Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Transcripts From The Hearing Dealing With Tyler Robinson’s Courtroom Appearance (Part 5) (7/30/26)

Transcript

Transcripts From The Hearing Dealing With Tyler Robinson’s Courtroom Appearance (Part 5) (7/30/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 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 pick up where we left
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: off with the Tyler Robinson hearing about court appearance the court.
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: Thank you, mister Novak, the State, mister Ballard for the state,
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: your honor. I think this issue, this motion raises two
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: primary issues, and the first one is when is defendant's
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: presence necessary out of hearing? And then the second one
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: is when is his presence necessary? What security measures are
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: necessary because of defendant's presence? And I think, of course,
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: the overarching question involved in this motion is how best
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: to protect the defendants presumption of innocence and avoid tainting
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: the jury pool while maintaining the security of everyone involved.
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: And let me make it clear that the state is
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: just as concerned about a fair trial in this case
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: as the defendant is. We are going to try this
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: case once now. As far as the first question, whether
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: defendant's presence is necessary, I think this court can resolve
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: many of those concerns by holding non critical hearings either
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: virtually or hybrid with the defendant appearing from jail redacted.
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: And this court, under Rule seventeen dot five, has a
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: discretion as to what format a hearing will take, whether
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: it'll be in person or hybrid or completely virtual Rule seventeen.
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: The factors that this Court looks at in Rule seventeen
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: dot five in exercising that discretion favor holding virtual hearings
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: for all non critical hearings and allowing the defendant to
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: appear virtually, especially at those non critical, non evidentiary hearings.
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: It doesn't implicate the defendant's right to be present. He
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: can be present, he can communicate with his counsel face
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: to face in real time and in confidence if necessary,
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: and do all of that virtually. And I think the
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: court could require that his that if his appearance on
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: the screen is shown, that it's not shown that he's
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: appearing from the jail that he is in not in,
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: that he's not in the custody, in order to protect
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: his presumption of innocence. Holding those kinds of hearings virtually
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: also gets rid of this question about shackling, and it
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: avoids the significant costs and risks, especially the risks to
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: defendant of transporting him here to the court. I think
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: it's interesting that in one of the cases that defends
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: sites in support of his argument that these that the
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: right to appear in civilian clothes and without restraints applies
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: beyond the jury trial State versus Luthy, the Washington case
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: in twenty twenty four, there is a subsequent case in
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: Washington twenty twenty five case State versus Ferguson, that's five
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: sixty eight, page three d three fourteen, where in that case,
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: even though in Luthy, the Washington Supreme Court said that
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: requiring a defendant to appear in a holding cell that
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: was adjacent to the court room violated the right to
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: appear without restraints absent this individualized determination. In Ferguson, which
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: was subsequent to Louthy, the court said that appearing by
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: video from jail didn't implicate the right to be free
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: from restraints. So again, I think the first thing for
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: the court to do is consider when does defendant need
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: to be present, and if he doesn't need to be present,
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: then hold those hearings virtually. So that comes to the
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: second question, which is when defendant appears in person, what
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: kind of security measures are necessary? Does he need to
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: be in civilian clothes? Does he need to be shackled?
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: And I want to make it clear that at this
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: point the State agrees that in any proceeding before a jury,
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: the defendant has the right to be in civilian clothes
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: and unrestrained, unless those restraints are justified based on a
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: showing that the state would need to make. But the
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: defendant asks this court to extend those principles to non
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: jury proceedings, and there's no basis and there's no reason
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: to do that. I just want to remind the Court
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: of the tenuous grounds that defendants request rests on. Defendant
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: does incite any controlling Utah case law. What defendant relies
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: on is a US Supreme Court case that clearly does
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: not apply to non jury proceedings, and then a vacated
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit opinion. And as we point out in our response,
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: the state points out, a vacated opinion isn't like an
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: opinion that's been reversed on other grounds, where part of
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: that opinion remains viable, but the reverse part is not viable.
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: When an opinion is vacated, it's vacated. It's like it
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: didn't exist. Now, opposing counsel says that he reviewed the
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: United States Supreme Court opinion that vacated that opinion, and
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: it doesn't take issue with the reasoning of the Ninth
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: Circuit opinion, and that's correct. But the reason for that
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: and this, Your Honors read through enough appellate court opinions
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: to know that when a court vacates an opinion, either
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: because it's moot, the case is moot, or because there's
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: some other procedural defect that prevents the court from reaching
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: the merits of the issue, the court's not going to
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: comment on those on the merits. So it's completely unremarkable
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: that the Utah, the United States Supreme Court case that
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: vacates the Ninth Circuit opinion, that it doesn't say anything
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: about the reasoning there. I think it's interesting zero point
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: five of the defendant's reply that the defendant agrees with
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: the state and the sheriff that these concerns could be
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: resolved if the court prohibits the media from displaying pictures, photographs,
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: or video, or otherwise displaying the defendant's appearance. I think
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: defendant's willingness to agree to that position, assuming Your Honor
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: is willing to order that resolves this motion. It allows
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: the sheriff to provide whatever security measures he believes is necessary,
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: clothing and shackling without any possible prejudicial effect of those
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: security those security measures on any perspective juror, because those
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: images won't be being shown now. Defendant says that shackling
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: him somehow impairs his ability to console with counsel. But
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: I think, just like today, if the defendant has the
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: ability to be able to make a note to counsel,
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: I don't see how if the sheriff believes that those
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: requirements are necessary, those restraints are necessary, how that could
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: possibly interfere with his ability to participate in his defense
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: and to console with his counsel. I think any suggestion
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: that this court might be prejudiced by seeing defendant in
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: jail clothing or restraint, is it demeans this court and
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: it ignores well established precedent in Utah, primarily State versus.
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: Cravens and a host of other cases that talk about
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: situations that might prejudice a jury do not have the
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: same effect on the court. Knowing the defendant is in custody,
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: knowing the defendant has prior convictions, hearing evidence that should
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: not have been admitted, none of those situations would have
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: the same effect on a judge as it would on
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: a jury. And I want to point out because I
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: think the defendant takes issue with this, but Cravens was
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: not just a clothing case, a civilian clothing case. It
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: points out in paragraph four of the opinion that the
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: defendant appeared for his bench trial in shackles and in
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: jail in prison clothing. Now, Deck the United States Supreme
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: Court case doesn't change any of this, because, as I mentioned,
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: that was about proceedings before a jury, not about preceding
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: in front of a judge or pre trial proceedings. That
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: was a penalty phase proceeding that was in front of
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: a jury in a capital case. And to the extent
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: at the court, even though it's clear that Deck doesn't
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: apply here and that this Court feels like it should
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: nevertheless consider the rationale of that case, I think it's
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: important that the Court also consider the dissenting opinion in
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: that case by Justice Scalia and Thomas, where they talk
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: about and criticize those rationales, especially a non jury, non
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: guilt phase proceedings, which is again, I think all that
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: we're talking about now, because the state agrees that at
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: his jury trial and even at the penalty phase, assuming
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: we get there, that the defendant should appear in civilian
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: clothing and without restraints unless something changes to demonstrate that
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: the defendant should be restrained in those proceedings. The dissent
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: in Deck points out that the case is based on
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: a very ancient common law that no longer exists, or
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: at least the rationale for the rule no longer exists.
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: The rationale for the rule was that when the rule
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: was first developed, prisoners actually appeared in irons, heavy ponderous irons.
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: They were painful, they rubbed the skin away, and they
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: wore them constantly in their cell, even when they were sleeping.
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: They wore them during trial. They wore them during a
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: trial where they did not have the right to counsel,
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: where they had to defend themselves literally, maybe not with
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: their arms tied chained behind their back, but with their
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: arms restrained in irons. And the rationale for that rule
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: was not so much that it affected the presumption of innocence,
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: but rather it affected the defense's ability to defend themselves
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: when they were chained under those conditions and for that
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: long of a period of time. The descent in the
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: case saw no basis for treating a defendant at sentencing
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: proceeding where he'd already been convicted, he lost a presumption
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: of innocence for treating that kind of defendant the same
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: as a defendant who's on trial and still retains the
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: presumption of innocence. I think it's interesting also that the
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: descent talks about the rationale of courtroom dignity and decorum
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: and debunks this notion that somehow shackling demeans those interests,
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: somehow undermines the dignity of the court. Courtroom decorum and
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: dignity is not a principle that creates affirmative rights for
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: a defendant. Instead, it's a principle that limits the defendant's
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: behavior in court. The court relies on those principles in
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: order to make sure that the defendant behaves and that
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: everyone in the courtroom behaves. It doesn't create affirmative rights.
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: The Ninth Circuit opinion Sanchez Gomez as I pointed out
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: that was vacated. That rationale doesn't apply in the case
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: and shouldn't apply for those reasons, and the same for
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: any court that has relied on the rationale for extending
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: the right to appear in civilian clothes and without restraints
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: beyond just the jury trial. And I think it's important
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: that the court consider what defendant is asking the court
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: to do. Again, there's no Utah case law that supports
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: the kind of rule the defendant's asking for a pre
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: trial proceeding. It's contrary to the practice of courts across
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: the state. This court would be plowing entirely new ground
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: and it would be setting precedent for trial courts throughout
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: the state. And I think also the court should recognize
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: that the rule that defendants asking for is contrary to
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: the security plan for this court that the Court Security
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: Administrator has developed. So even though other courts, non Utah courts,
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: have held the defendant can appear or at least have
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: the right to appear without shackles in a civilian clothing
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: outside of jury proceedings, the Utah Judicial Council has considered
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: this issue. They promulgated the rule three dash four one
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: four nine C. And it's true that rule leaves the
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: ultimate decision about court room security up to this court,
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: but it creates a presumption that all in custody defendants
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: should be restrained and supervised excuse me, restrained or supervised
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: at all times. And again, I think it's important for
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: this court to consider that the court security administrator and
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: the sheriff who's responsible to provide security here in their opinion,
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: restraints are should be required for all pre trial detainees.
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: And it's important to note that the rule three dash
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: four fourteen, it talks about cases of when there's significant
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: publicity and like this case, and that those circumstances call
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: for more security, greater security, not less. And again, where
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: a defendant has suggested that he would be okay with
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: with not having any photographs of him in the courtroom,
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: then I think that alleviates any concerns of having defendant
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: appear in jail clothing and restraints because the images won't
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: be broadcast to the potential jury pool. Oh let me
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: also point out, as it was mentioned, it was suggested
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: that the Defense Council stated that it was the sheriff
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: that released defendant's booking photo, and that's not accurate. The
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: booking photo did not come from the sheriff, but it
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: was not the sheriff's office that released that to the media.
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: That was a different law enforcement agency that did that.
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: That wasn't the sheriff's office. It was shared with law
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: enforcement agency under the government sharing provisions. Under GRAMA, and
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: there wasn't any intent to try and get that out.
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: In fact, when that was made public the sheriff, the
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: Sheriff's office was very concerned that it had been made public.
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: Unless the Court has any further questions for me on
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: these issues the Court, I do, mister Ballad, Sure the
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: Court what prejudice is there if mister Robinson appears in
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: civilian clothing add proceedings to the state or the security
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: Mister Ballard, I think as pointed out in the security plan,
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: and I think mister van Noy can address this more.
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: Particularly this is the sheriff's domain. But the prejudice is
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: that if there's anything that happens while defendant is in
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: civilian clothing, then it's harder to identify him and be
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: able to either neutralize the threat or protect him. If
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: he's in civilian clothing, he's better identifiable in jail clothing
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: the court and looking at this courtroom today, if he
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: was in civilian clothing, is that a realistic threat? Mister Ballard, Again,
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: I think mister van Ney can address this better the Court.
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: I'll direct it to you, sir. I'm just trying to
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: understand this line of thinking. And I appreciate you expounding
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: upon it, and I appreciate the security protocols which is
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: being applied across the board, not to an individual, but
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: I'm trying to apply it to this case and it's unique.
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: Whether we like it or not, this case is unique.
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: And I think the shackles and the clothing are two
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: separate issues. They can't be lumped together. But just going
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: to the clothing issue, citing security presence, which both sides
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: have cited to, but to the clothing, I'm trying to
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: understand the rationale about that because what I saw was
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: one of the main issues was being able to identify
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: and I identify the person in custody, and there will
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: be a potential confusion if they're wearing civilian clothing. And
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: I'm just trying to apply it to this scenario because
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: this is what's in front of me, and this is
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: the decision. So I'm trying to gain that guidance in
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: applying that logic to the case where we've noted there
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: is significant security, mister Ballard, which is exactly what your
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: honor needs to do. I guess I would just add
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: before I turn it over to mister van Ney, that
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: we're talking about hearings that will not be sealed. There
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: will be members of the public, potentially members of the media.
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: This court room will be full with a lot with
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: many more participants, and the issue will have to be
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: to identify the defendant in that setting, not just in
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: a setting like this the court. And before we turn
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: to you, sir, one question is we've talked about the prejudice,
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: and we've talked about a jury trial setting. It's established
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: that they're to be dressed in civilian clothing. However, the
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: proposed solution, theoretically proposed by both sides is if it's
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: remotely transmitted, we don't run into the issue even if
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: he's in court. But what stops a journalist from saying,
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: mister Robinson appeared in jail clothing. Doesn't a create the
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: same risk as video, Mister Ballard, I think your honor's
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: order could stop that. The court to suppress journalistic journalists
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: from writing, Ballard, I think from writing about a particular topic,
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: just like your Honor can protect jury members' identities, prevent
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: the press or anyone from identifying a juror. You could
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: also say there is to be no comment, no pictures,
• 14:57
  Speaker 1: no videos, about the defendant's appearance the court. But would oh,
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: I'm sorry, go ahead, mister Ballard. And if that's the case,
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: then I guess I'm thinking, and there's not going to
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: be any anything broadcast about the defendant's appearance or communicated
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: to the public, then why not just have him appear
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: in jail clothing because it's not going to prejudice anyone
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: in the court, any decision maker, any potential juror the court.
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: But even if I were to go down that route
• 15:23
  Speaker 1: and say a blanket order that journalist members of the
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: press cannot comment about his clothing, every member of the
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: public could be a blogger. Does that extend to them?
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: Mister Ballard? Your honor controls what happens in this courtroom,
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: and I think your honor could say that there's to
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: be no comment about the defendants appearance the court. Okay,
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: And I appreciate your response to that. Thank you. All Right, folks,
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up right here, and in the
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick
• 15:49
  Speaker 1: up with mister van Ney. All the information that goes
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.