A federal jury in Boise awarded University of Idaho history professor Rebecca Scofield $10 million in February 2026 in her defamation suit against Ashley Guillard, a Texas TikTok user who spent months telling millions of viewers that Scofield had orchestrated the November 2022 murders of four Idaho college students. The case, Rebecca Scofield v. Ashley Guillard, ended with $2.5 million in compensatory damages and $7.5 million in punitive damages after the court had already ruled that Guillard defamed Scofield as a matter of law. Scofield was out of state when the killings happened and had never met any of the victims.
The TikTok Accusations Behind the Suit
Guillard promoted herself online as a psychic and internet sleuth. After Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin were stabbed to death in a home near the Moscow, Idaho campus on November 13, 2022, she posted more than 100 TikTok videos claiming her tarot readings and “spiritual acuity” had revealed the real killer.
The accusations were specific. Guillard said Scofield had been in a romantic relationship with one of the murdered students and had ordered the killings to keep the affair from becoming public. Many of the videos displayed Scofield’s photograph alongside the accusation. The videos drew millions of views. Scofield’s attorneys sent two cease-and-desist letters. Guillard kept posting.
On December 30, 2022, police arrested Bryan Kohberger, a criminology graduate student at Washington State University, and charged him with four counts of first-degree murder. By then, Scofield had already filed suit.
The Defamation Claims
Scofield filed her federal complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho on December 21, 2022.1Justia. Scofield v. Guillard, No. 3:2022cv00521 – Document 74 (D. Idaho 2024) She brought two defamation claims: one over the false accusation of involvement in the murders, and another over the fabricated claim of a romantic relationship with a victim. She sought compensatory and punitive damages and requested a jury trial.
Under Idaho law, falsely accusing someone of a felony is defamation per se, meaning the plaintiff does not have to prove specific financial losses to recover. Guillard’s videos accused Scofield of murder, which cleared that threshold. Scofield also pointed to concrete harm, including the cost of installing a home security system because she feared for her family’s safety.
The Court Ruled Guillard Defamed Scofield Before the Trial Began
On June 6, 2024, the court granted Scofield’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability, finding that “the totality of the evidence reveals that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact that Defendant defamed Plaintiff.”2United States District Court, District of Idaho. Memorandum Decision and Order Re: Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment The statements were false, and Guillard had no credible basis for making them.
Guillard’s main defense was that her statements came from psychic intuition and tarot readings, not factual assertions, and were therefore not actionable. The court rejected that argument. Framing a false murder accusation as a spiritual revelation does not remove it from defamation law. A statement presented as fact to a mass audience is evaluated as a statement of fact, whatever the speaker claims about its source.
The court also granted Scofield leave to amend her complaint to seek punitive damages, finding a reasonable likelihood that Guillard’s conduct was malicious or outrageous. With liability decided, the only question left for a jury was how much Guillard owed.
How the Jury Reached $10 Million
A four-day trial on damages began on February 24, 2026, in Boise.3United States District Court, District of Idaho. Memorandum Decision and Order, Document 113 On February 27, 2026, the jury returned its verdict:
- $2.5 million in compensatory damages
- $7.5 million in punitive damages
The compensatory figure reflected the harm from millions of people seeing videos branding Scofield a murderer. Her attorneys argued that repairing her reputation could take up to a full generation. The punitive award, three times the compensatory amount, reflected the jury’s view of Guillard’s conduct.
Both numbers exceeded what Scofield’s lawyers asked for. In closing arguments they requested $1 million in compensatory damages and left the punitive figure to the jury’s discretion. The jury went well past the compensatory request and imposed a substantial punitive multiplier on top of it.
What Has Happened Since the Verdict
The verdict did not stop Guillard from posting. In early March 2026 she was releasing a multi-part TikTok series attacking the trial, accusing Scofield of lying under oath, and repeating that her original accusations were correct. The new videos were drawing roughly 50,000 views each.
Two questions remain open. The first is whether the court will issue a permanent injunction ordering Guillard to stop posting about Scofield. The second is whether the $10 million judgment can actually be collected. Recovering a multimillion-dollar award from an individual defendant is often much harder than winning it, and Guillard’s continued posting suggests she does not plan to comply voluntarily.
What the Verdict Signals for Online Accusers
The ruling is a direct application of defamation law to social media, and the scale of the award is what makes it notable. It confirms that presenting a false factual accusation as a psychic reading, tarot result, or spiritual insight offers no legal shield. If the accusation identifies a specific person and treats a factual claim as true, the packaging does not matter.
The case also draws a usable line between commentary and defamation. Saying an investigation is going in the wrong direction is opinion. Posting a named person’s photograph and telling millions of viewers that person committed murder is a factual claim, and if it is false, it is defamation. The $10 million verdict is among the largest defamation awards tied to social media content by an individual rather than a media organization, and it puts a concrete number on the risk of naming specific people as suspects without evidence.