Judge denies Kohring's change of venue bid

MAT-SU — Former state House Rep. Vic Kohring has been denied his request to face a jury outside of Alaska.

Kohring told U.S. District Judge John W. Sedwick he feels he cannot receive a fair trial in Alaska because of the intense media coverage of the state Legislature corruption scandal, of which Kohring is a part. The seven-time House member is accused of taking money in exchange for favorable votes for VECO oil services company officials. He faces federal charges of bribery, conspiracy and corruption. His trial is scheduled to begin Oct. 22.

Sedwick disagreed. writing in an Oct. 5 opinion that “none of the individual media items warrant a finding of presumed prejudice.”

While there has been significant media coverage of Kohring’s case, “The publicity has been spread over a period of many months,” Sedwick says in his ruling. “Most of it consists of entirely factual news stories … that are measured in tone and not inflammatory.”

Drawing on case precedent, Sedwick says a change of venue would be appropriate “only in extreme cases where a community is literally saturated with inflammatory and prejudicial publicity. That is not the situation with respect to the community from which Kohring’s jury will be drawn.”

The judge also says there has not been a “huge wave of public passion” directed toward Kohring and attributes this partially to the relatively small percentage of Alaska residents who follow events in the news media.

Kohring requested his trial be held in Washington state. His attorney, John Henry Browne, is based in Seattle.

In making his case for the change of venue, Kohring’s attorney submitted as evidence of inflammatory publicity a front page story from the May 6 Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman.

“This story is factual,” Sedwick ruled. “It does contain a colorful quote from the VECO executive [about giving Kohring $1,000 and, as a result, Kohring would ‘kiss our ass’], but even that appears to be a factual report and something that likely will be presented as part of the wiretap evidence at trial.”

Editorial cartoons in the Frontiersman were considered inflammatory but did not rise to the level of ordering a change of venue.