Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcript (Day 4 Part 2) (10/10/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcript (Day 4 Part 2) (10/10/26) · 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 diving right back in to day number
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: four of the Tyler Robinson prelim hearing transcript. Picking up
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: with the defense. Defense, may I be heard? Judge Graff, yes,
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: you may. Defense, thank you, Your Honor. With respect to
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: the first two portions that Mr. Ballard referenced, I want
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: to be totally transparent with the court. Of course, that
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: was not a section that we asked the government to
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: agree to redact. That's a section that the court independently
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: determined was appropriate for redaction under the various principles that
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: the court has enunciated. So I just wanted to be
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: transparent about that. Judge Graff, thank you. Defense, the second
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: portion that Mr. Ballard addressed, which is on page 19,
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: we did suggest, and it's in our highlighted redacted transcript.
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, I see that. Prosecution, and the court agreed
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: with us. This is not relevant. This is not admissible
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: under 403. I don't understand how this questioning by Mr.
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: McBride and the answers to these questions by Mr. Twiggs,
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: and now I'm going to quote the Utah Rule of Evidence,
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: has any tendency and reason to make a fact of
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: consequence more or less true. That's the relevance question. So
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: I understand that the court has said, I can make
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: determinations of which portions of the transcript to rely upon.
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: But from my perspective, what the state is asking the
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: court to do is to broadcast a portion of the
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: transcript which we are saying is not relevant, and to
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: the extent it has any relevance, is significantly outweighed by
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: undue prejudice. Judge Graff, thank you. Defense, I am not Mr.
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: Twiggs' representative, but I think as a witness who has counsel,
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: there might be something that Mr. Twiggs' counsel would want
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: to say about this as well. I don't know what
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: it would be, but my firmly held belief is that
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: it would be consistent with what I'm saying, which is
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: that it's neither relevant nor probative of anything of significance...
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: especially in compared to the undue prejudice. Thank you, Your Honor.
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, thank you. To the state, the state, thank you,
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: Your Honor. As Mr. Novak recognized, Mr. Twiggs was represented
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: during his statement. His counsel knew that this was being
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: prepared to be produced in court, and his counsel made
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: no objections to this part of the interview. And this
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: is critically relevant. It provides important foundational information about Mr. Twiggs,
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: and identifying information about him, and then also it's very
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: relevant to the enhancement that we just charged. Judge Graff,
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: all right, thank you. Anything further before the court rules
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: on these two requests? All right. In reviewing the first
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: section again, citing to page 10, and I know to
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: anyone listening, this may not make sense when I'm saying
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: page 10, but it's roughly just a few seconds after
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: 1539 on the video starting with was he, and ending
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: at 1646 with the last word asking. After hearing and
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: considering what has been argued, the court agrees that in
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: applying a balancing test as it relates to transparency to
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: ensure the court is taking a very narrow approach in
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: what is or not published to the public that is permissible.
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: It doesn't run afoul of the issue that the court
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: addressed previously that the court's trying to avoid by publishing portions.
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: In addition to that, independently of the court's decision-making, It
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: appears that the parties also agree as it relates to
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: the first requested edit to unredact or allow in. So
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: I'm ruling that that may be played and published through
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: all mediums in the courtroom via video. Turning to the
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: second section, this is page 19. It's roughly right after 3327,
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: going just before 3340. Prosecution, sorry, Your Honor, just to clarify.
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: What we asked was just before 3307. Judge Graff, 3307. Prosecution, correct, yeah.
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: Right after 3255, where Mr. McBride states, okay. Judge Graff,
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: I see, thank you. Let me just take a quick
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: second to review this. In relation to that request from
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: right after 3255, starting with okay, is that the spot
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: you're talking about? Answer, yes, Your Honor. Judge Graff, all right.
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: And specifically to 3327, the court stands by its original ruling.
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: There are several reasons why the court, the court's ruling,
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: isn't whether it's relevant or not. It's whether it should
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: be published or not. And again, as previously stated, the
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: entirety of Exhibit 16 the court's receiving without any redactions
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: or edits. The court's considering it as it weighs probable cause. However,
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: for publication, the court finds that the requested section from
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: roughly after 3255 starting with OK ending at 3327, the
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: court finds that there are interests served by not publishing
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: this to the courtroom or to be broadcast. And I
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: recognize Mr. Novak's statement as it relates to what Mr.
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: Twigg's counsel may or may not assert. But the court
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: finds independently that this portion shall not be transmitted into
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: the courtroom because of the certain statements made in there
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: that do not serve the interest of justice for publication. However,
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: the court finds from 3327, starting at OK, until just
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: before 3340, I'm sorry, up to 3340, may be published.
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: Did that notation make sense? Prosecution, it did to the state,
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: the defense, understood. Judge Graff, and so this is an
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: appropriate balancing of being transparent, while at the same time,
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: maintaining the constitutional rights, or balancing the constitutional rights of
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: all parties, and what is appropriate for publication. And this
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: may be published, not only to the gallery, but to
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: the media as well. That goes beyond the gallery itself.
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: All right, anything further on State Exhibit 16? The state,
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: not from the state, Your Honor. Judge Graff, all right.
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: And I note defense is nodding their head as well
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: and not indicating any more is needed to be discussed
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: at this point. All right, I think we've put State
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: Exhibit 16. We've addressed it. Turning to the state. The state,
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: thank you, Your Honor. We would just like to briefly
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: emphasize a few points in the briefing that we filed
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: earlier this morning. Last night, the defense raised the issue
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: of publishing admissions by the defendant or confessions. They cited...
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: to one sentence from the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: Estes v. Texas that relies on Riddell v. Louisiana case,
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: and that one sentence in Estes had no precedential value
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: on the issue that's before the court today. Estes cited
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: to the dissenting opinion in Riddell, which is very curious
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: because that dissenting opinion, Riddell, was a change of venue case.
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: And what the dissenting opinion held is that the court
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: properly refused to change venue In that case, even though
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: the defendant's confession had been televised multiple times. So it's
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: puzzling that that's what the estate or Estes court would
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: rely on a supposedly constructing some kind of rule about
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: publishing a defendant's admission. In addition to that, Estes has
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: no analysis of that point from Riddell. Again, that's just
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: one sentence. And Estes itself was a case about televising
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: a trial. It wasn't about pre-trial publicity of a defendant's
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: admission or confession. And as we noted in the brief subsequently,
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court is limited, although it hasn't expressly overruled Estes,
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: it's limited that case to its very narrow facts, so
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: it's difficult to see what precedential value that one sentence
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: from Riddell could have on the issue before the court.
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: Even if the court had some applicability here, the circumstances
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: in Riddell are starkly different from the circumstances here, the
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: type of statement from defendants that we're talking about. In Riddell,
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: What the police did was orchestrated a recording of an unconstitutional, uncounseled,
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: un-Mirandized police interrogation. The police recorded that interrogation. It was
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: leading questions. They recorded the defendant answering those leading questions.
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: And then they immediately, it was the police that immediately
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: released the recording to the press, who then publicized and
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: televised that. The defendant confessing to police, answering the police's questions,
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: that's not the type of statement that we're dealing with
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: in this case. What we're dealing with are statements that
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: defendant voluntarily made to a close friend, an associate of him,
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: and his roommate. Sorry, just another point on Riddle and
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: the dissenting opinion. It's interesting that in that dissenting opinion,
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: the judge and the court relied on Estes continued on
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: his opinion and said, it's an impossible standard to require
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: that a trial court be a laboratory that's completely sterilized
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: and free from any external factors. So again, it's hard
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: to see how Riddell has any presidential value. And even
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: if it did, the circumstances are completely different from the
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: type of statements that we're dealing with here. The state
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: has also cited to several other courts that have easily
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: distinguished Riddell and have made it clear that there is
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: no blanket ban on publishing, especially just in court of
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: defendants' voluntary admissions. I think the most interesting case is
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: the Sixth Circuit because there it dealt with essentially the
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: issue that we're dealing with here, which is publication of
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: a defendant's statement during a prelim hearing. And that case
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: is especially important, the Delisle case, because there was a
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: confession that ultimately held to be inadmissible. So an inadmissible
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: confession was played for the public and interested media members
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: in a way as if it had been played in
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: a prelim hearing. And even though that confession was subsequently publicized,
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: and ultimately held to be inadmissible at trial, the court
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: did not hold that that was a violation of the
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: defendant's fundamental rights there, that the court could deal with
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: through voir dire. It was not inherently prejudicial. And then
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: the state also cited to the Ohio case of Momoni,
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: and then also the Alabama case Burgess v. State, where
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: those courts reached essentially the same holdings, easily distinguishing the
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: Riddow sentence from Estes and making it clear that there's
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: no blanket ban on publishing a defendant's admissions. And also
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: the Riddow is easily distinguishable because the court can deal
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: with those pretrial publicity issues in the way that we've
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: just discussed. several times already through the tools that the
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: court has available in selecting the jury. I think it's
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: also important to point out transparency is critical in the case.
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: The court noted repeatedly the extensive media coverage. That's why
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: we're having to take this additional time in these hearings
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: to be able to address these issues directly. And transparency
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: is critical to the state's right. And finally, as has
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: already been argued, it's critical to the victim's right to
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: be able to attend the hearing That's a hollow promise
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: if the victim representative is only able to be here physically,
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: but then is shielded from some evidence. Does the court
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: have any questions? Judge Graff, not at this time. Prosecution,
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: thank you. All right, we're going to wrap up right here.
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: And in the next episode, we're going to pick up
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: with the defense. All the information that goes with this
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box.