![]() ![]() The contract contained a gag order.Ĭonfidentiality clauses like these are a danger to the surrogate but, perhaps more importantly, they are a threat to public policy. But what bothered me most was that she was strictly forbidden from revealing any of it. The document was also written to make the arrangement appear completely altruistic on the part of the surrogate, even though she would be paid a set amount of money whether or not she actually incurred expenses.Īll of these things were objectionable enough. The contract made it sound as if the surrogate had no say about how many embryos would be transferred into her body, and that if the couple wanted four (they did), she had to agree to four. The surrogate did not receive any independent legal advice before signing it in fact, the couple offered her $500 to forego legal advice in order to speed things up. The contract raised multiple ethical issues. That contract, and the details surrounding it, became an obsession for me. The two parties met online, and within 24 hours they had agreed in principle to go ahead with the arrangement. Later today, an additional hearing to determine whether or not cameras will be allowed in the courtroom will be heard by Judge Judge.In 2017, I published a story about a surrogate who carried a baby for a Canadian couple. RELATED | 30 news groups ask Idaho Supreme Court to reject gag order ![]() Secondarily, the non-dissemination order curbs the ability for either party to try the case in the press, creating a public opinion or mood, that would impact the right of due process.Īdditionally, over 30 news organizations have joined to request that the gag order be lifted. The intention of this order is to prevent prejudice due to pre-trial publicity. The gag order essentially prohibits attorneys, prosecutors, law enforcement, and others from discussing anything with the media or the public about the trial or investigation that is not part of the public record. Citing the need for his safety, and that people talking about the case could cause a frenzy leading Kohberger to a firing squad.Īfter hearing from all parties, the Judge announced that he will not make a decision today, that he will review the briefings, and get a decision out shortly. ![]() The defense says no matter what someone says or does, it'll be an attack on Kohberger. Thompson also submits that the gag order is not overly vague, as the Goncalves family are potential witnesses for trial and sentencing in the case. The prosecution, led by Bill Thompson, stated that Gray is preventing investigators from interviewing his clients and making misrepresentations. The Goncalves family has submitted a motion to reverse the non-dissemination order stating that it is placing an undue burden on the families of the victims in this case.Īttorney Shanon Gray, representing the Goncalves family, immediately started arguing with the Judge stating that the order was too broad, going so far as to say he didn't think the Judge had the authority to better define what could and could not be said. RELATED | Police arrest University of Idaho killings suspect in PennsylvaniaĪ nondissemination order was put in place in early January 2023, after police named Bryan Kohberger as the suspect in the case and took him into custody. MOSCOW, Idaho - The family of Kaylee Goncalves, who was one of the four victims murdered in the University of Idaho off-campus house last November, was in court today as Judge John Judge reviewed their motion to contest the gag order in the case.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |