Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Transcripts From The Hearing Dealing With Tyler Robinson’s Courtroom Appearance (Part 6) (7/29/26)

Transcript

Transcripts From The Hearing Dealing With Tyler Robinson’s Courtroom Appearance (Part 6) (7/29/26) · 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 getting right back to the Tyler Robinson
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: hearing about his appearance. Mister van Ney, thank you, your honor,
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: mister Ballard, and your honor expressed and got it right
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: with the general concerns the Sheriff's office and mister Palmer
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: have about civilian clothing. The specific concern about this case
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: is that in the filing documents, the state alleges that
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: mister Robinson changed his clothing along the way, so specifically
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: in this case, if he's in civilian clothing that is,
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: at least in the allegations, that's a real concern to
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: the Sheriff's office that the clothing could be changed if
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: it were or was commotion. We recognize that most pre
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: trial proceedings there's public law and motion calendars. There's other
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: defendants and attorneys in here that create more commotion, not
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: in the sense that it's undignified, but there's more people.
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: So those are the Sheriff's offices specific concerns about the case.
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: I think going to this suggest yes, and I think
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: agreement that no video or photographic reporting. The articles that
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: the defense counsel cites in their motion, they hit on
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: a visual prejudice when a person sees the individual in
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: jail clothing, that creates the prejudice. I think there's a
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: different effect from based off of what they've provided from
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: seeing the individual as opposed to a reporter writing about it.
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: The court, all right, mister Novak, to the court, have
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: more questions for the state the court. It takes me
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: a little bit for my brain to kind of go
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: through all my tick points. So I'm still thinking, mister Novak,
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: I just don't want to interfere the court. No, and
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: I appreciate that. Mister Ballard, I'm happy to answer your
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: honor's questions the court, and I appreciate that the willingness
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: of both sides. I'm just trying to think. I'm looking
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: at my notes. I've been trying to take detailed notes,
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: and I appreciate the presentation by all parties. Going back
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: to the clothing, and let's assume that this court orders
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: no video, no cameras, and even goes even further and
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: says to the press, you can't write about clothing, and
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: even if it extends to the weekend blogger or influencer
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: or anyone, do not write about it. What stops prejudice
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: to potential jurors, because this is an open court room.
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: What stops any one seventy five people is what we've
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: limited this courtroom for security reasons from them talking to
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: others and saying, you know, I was in court, he
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: was in jail clothing. Does that prejudice the potential jury pool,
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: mister Ballard, I don't think it does, your honor. This
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: has been the practice every pre trial detainee in the
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: state of Utah. The date comes to trial, comes to
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: the hearings in jail clothing and restraints. I don't know
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: why this this situation presents any different or any difference
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: than any of those other situations. And to the extent
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: that there is some potential for prejudice, this court can
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: fully explore that at warder the court. Okay, all right,
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: thank you. I appreciate the response. So mister Novak, and
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: I don't mean to make this into a law school scenario. Novak,
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: it's fine the court, But why has no court found
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: that this right of shackles and vestiture, how they're addressed,
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: doesn't apply prior to jury. We've had this. I imagine
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: that this has come up throughout the United States throughout
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: the years. But we don't have a single opinion that says,
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: prior to a jury trial that this should be in effect.
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: Mister Novak, Well, we actually did have that opinion. I'll
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: let you talk about that. We actually did have an
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: opinion that addressed that, which is the vacated on other
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: grounds opinion we've been talking about. So that actually was
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: the prevailing law in the Ninth Circuit in twenty seventeen
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: and twenty eighteen, and there were district courts that applied
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: that ruling, which applied to the Southern District of California,
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: to other districts within the Ninth Circuit until as Council
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: is right, the Supreme Court vacated it for the reasons
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: that we've talked about. So I think it's more accurate
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: to say that there was case law that governed the
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: entire western corner of the United States, if I can
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: talk about west of Utah and Colorado for quite a
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: period of time. Well, for a period of time. The
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court vacated it on other grounds. I want to
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: go back to that rationale, okay, And so I think
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: that's important, and unfortunately it falls on this court's lap,
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: so to speak, is this is an open question in Utah.
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: That's where we are. We're in the trial court, and
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: it's an open question. There isn't a binding authority one
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: way or the other on this court. We're suggesting that
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: existing law and the rationale in existing law and rationale
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: expressed by well considered jurists and other jurisdictions guide this
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: court in what it should do. But that's just where
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: we are. I can't really give the court law school answer,
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: which is why don't we have case law on this
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: from this jurisdiction or others. Maybe it's because nobody raised it.
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: Maybe it's because not every defendant is actually shackled in court.
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: I mean, I'm just going to testify, Okay. I've been
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: in many courts and many jurisdictions and with clients who
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: are in custody and sometimes are shackled, and sometimes they
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: are not. It depends on local practice. It also depends
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: on what judicial officers standards are. So I don't think
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: that everybody is shackled everywhere and now all of a sudden,
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: mister Robinson bringing up something that settled practice. Otherwise, it's
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: an open question that the court has the opportunity to
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: wrestle with I'm not trying to avoid the court's question.
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: I just think that's the reality, is that it's an
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: issue for a first impression. Since deck in Utah the
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: court and I appreciate your candor, sir. The second question
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: I have is applying individualized approach and basically determining security
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: risk or potential is in the criminal court, as you
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: are well aware, issues can turn on the moment, and
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: for example, hypothetically in a pre lim hearing, a witness
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: could testify to something that could cause someone who's in
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: custody to suddenly have a surge of emotion. And how
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: can we account for that when there are so many
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: variables in a court room that we can't control. How
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: someone reacts to a statement, how someone reacts to a
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: shout out from the crowd, how someone reacts from a
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: glance that may cause them to react emotionally. How can
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: we apply that in real life or real time if
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: we're relying upon assessments that has to be done before
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: a hearing. Mister Novak, I think that's a fair question,
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: and I have two answers that may or may not
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: be sufficient for the court. One is I think that
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: it can be evolving understanding of how the defendant before
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: the court does handle themselves in the courtroom. Okay, so
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: so far we've got a couple of hours of experience.
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: I don't think that the court, if it's an individualized determination,
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: which is what Dek says, that's still good law. Then
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: that the individualized determination, of course, can always be subject
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: to reconsideration by the court. I'm sure that your honor
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: has been involved in a situation where somebody who was
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: not even in custody but was appearing in their criminal
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: case became a problem in the courtroom. And similarly, you
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: could have somebody who maybe was a problem and is
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: in custody, but over time has demonstrated that they should
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: not be. So I think that the individualized determination can
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: be one subject. I don't mean to reconsideration in the
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: technical legal sense, but review. So that's one thing. One
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: thing is that the court can look at the information
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: it has before it. So I'm going to provide what
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: I think is responsive to this court's question by pointing
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: out that even with the state having the opportunity to
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: stand here, they still haven't provided any individualized information at all.
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: I invited it multiple times. There's nothing individualized that has
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: been represented by the state, whether we accept a profit
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: or not. What we do know about mister Robinson that
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: goes to the court's question, is he surrendered a neighbor
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: of his. I'm sure the court has read enough of
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: the material. I think it's even in the probable cause statement.
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: You don't even have to read the public accounting. A
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: neighbor of his was a retired sheriff from Washington County,
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: and he got in that man's car and they took
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: him to the sheriff's department, with his parents in the
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: vehicle with him. That if you were just doing sort
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: of a run of the mill bell assessment would be
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: a factor in support of release. A factor. Okay, So
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: what information does the court have to say that if
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: somebody was testifying in a prelim hearing who said something
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: that mister Robinson felt uncomfortable with, that he would react
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: in a way that placed somebody at risk. And with
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: all due respect, it's total speculation because you're talking about
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: somebody who surrendered. Okay, I'm happy to engage in this colloquy.
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: Wanted to say a few things about what the people said.
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: The court. Of course, go ahead, mister Novak. Your honor's
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: questions are more important than my retort. The court know,
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: and I appreciate, and I know it's a difficult question
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: because there are so many variables. I guess the other
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: factor I wish to touch on is on This is
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: not speaking to mister Robinson. This is speaking to all
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: criminal cases. As criminal cases proceed, and I don't know
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: how this case is going to proceed. It could last
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: a week, it could last a year, it could last
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: who knows. But I believe it's the experience of all
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: attorneys in the criminal world that as cases progress, pressure progresses,
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: and in a case where the potential death penalty, and
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: again not referring to mister Robinson, but the psychological effect
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: on a person as they go down the track puts
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: in a variable that's hard to examine in real time.
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: And how do we address for that if we were
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: even to go down that route. I don't know about
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: this case, but you have the experience. What insight can
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: you provide, mister Novak. I've never so I've never been
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: a criminal defense attorney since I don't know, I can't
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: remember how long. It's been a long time. I can't
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: think of any client who's ever attempted to harm me
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: or myself, me or himself or herself or a law
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: enforcement officer in a courtroom, or tried to flee a courtroom,
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: or lash out at a witness, or throw something in
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: the courtroom. I of course have heard about such things,
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: and usually because of my own experience, it's somebody who
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: spent decades in prison and now they're being prosecuted for
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: something they did in prison, and they got nothing to lose.
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: That's the best I can do the court, Thank you,
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: mister Novak. Okay. A couple things, if I may, about
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: Rule seventeen to five. I think the fourteenth Amendment says
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: that mister Robinson has a right to be present at
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: all of his proceedings. And I know, I hope I
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: don't say this too many times, but I'm from another state,
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: and most of the time practicing in that other state.
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: It has been in federal court. And with respect to
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: the motion of hybrid hearings and remote hearings, the pandemic
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: is over. I understand it's convenient for the sheriff. I
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: understand it saves the government money, but this is a
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: capital case and mister Robinson wants to be present at
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: every hearing in person. If he's not present at every
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: hearing in person, then he's either appearing remotely in a
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: place in the sheriff's jail facility where there are a
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: staff present with him. He's not in a room by himself.
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: And then that would mean that maybe one of his
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: attorneys could be over there, but that attorney wouldn't be
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: able to consult with the other attorneys or I mean,
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: I just think it's a shortcut which this court should
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: not engage in in this type of case. Mister Robinson
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: is not going to waive his appearance for hearings in
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: order to eliminate the need for him to assert his
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: right not to be shackled. Okay, that's not a voluntary waiver.
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: If the court, as it has, which has been fine
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: with us, wants to convene a hearing on short notice,
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: the court says, hey, I need to get everybody on
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: the telephone, and we do that. But from our standpoint,
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: that's appropriate for the administration of justice. But when we're
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: having meaningful hearings, and I'm not going to use the
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: word critical in a legal sense, mister Robinson wants to
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: be in court in person, so that your Honor and
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: he or here in the same room, so that he
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: knows what's going on, so that you can fully observe him,
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: so that he can fully observe the witnesses. So it's
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: not an accommodation that interests us, respectively. The question about
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: jail clothing, which your Honor asked, I would ask the
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: court to consider the cases we cite at page thirteen.
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: They are Mitchell, which is a case Utah decision, a
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: Stell which is a Supreme Court decision, and her and
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: Az vers Bato, which is a Fifth Circuit decision, which
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: basically all say that there is no essential state interest
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: in compelling somebody to wear a jel clothing. The idea
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: that because mister Robinson may be change clothes before or
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: after the charge shooting has nothing to do with whether
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: mister Robinson sitting there in a sweater and blue jeans
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: or whatever the sheriff and mister Robinson's council agree on,
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: could somehow turn into Superman, you know, by spinning around
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: in a circle. It's just not going to happen, and
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: I have no problem with it. But there have been
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: redacted so I think what your honor is saying is like,
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: why does he need to be in the prison guard
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: when we have all the security in the courtroom generally speaking?
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: Is that right? If I may ask the right question,
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: and if things happen in the courtroom which suggests to
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: the court that it has made an assumption that mister
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: Robinson demonstrated it shouldn't have made, then the court can
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: make restrictions. I do want to say something about presumptions
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: and language. Sure, we can have a statewide or district
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: wide policy that doesn't create presumption. The Constitution is what
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: controls where the presumptions are, and it's the people's burden.
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: It's the state's burden to interfere with a constitutional right.
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: The policy doesn't create a presumption that we have to
• 13:12
  Speaker 1: rebut the policy is what the sheriff in the county's
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: security specialist would like. It's not a presumption. It may
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: be guidance for this court once the court completes its
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: individualized determination. I think that's the last thing I want
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: to say, and I'm sure that will make everybody happy,
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: is that it's not correct that the defendant charged with
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: very serious offenses who are in custody always appear in
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: shackles and in jail clothing. Miss Nestor has pointed out
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: to me twice in the last fifteen minutes, and I
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: appreciate it because I forget things that she actually represents
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: a defendant who's in custody, who is charged with first
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: degree murder in another state, I'm sorry, another county, who
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: sits in court without shackles and who wears street clothing
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: because the judicial officer made an individualized determination that that
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: was okay. If I've left something out, please tell me
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: submit it. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up right here,
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: and in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: gonna pick up where we left off. All the information
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: that goes with this episode can be found in the
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: description box.