Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 2 Part 14) (9/25/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 2 Part 14) (9/25/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: this episode, we're going to pick up where we left
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: off with the Tyler Robinson Day 2 transcript. Question. On
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: another topic, I mentioned studies before. One of the studies
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: that you're familiar with is called the PCAST report. Are
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: you familiar with that report? Answer, yes, I am. Question.
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: Tell the court what it is. Answer. PCAST stands for
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. And
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: this was a committee that was found, I believe, under
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: the Obama administration that gave guidance on different areas of forensics. Question.
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: Including how to deal with mixed samples and how to
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: deal with samples that have low quality DNA. Answer. I
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: don't know that I would agree that that's how to
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: deal with them. They gave some of their concerns on
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: low level samples and mixtures. Question. And they also did
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: a follow-up report to assess whether using that kind of
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: software that you used, in this case, had been established
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: as reliable, correct? Answer. That is correct. Question. What was
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: the software that you used, in the case, to reach
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: your statistical results? Answer. The software is called STR-MIX. Question.
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: The PCAST report specifically addresses whether reliability has been established
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: with respect to the STR-MIX, correct? Answer. I don't believe
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: that reliability came into the question. I think PCAST thought
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: that there needed to be additional testing as far as
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: mixtures and low-level samples go. Question mixtures and low-level samples
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: that had certain characteristics, right? Answer, that is correct. Question,
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: including mixtures, where what's called minor contributor was a sample
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: below 20%? Answer, that is correct. The minor contributor would
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: be an individual that donated less DNA to the sample.
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: PCAST called into question mixtures of three or more individuals
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: with that minor or low-level contributor making up 20% or less.
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: Seven and eight samples in the case would be both mixtures, correct? Answer,
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: that is correct. Question, and did you determine that the
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: proportion of mixture was between what I'll call the major
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: contributor and the minor contributor? Answer, I did not calculate
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: that personally. Part of the STR mix software, it does
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: a couple different things. One, takes a mixture, and it
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: uses math and biological modeling to try to break that
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: mixture into its individual contributors. And then, it also calculates
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: a likelihood ratio, which is the statistic that I report.
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: During that process, it does give an estimate of the
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: breakdown of those potential contributors. Question, first of all, for
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: the 7 sample, was the minor in there less than
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: 20% according to the STR mix? Answer, yes it was.
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: For one of the runs when I compared to Mr.
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: Robinson's condition, on Mr. Twiggs, it was 5% to 95%. Question,
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: and how about the other sample? Answer, for item 8,
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: one of the contributors was 11%, and the other was
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: approximately 89%. Question, so inaudible. Answer, correct, yes. Question, and
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: the concern expressed in this report, which was written by
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: experts in your field, correct? Answer, no, that is not correct.
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: The PCAST report was written by individuals that were not
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: practitioners of any type of laboratory personnel. Question, but they
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: list the experts who provided input into the report, do
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: they not? Answer, yes, they did. Question, one of them
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: was Bruce Budewal, correct? Answer, correct, yes. Question, who's Bruce Budewal? Answer,
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: he's a DNA expert within the field. Question, Well, he
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: was the head of your unit for a number of
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: years before you came on board, wasn't he? Answer, yes,
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: he was. Question, and he's written extensively on forensic DNA testing,
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: has he not? Answer, he has, yes. Question, the report
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: also lists Eric Gilkerson, correct? Answer, I do not recall
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: that name. Question, forensic examiner for the Federal Bureau of
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: Investigation Laboratory. Answer, I don't recognize the name. Question, how
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: about Brian McVicker? Forensic Examiner, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Now
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: to this, the prosecution objects. Objection, Your Honor. I'm going
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: to renew my objection. I think this is beyond the
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: scope and determining probable cause. The standards that apply here
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: are that the court weighs the evidence in the light
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: most favorable to the state and avoids credibility and balancing
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: the evidence at this stage. I think we're far into
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: 702 territory at this point. Judge Graff, Defense. Answer, I'm
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: not sure I understand the objection into 702 territory. 702
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: deals with the reliability of evidence. That's what the court's
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: here to determine. So again, it's directly relevant to reliability.
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: This report criticizes, for the specific sample she's using here,
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: the reliability of the testing. And her response was, oh,
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: but they weren't experts. But the report indicates that three
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: were experts who were consulted on this report. So I
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: think that it's relevant, and I think it goes to
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: the issue of reliability. And it's the only question I
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: have on this area as well. Judge, anything further, prosecution?
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: Or do you wish to respond to that? Prosecution, just
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: that 702, deals with admissibility. It doesn't discuss reliability, but
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: it's directly related to admissibility of the testimony at trial
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: under the Utah Constitution. And under the robust case law
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: in this area, the court does not weigh the evidence,
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: draws the inferences, in the light most favorable to the state.
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: And I think we're beyond that point. Now getting into
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: the admissibility questions. All right, anything else the judge asks? Response, nope.
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: So back at it, judge. All right, well, as this
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: is the last question, I'm going to overrule the objection.
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: But as a reminder to all parties that this is
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: a probable cause standard. And as it relates to, well,
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: I'll just leave it at that. Defense. Question. Are you
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: familiar with that analyst? Answer, no, I'm not. Question. Just
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: to close the loop on the PCAST report, what they
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: said in the report was that the published evidence supports
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: the foundational validity of probabilistic genotyping with some programs of
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: DNA mixtures of three individuals in which the minor contributor
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: constitutes at least 20% of the intact DNA in the
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: mixture and which the DNA amount succeeds the minimum required
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: level for the inaudible. Isn't that what they concluded? Answer,
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: that sounds accurate, yes. Question, and do you know why
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: the level 20% raises reliability issues? Answer, I do not know. Question,
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: but you do know that in this case, both your
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: samples had minor contributors below 20%? Answer, that is true,
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: but in this case, it was also only a mixture
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: of two individuals. Question, that was the next thing I
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: was going to ask you about, which is what is NOC? Question,
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: or answer, excuse me, NOC stands for number of contributors. Question,
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: and when you use the program, this genotyping program, STR Mix,
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: who decides what the number of contributors is? Answer, that's
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: my determination based on my experience and training looking at
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: the data. That's something I input into STR Mix. Question,
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: that's a complex determination, is it not? Answer, not necessarily. Question,
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: but it can be in some cases, correct? Answer, it
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: could be. Again, If there's a mixture of a lot
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: of individuals and a lot of the peak heights, the
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: size of the spikes are relatively the same. It could
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: cause some trouble for me as an examiner. Question, one
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: of the groups that studies your field is the National
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: Institute of Standards and Technology, correct? Answer, that's correct, yes. Question,
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: they're in the Department of Commerce. Answer, I believe so, yes. Question,
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: federal agency? Answer, yes. Question, they published a report in
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: 2024 saying called Forensic DNA Interpretation and Human Factors, Improving
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: Practice Through a Systems Approach. You're familiar with that publication, right? Answer,
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: yes I am. Question, and was that publication written by scientists? Answer,
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: I don't recall exactly who the authors of that publication were. Question,
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: just to make sure that it's a long report, right? Answer,
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: yes it is. Question, and you've read it? Answer, I've
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: read highlights of it. Question, is it true that one
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: of the things that they say in the report is
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: that they have a section on the complexity or the
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: number of contributor estimations? To that, the prosecution jumps in. Objection.
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: Same objection, Your Honor. This is beyond the scope of
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: a prelim hearing. Again, we're talking about expert reports. We're
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: talking about scientific studies. These materials are all fine to
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: consider at a 702 admissibility hearing. At the stage we're at, again...
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: the state. This is unhelpful to the court's determination, therefore
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: irrelevant to the proceeding. Defense, Your Honor, I think that
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: the report that the state put into evidence as clarified
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: by the witness indicates that she reached the conclusion that Mr.
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: Robinson and Mr. Twiggs were, quote, possible contributors to these
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: two samples. One thing the court has to weigh is
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: what is the weight of that opinion given the science
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: or lack thereof. One of the important issues here is
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: how she derived those statistical numbers. As an offer of proof,
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: I'll indicate to the court that the numbers derived from
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: this software program and that the software program is dependent
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: in large part on how many contributors the analyst puts
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: into the input of the software. And the numbers can
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: change if the number of contributors is changed. In this case,
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: as I'll show through examination, this examiner originally thought that
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: there were three contributors. And I will show the court
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: why she changed her analysis and will indicate through the
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: publication that there has been criticism of the way in
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: which she determined the number of contributors. So I think
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: it's important for the court to assess whether you've got
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: accurate numbers in front of you. The state put these numbers,
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: these astronomical numbers, and are asking the court to give
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: weight to them. And I'm asking the court to consider
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: how those numbers were arrived at, and whether there are
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: reliability issues with regard to those numbers. Judge Graff, the
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: concern that I have is, I turn to State v. Ramirez, 2012,
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: Utah 59, at paragraph 10. It states, furthermore, the magistrate's role...
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: does not encompass an assessment of whether such inference is
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: more plausible than an alternative that cuts in favor of
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: the defense. That is a matter-of-fact finding which is left
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: for the jury at trial. So, when I'm staying in
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: my role as a magistrate, I hear what you're saying.
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: But my concern is based off case law that dictates
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: what I as a magistrate should be doing. If I
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: want to stay in that lane, my fear is that
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: if we go down further down the path, which again
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: is not precluding if this were to proceed... if this
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: were a bind over, if this were a trial, that
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: certainly that could be determined. But at this point, at
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: this stage, how do you weigh the issue as I'm
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: weighing State v. Ramirez and deciding whether we're going past
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: the probable cause stage? Defense, sure. And I think the
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: answer to that is we have to take into account
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: the ruling that you made in the case, which is
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: the law of the case. which is when we objected
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: to the hearsay aspect of these DNA reports and other reports,
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: you ruled that you are the ultimate determiner of the
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: reliability of the hearsay evidence being admitted. You will recall
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: that our argument was the statute was unconstitutional because it
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: was dictating that you find certain evidence to be reliable
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: without considering whether it was reliable. Your ruling, as I
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: understand it, was no, you retain the ultimate determination of
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: whether the evidence is reliable. And that's not a credibility issue.
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: It is this reliable hearsay that the state is offering.
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: Issues that go whether these numbers that the state is
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: putting in front of you are reliable, I think go
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: directly to the substance of your ruling, which is that
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: your role here is to determine reliability of the evidence.
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: I'm familiar with the case that the court cites, but
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: I think has more to do with weighing evidence and
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: making credibility assessments, whereas I'm focused on what the court ruled,
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: which is we have to look at reliability here. and
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: that's my job as a magistrate. Judge, prosecution, any final thoughts? Prosecution, yes.
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: Under Rule 1102B4, the Exhibit 31 is considered reliable hearsay.
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: In addition, credibility determinations are not proper for the court
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: to make. Here, for the whole reason that studies supporting
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: this science, studies opposing the science, testimony from this expert
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: or that expert about what is reliable, what is not,
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: what's more reliable, what's less reliable, factors that affect all
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: those determinations, those are all very, very complex decisions. There
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: will probably be multiple-day hearings dealing with that. And a
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: probable cause determination is just not the place to conduct
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: that kind of thorough, in-depth, and searching analysis. Rather, the
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: case law, the Constitution of Utah, that says the only
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: purpose of a prelim hearing is determining probable cause. The
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: case law, the rules that say that the court does
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: not weigh the evidence at this stage, but leaves that
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: for a finder of fact, the jury in the end,
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: that all supports cutting this line of questioning off at
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: this point, rather than going into greater depth, Your Honor.
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, all right, based on what's been presented before me,
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: I'm going to sustain in part and deny in part
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: the objections made. I'm going to allow this question to
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: be asked. So that is denying but sustained in the
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: sense that it would be the last question. And if Mr.
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: Burt chooses to, may go on to a different subject
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: or a different line of questioning. All right, folks, we're
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: going to wrap up right here. And in the next episode,
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: we're going to pick up where we left off. All
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: in the description box.