Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcript (Day 4 Part 3) (10/10/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcript (Day 4 Part 3) (10/10/26) · 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 dive right back into day
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: number four of the Tyler Robinson prelim hearing transcript. And
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: to do that, we're picking up with the defense. Thank you,
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: Your Honor. The parallel between Mr. Robinson's case and the
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: Riddow case is that Mr. Riddow's confession was televised by
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: an act of the state. It wasn't a confession broadcasted
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: through a courtroom. It was a confession made to law
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: enforcement and then broadcasted by the action of the state.
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: And then, what gives rise to the constitutional problem, which
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: is its state action, which violated Mr. Riddell's right to
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: a fair trial. This court has granted the media's request
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: to electronically publish this entire proceeding, the state action, and
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: the state has supported the media's request over Mr. Robinson's objection.
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: So that is, itself, also state action. So that's the parallel.
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: If there were no cameras in the courtroom, we would
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: not have a problem. And in fact, Ms. Kirk's attorney
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: briefing seeks a remedy... which has nothing to do with
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: cameras in the courtroom. What Ms. Kirk's counsel seeks is
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: the opportunity for people in the courtroom to see the evidence,
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: so the state's going even further than Mr. Kirk's counsel.
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: The state wants to publish what it calls confessions in
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: the same way, essentially that the state published Mr. Riddow's confession. Now,
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: the only thing I want to talk about is that Mr. Ballard, correct,
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: that the blanket rule that there is unrebuttable prejudice that's
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: stated in Riddow. We could talk about why dissenting judges say,
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: oh my God, the court has established a rule and
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: I don't like it. That's what's going on there. But
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: it was in the Skilling case, a Supreme Court decision
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: in 2010, where the court said, yes, we really are
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: going to let judges decide whether potential juror exposure to
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: pretrial publicity makes them unable to serve. But there's an
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: extreme case. That's not my language. That's the Supreme Court's
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: language in Skilling. There are extreme cases of pretrial publicity
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: where prejudice is going to be presumed. And so that
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: obviously about what has to be proven in terms of
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: the prejudice. But when it's an extreme case, what the
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court is saying and skilling is there's a presumption.
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: And I believe that the court has already made a
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: finding over the last nine months that this is an
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: extreme case with respect to the quantum of pretrial publicity
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: and the way in which it's being monitored by the public.
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: the speed with which the proceedings, even this week, are
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: being dissected and broadcast throughout all technology channels that we have.
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: So it's our view that this is the extreme case
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: that the Supreme Court talked about in Skilling. We wouldn't
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: have any state action giving rise to this problem if
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: we didn't have cameras in the courtroom. And that's why
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: we think that Exhibits 16.1, 16.2, and 16.3 need to
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: be managed in a way that we've asserted. Thank you,
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: Your Honor. Now back to the state. Judge Graff? Mr. Ballard?
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: Thank you, Your Honor. Just briefly, Mr. Novak has misrepresented
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: the state's position. We're not going beyond what the victim
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: representative has asked for. As we made clear in our
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: briefing this morning, that we filed this morning, we're asking
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: that these exhibits unredacted be published in the courtroom. Not electronically,
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: but they're published in the courtroom. It's not the camera
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: in the courtroom. That's the problem. The issue here is
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: the public's right. This is a public hearing. The courts
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: ruled that this is a public hearing. Kearns Tribune recognizes
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: that prelim hearings are public and the public that is
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: here in the courtroom should be able to see the
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: exhibits that are admitted that are in the court and
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: that the court's going to rely on. And that's even
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: more important to the victim representative's right to be able
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: to be present and to observe the proceedings. Thank you.
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: And the next person up speaking, it doesn't say who
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: it is, but I'm guessing that it's Ms. Kirk's representative.
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: Your Honor, if I may, I'll be brief. I want
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: to begin by saying thank you to both parties, to
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: the state, to the defense, to the court. The time
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: that's being taken today and the nimbleness that's required to
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: talk about things like a transcript in open court is
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: a challenge. I recognize that it presents difficulties and that
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: it takes time. And I want to begin by thanking
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: both parties and the court for taking the time to
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: do that. It's important to the public and I appreciate
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: the court doing that. I know the public does as well.
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: The only thing that I want to say with respect
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: to this question about admission or confession is something that
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: I hope will help the court. The court's looking at Riddell.
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: It's looking at Estes. These cases from 50 or 60
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: years ago in a different media environment under the United
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: States Supreme Court. I want to urge the court to
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: do what the court has done before, and that's to
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: look at Alger. This is a 2011 Utah Supreme Court case.
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: It's obviously in the wake of Riddell. It's obviously in
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: the wake of Estes. It's here in this state, unanimous
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: Utah Supreme Court upholding a decision made by Judge McCleave
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: below in a case that has a striking parallel to
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: this one. In the Algier case, there was a murder
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: trial and the court received a letter, a notarized letter
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: from an inmate saying, the defendant in this case has
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: confessed to me, told me that he was involved in
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: the shooting, gave me details of it, threatened me and
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: my family. If I did that, I want the court
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: to know that. That was provisionally sealed. for many of
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: the same reasons that the court could conceivably consider keeping
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: some of this information from the public. The court did
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: a two-step analysis. It began by trying to determine whether
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: or not there was a presumptive right of access to
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: that document. The answer is yes. There is a presumptive
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: right of access to this proceeding as well. Like Mr.
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: Ballard just said, because this is a prelim hearing, there
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: is a presumptive right of access to the public. The
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: second question was simply, whether there is some kind of
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: balancing that should be done. Notably, in paragraph 17 of
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: the Algier case, it stressed something that we have said
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: over and over again, which is much of the information
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: that would be revealed through that letter had already become
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: public at that point, and the idea of sealing a
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: document that contained allegations or details that were already in
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: the public sphere would not only create the impression that
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: information was being kept from the public when it was not.
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: We stressed what we did yesterday, As we understand it,
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: much of the information that is now under consideration for
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: the court is already in the public sphere. The right
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: case to analyze this under is Algier. Algier would dictate
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: in the case the court recognize that there is a
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: presumptive right of access to the material, and that balancing
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: test that would be needed to overcome that presumption of
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: access has not been satisfied here, particularly because so much
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: of that information is already in the public sphere. That
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: must be an animating factor here as we ask the
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: court for the reason to grant access, both publication to
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: the courtroom and in our view, publication on camera as well.
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: But we again do recognize that the middle step is
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: a meaningful one. And if the court were to decide
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: that the information be shared in the courtroom, but not
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: the general feed, we would recognize that as well as
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: a meaningful step towards transparency in the case. And this
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: time it's definitely Erica Kirk's lawyer. Good morning, Your Honor.
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey Neiman on behalf of the Kirk family. And we
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: appreciate the court trying to balance here, but the Kirk
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: family has waited 10 months for the hearing. And they
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: have a right to be here, and they have a
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: right to hear the evidence, and they have a right
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: to see and feel what's going on in the courtroom.
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: And they want to understand, Judge, what you're reviewing. They
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: want to see the evidence, and we understand you to
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: have balance, but at a minimum, this courtroom needs to
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: be open for the evidence to be displayed openly in
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: the courtroom for them to see it. The Utah Constitution
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: gives them that right to be here. And to be
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: here and not to see the evidence, what's the point
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: of being here? We ask you to let the evidence
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: be seen in the courtroom. Please, thank you for your time.
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, thank you, counsel. Anything further as it relates
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: to Exhibit 16-1, 16-2, and 16-3? As it relates to
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: what's been briefed, or any other arguments? I just want
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: to make sure that it's all been received before the
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: court issues a ruling. Defense, no thank you. State, not
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: from the state, Your Honor, thank you. Judge Graff, all right.
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: And just to be clear, as it relates to the
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: state's request, well, so under the three factors, or the
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: three levels, admission to the court, publication to gallery, and
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: then publication beyond the gallery, what's the request for each
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: of those exhibits? Prosecution, Your Honor, we're asking for admission.
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: We're asking for publication within the courtroom, but not publication
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: electronically to the electronic coverage in the courtroom of these proceedings.
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: We do want to make it clear that once the
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: exhibit is admitted, that the witness will be reading from
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: portions of the exhibit. But again, we're not asking that
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: to be displayed in any way so that those outside
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: the courtroom could capture it and reproduce it. Judge Graff,
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: thank you, the court just wants, and just for clarification,
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: 16-1 is the text messages, 16-2 is the Discord chats,
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: and 16-3 is the photograph of the notes? Prosecution, that's correct,
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: Your Honor. Judge Graff, all right, and finally... and this
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: hasn't been really addressed by any party, but it's a
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: factor to the court's weighing. How much of 16.1 has
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: been published to the public prior to these proceedings? And
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: this is open to all of you if you wish
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: to weigh in. I just want to make sure that
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: it's clear because that wasn't really addressed in the briefing,
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: and it's a factor. So I want to make sure
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: that this issue has been presented to the parties if
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: you choose to. Prosecution, Your Honor, with respect to Exhibit 16.1,
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: Some of those text messages do appear on pages 8
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: and 9. Pages 8 and 9 of the information is public.
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, can you give me a rough estimate or
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: percentage of how many of the total amount of 16-1
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: appears in the information? Again, I'm just trying to create
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: a record of what is out there from your perspective
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: so the court can consider it in its analysis. The state,
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: Your Honor, State Exhibit 16-1 is 18 pages in total
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: of photographs of text messages. It's approximately five and a
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: half of those pages of those 18 pages that are
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: reproduced in the information. Thank you for your patience. Judge Graff,
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: thank you, Mr. Ballard. I appreciate you doing that on
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: the fly. Anything further from any party? Defense? No, thank you.
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff? To the prosecution? Prosecution? No, thank you. To
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: the media? Only just to point out to the court
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: that in addition to the text messages, I believe, I
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: haven't seen the other exhibits. I believe that at least
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: the note itself, which is another one of the exhibits,
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: is also described in the information. Judge Graff? Thank you. Ms.
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: Kirk's victim representative's attorney? Mr. Neiman? This has not been easy,
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: as you can imagine, and I think the family deserves
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: to see the evidence that's been gathered in the investigation.
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: They deserve to know what happened to Charlie, so we
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: urge the court to please again display the evidence here
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: in the courtroom. Judge Graff, thank you to all parties.
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: I appreciate the diligence and hard work that you've put
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: in the briefing argument. These are important exhibits as it
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: relates to what should be considered for, again, to be clear,
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: these exhibits are being admitted to the court in its entirety.
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: The question before the court is, is publication within the
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: courtroom and beyond the courtroom. And so this is the
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: ruling as it relates to that briefing. And I know
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: it wasn't a formal motion, but I'm just trying to
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: be as thorough in my approach. This matter comes before
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: the court on state request to publish Exhibit 16-1, 16-2,
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: and 16-3 during the prelim hearing and defend its objection
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: to that request. The exhibits consist of text messages between Mr.
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: Robinson and a witness, discord messages between Mr. Robinson and others,
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: and a written note the state attributes to Mr. Robinson.
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: Attorneys for Mr. Robinson argue the publication of the exhibits
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: during the proceeding, subject to electronic media coverage, would create
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: a substantial risk of prejudice and impair his rights to
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: due process under the 14th Amendment. Defendant relies on Riddell v. Louisiana,
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: Estes & Skilling, and asks the court to consider any
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: admissible exhibit for the purposes of prelim hearing while limiting
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: their public display or broadcast. The state responds that Riddell
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: and Estes do not require a categorical restriction here. The
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: state argues that the exhibits are materially different from the
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: televised custodial interrogation at issue in Riddell, because there are
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: written communications allegedly made outside law enforcement custody. The state
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: also argues that the potential prejudice can be addressed through
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: trial management measures, including voir dire, and that the victim
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: representative has an interest in being present for and able
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: to follow important criminal proceedings. This court has considered the
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: party's arguments, the nature of the exhibits, and the procedural
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: posture of this prelim hearing, the defendant's due process interest,
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: the public nature of the criminal proceedings, and the interest
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: asserted by the state and victim representative. On the present record,
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: the court is not persuaded that the publication of Exhibits 16.1, 2,
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: and 3 during the prelim hearing creates the type of
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: inherent or presumed prejudice that requires categorical restrictions under Riddell, Estes,
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: and Skilling. Unlike the broadcast interrogation in Ridau, the exhibits
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: at issue are written communication allegedly made outside police custody
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: and are being offered in the ordinary course of judicial proceeding.
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: That distinction does not eliminate the possibility of prejudice, but
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: it weighs against treating publication of the exhibits as presumptively unconstitutional.
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: The court further finds that any potential prejudice arising from
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: media coverage may be addressed if necessary. through the appropriate
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: trial procedures, including voir dire, and any other measure warranted
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: before trial. This ruling is limited to publication of the
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: exhibits during the prelim hearing and does not determine their
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: admissibility at trial, and I insert, if one occurs or
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: foreclose any later request for relief based on a more
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: developed record. Accordingly, the defendant's objection is overruled. As it
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: relates to this prelim hearing, the state may publish Exhibits 16-1, 16-2,
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: and 16-3, and the court is authorizing, with the exception
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: of the third to last page on Exhibit 16-1, because
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: it contains information, including phone numbers and addresses to be
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: redacted before publication in the courtroom. But it relates to
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: 16-1 because it was publicly distributed by the state that
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: 16-1 in its entirety may be broadcast through electronic media,
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: and that is the ruling of the court. Counsel, how
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: would we like to proceed? All right, we're going to
• 14:40
  Speaker 1: wrap up right here. And in the next episode dealing
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: with the topic, we're going to pick up where we
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: left off. All the information that goes with this episode
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: can be found in the description box.