Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing (Day 6 Part 9) (10/30/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing (Day 6 Part 9) (10/30/26) · 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 in to
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: day number six and the transcript from the Tyler Robinson
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: prelim hearing. The state has not met its burden as
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: to the aggravator here. We're asking the court to strike
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: the aggravator. The facts at their core are that the
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: shooter shot a high-powered rifle from a roof at a
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: downward angle, hitting the victim in the left side of
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: the neck at a distance of 415 feet. The angle
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: is 415 feet. It's not 410. It had a telescopic
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: scope on it. The shooter did not fire any more
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: shots and, in fact, did not even reload. The shooter
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: is not alleged to have engaged with anyone else, is
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: not alleged to have pointed the rifle at anyone else,
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: threatened anyone else, or done anything other than shoot the
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: gun and run away. There was no ricochet. The only
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: other individual under the tent, excuse me, with Mr. Kirk,
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: like I described, was on the opposite side of him.
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: This was an open air environment. This was not an
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: enclosed space, and contrary to the screenshots that the state
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: pulled from Exhibit 9, no one was behind the tent
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: when Mr. Kirk was shot. Even assuming that the shooter
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: might have some knowledge about that, which I think is
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: a real stretch, because it's not like the tent was see-through,
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: no one was behind Mr. Kirk when that shot was fired,
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: and Mr. Kirk was seated at an elevated position. This
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: is clearly visible in Exhibit 7. He's above those closest,
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: so there's nothing in this evidence showing that there was
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: a great risk that someone else was going to be killed,
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: let alone that the shooter would have knowledge of that risk.
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: It's not just a shot fired, it's what happened around it.
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: That's what we know from Pierre Johnson and Sosa Hurtado.
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: And my final comment, Your Honor, is we did spill
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: much ink in our briefing about other cases describing the circumstances.
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: We did discuss in some depth the Pennsylvania cases... upon
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: which the state relied, and we did that for a reason.
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: We did that to show the court that the court,
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: first of all, shouldn't be adopting standards from another jurisdiction
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: that hasn't already been adopted by the Utah Supreme Court,
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: but also that the standard in the state is fuzzy.
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: It's not clear based off their own case law. And
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: there are a plenary of jurisdictions that have interpreted this
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: aggravator the way that Utah does, considering these factors, so
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: this court isn't doing something revolutionary. Striking the aggravator is
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: the only conclusion supported by Utah law and by the Constitution.
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: Does the court have any questions for me? Judge Graff,
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: not at this time, thank you. The defense keeps it rolling. Judge,
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: with the court's permission, I'm going to be narrowly focused
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: on the comments that were made in the state's pleading
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: and by Mr. McBride about the forensic evidence in the case,
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: and specifically the DNA and firearms evidence. And the pleading say,
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: very little, about either one of those topics. There's a
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: sentence about the firearm evidence, and there is, I think,
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: two or one sentence about the DNA reports. Nothing is
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: said about the testimony of the three experts who testified
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: here in front of the court. And that focus, I think,
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: is consistent with the state's position throughout the hearing, which
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: is that the court shouldn't look underneath the reports that
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: the state chose to put in front of you. The
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: expert reports are and specifically Exhibit 30-34, and their position,
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: as they've argued to you during the hearing, was that
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: by law, those reports constitute reliable hearsay evidence that this
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: court must credit. And pursuant to that theory, they attempted
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: throughout the prelim examination to cut off any questions about
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: the reliability of the evidence that was offered through those reports.
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: And as the court knows, the court rejected that theory
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: in its ruling on our challenge to the admissibility of
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: the hearsay evidence in the case. and I want to
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: just remind the court of what the court said in
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: its ruling. This is document 631. The court's ruling on
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: the admissibility of the hearsay challenge that we brought, and
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: I'm quoting here, the presumption of reliability is confined to
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: the presumption that the hearsay evidence is admissible. The presumption
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: does not require the magistrate to find the evidence credible
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: or that it supports a finding of probable cause. the
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: magistrate still retains the ultimate decision-making authority on whether probable
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: cause has been established. Admissibility and evidentiary weight remain distinct concepts.
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: Although Article 1, Section 12, and Rule 1102 permit the
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: admission of reliable hearsay, they do not require the magistrate
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: to accept the evidence as credible or sufficient to establish
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: probable cause. And that's the court's ruling. And that's the
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: law of the case. And so when the state, in
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: its pleading, and here before you, gets up and argues
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: that the defendant's DNA was all over the weapon, I
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: think it ignores the court's ruling on this issue, because
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: the court has to consider not just the report which
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: they're relying on to make those assertions, but also has
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: to consider the evidence that the defense was able to
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: elicit over the state's objection that the court shouldn't even
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: consider that. And if the court looks at the totality
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: of the evidence that was submitted from the DNA expert
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: and ballistic experts, I think that the court will and
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: should conclude that the state's reliance on the DNA evidence
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: and the ballistic evidence is not well taken. Mr. McBride
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: in his argument said the defendant DNA was all over
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: the weapon, but the weapon was tested by Ms. Oliver
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: from the ATF, and in her report, if you just
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: look at the report and not her testimony, what the
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: report says, and this is Exhibit 30, her ultimate conclusion was,
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: based on this calculation, there is evidentiary support for the
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: inclusion of Tyler Robinson as a possible contributor. And that's
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: the State Exhibit 30, a possible contributor. And she, as
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: well as Ms. Baker from the FBI, went out of
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: their way to explain to the court that based on
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: the current state of science, there's no basis to conclude
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: that based on the DNA testing that was done in
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: the case, that a particular piece of DNA can be
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: traced back to a source based on any of the
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: testing that was done in the case. And that point
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: is made not only in the testimony, but in the
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: exhibits that were submitted to the court. Specifically, coroner, I'm sorry,
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: Oliver exhibit number four, which is a DNA policy by
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: the Department of Justice stating that an analyst shall not
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: make a source attribution as to any piece of DNA.
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: And also in Ms. Baker's exhibit seven, the DOJ policy again,
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: stating the same thing. And the long and short of it,
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: I think, it was summed up by Ms. Oliver when
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: she was asked, This is at page 51 of her testimony.
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: I'll just read this to the court. Question. So from
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: a scientific standpoint, you couldn't read the paragraph that sets
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: out the likelihood ratio in your report, whatever the number,
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: and then blast the headline in the media. Mr. Robinson's
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: DNA found on this item. That's a source attribution, is
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: it not? Answer. Correct. Yes. And that would be scientifically defensible,
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: would it? Answer. Correct. Correct. And she was consistent throughout
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: her testimony on that point, as was Ms. Baker from
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: the FBI. So the state is overreading the DNA evidence
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: in the case, then asserts to the court that Mr.
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: Robinson's DNA was found all over the weapon. What Ms.
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: Oliver and Ms. Baker said was that Mr. Robinson was
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: a possible contributor to the DNA, not that he was
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: the contributor. And there's a good quote from a Utah case,
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: State v. Rogers, 2020, Utah, Appendix 78. And in paragraph 35,
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: the court says, the fact that something is possible does
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: not make it probable. It's a simple common sense proposition. Mr.
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: McBride urged you to apply common sense. And here's a
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: good common sense proposition. The fact that something is possible
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: does not make it probable. The standard is probable cause,
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: not possible cause. And the DNA evidence in the case
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: goes to the issue of the possibilities, not probabilities. And
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: both experts were consistent in saying to the court that
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: they couldn't reach a source attribution opinion. It was consistent
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: in stating that they could not state with a reasonable
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: degree of scientific certainty that Mr. Robinson's DNA or anybody
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: else's DNA was found on any of the items that
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: they tested. And so it simply is not the case
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: that the court can leap to the conclusion based on
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: the evidence as opposed to speculation that Mr. Robinson's DNA
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: was all over the weapon or the screwdriver used or
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: anything else. Again, the experts spoke possibilities, not probabilities, and
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: certainly not in any way, saying that they could identify
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: DNA as coming from anybody, Mr. Robinson, or anybody else,
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: in the case. In terms of the firearm and Dremel testing, Mr.
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: McBride said that the determination was made that the Dremel
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: tool made markings on the cartridge cases. Again, he's attempting
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: a source attribution there. And it's true that Ms. Karner's
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: report reads that way. But it also says the conclusions
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: she's reaching were made in compliance with DOJ policy, which
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: in her case was the Karner Exhibit 11. And that policy,
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: like the DOJ's policy on DNA evidence, says that an
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: examiner based on the science cannot identify a tool mark
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: as having made a particular mark on a cartridge case
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: as coming from a particular weapon. And she was clear
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: that she subscribed to the policy and was doing so
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: in the case. He also said that Mr. McBride, that
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: the bullet was consistent with the rifle that they're trying
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: to connect to Mr. Robinson. And actually what Ms. Karner
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: testified was that, and this is page 177, there were
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: several different. 30 caliber class firearms that could have fired
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: this bullet. And at page 47 of Exhibit Karner No. 6,
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: she lists a dozen or more firearms, including rifles and pistols,
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: that she says could have fired this bullet. So again,
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: the state is overreading the evidence when they say the
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: court that the ballistics evidence in this case shows that
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: the bullet was fired from the rifle that they want
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: to connect to Mr. Robinson. There is no such evidence.
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: So unless the court has any questions about the forensic evidence,
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: that's all I had to say. All right, folks, we're
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: going to wrap up right here. And in the next episode,
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: we're going to pick back up with Mr. Novak. All
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: in the description box.