Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 1 Part 14) (9/11/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 1 Part 14) (9/11/26) · 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 pick up where we left
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: off with day number one of the prelim hearing of
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: Tyler Robinson, who's been accused of murdering Charlie Kirk. Judge Graff,
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: so I'll hear your arguments about the 1102 statement. I'll
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: return to Miss Nestor for any final thoughts, and then
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: I'll make my ruling, and then we can move on
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: to the next stage. Prosecution, I appreciate that, Judge. I
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: think I've addressed the 1102 question as far as admissibility
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: under Rule 1102. I thought that's what you wanted to
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: rule on first. And then I would address the UCJA 4-202.02.
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: And if you want me to do that now, I
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: can do that. And it's just simply that it has
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: nothing to do with admissibility. It has everything to do
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: with publishing that. And Judge, I think if you'll look
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: at the written statement, I believe Ms. Wright's personal information
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: for the most part has been redacted. Other than that,
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: beyond that, judge, I'll leave it up to your discretion.
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, well, as it relates to, well, let me
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: take a look at this one time. Let's start with
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: the last statement. What I have in front of me
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: is plaintiff exhibit 6.1. Has her full information here. Address,
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: phone number, social security number. Prosecution, okay, judge, I apologize
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: for that. I thought we'd provided a redacted version of that. Yeah,
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: I think I've clarified what's going on here. I think
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: we provided you with an unredacted version some time ago.
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: The version that we have and are prepared to present
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: today is a redacted version. Judge Graff, could I have
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: a copy of what you're intending to admit into evidence
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: so I can consider that and consider what's before me?
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: The prosecution, yeah, judge, we can bring it up electronically.
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: We don't have a hard copy of it. Judge Graff,
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: all right. I want to make sure that's not coming
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: on screen. It's just coming on my screen to review it. Okay, no,
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: that's fine. It's just from my I can look at
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: it on my screen because I'm trying to evaluate. So
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: if you just want to put it back on my screen, well,
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: so what I'm doing is looking at this. And just
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: for clarity, moving forward, if there's a particular exhibit, I'll
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: ask that you provide it instead of relying upon here.
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: Just so that there's no misunderstanding and I can see
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: exactly what is being moved into evidence. I don't want
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: to assume and I want to do the proper analysis. Prosecution,
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: I appreciate that, Judge, and I apologize. I understood that
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: we are presenting redacted copies today. I think that there's
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: just been a little bit of a glitch, so I
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: apologize for that. Judge Graff, all right, and Ms. Nestor,
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: I just want to make sure what you're looking at
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: this exhibit as opposed to what I was just looking
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: at in regard to your argument. With this clarification in mind,
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: any update on your argument or anything that you would
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: like the court to consider? Kathy Nestor, the only other
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: issue I think that exists with this that I haven't
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: already raised, is that there is clearly two different authors
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: in the body of the document. One wrote something on
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: the very top line, and then it looks like Ms.
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: Wright wrote the rest of it, which we don't have
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: any indication of who wrote that top line and when
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: they filled that in. If it was before or after
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: she signed the document. So I have some concerns about
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: authenticity with respect to that as well. And that's all
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: I have. Judge Graff, all right. And as I'm determining it,
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: it does appear that the writing is different. Did you
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: want to lay additional foundation or provide information for the court? Prosecution.
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: I'd be happy to do that. Do you have it
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: in front of the state exhibit 6.1? I do, yes. Prosecution. Okay,
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: you've heard the discussion that just took place. It appears
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: as if there's two different styles of writing on that form. Mr. Hull. Yes. McBride. Okay,
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: I imagine that you have the writing that includes the
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: personal information for Ms. Wright. And then directly below that,
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: I think there's a line. there that appears to be
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: arguably written prepared by somebody else. Is that in fact accurate? Answer,
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: that's correct. Prosecution. Author of that writing. What do you
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: know about the writing on the first line below the
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: statement incident? Now the witness answers again. Because we were
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: asking Ms. Wright to verify a specific video. The file
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: name for that video was written on the statement in
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: her presence. And that video with that file name was
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: then shown to Ms. Wright to verify that it was,
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: in fact, the video that she had provided to us. Question, okay,
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: and so was it you or SBI agent Davis that
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: prepared that? Answer, based on the writing, it appears to
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: be agent Davis' writing, but it's not my writing. Question,
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: all right, but that is the routine, or is that
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: kind of how you commonly do this? Answer, in this case,
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: because we were specifically asking them to verify a specific
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: digital file that had a specific digital name, and we
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: didn't want there to be any errors in how the
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: name was presented. We wrote the file name on the
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: document for individuals. Question okay. Judge Graff jumps in. All right,
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: anything further, Ms. Nestor, with the additional information before the court?
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: Makes its ruling. Kathy Nestor, no. Judge Graff, all right,
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: thank you. Could you leave that on screen for me, please?
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: I appreciate that. And scroll down to the bottom. I
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: just want to review it one last time. All right,
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: and I believe this is Exhibit 6.1. Is that correct? Prosecution?
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: It is, Judge, and I would move to Admit 6.1.
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff? Thank you. So, considering the argument made by Ms.
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: Nestor and Mr. Sturgill, I rely upon Rule 1102, as
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: well as the Utah Constitutional Article 1, Section 12. As
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: I previously mentioned, that final paragraph, it states, nothing in
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: the Constitution shall preclude the use of reliable hearsay as
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: defined by statute or rule, in whole or in part,
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: at any prelim examination to determine probable cause, or at
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: any pretrial proceeding, with respect to the release of the
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: defendant if appropriate discovery is allowed, as defined by the
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: statute or the rule. I've examined this, and the clarification
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: was made. The previous version of this would have fallen
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: foul of having identifiable personal information of Ms. Wright, and
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: so that was removed, and this one, with a redacted
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: portion of the identifiable information, Personal information for Ms. Wright
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: is before me, and based off of that, states Exhibit 6.1
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: with redactions is admitted into evidence and may be published. Prosecution.
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: Thank you, Judge. Agent Hull, that statement was prepared by Ms. Wright.
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: What does it state with regard to the video that
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: you showed her the other day, or I guess Agent
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: Davis showed her that day? Answer. It states that she's
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: confirmed that she reviewed the video and that it's a
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: true reflection of the video that she took on September 10th.
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: 2025 question and does she identify who's in that video
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: in her statement answer herself and her young two young
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: children Kathy Nestor your honor if we could just have
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: a clarification on the court's ruling so I understand the
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: court overruled and published and I accept the ruling but
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: I thought under the court's previous order that the media
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: was not going to film exhibits and they are filming
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: the ones that are on the screen so I guess
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: I just need to clarify that your honor I'm sorry
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, no, and I appreciate the clarification. It's important.
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: What my ruling, when we came back from the break, was,
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: if you're objecting specifically to the exhibit, and then to
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: the exhibit being published in the courtroom, and then the
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: exhibit being published, which can be captured by media, if
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: that's not specifically addressed, I'm going to allow it. So
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: I didn't hear a specific objection to that. So I
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: appreciate you bringing that up, but that's how I'm looking
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: at every single objection, just for the clarity of the record.
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: Kathy Nestor, thank you, Your Honor. So just to make
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: sure I correct the record, we are objecting to the
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: publication of this under the UCJA rules for the reason
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: I said, but I respect that you've ruled on it.
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: And in the future, I guess we'll just make particularly
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: clear we're objecting to publication because I do think that
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: anything getting on the screen is getting filmed. Judge Graff, okay.
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: Kathy Nestor, so thank you, Your Honor. Judge Graff, thank you, Mr. Nestor, Ms.
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: Nestor and Mr. Sturgill. Did you want to respond? I mean,
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: Jeannie's a little bit out of the bottle on this
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: particular issue, but any record you wish to make? Prosecution. Judge,
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: we're simply going to seek to admit each one of
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: these exhibits, and then we're going to leave it up
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: to your honor's discretion on whether to publish them beyond. Well,
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: to what extent you want to publish them? Judge Graff,
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: all right. Well, I'd prefer argument on this issue from
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: both sides. This is the burden of the state, so
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: I don't want to exceed my lane by just assuming...
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: So I'll leave it to you to make the argument
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: that what you're requesting. Prosecution. Sorry about that, judge. So
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: before you're moving on, as it relates to this, I
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: just want to put this to bed and then we
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: can move on. Were you requesting for it to be
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: published on the three? You moved it into evidence, which
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: I approved. It isn't moved into evidence, but I didn't
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: hear anything in regard to publishing to the courtroom. And
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: then lastly, publishing, which would be captured by the camera
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: in the back. Prosecution. Judge, we believe these are public documents,
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: so we would ask that they be published both to
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: the audience and the public at large. Judge Graff. All right, well,
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: given that we've gone past the gate on this one,
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: it's been published. But I think we're all on the
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: same page in regards to how objections may be made
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: and how the court's going to consider it so we
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: can move forward. Prosecution. Thank you. Have you personally watched Ms.
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: Wright's video? He's asking the witness. Witness responds, I have, yes. Question, okay.
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: And what's depicted in that video? Answer, it's a view
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: of Ms. Wright's position in the crowd of the event
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: on September 10th. Question, okay. And absent the written statement
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: from Ms. Wright, can you at least recognize the location
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: that's displayed or depicted in this particular video? video? Answer yeah.
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: It's the amphitheater at the Utah Valley University where Mr.
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: Kirk was doing his event. Question okay. On your screen,
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: Exhibit 6. Do you see anything on your screen yet?
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: Just the very beginning. Answer it's there now. Question it's
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: there now. Do you recognize what's depicted on the screen
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: right now? Answer, I do, yes. Question, what is that? Answer,
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: it's the background. Is the Hall of Flags. And then
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: you have the gazebo under which Mr. Kirk was presenting
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: his event from. And then the crowd between where Ms.
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: Wright was and the stage. Question, okay, but do you
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: recognize what this is at the beginning of? Answer, yeah.
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: This is the beginning of Ms. Wright's video. Question, okay, judge.
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: The state would move to admit what's been marked state's
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: exhibit 6.1. Oh, I'm sorry, 6, I apologize. Judge Graff.
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: And to what level? Kathy Nestor goes to object. Judge
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: cuts her off. Hold on, hold on, Ms. Nestor. I
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: just wanted to get clarification. And then I'll certainly turn
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: to you. So the level of admitting into evidence, then
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: the next level is publishing it to the courtroom. And
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: then the next level is publishing it in a way
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: that's captured by the media. What is your full request? Prosecution. Judge,
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: we'd ask that first, first of all, it be admitted
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: that it be published here within the courtroom. and then
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: that it also be published to the public at large.
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, all right, and I'm not quite sure what
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: this particular video is showing. Could you lay a little
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: bit more foundation or proffer that? What is this? Answer, sure.
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: You've seen the video, Agent Hall? Answer, correct. Question, what's
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: depicted in this video? Answer, the crowd at the beginning
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: of Mr. Cook's presentation, Mr. Kirk's presentation, to the audience
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: in the amphitheater on UVU on September 10th, 2025. Question, okay,
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: does it depict Ms. Wright? Answer, I believe towards the
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: end of the video, it scrolls back and Ms. Wright
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: shows the people that she's with at the event and herself.
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, all right, so is there any act of
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: alleged violence in this particular? Gets cut off by the prosecutor. No,
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: there is not, Judge, but there is not. Judge Graff, okay,
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: I just needed the clarification. Ms. Nestor, I'll turn to you.
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: I just wanted to make sure I understood the full
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: scope of the exhibit and then hear from your objection.
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: if any. Kathy Nestor, Your Honor, with respect to admission,
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: we object to its admission on the grounds that it's
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: not properly authenticated, as Ms. Wright herself is not present
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: for all the constitutional reasons we raised in our standing objection.
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: We object to that. As far as the publication, we
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: object to its publication. It definitely is something that is,
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: in its current form, without her here, would not be
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: admissible in any place other than a prelim hearing. And
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: we feel this would really impinge on Mr. Robinson's right
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: to a fair trial. And so we're asking it not
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: to be published. And certainly if the court does publish it,
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: that it certainly not be filmed. Judge Graff, thank you. Prosecution,
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: any response? Prosecution. Judge, Rule 901 addresses authenticating or identifying
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: evidence to satisfy the requirement of authenticating a document or,
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: I guess, authenticating a piece of evidence. The proponent in
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: the case is the state must produce evidence sufficient to
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: support a finding that the item is what the proponent
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: claims it to be. And then the rule goes on
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: to explain or provide examples of how this rule can
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: be satisfied. And at the very top under subsection B1
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: is testimony of a witness with knowledge. That goes on
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: to say that testimony that an item is what it's
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: claimed to be satisfies this authentication rule. Judge, you have
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: an 1102 statement prepared by the person who actually caught
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: these images on her camera or on her phone. And so, Judge,
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: I think that alone sufficiently authenticates the document. And then
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: even further than that, you have Agent Hull, who reviewed
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: the video himself and authenticates it, at least regards to location.
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, thank you. As it relates to admissibility of
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: this exhibit, I believe states Exhibit 6 is that... Is it? Yes,
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: it is, Judge. Kathy Nestor jumps in. Your Honor, I'm
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: sorry to interrupt. Can I add one more thing for
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: the record? Judge Graff, you may. Kathy Nestor, for purposes
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: of publication, question under UCJA 4-202.024R, as in Richard, photograph, film,
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: or video of a crime victim, are designated as private
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: court records. And I do think that based on what
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: the state has previously referenced, based on what the state
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: has previously referenced, they are perceiving that everyone in the
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: audience is a potential victim. and so we think it
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: should be published, or shouldn't be published under that rule.
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff. Prosecution. On that final point. Prosecution. Judge, I
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: appreciate the argument from Ms. Nestor, and we don't necessarily disagree,
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: but to that end, to protect who believes as victims
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: in the video, I believe their faces have been blurred out.
• 14:57
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff. Oh, I see, Ms. Nestor. Kathy Nestor responds.
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: I think it's only the minor children whose faces were blurred,
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: not Ms. Wright, if I'm mistaken. Unless it's been subsequently altered. Prosecution.
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: My recollection is they've all been blurred out. Judge Graff.
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: All right, I need to view this again. So let's
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: just put this on my monitor again. I'm just trying
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: to make sure that in order for me to make
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: a ruling on this, I need to view it. So
• 15:23
  Speaker 1: let's just put it on the monitor. Play it without
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: any sound. Okay. My understanding is the prosecution has control
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: of the exhibit. So what I'm asking is that the
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: sound be turned off. If there is any, and just
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: go ahead and play it. Well, it's on all the
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: parties' monitors, because I want you all to view it,
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: because that can go directly to, as you've mentioned, Ms. Nestor,
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: whether it's possibly admissible. So let's go ahead and play it.
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: All right, thank you. Based off what I've watched, there
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: was some blurring of faces, but not all the faces,
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: and so I'm going to rule that it's admissible. Nestor, sorry,
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: Your Honor. Can we clarify something for a minute? Judge Graff, sure.
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: I'll wait until all parties are ready to proceed. So
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: anything further? Prosecution, no, Judge. You've had a chance to
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: watch it. Judge Graff, I did. So I'm ruling that
• 16:08
  Speaker 1: it's admissible into evidence. Again, taking into consideration the analysis
• 16:12
  Speaker 1: the courts talked about regards to 1102s and this particular
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: piece of evidence as it relates to the 1102 statement, 6.1.
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: And I'm going to allow it to admit into evidence
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: because the faces of the alleged victims are not all obscured.
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: There are some that are visible. It's not going to
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: be published in court monitor and obviously not to be
• 16:32
  Speaker 1: filmed by the media. So the court will receive it
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: into evidence. The court will watch it again right now,
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: and then we can continue to proceed. Prosecution. Very good.
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: Thank you, Judge. All right, folks, we're going to wrap
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: up right here, and in the next episode dealing with
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: the topic, we're going to pick up where we left off.
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: All the information that goes with this episode can be
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: found in the description box.