements and selecting the jury. And just like we talked about blocking out the noise from media, we're pretty focused on the task at hand.

[B]

You mentioned some people had comments that, oh, it was secretive. The plea. Oh, the plea happened fast. Another comment I've heard from a number of people is that they're confused. That is a part of the plea. The killer was not required to make any sort of explanatory statement. Can you discuss why that was so?

[C]

Yeah, well, first, again, you know, in practice, that's very rare that a defendant is required to say, well, here's why I did it. Right. You know, what the criminal justice system does is establishes a conviction and guilt. The point, and, you know, I guess someone could criticize this, the point isn't to understand the why necessarily. Sometimes we get that, but a lot of times we don't. And, you know, we sometimes don't need it. Right. You know, if you have a theft case, right, you know, why did you steal the jewelry? Like, we know why you stole the jewelry. You're trying to, you know, monetize it and get money. Right. Because you needed money here. I think the reason for that question of, you know, why wasn't he required to explain himself is the sense, sort of stepping back, that these crimes are so unfathomable and don't make any sense at all that we're all left trying to understand why. Right. And I think if we felt that there would be a satisfactory answer that would be helpful to the victims, their families, the criminal justice system, broadly, to try to learn something or some broader public interest and letting him try to explain it, you know, maybe we would have approached that differently. But knowing what we knew, and Bill has said this, I think the best. There's nothing that we felt would come out of his mouth that would be the truth or would be helpful to anyone. And there was a real risk that it would be some sort of diatribe that would be more traumatizing and more harmful and raise a bunch of other questions or have him cast blame elsewhere. And so, you know, you can say a plea agreement could have required him to explain himself, but actually requiring him to say something productive was still sort of out of control of the system.

[A]

You mentioned the why, and you obviously worked intensively on this case, and it's such a senseless crime. Do you have in your own mind a thought about any of that motive, why someone would do this, or is this something where you're almost feel like that we can't really understand what goes on in somebody like this is mind?

[C]

Yeah, I think it's the latter for sure. And it almost sort of explains itself, right. Like, no One would do this for any reason that has any rationality to it, because there is no rational reason that anyone could ever imagine. I think what we know about him, if you just look at the evidence that's in the public sphere and would have produced a trial, this is someone that was focused on criminology within that focused on serial killers and to some extent the processes they used and also how law enforcement investigates. So we know that he was very curious about murders. And from there I think people can, you know, it's hard to draw a conclusion from there, but that's sort of his, how he got focused on doing something like this. But yeah, I don't think we're ever going to have a, a neat wrapped up in a bow explanation for this because there isn't one.

[A]

You know, you, you were in the courtroom, you know, he, he was as well. I mean, we, we weren't there. Were there any observations of him or just of anything else that sort of you noticed while you were in there?

[C]

You know, his mental health has been, has been sort of raised by the defense and litigated. So, you know, I think we can also clearly observe that he has autism and some other characteristics. They're not an excuse for anything, certainly not legally or morally. But I mean, I think that's kind of who he is, is just a very. You know, the term flat affect is certainly used in this context. I mean, he just doesn't have normal human emotions which matches with what he did. You know, I wasn't focused on observing him, you know, at the change of plea hearing. The focus was more on him because he was the one admitting what he did. And we were waiting for those answers at the sentencing. I think all of us just turned our focus to the victims and their families. And it was their time and they powerfully did this and courageously did this to explain how their lives have been forever changed. And so that's where our focus was.

[A]

What was that like for you at that sentencing hearing hearing? I mean, there's just such an outpouring of grief, anger, emotion, love for these victims that affect you emotionally?

[C]

Oh, of course, I couldn't help but not. I mean, it was a gut wrenching day as part of a gut wrenching case. And you know, hopefully none of us, you know, sort of on camera, you know, watching this unfold were a distraction. But, you know, I was reaching for Kleenex at time and you know, looking down at certain times, it was just gut wrenching, like I said, you know, I think the other thing you Said is there was a full range of emotions, right? There was anger, rightfully so, there was love. There was even, you know, one person who expressed forgiveness. And so as I knew some of these people beforehand, met with them for some of the witnesses or some of the victims statements, we knew what they were going to be. For others, we hadn't seen them in advance. And you know, maybe I'm just looking for something, some silver lining, but, you know, the range of emotions, the range of individuals and the range of who these people are who are left who are going through this unimaginable pain and grief, they do it in their own unique ways and they represent something different to each of their families and to our community, I think. But then to be united. And I think, you know, one of the fathers said this, you know, they were all united in grief and they're discussed with what Coburger did. To me, it shows our shared humanity that we can empathize with someone who's maybe so different from us, we never ever would have met in other circumstances, just in the grand scheme of life. But we can try to feel their pain and try to honor what they're going through. And I think that's, to me, a takeaway from the sentencing hearing was just how the average person you walk by on the street, you're never going to talk to, you're never going to get a relationship with, but they're, you know, good humans and if something happens to them, they deserve, you know, support from their community.

[A]

I, I was really struck. You spoke of unity. I was really struck by how, you know, there was some consternation, I know, with some of the families not wanting the deal versus others wanting the deal. I noted that, you know, some of the figures who were actually very anti the deal actually gave a nod to prosecutor Thompson and your team even, even after some of that. So it seemed like, is it fair to say that people did come together at that point?

[C]

It was a pivotal moment in sort of recognizing how far everyone had come, how far the case had come and what the outcome would be now that it was, you know, there was no other possibilities at that point. Right. So hopefully, you know, it was cathartic even for the families that disagreed with the decision to enter into the plea agreement. And, you know, we respect their opinion and I think, you know, they disagree with it, but I think hopefully they were, they. I know they respect the work that law enforcement and Bill's office did, even if they disagree with that particular decision. So I think that's something that came through. And I think as time goes by, hopefully we can all focus on that more so than the very, very difficult decision to allow him to enter his plea.

[A]

Do you have any standout, very strong memories of this case that you think may linger with you or that kind of come to mind when you look back on your time working on this one?

[C]

Yeah, I mean, I think there's a story that, as U.S. attorney, I pretty quickly understood about law enforcement in Idaho, and hopefully it's true across the country, but I think Idaho actually does it really well as a model, is something we started talking about at the beginning, collaboration. So, you know, as a U.S. attorney, my office and the FBI were made aware of this case, you know, in the day or day after it occurred. We knew it was a Moscow Police Department case, right? That was their jurisdiction. They were the lead. We also knew it was, you know, an overwhelming incident in that community and a very difficult investigation. And, you know, Moscow reached out to Idaho State Police and reached out to the FBI and said, let's. Let's solve this and let's do it as a team. And there was no turf wars. Right. The FBI, for example, sent, gosh, dozens of people to start combing records to look for that car that was seen, for example. And as a U.S. attorney, I got to see that and try to support that as the investigation unfolded, and then to see it sort of come full circle as then, you know, one of the trial lawyers about to try the case to see what evidence had actually been produced through that collaboration. And, you know, essentially no stone was left unturned, and everything that possibly could have been used against Coburger was going to be used against Coburger. So I think there's a great story there in the most tragic and horrific of circumstances about how individuals can challenge and about how kind of our somewhat unique system of federalism can actually function extremely well when it comes to law enforcement. Because it probably wouldn't have gone as well if the FBI just came in and said, oh, this is now an FBI investigation. Kind of like what you see on TV or in movies, right, where there's tension. That was the farthest thing from what happened here. And ISPs job and their role is, we're going to support you, Moscow. And FBI was like, we're going to support you, ISP and Moscow, and let us know what you need. And no one's ego got in the way of the ultimate mission. I think that's less common in our society across all different walks of life, than we'd like, and hopefully that part of the story here is how people put aside territory, jurisdiction, egos, and we're solely focused on solving this crime.

[B]

It sounds like a really remarkable story, and I'm sure that that story will be borne out in some detail in some of the records that are being released. And I believe I read that you were involved in the working for the release of those records. Can you discuss.

[C]

Yeah. So one of the things I'm doing now, I'm still. Although the case is essentially over, I'm still working for the county, assisting Bill Ashley and the team with a variety of things, including the public records requests. So, you know, there's a statute in Idaho, as there is in most jurisdictions, about what law enforcement should and can release and what it should withhold from the public. There's also, of course, gosh, maybe like a hundred sealed filings in this case that the court wants to go through to unseal what's appropriate to unseal. So that's what we're currently working on. And our approach is to be as transparent as possible while protecting the privacy of the victims. There are two surviving roommates. Right. So those two courageous people have gone through hell, and we don't want any records. Not that there's anything that would cause issues for them, be it for Internet conspiracy nonsense. So they've had enough of that. So we want to protect their privacy. There's also a bunch of people that were interviewed and looked at as potential suspects who obviously had nothing to do with the crime. So we don't want their names to be put out in public. So those are some of the issues. And then, of course, the crime scene itself, we want to preserve the privacy of that for the families. So those are some of the main issues that we're working through right now.

[A]

Yeah, that makes sense. Those two survivors, I mean, they're victims in and of themselves, but they're also survivors. The lack of empathy that people treated with them, treated them with for years is unfathomable to me.

[C]

Yeah, it's unfathomable. It's discouraging to know that there are people that would take those shots and do so, you know, from their mom's basement on the Internet. Right. Where there's no consequence to themselves. You know, if you're going to say something, like, say something to someone's face. Right. It's sort of how I was raised. And so it's just really discouraging and sad that in our world, for all the great things that the Internet has brought, I think The. One of the worst things is the anonymous blasting of other people that goes on.

[A]

Yeah. We need to bring back shaming for antisocial behavior. So one question for you is just what message would you have for the families, for the two survivors and just for the wider community of just the University of Idaho and Moscow, Idaho, that went through this horrible ordeal?

[C]

Yeah, I mean, for the survivors and the families, you know, we are, you know, first of all, send our love and support and continue to do that. And they have just inspired me, I'm sure, everyone who worked on this case with what they've gone through and how they've been able to honor the lives and turn. I'm sure it has to be anger for all of them into positive emotions and hopefully healing and remembering these. These people, because that's what this should be about at the end of the day, which I think segues to the comment about the question about the broader community is, you know, these are four, you know, beautiful young people with so much potential who I got to learn about through some of the records. There's kind of everything you. You'd hope for for young people. Very curious about the world, very loving to each other, supportive of. Of each other. And they really built a family in that house. Four, six people from different families built one family that I think shows what Idaho college life at the University of Idaho is all about. And so for all the tragedy people can focus on that. We can recognize how special communities like Moscow are and how special each of those individuals and unique each of those individuals was in contributing to that community.

[B]

Earlier you said that the people who worked on this case, they came into this case knowing that it would change them. So that raises the question, how is working on this case changed you?

[C]

Yeah, you know, I say that right now you're asking me to explain it, which isn't easy to do, I don't think. You know, it's traumatic to. I'll just acknowledge, and hopefully it helps other people. Right. It's traumatic to see these types of events. You know, we had an awful, horrific event in Minneapolis yesterday, and there are people already talking about the trauma caused to the first responders. I'm not a first responder. I don't put myself in that bucket. But now I kind of understand a little bit more about the mental health for people that work in law enforcement and in prosecution and from the defense perspective, too, they're providing a necessary public service, and it takes a toll on them as well. So I hope that for all the sensationalism that happens with true crime, people recognize that they're real people. We're not characters. Right. We're not scripting anything. We're doing the best we can under really difficult circumstances. And, you know, the reason I wanted to join a podcast like yours was to sort of make that point that, you know, true crime is fine, but it needs to be within the context of honoring the lives involved.

[B]

You've had a fascinating career. When I was looking at your time in the U.S. attorney's office, I wrote up a bunch of questions and Anya was like, no, we're here to talk about another case. You've moved on to this case, which is obviously one of the biggest cases in the country. So what's next for you?

[C]

Yeah, I'm going to take some time off now, and I'm going to join private, affirmative private practice here in Boise. And that will be in October. And we'll announce that when I start feeling really fortunate to be able to continue living and working here in Boise.

[A]

That's awesome. Well, thank you so much. Is there anything we didn't ask you about that you wanted to say or you think it's important to stress?

[C]

Well, it's always important to stress. I don't want to repeat myself, but just, you know, this case, like all cases, occurs, is solved and is prosecuted and justice is sought because of individuals. And he started talking about my relationship with Bill and Ashley at the beginning, and then Stacy and Kim. I can't say enough about the dedication, the commitment, the intelligence that they showed in this case and the courage. And that's, I think, a great way to leave it. And I could talk about them for. For hours and hours.

[A]

Amazing. Well, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us.

[C]

We really appreciate it. Thanks for having me and appreciate the questions and the way you're. You're covering this case. Thank you.

[A]

Thanks very much to Mr. Hurwit for taking the time to talk to us.

[B]

We so appreciate it. Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email [e-mail]. if you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[A]

If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www. Buymeacoffee.com murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[B]

Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the Murder Sheet and who you can find on the web at kevintg.

[A]

If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet Discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.