The case against Nicholas Myklebust, a 44-year-old Regis University English Literature associate professor accused of murdering his wife, Seorin Kim, 44, and tampering with evidence, took another turn Thursday as his defense team sought to control the narrative by limiting media exposure. Myklebust faces first-degree murder charges in the death of Kim and is currently being held on a $5 million bond.
Defense Motions Aim to Restrict Public Information
Myklebust’s defense attorneys filed several motions during a status conference before 2nd Judicial District Judge Ericka Englert, primarily aimed at minimizing pretrial publicity. Shackled at the hands and feet, Myklebust appeared subdued throughout the 30-minute hearing, keeping his head down for the majority of the proceedings.
The defense sought to restrict pre-trial comments from prosecutors and police, shut down the WebEx live feed of court hearings, and objected to expanded media coverage requests from television stations. This strategy aims to protect their client from potentially prejudicial information reaching the public before the trial.
Judge Englert’s Rulings and Previous Media Coverage Decisions
Judge Englert ruled on several of the defense motions and scheduled the next status conference for September 27th. Previously, Denver District Judge Karen Brody denied a request from Denver7, the local ABC affiliate, for expanded media coverage. Judge Brody’s ruling stated that expanded media coverage could “unduly detract from the solemnity, decorum and dignity of the Court” and create more adverse effects than traditional media coverage.
Legal Wrangling Over Evidence and Expert Witnesses
Judge Englert also denied a defense motion to prohibit law enforcement and the prosecution from obtaining ex parte search warrants. Additionally, she rejected a defense request that would have compelled prosecutors to disclose expert witnesses earlier than current rules permit. Deputy District Attorney Anthony Santos affirmed the prosecution’s commitment to Rule 16, which promotes cooperation between legal teams to streamline disclosure and discovery procedures.
The Disturbing Details of the Case Emerge
Myklebust called Denver police on July 29th, reporting that he discovered his wife, Kim, on their bedroom floor with blood coming from her head. He also informed the 911 dispatcher that he found his infant daughter, also deceased, on the bed. Arriving officers and paramedics found Kim with multiple blunt force injuries to her head and face, located near a bassinet. The infant showed no visible signs of injury.
The arrest affidavit reveals that paramedics determined Kim’s injuries were inconsistent with a fall. Myklebust had scratch marks on his neck and chest, and investigators observed swollen knuckles on his hands, suggesting they had been used to strike something. Police immediately photographed Myklebust’s hands.
Adding another layer of complexity to the case, prosecutors revealed in a prior hearing that this is the second child of Myklebust to die under unusual circumstances at a young age. The first child, only 10 days old, died from cranial injuries. While the defense confirmed that no criminal charges were filed in connection with the first child’s death, this information casts a long shadow over the current proceedings.
Evidence of Tampering and a High Bond
Bloody gloves found in and on the dryer at the scene, according to the prosecution, point to potential tampering with evidence. This discovery further strengthens the prosecution’s case against Myklebust. Given the severity of the charges and the potential for flight risk, the court set Myklebust’s bond at $5 million.
Unanswered Questions and the Road Ahead
As the legal proceedings unfold, many questions remain unanswered. The defense’s efforts to control information flow highlight the high stakes of this case. The upcoming status conference on September 27th is likely to reveal further details and shape the direction of the trial. The tragic deaths of Seorin Kim and her infant daughter, coupled with the history of the previous child’s death, make this a case that will undoubtedly continue to garner significant public attention. The court will need to balance the public’s right to know with the defendant’s right to a fair trial as the case progresses.
