Ever Onward Podcast

Inside the Kohberger Case: Fentanyl, High-THC Weed, and Idaho’s Crossroads | Ever Onward - Ep. 103

• Ahlquist. • Season 1 • Episode 103

Share episode

Four murders in Moscow put Idaho at the center of a global spotlight. Former U.S. Attorney Josh Hurwit joins us to break down what the public didn’t see inside the Bryan Kohberger investigation—how early clues like the knife sheath DNA and the white Elantra shaped strategy, how federal and state agencies worked together under extreme pressure, and why careful communication mattered when the entire world was watching Idaho for answers.

From there, we shift to the issues reshaping safety and policy across the state:

• Fentanyl’s evolution from counterfeit pills to powder—and why overdose trends exploded

• How cartel supply chains move drugs into Idaho’s rural communities

• What Oregon’s decriminalization experiment means for Idaho’s borders

• Why unregulated, high-THC marijuana products are showing up in Idaho schools

• Whether a tightly regulated medical model could work without opening the floodgates

Hurwit’s perspective blends federal prosecution, on-the-ground Idaho realities, and a firsthand look at how big cases really come together. This is a conversation about justice, public safety, and the future choices Idaho leaders will have to make next.

If this episode resonates, follow the show, share it with someone who’d value the insight, and leave a review to help others find Ever Onward.

Follow Ahlquist on Social Media:

LinkedIn: ⁠⁠⁠https://www.linkedin.com/company/ahlquist/⁠⁠⁠

Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/ahlquistdev/

TikTok: ⁠⁠⁠https://www.tiktok.com/@ahlquistdev

X (Twitter): ⁠⁠⁠https://x.com/ahlquistdev

Meta (Facebook): ⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/ahlquistdev/

Youtube: https://youtube.com/@ahlquistdev?si=ejOXPKRqQjtsdVFE


SPEAKER_01:

Today on the Ever Onward Podcast, we have a very special guest, Josh Hurwit, who is the former U.S. attorney for Idaho, an unbelievable guy, a very smart attorney that led the state as the uh uh U.S. attorney for the state of Idaho, and then after his service there, uh was one of the prosecutors on the Brian Koberger case and was part of that whole thing when he pled guilty. Can't wait to hear him talk about that. He is now an attorney at uh Holland and Hart, a partner there. Uh most importantly, he is a great community guy. He is involved in so many great efforts here in our community, uh, a wonderful Idaho guy. Uh great to have him on today, Josh Herwit. Josh, welcome. We've just been chit-chatting here. It's been great. Um I can't wait. Uh I'm really looking forward to this. I was just telling you, we've had you on our list for a long time and um uh certainly appreciate you being here and making time for us. Well, I'm honored to be here.

SPEAKER_00:

It's gonna be fun.

SPEAKER_01:

Let's uh we we should have had this thing rolling when we first came in because we were talking about Fred Mack. Yeah. And I don't know that he listens to this, but one of the legends of of uh Boise, uh Fred Mack, a long time partner at Holland and Hart, very involved in many things, but community too. Yeah. Um and when I did Eighth and Maine, um he was uh he was the guy because I needed I needed a co-tenant desperately. And um, you know, we had the building kind of design, and Zions Bank was going to be our lender. Um, and they were gonna take, you know, Zion's only ended up taking, they leased the top floor, they took two floors and then they took the branch. But the requirement from them as our lender was that we had 65% of the building leased, and um went to went to Fred, who was across the street at uh at the US Bank building. Yeah, and uh he he was awesome. That that building, Eighth the Main, would not exist without Fred Mack and the trust he had and kind of doing the deal. And he cut himself a good deal with me. I just thought uh well anyway, talented lawyers at Holland and Hart. You are talented lawyers at Holland Hart. That's where you are now. But uh Fred, if you're listening, we love you. Uh miss you. Gosh, we're just talking about that too. Once you retire, you just kind of don't see these guys anymore. Yeah. Yeah. Uh anyway. Josh, uh, thanks for being here. Uh currently with Holland and Heart. I I'll uh record a former bio of you before, but man, can't wait to catch up on all things. Um uh Josh Herwit here. Uh uh, why don't we start with a little bit of background for people that don't know you as well as I do?

SPEAKER_00:

Well, thanks. Well, Tommy, thanks for having me. And uh it's a real honor to be be here. And I know how many fantastic you know folks from the Treasure Valley and around Idaho have been on this podcast. So uh to hear that I was even on the list um is a is a deep honor.

SPEAKER_01:

So you're humble, Josh.

SPEAKER_00:

Well, I uh you know we'll see how how this goes, but I'm uh I try to be. Um so just a little bit about me, like you asked. Uh I grew up in Oregon, um, went to Stanford undergrad and at Harvard Law School. When I went for law school, I met uh a gal from Boise. And as we you know connected and started dating, and then you know got married, and and at that point we were actually in in San Francisco working in you know big multinational law firms and thinking about you know what we wanted to do for our family, you know, where we wanted to raise our kids. We had uh our first daughter at the time. And I actually fell in love with Boise just through her and getting to visit here and kind of pulled us back. You know, she was she was more than willing to come back home, of course, but um I really wanted to pull us back here for a couple of reasons. Uh one was the growth of the community, and this is back in 2012, so you you have a deeper perspective on this than I do, but you know, it wasn't it was very steady, very intense growth, but not as supercharged that we've seen the last you know five, seven years or so. Um but also be able to to be in a growing community and do public service. So I joined the U.S. attorney's office as an assistant um U.S. attorney at that time. Uh that was actually under Wendy Olsing. Oh, Wendy. So back in 2012. Yeah. And then I did work under BART, and then after BART, I became the U.S. attorney.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, which is a big deal. Um I I can't wait to get into that. Because I I think uh for uh I think for a if you're in the legal system, you certainly understand kind of how all this goes and how the US attorney works and state by state, and but but if you're not, it's kind of new. Um we had the pleasure of putting uh your office in one of our buildings downtown. So the Pioneer Crossing building. So we're able to work closely with Bart. Absolutely. And during that process, got to understand a little more what they do. And then I have my my best, best, best friend growing up, like like the guy that I was with, John Huber. Oh yeah, I know uh John was uh you know, he became the the the uh Utah district attorney. Yeah, and so uh through that process I I kind of know a little more. But um let's let's jump right there and talk talk about um talk about the U.S. Attorney's Office, what they do. It is a politically appointed position. Yeah, and but but it's responsible for so much of what happens uh in prosecution and and in in Idaho.

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah. So yeah, I'll begin with kind of the favorite part of the privilege I get to say is being the former U.S. attorney now, but but I was the chief federal law enforcement officer for Idaho.

SPEAKER_01:

It's awesome.

SPEAKER_00:

Which was amazing, right? Um so just to back up for a second, the U.S. Attorney's Office, every state has at least one. We are part of the U.S. Department of Justice. But I kind of like to say that we're like the local branch in your community of the U.S. Department of Justice. Um we're at the federal level, right, which is different than the state attorney general and then your county prosecutors. So we handle um all federal litigation in Idaho for the government, the U.S. government. Um, but it also, and most of it's criminal, but there's also some civil litigation as well. And you know, the job is, like you said, it's politically appointed at the top position, but it's completely nonpartisan. And I know that you know, Wendy, who hired me, you know, appointed by Barack Obama, uh Bart Davis appointed now twice by Trump, that they agree with me that you know we have this weird sort of appointment process, right? That's that's political. Um, but the work itself never is, uh at least in Idaho, and I know that's the tradition that that I'm familiar with and that Bart will I know continue as well.

SPEAKER_01:

That's awesome. Uh so so mostly criminal cases. Yeah. Uh what's kind of the breakdown of what the most common cases you prosecuted or deal with in the state of Idaho?

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, great question. Um by volume, it's going to be drug trafficking crimes historically. Um you know, immigration crimes um have been prosecuted throughout the history of the office. Um probably uh a peak was back in 2013-14. So maybe you know a good quarter of our cases were immigration cases. Um it's probably peaking again now under this administration. Um but drug trafficking, immigration, um sadly, a big group of cases are what we call child exploitation cases. So that's child pornography essentially being produced by the case.

SPEAKER_01:

Do they become federal when they're across state lines or it's a larger network or it uses how how does it because I I do know that you can have state charges and then federal charges. How does that work?

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah. So sometimes the same conduct could be either or both. Um for federal crime, you need you know, interstate connection, which generally speaking is going to be the internet. So someone doing something on their computer or their phone, where a lot of this awful material is, um, is going to give us federal jurisdiction.

SPEAKER_01:

Do you work closely then with the fed federal agencies? Absolutely. FBI is probably your your main agency. Is that your main agency?

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, historically, that's right. Um, but the others as well. We you know kind of alphabet soup, right? DEA, um homeland security investigation, so HSI, um what am I missing? IRS, FBI, of course. You know, and all federal agencies have some sort of criminal law enforcement component. You know, the Department of Agriculture, for example, has uh the Office of Inspector General that will work on cases. Um but really one of the beautiful things about the U.S. Attorney's Office in Idaho and probably other rural states is there's not a lot of federal law enforcement resources. You know, we're not in a huge city, right? Um, so it's beholden on us to partner with local and state um law enforcement. So the relationships we have are really deep with all of our local communities.

SPEAKER_01:

I think we we had uh Doug Hard on, uh former FBI kind of lead and we see here. Yeah. Fascinating, by the way. Um great, great guy. Um but you do work with local. So so of those cases that come through, um how let me ask you, uh I I've I've got some prepared stuff to talk to you today, but I don't know. But what what's your take on um so it's interesting for us because we're so close to Oregon, right? Yeah, and you and and especially for me, I when I when I went part-time in the ER, I I spent my last two and a half, three years out in uh Weezer, yeah, working in that ER. So I I got to know that community really well. Yeah, um, the good and the bad of that community.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01:

And then I think that was during my time when kind of marijuana was legalized and and those laws. They had, I mean, you look at the laws in Oregon, yeah. I mean, they basically they they didn't have any laws.

SPEAKER_00:

For a time, they uh legalized everything.

SPEAKER_01:

They legalized everything. I think I I listened to a podcast actually um about a year and a half ago um where the guys that the kind of the brains behind that whole theory, uh, their theory was hey, if you go to Portugal and you look at in Portugal, the country, they legalize everything and they don't have a drug problem. What if we did the same thing in the state? Yeah. And they've got all these theories why it didn't work, but I think that even they admit the people that pushed that through that it was a disaster because of all the fallout of, hey, yeah, everything's legal. Yeah. And and we certainly hear horror stories of Portland. Um, but I think for us sitting right here, I think you get to see kind of how federal and state laws affect day-to-day lives of citizens and businesses and everything else. But even more for us, you've got Ontario sitting right there. What's your take on because then the flip side of that, and and again, I can't wait to hear where you go with this. The flip side of that is if you look at our our um, you know, who's incarcerated in Idaho, and you look at some of the minute mandatory minimums, and I know that's a hard thing to talk about, and and that there's this balance thing here where we don't want that, right? And then you get these mandatory minimums also, and you look at the cost and and some of these uh sentencings, and and and then I think it's my opinion, I I think that um a lot you think that well, a mandatory minimum there's not prosecution, because you know, if you have this much, then this much happens. And but what I've heard is sometimes there is deal making, but it happens down at the local prosecutor level. It may happen in the backseat of a car, cop car, and it may happen at the you know, when they look with local law enforcement, and then judges' hands are tied um of having any discretion in the deal. I you hear all sides of this. But with that long, too long a preamble, what's your take on all this?

SPEAKER_00:

So yeah, a lot, a lot to talk about there. Um you know, let's start with the uh the Portugal analogy and why that didn't work. And I think it's pretty simple. You know, Portugal is a small country, different type of population, um, you know, different type of geography, right? You know, when we talk about the drug problem in this country, you know, we talk about the Mexico Mexican cartels in the southern border. Um, you know, Portugal isn't sitting next to some problem like that.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00:

So I think to me, that's sort of the simplest way to explain that why it didn't work, is it's just a totally foreign situation.

SPEAKER_01:

You know, the other argument I heard, um, and I don't know what you think of this, the other argument was that in Portugal, um you you have these multi-generational families that are just never leave Portugal. And so they have more care or why would we destroy our own place? And in in some of these places in America where these drugs pour in from outside, they're not thinking about that. I don't know. And I I uh when I heard that, I'm like, well, maybe that is the case. Where over there they're like, well, we we can't let trash our own town because this has been our town for hundreds of years, and up here it's like, do we really care if we trash Ontario? I don't know. You think that has anything to do with it?

SPEAKER_00:

It might, you know, it's a different culture, right? Um, and so I think to say that what worked well in a smaller country with a different culture is gonna work well, you know, in in the United States was a fallacy, right? So I think there's something to that. Certainly the cartels don't care what happens across the border or even in their own backyard, right? So that's a huge problem. And that's what we see with fentanyl is you know, we really attack the fentanyl problem hard, and I'm hoping that that will continue and there'll be you know some success. Um, it's a huge, hard problem. But people ask, you know, why, if you're the drug dealer, would you sell fentanyl to someone knowing that it might kill them? Like that's your customer, right? That makes no economic sense. Um and the simplest answer is they just don't care about the carnage because they're making money. Yeah. And they just essentially allow for the fact that a lot of people are gonna be harmed, a lot of communities are gonna be harmed.

SPEAKER_01:

Keep going. Sure. I want to come back to FedNow, but keep going on this this whole thing.

SPEAKER_00:

And then, you know, you you brought mandatory minimums, and um you know, we had a change at the federal level um under the first Trump administration um with a statute that both imposed mandatory minimums um in sort of an enhanced way, but it also recognized that there can be exceptions. And so it actually, in a barp is a bipartisan bill, um allowed for different what we call safety valves for mandatory minimum sentencings where someone maybe has an addiction problem, isn't a dealer, doesn't have a history of that, wasn't violent in any way, and agreed to cooperate you know with the government right away. You know, if those things were met, then there would be a reduction of the sentence, or at least the judge would have discretion. Um so when we think about mandatory minimums, they are a tool to be applied, and this is just my view. Yeah. Um they're a tool to be applied uh in the right case, and they have a benefit, I think, of sending a strong message and deterring some of this activity. And we'll get back to that with Ontario in in a second. Um but you can also do it in a smart way where prosecutors have discretion and judges have discretion and def and defendants have an incentive to turn their lives around. So I think that's that's my experience with mandatory minimums. I don't I'm not um I I think they're they have a good purpose.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, they have great purpose. And I think that's when you So I I was involved in a project where we actually did some polling to see what people, just general public, thought about mandatory minimums. And I think when you live in a safe community community community state like we do, uh on the surface, it's a very easy thing to message. They're awesome because they are. I mean, they they deter crime. Yeah. So I think and then and then until you really start digging in the financial and kind of implications of, well, it is, but you've got the back end of this is how do we ever sustain and support all the people that get put away for a long time. And and and really, you know, is there so I'm really glad to hear you say that that under that legislation there was given a little bit more judgment to the judges to to um to make some exceptions. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00:

The the criticisms, the criticisms of mandatory minimums that I think have been compelling, um you know, I think in places like Oregon, and then you know, to some extent here I've heard this, is you have the example of someone who had some marijuana and they get sentenced to three years and no one's able to sort of take their family circumstances into account. You know, you'd have to ask a state prosecutor about that because we're not really prosecuting, we weren't really prosecuting marijuana offenses at the federal level. So I didn't see those examples where you know someone who had a joint is serving a long prison sentence, right?

SPEAKER_01:

You were you were more with the big bad guys dealership.

SPEAKER_00:

You know, and let's also not forget that the prosecutor still has the uh discretion to charge the case in a certain way. Yeah. Now there are certain policies that will come down from Washington, D.C. that might apply at the state level. Yeah. But you know, sometimes we had a case where we said, you know, there's some extreme mitigating of circumstances here. And so while this may have been a case that could justify a mandatory minimum, we're not going to charge it here because we think that this person, for example, has a good support network.

SPEAKER_01:

What do you say, as this is your area of expertise, that the criticism of that's where the deal's cut is at the prosecutor's office. Because what what people will say that are that don't like some of the downstream effects of um mandatory minimums as well, it's not like, hey, if you have this, then this happens. There's still essentially room for uh adjudicating and making judgments and giving grace, but it happens at the prosecutor level. It doesn't happen at the judge level.

SPEAKER_00:

Right. Is that that yeah, that's a fair criticism too, or at least a common criticism. And I've heard people say, and and this is the stat for federal criminal cases, 95% of cases will resolve through a plea agreement, which to some people are like, well, that's too high. That means that people are sort of being railroaded or whatnot. In my experience, and again, I think it'd be interesting to have someone who has this experience at the state level, you know, offer their views. But in my experience at the federal level, when we charge a case, the person's dead to rights, yeah. We're not especially in the drug case. Especially in a drug case, right? This is not, hey, we're gonna try to leverage something and make you go to prison for something maybe you didn't do. I mean, you have we have them dead to rights. That's why 95% of the cases resolve. And that allows us to do more. If every case went to trial, yeah, we would be doing far fewer.

SPEAKER_01:

So that's a case stat because you're more efficient and you're you're prosecuting them and they're not going to trial some long-drawn-out expensive thing, and they're getting in my mind.

SPEAKER_00:

It is now people have to have faith in the system, right? And recognize or believe that the prosecutors have the public's interest in mind when they're making these deals, when they're making these decisions. And that's a fragile thing, especially now. But um, in my experience, you know, we had righteous cases and we didn't use plea bargaining in a way to to unduly impose leverage on someone.

SPEAKER_01:

What's your opinion on uh let's talk a little bit about so you had this kind of pendulum swing in Oregon. And um you know, you you can go over there. You don't need to, you don't need to have like, you know, listen to someone's opinion. If you ever want to go see what it did, even now, you can go down downtown Portland or anywhere. I'm doing a lot of work in Reno right now. Um and you know, say what you want to. Like you go into their downtown and there's dispensaries everywhere, and it's just it's just different.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01:

I uh you know, I spent uh last last year I was able to spend a lot of. A month down in Santa Monica for something going down a lot. Yeah. And you just see you, you know, you it just you don't have to like you go see it. Right. You don't have to, and you're like, oh, okay, this is this is and and it reminds me of I have a really good friend, Bill Whitaker, who every year goes down and he drives his motorcycle along the southern border because he didn't want to have someone tell him what was going on. Yeah. He wanted to see for himself, and now he has 10 years of history because he does it every year of what's actually going on. It's the same thing with drugs. It's like, well, you can go look.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01:

So now you've got, I think for me, and my opinion, which is my opinion on this, I look at those communities and I'm like, well, no, I don't want to legalize marijuana just because I mean, and I'm a doctor, so I can tell you, like, okay, you know, CBD and THC and benefits and all that. But what I don't want for my community is I really don't want dispensaries everywhere. I don't want the kind of people in Rift Raff or Brains. I just don't want that. Yeah. Um, I don't think it's good for communities. And I think you can look at Denver and look a lot of different places and say it. But but and that's a different argument than okay, can you use is meta is marijuana an alternative to uh narcotics for the treatment of chronic pain? That's a totally different thing. I just that's my opinion, and that's my opinion. But now I'm getting to the point. There is a lot of pressure still in Idaho to legalize marijuana. And if you don't think there is, yeah, look at just two election cycles ago, how much money got dumped in to take Chuck Winder out and went against Mike Moyle for crying out loud. Yeah. That was a that was a lot of money from people wanting to legalize marijuana going against really conservative guys that that were just against marijuana here.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01:

Uh and and so uh it's interesting to me how politics creates really strange bedfellas a lot. Right. Right. And um I I guess what I'm getting to is what's your take on where we sit in Idaho? Legalization, yeah, pressures that are on us. Um what do you think?

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah. To me, it's if something's working well, don't break it, right? Yeah. I mean, we have great public safety. Yeah. Um, we have issues like everywhere else. Um, you know, I I yeah, I mean, I think that's that's for the bottom line. So why would we do that? What problem is it solving? You know, if there's a space for medical marijuana, and I'm not a doctor, and so I'd love that to hear your views on this. Um, you know, maybe there's a place for that, and we can do that in a way without dispensaries everywhere everywhere, right?

SPEAKER_01:

My personal opinion is there absolutely is. Should be. I mean, then it's the other argument I've heard, I I've actually I actually did a pretty deep deep dive into this because I wanted to educate myself before I had an opinion. And I think the other thing about just I think um the and and I think some of the people in even Oregon and places they wanted to deregulate regulate, they wanted to decriminalize it, but not deregulate it. Right. And my point there is alcohol is the most common consumed drug there is. Right. Probably. And it's still regulated. Right. The percent alcohol in a is still regulated and can be fined and is a crime if you're not complying with the percent. Well, when marijuana was legalized, it was never regulated. Right. So if you look at the concentration of THC in some of these, and if if I'm a if I'm a if I'm a manufacturer of of THC and I got a dispensary, guess what? I want there to be 10 times the amount of THC per gummy. Because if you come in and I can get you hooked on that, then I sell more. Yeah. And if I'm not regulated, of course I'm gonna do it. So so to me, I also I also worry that that like, okay, you take a concept that's pretty good, which is hey, chronic pain, should it be treated with THC? Is it better than narcotics? I don't think any anyone that I know of is gonna argue no. There's probably a very good role for that. And you got people that will tell you that that have done it and said, hey, I've tried everything my whole life and it helps me. But that is probably regulated. So you know what dose you're getting, how you're applying the dose, some of those sort of things versus um what's happening. So anyway, longer discussion, but yeah, no, that totally makes sense to me.

SPEAKER_00:

Is the other thing I was gonna ask you is you know, the concentrations of THC in some of these products now. It's probably not what anyone contemplated when they when they were fearful that you know some high schooler with a joint was gonna have their lives ruined, and so let's you know, decriminalize this. Yeah. Well, what about that high schooler taking massive amounts of THC and then what that does to their brain? Yeah, and I'm no doctor, but I mean that that's what worries me. Yeah. And so again, why go down that path um where it's probably not working well anywhere else, right?

SPEAKER_01:

So I I love hearing that from you because I think we've kind of almost I think I thought we'd kind of weather the storm and like, okay, well, this is what happens to a community. I would like to see some way to have medical marijuana, I think, from just my own personal. I think that would be a very good thing there's a lot of people with chronic pain that that that you know, and and we've seen narcotics and what they do. I mean, they're just and I, you know, I've I was I feel bad when we talk about the subject because when I when I trained, I trained in the 90s. And um I've I've said this on this podcast before, but I trained in uh University of Arizona, um, a great program, kind of leading edge emergency medicine program. And I remember like having lecturers come to us and say, We have been chronically under-treating pain for decades. You need to send people home with you know, scripts for narcotics with refills, you need to ask them their pain. And that's when the whole pain chart came up. And it wasn't unusual for me. You come in and sprain your ankle, and I was being instructed at my school that I was an expert. You know, I'm supposed to be an expert on treating pain acutely, and I'm sending people home with 30 hydrocodones with two refills for a sprained ankle. Um, let alone you'd see people coming with back pain that would literally just be be given lar, I mean, and it was it was like, yeah, that's what we we have not been treating pain. And then I look at the drug company side of it and how perverse it was. Um, I remember like getting, you know, golf balls and putters and those guys coming through and send you on trips and you know, they they knew, you know, you know, and it was always the latest narcotic. Um so I was I trained in the middle of that. And and so I compare that industry, um, the legalized um treatment of pain to what could be with marijuana. And I'm like, man, we gotta we gotta we gotta probably gotta figure this out. But anyway, it's it's fascinating to hear your take on it from the prosecutor side. So you think we're in a good shape, good space in Idaho?

SPEAKER_00:

You know, as good as we can be, yeah, you know, we're doing things the right way. The partnerships, as I was talking about before, between the federal, state, and local on the drug side are very effective. And uh, you know, one of the things I'm really proud about is we were innovative. Yeah, you know, this is the Department of Justice being innovative, which sounds like an oxymoron, but you know, we went to the governor and we said, you know, we have these um state and local sponsored prosecutors in in Boise and in Pocatello. We need one in Court d'Alene because that's where we're seeing a lot of fentanyl. And you know, we figured out a way to do it with some federal funds and uh matching funds from the state and local buy-in to have essentially a new specialized prosecutor up in Court d'Alane to attack the drug problem.

SPEAKER_01:

Let's talk about fentanyl. So, so just a little background for the people probably know this, but opioids are like the I mean, you have opioid receptors, these mu receptors in your body, they're fantastic for treatment of pain. They also provide a euphoric kind of sedative-like reaction when you get them. Um common opioids that have been used forever. Codeine was the first one that that's just was early on what even when I started training, you still gave people codeine, lots of lots of kind of undesirable nausea and side effects. So then there was hydrocodone, oxycodone, um, and then you know, that that that's kind of where the mainstay drugs, percocet or bicodin, were the ones you did. And even even back in the day, 20 years ago, people you could sell, you'd hear horror stories. Because in the ER, I mean, that's where people go when they overdose, right? So what I saw training in Tucson and then being here is when you would have an overdose for one of those, that's where you come in, right? And even back in Tucson, um, oh it wasn't unusual. I'd on a night shift to see one or two people come in with a with uh with an overdose of an opioid, you know, and you need Narcan and the whole thing. Um, but usually it was it was it was either heroin, right? Then street drug, or it was taking too many pills, they would be traded on the streets. But that's all it really was. Along comes fentanyl, right? So fentanyl is this super hyper concentrated, you know, uh you know, they 10 times as powerful as morphine, kind of fast onset, super terrific high, uh used in the ER a lot. I mean, it for pain, someone comes in with a fractured femur or whatever. I mean, you give a dose of fentanyl because you get such rapid onset of pain relief, and that's what it was designed for. Um it by the way, is is if if you have anyone in you know your life that is a healthcare provider that got hooked on drugs and got lost their license, it was because of fentanyl. You know, people I I know of a couple nurses that got hooked and would sneak off and because it was a rapid onset, super euphoric high. And so the I understand why it was so um so addictive, but then it became the street drug, right? And and the reason why it kills people is it's so powerful and it suppresses your respiration so that if you take too much, you basically stop breathing and suffocate and die from lack of oxygen because you're not breathing. Um easily reversed by Narcan, which is a um a counteracting medicine that kind of flushes the receptors. Um, but that has become what's killing people. From your perspective, and in Idaho, how bad did the problem get? How bad is it? And then I understand the next thing to ask you is there's a I I hear there's a new one now, a new synthetic that's even more powerful and problematic.

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah. It got bad, and it traces to what you're talking about with the pharmaceutical industry pumping out these pills into our into our country, and people were looking for to get addicted to things like oxycodone.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00:

And so what happens when the ERs and the medical profession get smart to this, and the pharmaceutical companies stop doing this, you know, knock on wood, hopefully, um, is people are looking for an alternative and the cartels realized this and started making fentanyl. And the fentanyl that they are distributing started as fake prescription pills. It looks as good, if not better, than your oxycotone pill you'll get from the pharmacy. So a lot of times people thought they were taking a legitimate pharmaceutical grade pill, and it was made by the cartels in a lab that isn't a lab, that's a bunch of, I've seen pictures of these, right? Maybe you have too. You know, these plastic jugs in the middle of the jungle, dirty, filthy, no quality control. And so someone thinks, oh, I'm gonna take one oxycotin pill, and they're taking you know eight doses of fentanyl, and boom, you know, as you said, they're they're gone. Um, that's how this crisis, the fentanyl crisis started, but it's really part of the opioid crisis. Um and then what happened was um you know, we started prosecuting and enforcing these illicit pills, and people recognized um that these weren't pharmaceutical pills, but there was still a market for them. And instead of pill form, the cartels are just putting in powder, yeah, you know, fentanyl powder. And so they, you know, a lot of people got addicted and still are. In Idaho, you know, we don't have as severe a crisis as you know some other states that you hear about, but any right, any one death from a fentanyl overdose is too many. You know, I think it peaked probably with the data I've seen, it peaked in 2023-ish, with about 300 deaths, which is one a day in Idaho. Wow. And hopefully it's starting to come down. Um, but yeah, there are new variants. Um, car fentanyl, I don't know if that's what you're referring to. That's the one you know that I heard about as I was ending my time as a CS attorney, um, even more powerful than sort of the normal synthetic fentanyl. So it's it's a problem. Um but awareness, I think, can you know lead to a lot of progress. You know, we've got to do the enforcement side, of course, uh, but just talking about these things, which for so long was a stigma. Yeah. And you have you know healthcare professionals that get hooked, you have people that you never expect, teachers, you know, firefighters, you know, people that leave, leave, uh lead you know really great productive lives and have families were falling prey to fentanyl. And like, why is that? It's because it's so addictive because someone could you know break a femur, right? Need pain, and then next thing you know, they're addicted to fentanyl.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, and the interesting pathophysiology behind these opioids is is you you upregulate these receptors. So what what works today and gives you a higher pain relief, right? Um, start with pain. Like if you have chronic back pain, you may start taking one a day in the morning just to kind of get through the day. Well, that's only gonna work until those receptors go up, and then it's two, then it's three, then it's four. And the the amount of opioids that people can get on, sometimes when people come clean, like in the R, I remember a couple of times saying, you know, when you would have someone tell you the truth, like, okay, how how much are you taking a day? And you'd go, What? I mean, it would it was like these uh quantities that no wonder, like, and then all of a sudden they could get, you know, find a way to get it some other way, but was one less hassle. And then I think that what changed for us in Idaho, the board of pharmacy. Um, you think about when I first got here, you would you would have someone come in and you would have to just believe them. You're in the middle of the night and you're like, and you have these wild stories of white people need a pain medicine, and a lot of times you just you wouldn't know and you would treat them. And I've got some great drug, drug-seeking behavior stories, like crazy stuff. And then you'd find it out and you're like, what? But um then they got a website. I mean, that's you think about this, and you could, if you had any concerns, you would go put in, you know, as long as they were were truthful and using ID to check in, you could check their birth date and who they were. And you know, I remember when it first came out, like going in there and going, whoa, like in the old days, I would have just given a prescription to them. Right. You'd have someone that had filled 15 prescriptions that week, and you just didn't have access to the data. So I think that made it harder to back to your point, harder to get it through a doctor. Um, and now you're looking, okay, uh my addiction's not going away. It's it's an addiction. You feel so sorry for these people because and they can't just get off of it. They gotta, you know, they gotta figure this out. Anyway, um, this is great. I want to transition though. So your time as US US attorney, uh uh I know district attorney, you loved it.

SPEAKER_00:

Absolutely, yeah. I mean, the the mission, the people, um, the ability to do inventive things you know within the confines of government, even was was really special. That's awesome.

SPEAKER_01:

So then uh your time doing that comes to an end, and then the first thing you do, and I remember hearing this, I'm like, this is awesome. So you go to the prosecution team on the Brian Koberger trial.

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah. Unexpectedly, that was not a good idea. Tell us about the plan.

SPEAKER_01:

And then I can't wait to ask you some questions on this.

SPEAKER_00:

Sure, sure. Happy to. Um, yeah, so you know, with the change in administrations, I was no longer a U.S. attorney, which is um expected and normal when the president changes. Again, it's politically appointed, but you know, nonpartisan in my mind. Um, so I was actually signed on to go to Holland and Hart. You know, I was gonna take three or four months off and you know spend some time having fun with the family. Um, and I got a call from Bill Thompson who said, you know, hey, we are prepping for this you know incredible trial. That's you know, the the the world's got its attention on it, and you know, the resources are such that we need another trial attorney to to help us try the case. And of course I said yes, you know, for for the obvious reasons, which is Had you followed the case closely? Uh you know, closely, I know a lot of people followed it, you know, every in every which way on social media and you know, internet and so forth. I wasn't that type of case. And as U.S. attorney, I had some involvement.

SPEAKER_01:

I didn't think about that.

SPEAKER_00:

Um, in the sense that the FBI was part of the investigation and we worked hand in hand with the FBI. So we were essentially supporting the FBI, which was supporting the investigation. So I I knew some things that weren't public, but you know, I didn't know much. And so when I joined the case, um, which I love about being a lawyer, you know, my job was to sort of helicopter in. You know, we say like helicopter parent, it's not a good thing necessarily. But helicopter lawyer, I think maybe is something I enjoy. I just got into the conference. Yeah, I just got in the conference room in Bill Thompson's office up in Moscow and was like, just bring me everything, I'm gonna digest it, we're gonna talk about questions. And so that was in April, right? Trial was scheduled to start in August. So I really had about three months to get up to get up to speed and help the team um get ready for trial. And um, you know, obviously it was a really hard experience given given the case and uh one that has changed me. Um but as a as a lawyer, it was something I was you know so honored to be able to do.

SPEAKER_01:

So I'm dying to ask you a couple questions. So so you there you go, you're like, okay, I'm in, I'm gonna I'm gonna be part of this team, and you're digging through everything. Um what what surprised you well first I I as a as a and I followed it closely, and then since I've watched all the stuff, I mean I I I feel like and I my heart just aches, first of all. I mean, just I can't imagine being one of these families or or their friends that were affected by this. But the law enforcement that figured this out, what surprised you most by they did some really good work, right?

SPEAKER_00:

Absolutely, yeah.

SPEAKER_01:

Uh talk a little bit about just how incredible they were. And some of it may be been luck, I mean, like DNA, but the but they do great police work, right?

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, and I'll tell you about that, give you an anecdote about why I think it was so incredible. Um wasn't surprising to me, right, that we had great law enforcement working on this, and you gotta give credit to everyone from the local police chief and the police department that said, hey, this thing, this thing is tough, right? We had essentially two pieces of evidence and we need some help getting more, and we can talk about what those two pieces were to say we need more help, let's bring in ISP, and let's bring in the FBI, and the FBI just put its natural, national, natural resources on this case, knowing full well it was not likely to be a federal case. But hey, we just want to help this small community solve this. Um the two pieces of evidence that they really had to start with um was this knife sheath that got left behind and some surveillance video of a vehicle. White can white, yeah, cor what was it? White corollary.

SPEAKER_01:

Is it fair to say if that night she wouldn't have been there? Yeah this thing wouldn't have been solved.

SPEAKER_00:

That's the big question. Um I think it would have been solved.

SPEAKER_01:

You would you think it would have?

SPEAKER_00:

Because of the vehicle. Okay. It would have taken a lot longer because I think they had something like 30,000 matching vehicles. It turned out that this vehicle was registered in Pennsylvania. So it wasn't just let's look at all the all the elantras in Idaho or all the elantras in the West. It's like, you know, let's look at every single car to figure out what the connection might be. So I think it would have taken longer, but they would have pinpointed this individual. Through the vehicle. But then you're left with a much more circumstantial case, which is him leaving his location in Poland, Washington, in this vehicle, the murders happen, and him rushing back home, essentially.

SPEAKER_01:

And all the cell phone data is turning off and where he drove and all that stuff. But he wouldn't have had his DNA on the safe.

SPEAKER_00:

Correct. And there was no other. I just want to think about this to make sure I'm saying this right. There's no other biological forensic evidence tying him to the crime or the victims other than the knife sheath.

unknown:

Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_01:

How unusual is that, Josh?

SPEAKER_00:

It's pretty unusual.

SPEAKER_01:

I mean, this guy's creepier than I mean, this guy's creepy.

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, I mean, obviously. That's that's but I mean the fact that that was like nothing there was I think this was his life was studying this, you know, in some sense training for this, right? Um, you know, the other thing that was relevant was that he was seen by one of the surviving roommates, you know, who saw this man clad in black with the face mask, uh one of the ski masks, right? Uh balaclava fitting his description. So he was prepared, he had studied this. There was evidence that he had been essentially casing this location for you know a month driving around it. Um but you know the the DNA was was critical in really shoring this up in a faster fashion than it would have been, and then making the case stronger than it would have been.

SPEAKER_01:

As you start digging into this, um clearly there's the emotional. I mean, I you know, yeah, I had a high highly traumatic job for a long time, but nothing like this. I mean, you're dealing with like the worst of the worst crime scene family stuff, and I mean uh how does that affect you?

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, I I tr I tend to think about how it affects others, you know. Obviously the families who suffered through this um you know had the rights to um do it in their own way. Yeah. Um but law enforcement doesn't, right? You know, part of the evidence was you know two um Moscow police officers arriving at the scene not knowing what to expect. And we have this on body cam. You know, they're going through the scene and they're just they don't it doesn't register to them. It didn't register, I don't think, either to the to the other witnesses that that saw this. And so you have shock and then you have trauma. Um, and then for law enforcement, the concern about you know finding this person, right? Is this person a threat? You know, at the first part of the investigation, are we gonna be able to locate him or you know whoever it was? And uh are we gonna be able to prosecute them? So so much pressure, so much trauma, ultimately so much perseverance and dedication and integrity to do this all the right way under extreme international pressure, like we talked about.

SPEAKER_01:

Um, feat early on. Just what they were saying and how were they saying it and the timing of all the stuff. And I it's gotta feel really good at the end of this for them to look back and say, hey, we're true pros, and we kind of I'm sure it wasn't. I mean, I've sure if that wasn't perfect, because nothing is, especially in those circumstances. But man, I I what a great job. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah. And I think the the story that, you know, this has been unfortunately sensational, sensationalized, right? And that the main thing I think for all of us going forward is to honor the memory of the victims, allow the people that are left to recover as best they can. Um but there's also a story to be told about trusting the process, trusting law enforcement, recognizing that you know, even in a small town like Moscow, Idaho, we have amazingly trained and dedicated law enforcement um officials that want to do things the right way. And you know, unfortunately, in the true crime atmosphere that's out there and with social media and with you know everything conspiracy theories. Yeah, conspiracy theories, right? It gets in the way. Um, and we need to recognize that's a problem. And you know, it didn't get in the way ultimately in this case, but you can imagine a situation where um it's so disruptive to law enforcement that justice isn't served.

SPEAKER_01:

And then I didn't even realize until I watched some of the after documentaries like of all the crazy folks coming in and just trying to you know get famous off this and being where they shouldn't be and being in the way and doing all this stuff. You didn't have to deal with that, you know, 10 years ago.

SPEAKER_00:

This is all the new normal for um and and there are people that showed up in the courtroom to support Koberger, yeah, for whatever sick reason, right? Um for no connection. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I'm not talking about his family, I'm talking about random training.

SPEAKER_01:

I'm just saying how hard it would be for them to be there and just be and have people come and do that. I just can't even imagine, like as a father of one of these kids, yeah. What what what emotion you would feel? Yeah um talk talk a little so you get into the case. Um I have so many things that to ask you, but but was it how early on were you confident this this this monster was gonna plead guilty?

SPEAKER_00:

I never thought he would. I didn't you know none of us did.

SPEAKER_01:

It's not part of like his thing, right?

SPEAKER_00:

I mean he maintained his innocence throughout, right? This was you know our our kind of working theory. We don't know his his mind, but I think his our working theory was he wanted to do this and get away with it. And so we figured he would maintain his innocence through trial, through conviction, until he, you know, died one way or the other, right? And so I think people know this, and you probably know this, but you know, the defense team approached us about a resolution because we were just plowing forward to trial, not thinking at all that he would want to essentially exchange guilty pleas for no death penalty, right? But that's where his attorneys got him to, and they proposed that essentially, um, because that's the only potential resolution that could be uh provided. And you know, the the hard decision was made um to offer that resolution. And that ultimately I think it's the right one. It was a hard one. Yeah. Um, and I know that there's folks, including some of the family members, who disagreed with it.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00:

And we've always respected that. Um, but ultimately I think it's it's the best thing.

SPEAKER_01:

Hey, help help help me get in the mind of uh because you're the nearest thing to this next question I'm gonna ask you. It's always been hard for me to understand how a defense attorney I mean, it's gotta be a horrible position to be. Well, first of all, everyone needs a defense and the titled and it's constitutional and all that. But I how do they do it?

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah. Some better than others, right? I mean, you talk about trauma. I think prosecutors have trauma with the cases they prosecute. I think a lot of defendants have have had trauma and have had their own mental health near significantly compromised by working on certain cases. I'm not talking about these particular defense attorneys, who by the way did a very professional job. Um but you you mentioned it, right? It's about the system, right? If if we don't have and and now you know working outside of government for a law firm that does you know some criminal defense, mainly of companies, if anyone's listening out there, um, hopefully you don't have those issues. But um, you know, as lawyers, right, we we take an oath to uphold the Constitution because of the benefits it provides to all of us in all walks of our life. And so if we don't have someone that is going to make the government go through the steps it needs to convict someone, which is unimpeachable evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, following all the due process protections that we have, then none of us are safe, right? So it's it's a in a sense, it's sort of selfless.

SPEAKER_01:

Absolutely have to have it. It's selfless. I get all that. Yeah. Okay. So so you t I mean, I totally understand, especially, you know, take uh take corporate law case or take you know, take even a case that you you you don't know. How hard would it be for you, though, if you knew and you're with this monster and you know that that guy slaughtered these four people to still get up there? And I I just I'm the the human side of it. I get the societal side, I get the constitutional side, I get why we need it. There's gotta be, like you said, professionals on this side. That's gotta be one of the hardest things for any human on earth to do. I couldn't do it.

SPEAKER_00:

I couldn't do it either. That's why I was a prosecutor, not a you know, criminal defense attorney um, you know, working on those types of cases. You know, Alan Dershowitz was a professor at Harvard and still is, I think, um, when I was there. And he his view was as a defense attorney, you don't ask. You don't find out. Not your job. Not your job.

SPEAKER_01:

You know, just compartmentalize it and say, I'm gonna do the best I can to look at the evidence. And then that's my job. And constitutionally we need it. It's part of this process, and you just yeah, you'd have to. You'd have to.

SPEAKER_00:

And mentally, not everyone can do that, right? It's a job for a sliver of lawyers out there. Um but I think that's the way that they probably handle that.

SPEAKER_01:

Um any any thoughts on the family uh as you've gone through this?

SPEAKER_00:

Um I mean, like you said, my my heart's broken for um you know everyone impacted by this. Um you know, that's sentencing, right? You may have seen that. The families finally got the chance to speak.

SPEAKER_01:

And the one sister was awesome. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00:

I mean that they all were. And to me, just the words that I was thinking are strength, power, grace. Yeah, you know, one of the family members that spoke talked about forgiveness, which surprised me, right? Um, so you know, ultimately, I what I learned that that day at sentencing was how so many different people can demonstrate humanity in different ways, but in a shared way, um, you know, arising out of something so horrible. Not to say that, you know, there's silver lining or anything because this is not in that situation, but we learned, I think, uh, and hopefully people following it learned a lot about the process. Yeah. Um, but also just about family, about how much we love our families and and what it means um when someone's taken from us and why we need to have community safety for those reasons.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah. Um what what so this guy pleads guilty. He's, you know, six miles from us right now for the rest of his life. Yeah. Um I I know I I know recently in the news uh he had appealed some uh restitution thing he was having to pay. Or I mean what is there anything else that this guy still gets uh gets to get publicly aware of? I mean, he's just such a creep. And then the other question I had is can he s can he make money? Can he sell the story?

SPEAKER_00:

So no, he cannot. These he he can tell his story under the First Amendment, there's not anything to be done to prevent him. He cannot make money off of it. There's a law in Idaho and many other states that if um, you know, let's say a production company was to do something or a book publisher was to do something, and I frankly hope that never happens, but you know, it's the world we live in, right? Yeah. Um any proceeds or any potential proceeds or profits get put in an account with the office of the treasurer and the families get that money. Okay.

SPEAKER_01:

But he can he could do it for fame or whatever, crazy thing he does. Um did you ever get a sense other than just severe mental illness, uh, what what's behind this guy? Any any any thoughts, personal thoughts you have?

SPEAKER_00:

It's and this isn't because I know anything about him psychology, it's because of just my observation of the crime.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00:

And the senselessness of it is there's gotta be something, and you're the doctor, but you know, wrong in the wiring of the brain that just made him the way he was and uh allowed him to be fixated on doing something like this. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01:

Horrible. Well, hey, so so we're not gonna end on that note, right? No, we're gonna get happy here again. But but it's fascinating to talk to you about because I think it's such a like in my lifetime, it's such a public case. It was so gut-wrenching and having someone on that like was there and saw it all and was part of the ending of the deal. It's it's thanks for sharing today. I think it's I think it's helpful to talk about. Yeah. Uh let's get so so you transition there and now you're back, now you're in uh Holland and Hart. Yeah. We started with Holland and Heart. Great, great law firm here locally. Tell us about next chapter for you.

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, you know, I think it fits with why I'm in Idaho. Um, what I love about um, you know, our state, our communities, is this sort of engine of of innovation and growth and building connections in the community and thinking about ways to make Idaho even better. That's I think the ethos of the firm and the and the ethos of the people that work there. Um and why I chose to join them is because we kind of think about things the same way and are being creative even in you know the legal space, which isn't necessarily the most creative space all the time. Um but you know, my my work is going to be on the litigation side. So any time someone needs someone to go to court for them, you know, that's what you kind of my expertise. But um within that, you know, anything involving investigations that touch upon the government is sort of one focus. We call that the white collar practice, you know, representing businesses and executives that you know have something they want looked at. Um but also we haven't really talked about this, but you know, half of my career has been as a civil litigator before I came to Idaho and even in Idaho. And so I'm really excited to get back into the courtroom on some some civil disputes to to help the clients.

SPEAKER_01:

Well, another thing we can talk about is your your family, right?

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, you're in Boise. Yeah. How old are your kids? Uh 14 and 11. So yeah, two girls and great ages. I think so. You know, we've got the teenage stuff a little bit, but it's great.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, they're but they're still there before it really gets bad here, and then they become great again. Oh, don't tell me that. You know, I think it's gonna be great during. I had three I have three girls. Yeah. Uh they're 30, uh 22 and 20. Uh wonderful. Oh my gosh, wonderful.

SPEAKER_00:

Congratulations.

SPEAKER_01:

Um, hey, uh, so then uh the other thing is you I think anyone that knows you, and I know you're you're very well integrated to our state and our community, you have your reputation, Josh, is just the the great one of the greatest guys around. I mean, you're very community-minded, and I just want to take a chance to tell you thank you for all you do. Um had a recent award you won at uh Idaho Leaders United. Um and and just as part of that and hearing, you know, just the people that really appreciate what you've done uh for our state, for our people, and and kind of as one of the thought leaders. Um, you know, you're a young guy that's gonna be around for a long time, and and I just really excited there's there's people like you that are here to be part of uh making us a great community. How important is that to me?

SPEAKER_00:

I'm one of many, and um, you know, I think anyone can can step up and do that. You know, when I when I came here, it was just uh be in the U.S. attorney's office, do trials, get experience, serve my community. I didn't think I'd ever be U.S. attorney or or be sitting down with someone like you. Um so I think it goes to show that you know if you look around and you get passionate about something, you you can make a difference. And so I'm really excited to be able to continue to do that.

SPEAKER_01:

It's awesome. I think it's a great example for you for younger folks coming up of of there's so many ways to get involved, follow your heart, get passionate, yeah. Uh do something that you genuinely love. Yep. And um, and then this community is really, really good about just saying, hey, plug in, help us out. We live in an incredible place. I mean, I know I know in the world there's there, and we've talked about some heavy stuff today. There's there's just bad things and bad people out there. Um but you started when you said why you came here. But like you you think of the Treasure Valley, you think of Idaho, you think about raising kids here and just the values and how we take care of each other regardless of of a lot of things. I just it's a wonderful place. And I think in today's world where the headlines are all often tearing us apart, it's nice to settle into a place where where there's so much good.

SPEAKER_00:

I can't I can't imagine leaving. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, it's so good. And and and how do we keep it? You know, I I think there's a lot of I was part of a panel this week at for the ULI and there's a lot of you know, growth's happening, it's been discovered, there's all this stuff, but but I do think the heritage, the values, and the people are what what makes it special and that that carries on. Absolutely. Yeah. Hey, well this has been fantastic. Thank you so much for coming on. Uh keep it up, man.

SPEAKER_00:

Thank you for having me. It's been a pleasure. Thank you. Keep it up, dude.

SPEAKER_02:

Thank you so much for it.