Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 3 Part 6) (10/7/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 3 Part 6) (10/7/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 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 day number three of the
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: prelim hearing. Judge Graff, the court's back in session. Noting
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: the presence of counsel in all parties, I appreciate your patience.
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: Sometimes it takes time to save time. And so, that
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: was the intent of this court in addressing what is
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: before this court as it relates to Exhibit 16. Counsel,
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: in this time, I've taken time to look at the video,
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: and you also reviewing what Mr. Novak submitted, the redactions requested,
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: and reviewing all parts of it in great detail. All right,
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: I want to address the objections before me, starting with Mr. Novak.
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: Made a hearsay objection as it relates to Mr. McBride.
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: The court agrees. It's hearsay. At the same time, I'm
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: going to consider Mr. McBride's statement to provide context for
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: the things that Lance Twiggs says and for their effects
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: on Lance Twiggs. As such, the hearsay objection as it
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: relates to the statement of Mr. McBride in State Exhibit
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: 16 is overruled. Turning to the relevance as it relates
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: to State Exhibit 16, and I agree in part and
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: disagree in part as it relates to this objection. And
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: so there are portions of the transcript where I say transcript,
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: but what I really mean is State Exhibit 16. And
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: I appreciate the transcript. I found that to be helpful.
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: It's a lot faster than trying to scroll. And so
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: I appreciate that being provided. It was helpful to the court.
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: To be fair, I found it to be true and
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: accurate representation of the actual recording. So I did listen
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: to every word and compare it, no. But from what
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: I reviewed, I did not find any inconsistencies. Just to
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: put it on record, so there's no misunderstanding. But there
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: are portions of the transcripts that Exhibit 16, which relevance,
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: is still not clear to me. However, as the magistrate,
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: I'm able to distinguish between what is relevant to a
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: probable cause determination and what is not. I take into
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: consideration when I make my ultimate decision about probable cause,
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: I will not take into consideration what is not relevant.
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: So that's kind of the constant balancing and evaluation I'm
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: making throughout the hearing. After this hearing, my intent is
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: to review everything again and be thorough. This is not
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: a case where I'm going to be shooting from the
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: hip and making that determination because this is an important determination.
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: So I will take the necessary time as is required
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: and as necessary to ensure that that the constitutional rights
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: of all parties are upheld. So, as I'm making determinations,
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: where I land is page 19 and 20 of the transcript,
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: as it relates to the state's exhibit number 16, and
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: it may contain irrelevant information, but I'll reserve whether I
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: consider those portions until I've heard the rest of the
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: state's evidence. Therefore, as it relates to relevance, that ruling
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: is reserved. Now, turning to the other objection, which is
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: rule 403 prejudice. As I am acting as magistrate, I
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: do not have the same concern that my decision will
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: be influenced by undue prejudice as that of a jury. Therefore,
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: for purposes of admissibility, the defendant's objection is overruled. Even so,
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: there are portions of this transcript and again, State Exhibit
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: 16 may not be admissible at trial and whose relevance
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: I have not yet determined. In the abundance of caution
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: and to protect the jury pool, the potential jury pool
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: from hearing potentially inadmissible evidence I'm ordering that the audio
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: cannot be published in the courtroom or on camera from
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: page 19, timestamp 3255 until timestamp 3548. In other words,
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: the state may publish the audio of all portions of
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: the interview other than that one portion. When I say audio,
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: I mean audio and video, so both. I recognize that
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: there's approximately one minute after 3548. The state can fast
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: forward to that point, It's approximate 1 minute and 12 seconds,
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: or it may take the time and redact the video
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: as they seem fit. So, where I'm landing today is,
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: up until, from the beginning, until that page 19, 3255,
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: that portion, I am ruling, is admissible, and may be published. Again,
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: if the state wishes that last minute and 12 seconds
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: to be played, they can take either the time tonight
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: to redact what the court is not going to allow
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: to be published. I wish to differentiate. I'm considering it all.
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: But for publication purposes, that portion is not going to
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: be permitted to be played in the courtroom. It's not
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: publishable in the courtroom or to be broadcast. Finally, I
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: want to recognize both parties wanted the benefit of the
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: record to be more specific in their arguments concerning their objections.
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: So if those arguments pertain to timestamp 3255 through timestamp 3548,
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: I'm willing to allow you to do that in a
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: closed hearing. Please be mindful of the time and keep
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: your arguments succinct. With that in mind, do the parties
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: have any arguments they feel I have not considered in
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: my ruling that require a closed hearing? Defense, yes, Your Honor.
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: And so, I'm just going to tell the court what
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: I think the general nature is without getting into details,
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: because I do think a closed hearing is appropriate. There are, okay,
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: setting aside the 1102 issue and objections, there are statements
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: in this video by Mr. Twiggs attributed to Mr. Robinson. Mr.
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: Robinson said it. There are two other exhibits which, again,
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: I've said before, I'm confident the state will offer, which Mr.
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: Twiggs says in the video, Those are statements by Mr. Robinson, okay?
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: I will acknowledge that separate and apart from 1102, the
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: statements of a party opponent are admissible if relevant. In fact,
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: they are not hearsay. They're excluded from the hearsay rule,
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: but the question is whether statements of Mr. Robinson, of
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: the nature that I'm referring to, can be published, not considered,
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: by the court to be published without violating Mr. Robinson's
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: 14th Amendment due process rights. It's our view, as we
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: have said in our earlier papers, that the answer is no. Publication,
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: especially in the way proceeding, is being published would violate Mr.
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: Robinson's due process rights under the 14th Amendment. We previously cited,
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: and the reason why I'm saying this again, is not
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: to reiterate something, just because if you say it twice,
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: it means something different, but because my colleagues have suggested
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: that maybe my argument earlier was not clear enough, and
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: so I want to make sure it's clear so that
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: the court makes a decision based on the arguments of counsel.
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: The United States Supreme Court said in Estes v. Texas
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: 381 U.S. 532 the following. In Riddell v. Louisiana, and
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: that's Riddell, R-I-D-D-E-A-U, this court constructed a rule that that
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: the televising of a defendant in the act of confessing
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: to a crime was inherently invalid under the Due Process
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: Clause of the 14th Amendment, even without a showing of
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: prejudice or a demonstration of the nexus between the televised
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: confession and the trial. I'm not calling the statements of Mr.
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: Robinson confessions, but that is what the state will call them,
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: and so there are portions of this exhibit and the
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: other exhibits that I've referred to which implicate Mr. Robinson's
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: rights not to have what the state calls a confession televised.
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: This court has authorized the televising of this proceeding. There
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: are reporters in the courtroom who will go outside and
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: speak on what we used to call television. That opinion
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: was from the 60s. Now we have other forms of technology,
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: but I'm just going to use what the Supreme Court
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: says because it's the Supreme Court. So we are very
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: concerned with the publication beyond the court's eyes of what
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: the state will call confessions at trial violate Mr. Robinson's
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: due process rights. right here and now today. I know
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: that we've said that before in litigation, but now we're
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: exhibit specific. If I haven't been clear about the argument,
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: I want to make sure I'm clear about it. Because
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: the court's decision to allow this video to be televised
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: and the other two exhibits to be shown to the
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: camera in the back of the courtroom is exactly what
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court says violates the 14th Amendment. Judge Graff,
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: I appreciate that clarity. Perhaps, and again, If you want
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: to get into closed hearing, we can do so. Or
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: if you want to refer to it, refer to the pages.
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: So I want to know exactly what you're referring to.
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: Whether it's in that 3255 through 3548, which is being excluded. Answer,
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: it is not. It's earlier and it's also the two
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: anticipated exhibits. So we may as well deal with all
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: of it at the same time. It's probably easier to
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: do it in a closed proceeding because nobody has to
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: be obtuse. I don't have to be obtuse in order
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: to protect my client's rights. Judge Graff, no, I appreciate that.
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: It actually prompts an order for me to get to that.
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: I do want to ask the state, are you intending
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: to introduce the text messages as an exhibit in the preceding,
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: the prelim hearing? Answer, yes, judge. We will be attempting
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: and moving for the admission of the text thread, the
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: discord thread, and the note that's referenced in Mr. Twiggs 1102.
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, all right. Let me just take one step
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: at a time just for clarity. Again, defense, I really
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: do appreciate you being so precise. It's helping me parse
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: it out so we can address it because it's important.
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: And I recognize that you're advocating for your client. And
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: so I want to give it its due time. The
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: text messages, from my understanding, and either side weigh in.
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: My understanding that those were released to the public months
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: ago in their entirety. Prosecution, judge, if I may, they
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: were not released in their entirety. portions of them were
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: placed into the charging document the information that supported in
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: part the charges that the state had filed we did
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: not put the entirety of them in now we wish
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: to publish more of them than we included in the
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: charging document judge graff i see for some reason i
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: thought it was part of the exhibit for a motion
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: but mr novak i'm not sure if that's ringing any
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: bells Answer, I'm aware of the issue that the court
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: is commenting on. I think the state needs to account
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: for its decision to publish text messages that directly implicate
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court's law that we're talking about. I don't
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: want to pretend that I can anticipate what court concerns are,
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: But that doesn't cure republication on television of what the
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: state will call a confession in this proceeding. So in
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: other words, this is not like, oh, the cat's out
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: of the bag or the barn door is open. This
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: is another opportunity to violate Mr. Robinson's constitutional rights. I'm
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: not at all suggesting that somebody is intending to do that.
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: Certainly not the court. I'm confident that the state's counsel
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: would never intend to do that. But that would be
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: the consequence of further televising what the state refers to
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: previously referred to as confessions, and certainly would refer to
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: here in this proceeding as confessions. We're acknowledging that there
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: are statements of a party. We have not filed anything
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: in this case that publicizes the text messages, the discord chat,
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: the note which Ms. Hunt is mentioning, and now that Ms.
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: Hunt has said that yes, we want this note to
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: be presented into evidence, the court knows that this note
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: is because the court has now watched the video. That's
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: another piece of the same problem. So this is all
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: simplified by the court being extra cautious about Mr. Robinson's
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: constitutional rights. Considering these exhibits, to the extent the court
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: deems that they're admissible and portions of them are relevant
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: and not further televising them in this proceeding in a
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: manner which we think is inconsistent with the Supreme Court
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: said in Estes v. Texas. Judge Graff, all right, I
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: appreciate that. Ms. Novak, Ms. Hunt, would you like to respond?
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: because I understand what Novak's saying, and there may be
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: a 403 issue as well, as it relates to this.
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: I'm not going to pretend that I read your mind,
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: because I can't do that. All right, Ms. Hunt. Prosecution.
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: Just to clarify for the record and the court, the
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: state's position is that we would like the audio played.
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: The audio may be captured by the camera in the
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: state's position, but we never intended to visually put them
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: on the monitor, because the cameras can capture them and
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: pause or get the actual exhibits. substances of the exhibits.
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: I believe that that was the media's position, if I
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: remember correctly, is that they want everything audio and visually displayed.
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: But the state's position is just we want the audio played.
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, so I'm just focused on 16 right now. Hunt, okay, yes.
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: And the state's position with regard to Exhibit 16. Graff,
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: so help me understand. What's the difference if the audio
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: is played or the video is played on what the
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: court's identifying? Well, first of all, 16 is admitted. so
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: that threshold has been met. But we're dealing with a
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: publication in regard to what is publicized because this is
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: going to the argument about publicizing that is different than
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: what the court is simply reviewing it in its own privacy.
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: I don't want to misstate your argument, but I believe
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: that was one of the distinctions that you made. Defense,
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: the distinction that Ms. Hunt is drawing is, I think,
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: what people call a distinction without a difference. It doesn't
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: matter whether it's audio or video, and it doesn't matter
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: whether it's on television or on the internet or on
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: the radio, it's going to be broadcast. And so it
• 13:12
  Speaker 1: doesn't really matter whether it's audio or video. It's actually
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: not Mr. Robinson's video, it's Mr. Twigg's video. When the
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: court mentioned 403, yes, I think the court did accurately
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: read my mind, which I'm fine with, but it's unfair
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: prejudice of a constitutional dimension, and 403 is a rule
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: of evidence. Judge Graff, alright, so Ms. Hunt, as it
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: relates to that publication... Help me understand whether it's audio
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: or video. What's the difference there? Help me understand that. Prosecution.
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: I disagree that a distinction without a difference. As we've
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: discussed prior to the hearing, UCJA Rule 4-202.02 Sub 2
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: Sub J states that exhibits are presumed to be the
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: public court record and does give the court discretion to
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: regulate access when necessary to protect the integrity of the
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: exhibit or ensure a fair trial. So, I do want
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: to recognize that, but that discretion should be exercised narrowly,
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: as we've talked about before with publication regarding the case.
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: What the state is proposing, we believe, is a narrowly
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: tailored accommodation. We don't want to display full exhibits. Obviously,
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: within State Exhibit 16, the video of Lance Twiggs, he's shown,
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: and then it can be seen. Exhibits that the state will,
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: then in the future, move to admit, 16.1, 16.2, 16.2,
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: the text threads, the Discord threads. So we're thinking that
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: if it's displayed visually, that the cameras will be able
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: to do is pause, that, duplicate them, replicate them, essentially
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: have access to those exhibits. What we're trying to do,
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: and maybe they can do the same thing, I'm sure Mr.
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: Novak will say they'll do the same thing with audio,
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: but hearing the tone, the context, all of that, that's
• 14:52
  Speaker 1: why the state chose to. We could have done a
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: written 1102 statement from Mr. Twiggs. As allowed by 1102,
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: We chose to do a recording because that's how the
• 15:01
  Speaker 1: state is choosing to present the evidence. We believe that
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: the appearance or the tone, the context, hearing Mr. Twiggs
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: actually talk and talk through the exhibits is an experience
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: that's meaningful and it's going to be helpful presenting our evidence.
• 15:15
  Speaker 1: And so that's the difference we're seeing. Judge Graff, I see. Prosecution,
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: obviously it's up to the court's discretion on how publication
• 15:23
  Speaker 1: is to be made here. We've made our arguments generally
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: about the issue and we'll submit it to the court.
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: Our prime issue is that the exhibits be admitted into
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: the record. That the court consider them as part of
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: the prelim hearing standard and bind over, but will submit
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: to the court on publication. But that's the state's position.
• 15:41
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff? Mr. Novak? I learned a long time ago that,
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: when the opposing party says, Your Honor, we're submitting on it,
• 15:49
  Speaker 1: there's a suggestion that maybe the court's going to make
• 15:52
  Speaker 1: a ruling which doesn't require more evidence, more arguments from me.
• 15:55
  Speaker 1: But I'm going to say... that it's fair for Ms.
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: Hunt to say, Your Honor, we wanted the court to
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: see the witness and hear the witness so that the
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: court could make reliability determinations. Because as Your Honor has said,
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: it's really up to you. That's a different issue from
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: the constitutional consequences of electronically publishing what the state will
• 16:14
  Speaker 1: call a confession. Now, I've changed the word from television
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: to electronically publishing because I'm trying to be in the
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: 21st century and the Supreme Court used that word in 63.
• 16:26
  Speaker 1: Citation to the state standard, for what it is, is
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: not a public document or not the issue. There's a
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: constitutional issue here, and I think that the court has
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: already heard from me at least three times about what
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: we think the court should do here. It's a prelim hearing,
• 16:40
  Speaker 1: not a jury trial. There may be a jury trial
• 16:42
  Speaker 1: in the future at which we have voir dire on
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: yet another issue, which is whether potential jurors were exposed
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: to media replaying of what the state called a confession.
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: That's exactly what was the structural error. There's no prejudice
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: question in Riddell v. Louisiana, and that's why in Estes v. Texas,
• 17:00
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court said we have a rule. You can't
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: televise what a prosecutor calls a confession before trial. Thank you.
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, alright, thank you. I appreciate both parties advocating
• 17:12
  Speaker 1: and arguing. It's helpful for the court. So in taking
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: consideration the argument, which again I appreciate the parties articulating,
• 17:21
  Speaker 1: And the further edits that the court is going to
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: require to be redacted starting on page eight. And I apologize,
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: I don't have timestamps. Starting on page eight, page seven,
• 17:32
  Speaker 1: right after, it's that at eight. Well, let's start. Starting
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: on page six. Well, let me go back here. Starting
• 17:38
  Speaker 1: on page six after six minutes and 56 seconds, going
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: to 20 minutes and 27 seconds for reasons such as
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: 403 under rule 403. And again, this is simply for publication.
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: This is not taking out what the court will consider.
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: The court's considering the entirety of State Exhibit 16, but
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: the court's trying to take a narrow approach in recognizing
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: and balancing transparency with constitutional rights, and doing so in
• 18:04
  Speaker 1: such a manner, and it's meaningful and doesn't diminish the
• 18:08
  Speaker 1: court's duty as a magistrate under the probable cause determination.
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: Can you state those times again, Your Honor? Ask Prosecution.
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: Judge graphed 656 until the line before 2027 or 2027,
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: so until 2027. And then, what the court indicated previously,
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: from 3255 until 3554. Prosecution, and I apologize, Judge, just
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: to clarify these timestamps that you just gave, the 3255
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: until the 3548 and 656 to 2027 line Those are
• 18:43
  Speaker 1: just not being published, but they've been admitted for your
• 18:46
  Speaker 1: honor's consideration? Judge Graff, right, so kind of going through
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: my three-step process. Exhibit 16 in its entirety, not the transcript,
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: because the exhibit is not the transcript. The exhibit's the
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: video that has been admitted in its entirety for the
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: court's determination as it relates to the case. So what
• 19:04
  Speaker 1: I'm talking about here is that it'll only be published
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: in the courtroom and captured by the video in its differentiation.
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: So what's being redacted, for the lack of a better word,
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: or cut out, is going to be published in the courtroom.
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: Not what the court's going to consider. The court's considering
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: it in its entirety. The court's not going to redact
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: anything in there. It's going to make its own determinations
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: regards to relevance. And everything that Mr. Novak noted, I'm
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: taking that into consideration and making those determinations. Which the
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: court will do again. Because this is not something you
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: do and you watch and then make your decision. This
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: requires analysis. And the court's committed to doing that. But
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: hopefully that gives you an idea of where it relates
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: to publication. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up
• 19:48
  Speaker 1: right here. And in the next episode. dealing with the topic,
• 19:50
  Speaker 1: we're going to pick up where we left off. All
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: in the description box.