Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Transcripts From The Hearing Dealing With Tyler Robinson’s Courtroom Appearance (Part 4) (7/26/26)

Transcript

Transcripts From The Hearing Dealing With Tyler Robinson’s Courtroom Appearance (Part 4) (7/26/26) · 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 dealing with his appearance
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: in court. Mister Novak, thank you, your honor Richard Novak,
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: again from mister Robinson. And the Court did say and
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: its introductory remarks that it wants to take the weekend
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: to think through things and review things. So I hope
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: the Court will permit me to suggest a couple of
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: pieces of case law that the Court may want to
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: look at again over the weekend. I think where I
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: want to start, which is where I think we should
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: always start, is with the constitutional law as explained by
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court of the United States. And I know
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: that the Court has read our briefing, but Deck versus Missouri,
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: a two thousand and five opinion of the United States
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court, guides us here. Initially, Basically, what Deck says
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: is that a blanket policy of shackling criminal defendants violates
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: the defendants constitutional rights. And I would say in a
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: capital case through the fourteenth Amendment, since we are in
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: a state court, and would be the fifth Amendment, the
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: sixth Amendment, and the eighth Amendment because what the Constitution
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: requires is an individualized assessment of whether shackling is necessary
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: because of security risks emanating from the defendant. Now I understand,
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: I'm going to come back to that, but I just
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: want a bookmark if I may that I understand that
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: there's a fundamental disagreement between the parties about whether that
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: constitutional framework applies outside of jury trial. Okay, the most
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: recent Utah Supreme Court case on this is Cravens Cravns,
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: A two thousand decision, which basically gets it wrong in
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: light of the subsequent decision of the US Supreme Court,
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: because in Cravens, what the State of Utah Supreme Court
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: said is the defendant's been found guilty, he can be
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: shackled during the penalty phase. And clearly what the Supreme
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: Court said in Deck first Missouri is no, that's not
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: true without an individualized determination. So I will address why
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: we believe that this court, without any guidance from the
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: Utah Supreme Court, is free and should make a finding
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: that mister Robinson has constitutional rights not to be shackled
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: in pre trial proceedings. But I do want to go
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: back for a moment. Two the three different reasons as
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: explained by the Supreme Court why shackling offends our concept
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: of fairness and liberty and due process. The first is
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: because these are applicable to a defendant at every stage
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: of the preceding the concept the rationale. Okay, the first
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: is because there's a presumption of innocence. The second is
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: a concern with the Sixth Amendment right to actively participate
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: in his defense in the court room. And if the Court,
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: if I may, looks back at the rationale of Deck
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: versus Missouri when it's considering this over the weekend, the
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: court will see that the Supreme Court said that to
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: be shackled in a courtroom necessarily interferes with the defendant's
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: right to thoughtfully observe and participate in the proceedings, because
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: the shackling is inherently in true to his ability to
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: do so. And then the third reason is what the
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: High Court referred to as dignity and the quorum in
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: the courtroom. Most of the hearings in the case will
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: be public, and so for the public and I'm not
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: even talking about cameras and microphones, especially cameras to see
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: mister Robinson shackled at the feat at the waist at
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: the hands. Absence of an individualized determination by the court
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: offends the dignity and decorum of the courtroom. This is
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: not a jail, this is your honor's courtroom, and what
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: security measures are necessary to ensure everybody's safety, including mister Robinson's,
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: are your honor's decisions, not the sheriff's decision. So we
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: are not challenging the policy that exists. We're saying that
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: the Constitution requires that the court make an individualized determination
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: as to whether that policy is appropriate. In this case,
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: it's because it's a constitutional right. It's the state's burden
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: to prove that shackling is necessary. And what deck Vers,
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: Missouri said is its defendant specific information that suggests that
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: shackling is necessary. So I'm going to provide the court,
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: if I may, with some hypotheticals, if in his first
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: court appearance, mister Robinson did anything that suggested a lack
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: of safety to himself, to the court, to the court staff,
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: to the sheriffs, that would be information. If mister Robinson demonstrated,
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: which he is not, some inability to control his conduct
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: while in custody or while in the court room, that
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: would be information that the court should take into consideration.
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: Mister Robinson's criminal history, which he has none until this incident,
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: would also be something that the court could take into consideration.
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: I think the court could look at the rap sheet
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: or a pre trial services or report and say, this
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: person has a history of assaulting law enforcement or fleeing
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: or obstruction of justice, whatever it is. But none of
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: that exists here. And so it's an individualized determination about
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: the defendant, and it's the state's burden of proof. And
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: I want to point out that two things. One is
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: the state's opposition to our emotion. The state provides nothing specific,
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: nothing individualized, as to why mister Robinson needs to be
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: shackled in a courtroom. We're not asking that law enforcement
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: officers not be present during jury trial. It may be
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: a very different scenario. But the state is offered no
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: specific evidence that he presents a risk to anybody in
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: the courtroom or to himself by being unshackled. And it is,
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: as I said before, the state's burden. And I'm going
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: to say a couple of things because we're under seal,
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: and I think that is appropriate to take advantage of that.
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: And I appreciate the Court created the freedom to address
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: things that should not necessarily be further publicized in the
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: public sphere beyond what's already been publicized by others. When
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: mister Robinson was first arrested redacted. And I think it's
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: interesting that the Sheriff's Department hasn't provided the court with
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: any information as to why that is. That he was
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: convinced the Sheriff's department that's not necessary. Now, mister Robinson has,
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: as I understand it, understay law, a right to privacy
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: and confidentiality with respect to his medical records, his mental
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: health records, his psychiatric records, if any, even those created
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: in custody. And so I'm not going to offer up
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: those records, nor would I think the court would interpret
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: that or what I'm going to say as a waiver.
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: But the sheriff has those rights the state to make
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: the distinction again in terms of the parties should not
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: have those records, and that's complicated if they're represented by
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: the same lawyers, or at least their communications with the
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: court is facilitated by the same lawyers. But the sheriff
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: presumably has an obligation to provide the court with all
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: the information that it has available to it to make
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: that individualized determination. We have those records and who are
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: not afraid of them. So I would just ask the
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: court to consider whether it needs more information from the
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: sheriff to make an individualized the termination. So what we're
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: saying is, even if the court conducted in evidentiary hearing
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: and conducted an in camera review, there's no way that
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: the court could reach a conclusion that shackling is necessary
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: based on information directly related to mister Robinson. Now in
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: the state's opposition to our emotion, there is a lot
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: of information, and I'll try not to be sarcastic, but
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: I do think it's kind of noise about the intense
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: public interest in the case. There's a reference to, you know,
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: unstable people coming to the courthouse, to conspiracy theorists saying
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: things online. We're all aware of that. I mean, I
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: don't know what the court has read. It's none of
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: my business. I've received some wacky phone calls and emails,
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: people telling me what they think had happened. It's noise.
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: We're not litigating this case in the press. We're not
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: talking to crazies. But that's all on the outside. No
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: wonder Cantas Owns is pissed. They're not talking to crazies.
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: So we appreciate that the Sheriff's Department is concerned with
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: the safety of the court and all of the participants.
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: We were here a few weeks ago and it was
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: clear that the Sheriff's Department took the first appearance of
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: counsel very seriously, and we appreciate that redacted. That's not
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: mister Robinson. So we don't think that the intense public
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: interest which may be drawing in unstable fringe people from
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: the left and the right and the center and other places,
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: is imputed to mister Robinson. The question is can the
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: Court trust mister Robinson to sit there the way he
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: has been doing for the last hour and respect the
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: decorum and dignity of the court room, just like the
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: Court would expect him to, And we think that the
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: answer is obviously yes. So then I want to get
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: to the slightly more open question, which is what would
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: guide the court in determining whether that constitutional right should
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: attach at all proceedings and not just before the jury.
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: And there was a dispute in the pleadings about what
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: I would call the relevance, although not you know, relevant
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: under the rules of evidence, the relevance of an en
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: banc opinion of the Ninth Circuit after Deck called United
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: States for a cent chez Gomez. It's a twenty seventeen
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: on bank decision of the Ninth Circuit. And I apologize
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: if this is obvious to everybody, but I live and
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: I practice in the Ninth Circuit. So basically, what that
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: means is there was a three judge panel, somebody didn't
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: like the outcome of a ruling and invited the court
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: to take the matter up on Bank, and the Court did,
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: which meant that there had to be eighteen judges who
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: were the case. And the citation to that decision is
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: in our briefing and I'll provide it again. But what
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: the Ninth Circuit says in an on bank ruling, and
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: I'm going to talk about what it means. As the
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: State points out that the ruling was vacated by the
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court. The holding in that case, which is based
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: on a lot of rationale from the then Circuit Judge Kazinski,
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: is that the constitutional rights outlined in Deck first Missouri
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: apply at all proceedings in a criminal case. Not just
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: in a jury trial. And I think that if your
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: Honor looks closely at the rationale, this court would conclude
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: that the rationale applies at all hearings. That doesn't mean
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: that there we abandoned the individualized determination of the need.
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: It just means that the individualized determination of the need
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: should begin at the beginning of the case and not
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: just wait for the jury trial. Sanchez Gomez is important
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: because it's really the only well thought out opinion of
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: a federal circuit court looking at the constitutionality of this question.
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: But the way the procedural posture of that is what
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: led to the United States Supreme Court and then vacating
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: the decision. And so what happened there is in the
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: Southern District of California, which is basically San Diego and
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: Imperial Counties, the United States Marshall Service adopted a policy
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: that every defendant would be shattered, and the federal judge
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: in the Southern District of California went along with it.
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: They said, okay, fine. Four defendants sought review of the policy,
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: which was affirmed by four district judges in four criminal
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: cases through a rid of mandamus. By the time it
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: got to the Ninth Circuit, and certainly by the time
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: it got en banc was what most people would call moot.
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: But what the Ninth Circuit said was, no, it's not moot.
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: It's capable of repetition and its important issue. And even
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: the Ninth Circuit even referred to it as a quasi
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: class action. So if you look, if the court looks
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: at Sanchez Gomez, there's a lot of discussion about mandamus
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: review and whether it meets the criteria of mandamus review
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: and whether a mootness interferes with the court reaching a conclusion.
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: And ultimately the en banc Court says, we're going to
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: resolve the merits of the case, okay. And so what
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: the Ninth Circuit on Bank opinion says, written by Judge Kazinski,
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: is that those constitutional rights to be free from shackling,
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: absent an individualized determination, apply it every yearing because dignity
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: and decorum is unlimited to a jury trial, because the
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: sixth Amendment right to participate is unlimited to a jury trial,
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: and because the presumption of innocence exists from the beginning
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: of the case until the return of the verdict. When
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: it went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said,
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: it's moot. We're vacating the opinion. It's moot. Those defendants
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: are no longer in court, they're not being shackled. And
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court also rejected the notion that four criminal
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: defendants can get together and create a quasi class action
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: through a rid of mandamus. But I reviewed the Supreme
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: Court decision again this morning, the one vacating Sanchez Gomez,
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: and I looked for any hint of the Supreme Court
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: that it was just taking issue with the merits, the
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: substantative decision of Judge Kazinski speaking for the majority of
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: the panel. And there's not a word about it. There's
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: not a footnote, there's not a concurrence, there is nothing. So,
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: first of all, we're not in the Ninth Circuit, all right,
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: we're in the Tenth Circuit and we're in Utah. So
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: it doesn't even bind even if Sanchez Gomez were still
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: good law procedurally, it's not binding authority anyway, it's persuasive,
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: and I would suggest it should be very persuasive to
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: this court. But what's important, because there was a big
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: debate in our pleadings about its relevance, its viability. The
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: rationale as why the shackling the right not to be
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: shackled absent an individualized determination of security concerns applies that
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: every hearing is not addressed at all by the Supreme Court,
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: and that's why the rationale is still worthy of this
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: court's consideration. So what we're asking this court to conclude
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: is that while there is nothing in Utah law that
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: compels a decision either way, your honor has the opportunity
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: to make a decision of constitutional law, and it's a
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: decision that needs to be made by the trial court
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: because here we are. So we think that the court
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: should conclude based on what's in Deck versus Missouri, and
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: the rationale in US verus Sanchez Gomez is that mister
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: Robinson does have a constitutional right to be shackled at
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: all proceedings other than where the state is made as
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: showing of an individualized risk of security to the decorum
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: of the court room emanating from mister Robinson. And while
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: we understand that there's a lot of what I call noise,
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: there's noise on the outside redacted maybe not. I saw
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: one person with the camera in the lobby today. I
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: don't know. We also got here at two, So maybe
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: there were more, or maybe nobody was interested because it
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: was going to be a skilled hearing. But none of
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: that affects mister Robinson's right to be free from shackling
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: in the courtroom absent this individualized showing. If we need
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: to have an evidentiary hearing about an individualized showing, we
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: can do that. I've already hinted to the court that
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: the sheriff has information, and I don't think it's duplicatus
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: or secretive. I just think that what we're saying that
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: the court needs to make an individualized determination. The sheriff
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: has information that the court may or may not want
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: to review. But it's their burden of proof, and we're
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: not waiving mister Robinson's right to protect the confidentiality of
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: his information. We're not trying to run away from it,
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: but we're just not going to lodge it as an
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: exhibit that needs to be shown to the people, to
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: the state, because it's their burden to make that individualized
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: showing of risk. As long as this Court permits cameras,
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: whether it's video or still cameras, to broadcast either live
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: or with delay, proceedings in the courtroom. We also believe
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: that mister Robinson should be dressed roughly like everybody else,
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: because the entire world has already seen him, because the
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: Sheriff's Department released a booking photo, and because there were
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: cameras in the first remote appearance in the case, has
• 15:13
  Speaker 1: already seen them in a jail jumpsuit with a vest on.
• 15:15
  Speaker 1: But if he's going to be in the courtroom, and
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: we're going to have a secure court room, but it's
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: going to be a broadcast to the world, he should
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: not be depicted as a gail inimate. He should be
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: depicted as a citizen of the United States with a
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: presumption of innocence. And that's why we believe he should
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: be able to appear in street clothes that also are
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: consistent with the court standard for what kind of clothing
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: of individuals can wear. If he shouldn't have shoelaces, we
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: can get him shoes without shoelaces. If he shouldn't wear
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: a tie, and it's a cold and it's cold, we'll
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: get him a sweater. But unless we're going to shut
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: down all the video and all the photography of what
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: goes on in the courtroom, he shouldn't be wearing jail stripes,
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: so that part of it maybe is wrapped up in
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: another motion that we're going to brief the court on,
• 15:59
  Speaker 1: as we say before, but we do believe that in
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: the absence of that individualized showing, the shackling should end.
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: Right now. I don't think there's anything more than that
• 16:09
  Speaker 1: that I want to say, unless my colleagues tell me
• 16:11
  Speaker 1: I miss something and they're shaking their heads in the negative.
• 16:14
  Speaker 1: So with that, I'll sit down and see if there's
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: any need to reply when the state's done. Thank you
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: your honor. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up right here,
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: and in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're
• 16:24
  Speaker 1: gonna pick up where we left off. All the information
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: that goes with this episode can be found in the
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: description box.