Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Tyler Robinson's Motion to Halt Further Testing of Bullet Fragment (Part 1) (7/25/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson's Motion to Halt Further Testing of Bullet Fragment (Part 1) (7/25/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. One
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: of the biggest points of contention when it comes to
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: Tyler Robinson and the case against him, is centered around
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: the results of the ballistics. So in this episode, what
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: we're going to do is we're going to take a
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: look at a motion for an order prohibiting any further
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: alteration or testing of a bullet jacket fragment, pending the
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: outcome of this motion, and permitting the defense expert to
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: examine and photograph this evidence before it's further altered or destroyed,
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: or in the alternative, permitting either defense expert of observation
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: of any further alteration or testing of this evidence, or
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: a video recording of such alteration and testing. And memorandum
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: in support State of Utah Plaintiff versus Tyler James Robinson,
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: defendant introduction Defendant Tyler James Robinson buy and, through undersigned Counsel,
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: hereby moves the Court for a temporary order prohibiting the
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: State and its agents from conducting any further testing of
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: one bulletjack fragment pending the outcome of this motion. Mister Robinson,
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: further request and order permitting a defense expert a meaningful
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: opportunity to examine and photograph this evidence before it's further
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: altered or destroyed, or, in the alternative, permitting either defense
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: expert observation of any further alteration and testing of this evidence,
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: or video recording of such alteration and testing. This motion
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: is made pursuant of mister Robinson's right to a fair trial,
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: to due process of law, to present a complete defense,
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: to confront adverse witnesses, and to a reliable guilt and
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: penalty determination under state and federal constitutional provisions, including the sixth, eighth,
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: and fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I,
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: Section seven nine to twelve of the Utah Constitution. This
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: motion is also made pursuant to Utah Rule of Criminal
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: Procedures sixteen and the Court's inherent authority to ensure a
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: fair trial. Requested relief by this motion, mister Robinson requests
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: that this Court issued the following orders. One, a temporary
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: order prohibiting the State and its agents from conducting any
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: further testing of one bullet jacket fragment pending the outcome
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: of the motion. Two in order permitting the defense a
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: meaningful opportunity to examine and photograph this evidence before it's
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: further altered or destroyed three in the alternative, in order
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: permitting either defense expert observation of any further alteration and
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: testing of this evidence, or requiring video recording of such
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: alteration and testing statement of facts. On November fourth, twenty
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: twenty five, the Court entered an order that provides, in part,
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: this Court orders the Utah County Attorney's Office and any
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: law enforcement agency involved in the investigation of the case
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: to notify defense counsel or to any potentially destructive testing
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: and or examination. If Defense Council does not object within
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: fourteen days of receiving notice, or defense Council agrees to
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: the potentially destructive testing and or examination, the testing and
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: or extermination may proceed. Testing and or examination is potentially
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: destructive only when it's likely to entirely consume a piece
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: of evidence or an extract from that piece of evidence,
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: or is likely to change the character of a piece
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: of evidence. On December twenty second, twenty twenty five, the
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: State served on the defense a state's notice of intent
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: to conduct non destructive testing attached here two as Exhibit one.
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: In this notice, the State indicated its intent to conduct
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: virtual comparison microscopy analysis on a bullet jacket fragment recovered
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: at autopsy to examine any markings that the rifle imparted
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: to the fragment. The notice further indicated that while the
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: testing will not destroy or consume the fragments, it may
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: alter their character Exhibit one at one. According to the notice,
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: the FBI examiner who will conduct the testing has informed
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: the state that to obtain a useful scan of the
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: bullet jacket fragment, it may be necessary to fall back
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: portions of the jacket fragment to allow the optical head
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: to capture the surface of the jacket that contacted the firearm.
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: Pliers or similar gripping tools may be used to fall
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: back the jacket. While this process could leave marks on
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: the surface of the fragment, the examiner will document those
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: marks and, if possible, ensure that the marks do not
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: interfere with the area is to be examined with VCM.
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: Although this process may alter the shape of the jacket fragment,
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: the examiner believes that the item should remain intact. The
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: item is nevertheless fragile Example one at two. The notice
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: further indicates that the FBI examiner informed the state that
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: when he received the bullet jacket from the ATF, it
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: appeared that a small portion of the fragment was detached
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: from the main portion. Given this, the FBI examiner stated
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: that it's possible that additional pieces of the fragment may
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: inadvertently become detached during VCM analysis example one, at two
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: and three. The notice further indicates that it's the state's
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: understanding that an ATF examiner who conducted a prior light
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: comparison microscopy analysis of the bullet jacket fragment may have
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: already folded back pieces of the bullet jacket fragment to
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: expose the exterior surface. No explanation is offered in the
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: notice as to why it's necessary for the FBI to
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: use pliers on the fragile sample the fallback portions of
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: jacket fragment to expose the surface of the jacket that
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: contacted the firearm when that process has already been performed
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: by the ATF, with the result that the bullet fragment
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: was capable of being examined, but was apparently altered in
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: the process. The notice, although it refers to an ATF
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: lab report documenting the ATF had conducted did a prior
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: light comparison microscopy analysis of the bullet jacket fragment does
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: not indicate the results of that examination. The ATF report
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: attached here two as Exhibit two, is dated September seventeenth,
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty five, and was disclosed to the defense on
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: December eighteenth, twenty twenty five. Example two at two. The
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: ATF report indicates in part that Exhibit six consists of
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: one thirty caliber class to form damage bullet jacket fragment
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: design six A, and four lead fragments designed six B
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: through six E. The Exhibit six A bullet jacket fragment
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: cannot be identified or excluded as having been fired from
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: the Exhibit one rifle based on an agreement of all
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: discernible class characteristics and neither sufficient agreement nor sufficient disagreement
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: of individual characteristics. The result of the comparison was inconclusive.
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: Firearms that produced general rifling characteristics similar to those observed
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: on the Exhibit six A bullet jacket fragment include numerous
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: makes and models. The Exhibit six B through six E
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: lead fragments are not suitable for microscopic comparison example two
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: at two. This report clearly implies that Exhibit six A
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: was suitable for a microscopic comparison, but that there was
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: not sufficient agreement nor sufficient disagreement of individual characteristics to
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: allow the examiner to identify or exclude the rifle in question.
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: The report contains no hint that the individual characteristics became
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: visible only after a set of pliers was used to
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: fall back the jacket, or that in this process a
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: small portion of the fragment became detached, but according to
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: the notice, that was what happened at the ATF. On
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: December twenty third, twenty twenty five, the defense inquired of
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: the State via email whether the FBI laboratory was opened
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: to having a defense expert present during the up FBI's
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: preparation and examination of the bullet fragment, and if not,
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: whether the laboratory was willing to video that process. On
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: the same date, the State responded that the FBI's policies,
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: which will not change for this case, do not allow
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: the defense examiner to be present or videotaping of the examination.
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: On the same date, the defense responded that given this stance,
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: will have to file a motion with the Court requesting
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: appropriate relief. The parties subsequently agreed that if the motion
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: was filed by January twelfth, twenty twenty five, there would
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: be no objection to the motion on timely. In this grounds,
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: the defense has retained a qualified expert to conduct an
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: independent examination the argument one. The sixth, eighth, and fourteenth
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: Amendments and their Utah constitutional counterparts require preservation and fair
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: access to material evidence. The due process clause of the
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: fourteenth Amendment guarantees a defendant access to evidence that is
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: either material to the guilt of the defendant or relevant
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: to the punishment to the imposed so as to ensure
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: that defendants are afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: complete defense California Verse Trumpeta for sixty seven US four
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: seventy nine for eighty five, nineteen eighty four. Evidence is
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: material for this purpose if it might be expected to
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: play a significant role in the suspects defense Idea four
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: eighty eight emphasis added. To meet this standard, evidence must
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: both possess an apparent exculpatory value and be of such
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: evidence by other reasonably available means idea for eighty nine.
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: In Arizona verse. Young Blood, the Supreme Court recognized that
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: due process clause requires a different result when we deal
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: with the failure of the state to preserve evidentiary material
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: of which no more can be said than that it
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: could have been subjected to tests, the results of which
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: might have exonerated the defendant. Four eighty eight US fifty
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: one fifty seven, nineteen eighty eight. The Court concluded that
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: the failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not violate
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: due process unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: on the part of the police id at fifty eight.
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: See also Illinois Verrus Fisher, five point forty US five
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: forty four, five forty nine, two thousand and four. The
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: applicability of the bad faith requirement in young Blood depended
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: not on the centrality of the contested evidence to the
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: prosecution's case or the defendant's case, but on the distinction
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: between material exculpatory evidence and potentially useful evidence. The bullet
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: jacket fragment evidence in this case is material exculpatory evidence
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: in the meaning of Trumpeta, and not merely potentially useful
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: evidence within the meaning of Young blood. Because here the
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: ATF examination has already revealed that firearms not just rifles
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: that produce general rifling carearacteristics similar to those observed on
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: the exhibit six A bullet fragment, include numerous makes and models,
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: and that an examination of individual characteristics did not reveal
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: incriminating evidence. The evidence thus possesses an apparent exculpatory value
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: within the meaning of trumpeta. And because the FBI is
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: aware these exonerating testing results, and is also aware by
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: the way of this motion, that the defense considers the
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: evidence to be exculpatory, any destruction or alteration of this
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: evidence would be in bad faith c. F. Fisher, five
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: US at five forty eight. But Respondent did not allege,
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: nor did the appellate court find that the Chicago police
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: acted in bad faith when they destroyed the substance. Quite
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: the contrary, police testing indicated that the chemical makeup of
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: the substance inculpated not exculpated the respondent. Given the ATF
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: test results, it's evident that an independent comparative analysis of
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: any individual markings on the bullet fragment, confirming that the
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: individual characteristics do not match bullet tests fired from the
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: rifle the state seeks to connect to mister Robinson, or
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: even confirming there are insufficient individual characteristics to include or
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: exclude identification of a particular weapon. An individualized match would
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: by itself, or in combination with the ATF results raise
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, or at least
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: raise a lingering doubt in any penalty phase, assuming the
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: court found such expert testimony reliable enough to be admitted
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: because there is only one bullet fragment recovered in the case,
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: if this evidence is altered to the point where it
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: can't be subject to independent testing, then by definition, the
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: defense cannot obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means.
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: Once altered, the defense ability to challenge the conclusions of
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: the state's expert is irreparably harmed, and the reliability of
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: the evidence will remain untested. CEEEG. State First Kennedy, five
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: point fifty nine, see Second District seven sixty two, seven
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: sixty eight, two thousand and two. On defendant's motion, the
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: trial court ordered that the state turn over the test
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: fired bullets and underlying data examinations. The state was unable
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: to locate the shells in the present case, the defendant
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: was not afforded the opportunity to rigorously test the state's
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: firearm evidence, thus interfering with the defendant's right to present
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: the full defense. Therefore, we agree with the defendant that
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: the trial court aired in either suppressing the testimony of
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: the state's firearm expert nor ordering the state to retest
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: the weapon. See also People versus Brown, five forty one
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: NYS Second District, one forty six, one fifty four New
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: York Supreme Court, nineteen eighty nine. Clearly, the defendant is
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: prejudiced as a result of the destruction of the ballistics
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: to the extent that he cannot examine the ballistics, since
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: ballistics have characteristics unto themselves to set forth a defense
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: that bullets recovered and the bullets in the body of
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: the disease east were not of the same make and
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: kind IDEA. Three forty. Here, the bullets are the most
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: reliable evidence for the defense to make use of in
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: an attempt to establish a defense with respect to a
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: purported difference in ammunition. The destruction of evidence precluded the
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: defense from arguing the forty four caliber bullets that were
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: earlier received and later destroyed were not of the same
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: make and kind as the forty four caliber bullet in
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: the body of the deceased. The remedy to be applied
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: by the court is to preclude the use of testimony
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: about the forty four caliber bullets found in the apartment
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: that the defendant allegedly had access to. C. F. Strickland
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: Verse State Number thirteen Dash sixteen DASH zero zero seven
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: zero one dashtr twenty twenty WL three seven three zero
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: seven two at eighteen, Texas Appeals, January twenty third, twenty twenty.
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: No due process violation where the state failed to retain
• 14:57
  Speaker 1: photographs of bullet comparisons because the actual baballistics evidence was
• 15:01
  Speaker 1: preserved and available to Strickland and is expert to examine
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: and conduct their own testing and evaluation. Especially in a
• 15:09
  Speaker 1: capital case, there is an enhanced need for reliability in
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: phases of the case. See Beck versus Alabama for forty
• 15:15
  Speaker 1: seven US six twenty five six thirty eight, nineteen eighty.
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: To ensure that the death penalty is indeed imposed on
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: the basis of reason rather than caprice or emotion. We
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: have invalidated procedural rules that tended to diminish the reliability
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: of the sentencing determination. The same reasoning must apply to
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: rules that diminish the reliability of the guilt determination. Internal
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: quotation omitted Caldwell versus Mississippi, four seventy two US three
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: twenty three forty, nineteen eighty five, in validating a procedure
• 15:49
  Speaker 1: that was incompatible with the Eighth Amendment's heightened need for
• 15:52
  Speaker 1: reliability in the determination that death is the appropriate punishment
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: in a specific case. Internal qua quotation omitted. See also
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: Greg versus Georgia four twenty eight US one fifty three,
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: one eighty seven, nineteen seventy six. When a defendant's life
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: is at stake, the Court has been particularly sensitive to
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: ensure that every safeguard is observed. The death penalty was
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: not an issue in either Trumbeta or young Blood, so
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: how the Supreme Court would apply those cases in a
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: capital case is an open question. Nevertheless, mister Robinson urges,
• 16:28
  Speaker 1: based on the Eighth Amendment cases cited above, that the
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: Court canon should find the alteration of the bullet fragment
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: evidence in the unique circumstances of this case would violate
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: the sixth, eighth, and fourteenth Amendments and Article one, Section seven, nine,
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: and twelve of the Utah Constitution. All right, folks, who're
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: gonna wrap up part one right there, and in the
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: where we left off. All the information that goes with
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box.