Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 2 Part 9) (9/23/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 2 Part 9) (9/23/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
0:03
Speaker 1: this episode, we're going to get back to the Tyler
0:05
Speaker 1: Robinson Day 2 transcript from the prelim hearing. And to
0:08
Speaker 1: do that, we're picking back up with the state. Prosecution,
0:13
Speaker 1: Your Honor, the evidence is relevant on two points. One
0:16
Speaker 1: is to defendant's motive, which is not an element of
0:18
Speaker 1: the offense, but nonetheless, it's powerful evidence and persuasive evidence.
0:23
Speaker 1: And two, it's relevant to the victim targeting enhancement, which
0:27
Speaker 1: has been described and appears in the information. The statement
0:31
Speaker 1: clarifies at Turning Point USA what Charlie Kirk's business was.
0:35
Speaker 1: I think as you read this statement, it's clear that
0:37
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk presented both religious and political arguments and positions
0:42
Speaker 1: in his presentations. And that is what the paragraph three says,
0:47
Speaker 1: that he engaged others in debate, discussion of traditional family values,
0:51
Speaker 1: orthodox Christian views on sexuality, marriage, gender, sex, America's founding principles,
0:57
Speaker 1: political doctrines, and so forth. He often spoke specifically and
1:01
Speaker 1: attempted to persuade attendees to follow a mindset rooted in
1:04
Speaker 1: Orthodox Christian and politically conservative values. Now the defense jumps
1:10
Speaker 1: in and lodges an objection. Excuse me, Your Honor, can
1:13
Speaker 1: I lodge an objection to a prosecution reading the exhibit
1:17
Speaker 1: which we are discussing the admissibility of? And I had
1:20
Speaker 1: asked the court to strike a statement and admonish him.
1:23
Speaker 1: Judge Graff, all right, so as it relates to reading
1:26
Speaker 1: from the actual 1102, because it's not admitted into evidence...
1:29
Speaker 1: I will. Well, before I do that, let me turn
1:32
Speaker 1: to you about the objection to make sure that you
1:34
Speaker 1: were heard as well. Prosecution? Yes. Rule 104 requires the
1:39
Speaker 1: court to consider evidence before determining its admissibility. How can
1:43
Speaker 1: you determine whether an exhibit is admissible without knowing what's
1:47
Speaker 1: contained in that exhibit? That's what I'm putting in front
1:50
Speaker 1: of your honor. Is explaining this is why the exhibit
1:53
Speaker 1: is admissible because it contains this language that is relevant
1:57
Speaker 1: and probative. I don't know how I can make an
2:00
Speaker 1: argument something's relevant and probative without saying this is what
2:03
Speaker 1: the exhibit says. Now the defense jumps in. Your honor
2:08
Speaker 1: is not a jury. Your honor can look at the
2:10
Speaker 1: exhibit and determine for itself whether it's relevant, whether it
2:13
Speaker 1: meets other criteria for admissibility. It's not necessary for the
2:18
Speaker 1: prosecution to read it aloud, an open court, an exhibit
2:21
Speaker 1: which the court has available to it. I'm not saying
2:24
Speaker 1: that the court shouldn't read it. I'm saying that it's
2:26
Speaker 1: not admissible. I understand that the court has two roles,
2:30
Speaker 1: one under 104 and one as the magistrate, but that
2:34
Speaker 1: doesn't require Mr. McBride to read in open court the
2:37
Speaker 1: exhibit which we are discussing the admissibility of, especially where
2:41
Speaker 1: I have just expressed our concern that the exhibit has
2:44
Speaker 1: a tendency to confuse the issues in the case and
2:47
Speaker 1: create fair trial risks for Mr. Robinson. Judge Graff, all right,
2:52
Speaker 1: thank you. Any final thoughts before I rule on this
2:55
Speaker 1: specific issue about reading from the 1102 by McBride? The prosecution? Prosecution? Yes,
3:01
Speaker 1: Your Honor. I have to be able to argue here.
3:04
Speaker 1: I have to be able to refer to the exhibits.
3:06
Speaker 1: I can't do my job as an attorney without being
3:08
Speaker 1: able to refer to the exhibits. If the court doesn't
3:10
Speaker 1: want this to be in public, then we've got to
3:13
Speaker 1: close this proceeding. But I have to be able to
3:15
Speaker 1: argue the exhibits. I don't know how I can make
3:18
Speaker 1: an argument without actually pointing to the language of the
3:21
Speaker 1: exhibit unless I want to say, you know what I mean?
3:23
Speaker 1: We're referring to line 13. It's just so cumbersome to do,
3:26
Speaker 1: Your Honor. And I think my job, and my duty
3:29
Speaker 1: to my client, which is the state of Utah, and
3:31
Speaker 1: to their right to fairness, requires me to make a
3:34
Speaker 1: good and powerful argument. And that requires me to refer
3:37
Speaker 1: to the exhibit. And I'll submit it with that. Judge Graff, alright,
3:41
Speaker 1: thank you to both of you. And looking at this,
3:43
Speaker 1: typically in court, when evidence is being taken, until it's admitted,
3:47
Speaker 1: it doesn't come in. For example, a witness on the stand,
3:51
Speaker 1: and one is trying to get a piece of evidence in,
3:53
Speaker 1: that witness cannot read from the document prior to it
3:55
Speaker 1: being admitted into evidence. And so the court applies the
3:59
Speaker 1: same principle here. However, the difference is, and noting the
4:03
Speaker 1: defense was drawing points from this specifically, he mentioned Matthew,
4:07
Speaker 1: I believe chapter 19, and talking about certain points in
4:10
Speaker 1: here specifically. There is room for it to be mentioned
4:13
Speaker 1: in argument in order for the court to fully consider
4:16
Speaker 1: what's before it. So I'm going to sustain Mr. Novak's
4:19
Speaker 1: objection and simply say, if you want to talk about
4:22
Speaker 1: it conceptually, talk about the points. You certainly may. but
4:26
Speaker 1: simply reading from it exactly saying, and I understand, I
4:29
Speaker 1: don't want it to constrain either party from being able
4:31
Speaker 1: to make their full argument, but quoting from it, an
4:34
Speaker 1: open court, I fear, does risk issues to the constitutional
4:37
Speaker 1: rights of the parties. If the parties prefer to go
4:40
Speaker 1: into a closed evidentiary hearing on this issue in order
4:43
Speaker 1: to be unrestrained, and it appears Mr. Novak has requested
4:47
Speaker 1: that for a second portion of his argument, we certainly
4:49
Speaker 1: can do so. Because I don't want to put out
4:52
Speaker 1: evidence that is not admitted in open court until the
4:54
Speaker 1: appropriate time. until the court has gone through its decision-making
4:58
Speaker 1: process on whether it should be admitted or not. So
5:01
Speaker 1: to the parties, if you feel you can move forward
5:04
Speaker 1: on this first portion of it, I'm happy to entertain
5:06
Speaker 1: that argument. If the parties feel at this point, at
5:09
Speaker 1: this juncture, that a closed evidentiary hearing is needed in
5:12
Speaker 1: order to fully explore all the issues, I'll leave that
5:15
Speaker 1: to the parties. Because I don't know your arguments, and
5:18
Speaker 1: I don't want to say, constrain you from saying, well,
5:21
Speaker 1: I don't know what you're going to say, but I
5:22
Speaker 1: can't read your minds, and the court will stay in
5:24
Speaker 1: its lane, to ensure that it's the proper judicial role.
5:27
Speaker 1: So the objection has been sustained. Prosecution, in regards to
5:31
Speaker 1: your response or rebuttal to the argument, what's your request? Prosecution, yes,
5:36
Speaker 1: Your Honor. I do not believe it's necessary to close
5:38
Speaker 1: the hearing. I would argue against closing the hearing on
5:41
Speaker 1: the admissibility of this exhibit. However, the court needs to
5:44
Speaker 1: rule on that issue before I launch into the fullness
5:47
Speaker 1: of my argument because I don't want to be admonished
5:50
Speaker 1: for discussing an item that I'm asking to be admitted
5:53
Speaker 1: into evidence in public. So I would ask the court
5:56
Speaker 1: to make a ruling on the closure of the argument
5:58
Speaker 1: about admissibility of this hearing so that I can make
6:01
Speaker 1: the argument unconstrained. And after that time, if the court
6:04
Speaker 1: rules on that, I will make my full argument. Judge Graff,
6:08
Speaker 1: all right, well, what I'm trying to do is, you've
6:10
Speaker 1: heard the reasoning of the court. I don't want to
6:12
Speaker 1: constrain you. If you're saying, as you stated, that you
6:15
Speaker 1: want to best represent your client and every attorney should
6:19
Speaker 1: be doing that, that is your duty. If you feel
6:21
Speaker 1: that closing this hearing to the public is necessary, In
6:24
Speaker 1: order for you to fulfill your duty, the court will
6:27
Speaker 1: entertain that. But I can't have it both ways. If
6:30
Speaker 1: you want me to close the hearing in order for
6:32
Speaker 1: you to be able to argue freely as you feel
6:34
Speaker 1: you need to, I will entertain that. But I don't
6:36
Speaker 1: want to say, well, I'm not going to close the hearing.
6:39
Speaker 1: And then suddenly the issue is, well, I wasn't able
6:41
Speaker 1: to make a full argument. And so do you need
6:44
Speaker 1: to have a closed hearing to best represent your client? Prosecution.
6:50
Speaker 1: I think defense counsel is asking to close the hearing
6:53
Speaker 1: so that the argument can be made without the public
6:55
Speaker 1: seeing it. I don't want to close the hearing. I
6:58
Speaker 1: don't believe it's necessary to close the hearing. That's not
7:00
Speaker 1: my motion. I do, however, want to make a full
7:04
Speaker 1: argument that requires me to rely on the evidence and
7:06
Speaker 1: quote the evidence as I've done. That's my position. If
7:10
Speaker 1: I'm not permitted to quote the evidence in my argument,
7:13
Speaker 1: then we need to decide whether or not this hearing
7:15
Speaker 1: should be closed. I oppose closing it, but I do
7:18
Speaker 1: think it's necessary. for me to quote the evidence. Judge Graff,
7:22
Speaker 1: all right. Are you able to make your full argument
7:25
Speaker 1: to the best of your ability to best represent your
7:27
Speaker 1: client by simply referring to the paragraphs and to the
7:30
Speaker 1: lines so it's clear to the court what you're talking about?
7:34
Speaker 1: There's no ambiguity without quoting it verbatim in court. Prosecution, no,
7:39
Speaker 1: I don't think so. Judge, all right. Now we have
7:43
Speaker 1: the lawyer jumping in for the media. Your Honor, if
7:47
Speaker 1: you're going to make this closure ruling, I'd like to
7:49
Speaker 1: be heard before you do. Judge Graff, all right. I'll
7:52
Speaker 1: hear from you as well. If you'd like to come
7:54
Speaker 1: forward again, Mr. Ryman, just stating your full name for
7:57
Speaker 1: the record, the clarity of the record. Sure. Thank you,
8:00
Speaker 1: Your Honor. David Ryman, again for the news media. We've
8:04
Speaker 1: briefed this issue a couple different times so far. Sometimes
8:08
Speaker 1: there is a misconception that I think is running particularly
8:11
Speaker 1: through what the prosecution argued that suppression hearings because the
8:15
Speaker 1: evidence may be suppressed or excluded or in limine hearings
8:19
Speaker 1: need to be closed unless the evidence is deemed admissible.
8:22
Speaker 1: That's the opposite of the law. That's been settled since
8:26
Speaker 1: the United States Supreme Court decided Waller v. Georgia. You
8:29
Speaker 1: can see it in Kearns Tribune, which dealt with a
8:31
Speaker 1: prelim hearing, can access to a prelim hearing where, as
8:35
Speaker 1: you know, and we've heard repeatedly today, all kinds of
8:38
Speaker 1: evidence is presented at the prelim hearing that may not
8:41
Speaker 1: be admissible at trial. And so the universe of the
8:44
Speaker 1: public's right to access to proceedings is not limited to
8:47
Speaker 1: what eventually gets admitted at trial, which if there even
8:51
Speaker 1: is a trial. And that's been, we've cited to the
8:54
Speaker 1: court numerous cases on this, and I don't have the
8:56
Speaker 1: brief in front of me, and the docket is huge.
8:59
Speaker 1: I can find it for you if you'd like, but
9:01
Speaker 1: I just wanted to correct the misimpression that the public
9:04
Speaker 1: is not entitled to hear argument and to see evidence
9:08
Speaker 1: just because it may not be admissible. Otherwise, we would
9:11
Speaker 1: never have admissibility arguments in public. And I do want
9:14
Speaker 1: to just, I'll just make one other point. Kern's Tribune
9:17
Speaker 1: also speaks to this. And that is that if you
9:20
Speaker 1: do decide, so let me just make two quick points.
9:23
Speaker 1: To the 403 point, just because evidence isn't admissible is
9:26
Speaker 1: not a basis to close the hearing. There may be
9:29
Speaker 1: a 403 argument. I haven't seen the document. I don't
9:32
Speaker 1: know what's in it. Maybe there's something incredibly prejudicial. You
9:36
Speaker 1: would have to make that decision. I'm at a loss.
9:38
Speaker 1: I haven't seen it. I'm happy to take a look
9:40
Speaker 1: at it and give you a substantive argument, but it's
9:43
Speaker 1: the same high constitutional standard that you have to satisfy
9:47
Speaker 1: in order to close it. And then the last thing is,
9:49
Speaker 1: just on the scope of any closure, Kearns Tribune speaks,
9:52
Speaker 1: and I know the court is aware of this, if
9:54
Speaker 1: you're going to close it, it needs to be as
9:56
Speaker 1: minimal as possible. And it's my experience, at least. that
10:00
Speaker 1: most of the argument about things in this context can
10:02
Speaker 1: occur in open court. And if you want to have
10:05
Speaker 1: a closed session, or a sidebar, or however you want
10:08
Speaker 1: to have, also done in chambers, I just ask that
10:11
Speaker 1: it be as limited as possible, thank you. Judge Graff,
10:15
Speaker 1: thank you, all right. Defense, would you like to respond
10:20
Speaker 1: to that? And then I'll return to the prosecution for
10:23
Speaker 1: any final thoughts, and the court will make its ruling. Defense, well,
10:28
Speaker 1: I just wanted to mention the Utah Supreme Court decision
10:31
Speaker 1: in State v. Archuleta, where the State Supreme Court reminds
10:34
Speaker 1: us that First Amendment right of access is qualified, that
10:38
Speaker 1: what needs to be carefully judged in light of the
10:41
Speaker 1: qualified right of access with respect to prelim hearing exhibits,
10:45
Speaker 1: that was the issue in State v. Archuleta, is the
10:47
Speaker 1: defendant's right to a fair trial. So we're slightly in
10:51
Speaker 1: the twilight zone situation where counsel for the media is saying,
10:54
Speaker 1: even if the court has decided that the exhibits are
10:56
Speaker 1: not going to be made available for copying and inspection,
11:00
Speaker 1: and the court may decide that this exhibit is either
11:02
Speaker 1: not admissible or admissible for the court's eyes only, counsel
11:06
Speaker 1: for the media is counseling the court to permit the
11:10
Speaker 1: prosecution to read the exhibit verbatim and open court. And
11:13
Speaker 1: that basically defeats all of those principles. So I don't
11:17
Speaker 1: think that's the correct path. Counsel for the media is
11:20
Speaker 1: correct that the court ceiling or closure should be narrowly tailored.
11:23
Speaker 1: And the 403 issue, which we are prepared to discuss
11:27
Speaker 1: because of the sequencing of things in the case. In
11:30
Speaker 1: this proceeding, we're only prepared to discuss that sidebar has
11:33
Speaker 1: to do with potential future evidence that the court may
11:36
Speaker 1: receive in the hearing, or it may not. So I'm
11:38
Speaker 1: not going to address other 403 issues in open court.
11:42
Speaker 1: If the court wants to defer this entire exhibit and
11:44
Speaker 1: discussion of it later, in the proceeding, then it may
11:48
Speaker 1: be that the part of the 403 argument doesn't need
11:51
Speaker 1: to be at sidebar. And I think we're all assuming
11:53
Speaker 1: that sidebar proceedings in this prelim hearing are going to
11:56
Speaker 1: be part of the sealed transcript until some later point
11:59
Speaker 1: in time. In other words, it's not sidebar just for
12:02
Speaker 1: the moment, it's because the transcript's going to be sealed.
12:05
Speaker 1: So it very well may be that taking this issue
12:08
Speaker 1: up at later point in time in the proceeding eliminates
12:11
Speaker 1: the need, from our perspective, for that 403 issue to
12:15
Speaker 1: be discussed at sidebar or what counsel for the media
12:17
Speaker 1: says in a closed proceeding. However, I agree that the court,
12:22
Speaker 1: that Mr. McBride can't have his cake and eat it too.
12:25
Speaker 1: If he wants to make his argument and he thinks
12:28
Speaker 1: that his argument requires that he read an exhibit in court,
12:31
Speaker 1: which we in good faith are saying is not admissible,
12:33
Speaker 1: then we need to have a closed proceeding. I'm not
12:35
Speaker 1: asking for a closed proceeding. I was asking for the
12:38
Speaker 1: court to caution Mr. McBride not to read into evidence
12:41
Speaker 1: exhibits that are not received into evidence. because that's the
12:44
Speaker 1: same as Mr. McBride testifying. Judge, all right, thank you.
12:47
Speaker 1: Anything further, prosecution? Answer, just a note, I have not
12:52
Speaker 1: made my full argument on admissibility, that's all. Judge Graff,
12:56
Speaker 1: all right, all right. I appreciate the arguments by the parties.
12:59
Speaker 1: This is clearly something that's very important to you all
13:02
Speaker 1: and is important for the case as every piece of
13:05
Speaker 1: potential evidence. I note that Mr. Novak indicated that receiving
13:09
Speaker 1: this could create confusion for potential jurors and that he
13:13
Speaker 1: mentioned that it suggests to a potential jury pool that
13:15
Speaker 1: this case is about religion. However, that is what is
13:18
Speaker 1: happening in the prelim hearing is far different than what
13:21
Speaker 1: happens at a jury trial. The magistrate, myself, is the
13:24
Speaker 1: fact finder, and whether something becomes admissible at trial is
13:28
Speaker 1: far different than what is admissible at a prelim hearing.
13:31
Speaker 1: The purposes are different. The standards are different. And different
13:35
Speaker 1: steps need to be followed. Something could become admissible at
13:38
Speaker 1: a jury trial, but given the nature of a jury trial...
13:41
Speaker 1: more steps are necessary. Under Rule 1102, one of the
13:45
Speaker 1: major differences is that reliable hearsay is allowed in prelim
13:48
Speaker 1: hearings under the Utah Constitution and under the Rule of
13:52
Speaker 1: Evidence 1102. That is far different than what would happen
13:55
Speaker 1: at a jury trial. Taking this into consideration, I look
13:59
Speaker 1: to the information going to the very beginning, whether this
14:02
Speaker 1: is relevant, and as noted by counsel looking to count one,
14:05
Speaker 1: which is squarely before the court, to determine a probable cause,
14:09
Speaker 1: at the end, of this proceeding and the court is
14:13
Speaker 1: not weighing in whether it will reach that or not.
14:16
Speaker 1: It's not predetermining anything, but what is before the court
14:19
Speaker 1: under count one aggravated murder, which is a capital offense,
14:23
Speaker 1: victim targeting enhancement and violation of Utah code annotated 76.3, 203.142
14:30
Speaker 1: Tyler James Robinson intentionally selected Charlie Kirk because of Tyler
14:34
Speaker 1: James Robinson's beliefs or perception regarding Charlie Kirk's political expression.
14:39
Speaker 1: And so if that was not here, this enhancement, and
14:42
Speaker 1: it also goes to count two, felony discharge of a
14:44
Speaker 1: firearm causing serious bodily injury, and I'm just reviewing, and
14:48
Speaker 1: then finally count seven, violent offense committed in the presence
14:52
Speaker 1: of a child where the victim targeted enhancement also is
14:55
Speaker 1: in play. Because that's part of the information that's squarely
14:59
Speaker 1: before the court. This becomes relevant. Now trying to determine
15:02
Speaker 1: political expression versus religious expression, that goes into different grounds.
15:07
Speaker 1: But at this point, the court finds it relevant for
15:09
Speaker 1: consideration and and, for the very least, the argument. What
15:13
Speaker 1: the court is going to rule is that the need
15:15
Speaker 1: for a closed hearing is not been met at this point,
15:18
Speaker 1: because what needs to be shown is prejudice, or that
15:21
Speaker 1: the exhibit contains inflammatory information that would prejudice the jury pool.
15:26
Speaker 1: That begins the path where we can consider closing the
15:28
Speaker 1: hearing from the public. However, that's not what's before the court,
15:33
Speaker 1: nor what the court's heard, and so ruling of the
15:36
Speaker 1: court as previously sustained The objection, and the court will
15:39
Speaker 1: expound upon that, that Mr. McBride's argument cannot be read
15:42
Speaker 1: the entirety of State Exhibit 5.1. Can he reference points
15:47
Speaker 1: of it, and specifically certain points the court rules, that
15:50
Speaker 1: he can, just as Mr. Novak pulled from his? And
15:53
Speaker 1: it was broad, but he quoted Matthew chapter 19. He
15:56
Speaker 1: stated that it came from the Bible. He talked about
15:58
Speaker 1: going from paragraph 1, where he quoted, or at least drew,
16:02
Speaker 1: from about the internal revenue service and the types of business.
16:05
Speaker 1: And so there is grounds for that to occur. in
16:08
Speaker 1: order for the court to consider the argument fully and
16:11
Speaker 1: making the determination whether it's relevant and should be admissible. Therefore,
16:15
Speaker 1: the court rules that Mr. McBride can continue in his
16:18
Speaker 1: argument in order that the court can make its determination
16:22
Speaker 1: whether State Exhibit 5.1 is admissible or not. All right, folks,
16:26
Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up right there. And in the
16:28
Speaker 1: next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick
16:30
Speaker 1: up where we left off. All the information that goes
16:33
Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.