Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Transcripts From The Hearing Dealing With Tyler Robinson’s Courtroom Appearance (Part 2) (7/25/26)

Transcript

Transcripts From The Hearing Dealing With Tyler Robinson’s Courtroom Appearance (Part 2) (7/25/26) · 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 pick up where we left
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: off with the Tyler Robinson hearing transcript from back in November.
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: The Court. So, the one concern that I have, and
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: I appreciate Counsel laying this out, is the issue of
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: the media and photographs and video because this is very
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: right and as we have a hearing on the thirtieth,
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: and so I'm just trying to get an idea of
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: where how much time do we need because as this
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: court's trying to it's intertwined and so as I'm looking
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: at what decisions to make, that is an important consideration
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: because it touches upon the issue that we'll be talking
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: about today. And so where are the parties at with
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: that understanding that we have a hearing on the thirtieth, Novak,
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: I think where we are at after speaking before we
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: came into the courtroom is we're not especially since we're
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: here today, we're not sure we actually need a hearing
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: on the thirtieth the court, Okay, mister Novak, And we've
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: discussed out with mister Robinson. He understands the consequences of
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: further delays. So that we can raise the issues and
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: litigate these. I don't want to speak for the state,
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: but I think our idea is given that we need,
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: like I said, before Thanksgiving, to file the motions that
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: we're talking about. Maybe the Court wants to suggest a
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: hearing date in early January, we will get all the
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: briefing done in time for that or whenever the Court
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: is ready to do that after the holidays, and we
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: don't need the status conference. The Court set the status
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: conference before any motions were filed, so it makes sense
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: that it's on the calendar. But now we're here today,
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: we just don't think that there's a need for a hearing,
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: and we certainly can't file brief and represent that it's
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: submitted to your honor before the thirtieth of any of
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: those the Court, okay, mister Novak. So if the court's
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: comfortable with vacating the hearing on the thirtieth or postponing it,
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: or however the Court wants to fashion the scheduling, that's
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: fine with us. We don't need to be here next
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: week unless the Court wants to hear a further argument
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: or something that that we we don't cover today. The Court,
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: all right, and to the state. Mister Ballard and your honor,
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: the State agrees with that approach. We don't think we
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: need given everything that we've been able to do today
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: and we'll be able to do today, we don't need
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: the hearing on the thirtieth. The court all right, well,
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: we can address that at the end of today's hearing.
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: All right, well, it looks like we'll be addressing the
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: motion to strike and the address and restraints issue today.
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: So with that, let's go ahead and move forward. Mister Novak.
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: Miss Nestor is going to handle the motion to strike.
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: I'm going to sit down, Thank you, Miss Nestor. Good afternoon,
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: your honor Kathy Nestor, on behalf of mister Robinson, may
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: it please the Court and counsel, your honor, the motion
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: to strike. Obviously, it's more of a procedural complaint that
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: we have than the substance that mister Novak is going
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: to cover with you about the shackling. But we had
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: some concerns in the manner in which the State replied,
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: and I do think that there was a little bit
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: of confusion. I think we were all trying really hard,
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: admirably to get the court quickly on this issue because
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: we all reckon cognize this matter needed to be resolved
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: before any additional hearings were held. And we're very grateful
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: to the Court for what you've done to get us
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: here quickly and all the orders you issue trying to
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: accomplish that. We appreciate that very much and we know
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: that's what was happening. I do think there was a
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: little bit of confusion the first order came out by
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: the Court, it came out October thirteenth, and in that
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: order our motion we made very clear. And mister Novak
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: will get into all the details of this, so I
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: don't want to steal his thunder, but we welcome the
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: participation of the sheriff in the process. We recognized that
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: the sheriff would have important information that the Court would
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: need to take into consideration in making findings on our motion,
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: our anti shackling motion, if I'll just call it that.
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: So we invited that, we expected that, we asked that
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: the Court consider whatever documents the sheriff needed to participate
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: with that they would be looked at on an ex
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: partay basis. We certainly recognize that it might not be
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: judicious for us to see the inner workings of all
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: the jail ill We frankly don't want to know any
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: of that, so we already laid the groundwork in our
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: emotion for these this information to come from the Sheriff.
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: We welcome it, we wanted it, and we think it's appropriate.
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: We were a little bit surprised when we got the
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: response that it appeared to us it's apparent on its
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: face that the Sheriff is entering an appearance as a
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: party with this pleading, that they're actually, through mister van
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: Ney or lodging objections to our emotion as a party would,
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: and that just instantly raised some concerns with us, first
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: of all, because we're looking at a very long case.
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: This case is probably going to last a long time, hopefully,
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: and you know, we're very concerned about right from the
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: get go a precedent being set where the Sheriff can
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: enter appearance in our case, lodge objections to our emotions,
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: and appear and through counsel be heard that we certainly
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: were not inviting that in our motion that we filed,
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: and we felt very strongly compelled to shut that down
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: quickly and permanently. We did side to the court in
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: our motions. Certainly we recogniz the state. Kennon should respond
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: that it would be perfectly appropriate for the state to reveal,
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: either through exhibits or through testimony at the hearing what
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: the concerns of the sheriffs were. I think that would
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: be proper, and we expected that to occur. The concern
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: we have is that it appears as sheriff is actually
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: entering an appearance as a party. We do not think
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: that's proper. We've cited to the court a couple of cases,
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: the Lame Case and also the Brown case, where the courts,
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: our Supreme Court has dealt with the issue of the
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: fact that there were only two parties in a criminal case.
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: Where this usually comes up in litigation is when victims
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: try to intervene in a matter. It's happened to me,
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: it's happened to other people. I'm sure. I'm sure you
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: will see it as you sit down on the bench
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: a little bit longer. But that does happen sometimes where
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: a victim pops in and says, hey, you know, I'm
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: not happy with the way something's going. I want to
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: file emotion. A lawyer tries to file emotion, and in
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: these two cases, that's basically what happened. There are questions
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: of appealability if something when the victim wants is denied,
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: can a victim appeal to the appellate court. Those kinds
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: of things were addressed, but both of the cases while
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: not on point with what's happening here, and we acknowledge
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: that there are certainly analogus. And the Supreme Court made
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: very clear in the quotes that we put in our
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: motion to strike that the proper procedure is that the
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: party does not have the right to enter as a party.
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: They can't file pleadings, they don't have the right to
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: file an appeal. They have the right to be heard
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: under our victim statute, but there's no similar statute for
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: a sheriff or people concerned about security. And actually in
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: this case, there's an Affid David that's been attached by
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: mister Palmer. He's actually part of the court system that's
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: looking at court security, and his Affid David was attached here.
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: I know he's here outside in any case, any of
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: us are willing to call him in. But I think
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: he did it the right way. I think his attachment
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: of the Affid David is how that should happen right
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: that he's given you his expert opinion, and the court
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: certainly can take that into consideration. We just felt, you know,
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: I know it's unusual to start right off with trying
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: to strike a pleating of the other side, and that's
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: not something we do very often, but we do think
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: that's important because we have a lot of litigation ahead
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: of us, and I think we need to just make
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: very clear that we have boundaries here and that while
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: we welcome the Sheriff's participation, we want their information to
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: get to you so you can make your decision about
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: safety and security for our client as well as everyone else.
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: But we strongly object to them appearing as a party.
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: So I guess our suggestion was if we could strike
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: the pleading to the extent it is on behalf of
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: the sheriff as a party, we would not object to
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: the information the sheriff wants to share with you. We're
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: not trying to shut the sheriff down or say they
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: shouldn't consider what they have to say, but we are
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: very concerned and we're asking for that reason that the
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: pleadings be stricken and that the core consider it has
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: witness testimony or as evidentiary offerings on behalf of the
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: County Attorney, but certainly not accepted as a proper and
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: allowable Please on behalf of the sheriff as a party,
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: and I believe anything else I need to add to that,
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: I think I would submit unless your Honor has any
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: questions for me the court and so my understanding of
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: what you're saying is that the state should be allowed
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: to call them as potential witnesses. Miss Nestor, Sure, the court,
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: they put on the evidence and then typically in the
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: criminal cases and evidentiary hearings held and then briefing occurs afterward,
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: Miss Nestor, right, the court, and so that would be
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: that would be your thoughts. If he follows that path,
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: then they filed the same exact motion, Miss Nestor right, Well,
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: we would really like to proceed with the hearing on
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: the shackling motion today, and we're not trying to deral that.
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: I think we could just have some clear indication from
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: the court that the Court's going to treat this pleading,
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: is not accepting it as a party pleading from the sheriff,
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: but that the court is going to treat this pleading
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: from the state and only the state, and that the
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: objections are being made on behalf of the state is
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: not being made on behalf of the sheriff. I envisioned
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: some type of order that just makes it very clear
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: in the future the sheriff is not invited to file
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: pleadings or objections, but that you will consider the information
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: in a motion as you take the whole matter under consideration,
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: and we actually don't have any objections to that. Does
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: that make sense? The court so basically clarifying that the
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: Sheriff's department is not a party, but as it relates
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: to the motion itself, it sounds like your position is
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: and correct me if I'm wrong that you're fined. As
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: with the understanding that the sheriff is not a party
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: and can't file objections nes to right? The court, am
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: I understanding that nes toor right? Because the motion usually
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: says the sheriff objects to blah, the sheriff like they're
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: lodging objections to our pleating. And I think if we
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: all understand that that's not proper and it can't happen
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: again for expediency purposes, because we all want to have
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: this here today heard today that you will take it
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: into consideration as witness information and as evidentiary information, but
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: not as an expression of a party that's entering an
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: appearance and lodging an objection, because we don't think that's
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: provided under the rules the court. And is it your
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: preference today if I were to go down that route
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: that the state calls witnesses to support what's in their motion,
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: or are you willing to accept it as it is
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: as filed Nestor, I think that's totally up to the state.
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: If they feel like they've sufficiently provided you with information,
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: that's fine. If they want to call them, that's fine.
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: I don't think we're going to jump in their boat
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: and make the decision for them. But all we're concerned
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: about on the motion to strike is that it's very
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: very clear that the roles of the sheriff is as
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: a witness, even as an expert, that's fine, but not
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: as a party and not as someone that can enter
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: appearances now or in the future the court. All right,
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: thank you, miss Nestor, thank you your honor. All right, folks,
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up right here and in the
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: up with mister Ballard and the state's response. All the
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be sound in
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: the description box.