Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Transcripts From The Hearing Dealing With Tyler Robinson’s Courtroom Appearance (Part 3) (7/29/26)

Transcript

Transcripts From The Hearing Dealing With Tyler Robinson’s Courtroom Appearance (Part 3) (7/29/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 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 with the transcript
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: from the Tyler Robinson hearing about his court attire. Mister Ballard,
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: your honor Christopher Ballard on behalf of the state. There's
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: nothing improper about what the state did about the state
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: and the sheriff filing a joint response to the motion,
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: when the court ordered the sheriff to respond, when the
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: motion implicates court security, which is the joint responsibility of
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: the sheriff and the court, and when the state's interests
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: and the sheriff's interest are aligned. And let me just
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: make it clear at the outset, the state is not
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: trying to sneak in the sheriff's participation. The state is
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: not trying to make the sheriff a party or be
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: able to offer his input, the sheriff's office input on
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: anything that is not directly related to the sheriff's responsibilities.
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: In this case, the state was simply trying to comply
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: with this court's orders, the first of which ordered the
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: sheriff to respond and then also order the state to respond,
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: and both of those orders require the defendant to serve
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: his motion on the sheriff, and so I don't think
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: you can fault the state for doing its best to
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: just try and comply with the court's orders. I think
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: even if there were something improper about the way the
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: state did this procedurally, I think the information, the rules,
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: the authority that we've cited in our opposition to the
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: motion to strike explained that the sheriff does have standing,
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: or persons can have standing as limited purpose parties, not
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: a broad purpose party or a main party in the case,
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: that's not what we're trying to do. The sheriff, for
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: anyone in a case, can have limited purpose standing when
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: you've got a rule or a statute that allows that
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: person to either claim or right or to offer input.
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: And as opposing counsel pointed out, this comes up most
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: often in situations of crime victims. But it's not just
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: limited to crime victims. As we cited in State JT.
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: That was the case that you've got. It's a child
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: welfare proceeding. You've got to statute that says that relatives
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: can give input as to the placement in those kinds
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: of cases. And so the grandmother had limited purpose party
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: standing to be able to give her input here, we've
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: got authority that allows the sheriff to give input on
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: these kinds of decisions, and that's all we're we're trying
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: to do in accordance with what the court requested. If
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: the Court has further questions about limited purpose standing and
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: the reasons for that, mister van Ney can address that
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: on behalf of the sheriff. But that's the state's position.
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: Unless you have further questions for me the court, well,
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: perhaps the court can give a little bit of clarification.
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: Because there were two orders, and what happened was on
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: that day it was a holiday, the court came in
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: and was reviewing the order and it wasn't the official
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: order because it was trying to be sent out as
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: a courtesy given the time constraints. The court then issued
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: the order the second day with the removal of requiring
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: the sheriff's response, and so for clarification purposes, that's what happened.
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: The first one was simply occurred copy just to be like,
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: all right, we have these tight deadlines and wanted to
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: put all parties on notice to give them opportunity to
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: prepare given the holiday. But the second order was the
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: actual order that was entered in the first was not so,
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: for whatever clarification that gives to all parties, that's what happened.
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: But I understand the confusion with that in regards to
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: the position of Miss Nestor that the evidence should come
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: in as witness testimony as opposed to as it was
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: brought in today. What's your position, mister Ballard, as long
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: as your honor fully considers the information that's in that response,
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: whether it's just as a witness or a limited purpose party,
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: we just want the information before the court because the
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: sheriff is the expert on court security, the court and
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: moving forward. That's your position on adopting what has been
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: proposed by Miss Nestor for a future input as opposed
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: to filing a motion going the route of calling witnesses
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: and then based off witness testimony or Affid David's using
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: that to supplement a motion post witness testimony. Ballard, I
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: think that's fine as long as it gives your honor
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: the information that he needs to be able to be
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: able to make the decisions about security issues the court.
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: All right, thank you, mister Ballard. Mister Ballard, you're welcome
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: the court. Yes, And if you'd like to give a
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: little bit more background on the limited purpose standing of
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: the parties. Mister van Ney, who is the lawyer for
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: the Sheriff's office, absolutely Ben van Ney County Attorney's Office.
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: The sheriff's office wants to make it clear that they're
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: not entering an appearance in the case and they do
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: not intend to ever enter an appearance in the case.
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: The sheriff's position is that they would be okay if
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: the state's opposition was entered in or if there was
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: an order entered in finding that this is an opposition
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: from the state. Like mister Ballard just expressed, there was
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: some confusion with the two orders. The sheriff's office, being
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: a non party, didn't have the benefit of not knowing
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: that the first order wasn't entered. We didn't get the
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: notice until it was too late, So I mean, quite simply,
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: the sheriff's office was just trying to respond to the
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: court's orders, which wasn't unusual because the sheriff's office gets
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: ordered by the judges all the time to do various things,
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: orders to transport, orders to allow inmates to have access
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: to the law library. Stuff that's part of the criminal case.
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: But not. It is more tangently related, which that's another
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: reason why the sheriff decided it was proper to respond.
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: The sheriff's office is a unique participant in criminal cases.
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: Both statute and rule obligate the sheriff to have input
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: in security measures and the defendant's motion that directly implicates those,
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: and the sheriff, to be clear, is less concerned about
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: how the objections are made. They just want to make
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: sure that they have a seat at the table because
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: they are. They want to ensure that the safety and
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: security of this court is paramount. So whatever the court
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: needs to do to clarify that, the sheriff would be
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: okay with that, whether that's treating them as a witness
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: their statements as with the statements, be okay with that.
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: I think that's all I have from the sheriff. I
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: would submit, unless your Honor has any questions the court no,
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: thank you, mister Nestor. Would you like to respond, mister Nestor,
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: just briefly, your Honor as far as a limited party appearance,
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: I mean, it sounds like we're getting close to agreeing
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: to how this should happen in the future, which I
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: appreciate that but just to make it very clear for
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: the record that we do not think there is sufficient
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: statutory or administrative authority that would open the door to
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: a limited appearance such as there would be for a
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: grandparent in a custody hearing or for a victim in
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: a restitution hearing. We just don't think that exists here.
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: And we don't see the judicial regulations that are referred
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: to in their opposition that provides that a bailiff, you know,
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: that sheriffs be present and keep us safe in the courtroom.
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: We don't think that opens the door to a limited
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: party appearance of the nature of which was argued in
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: the opposition. But I think that might be moot. But
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: I just wanted to say that for the record, your honor,
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: the Court, thank you, all right, anything further on this
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: motion to strike, mister van Ney, your honor, one more thing,
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: if I may, the Court, yes, mister van Ney. The
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: scenario at hand has the sheriff's office in county's attorney's
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: office agreeing. Hypothetically, if the county attorney agrees with the defendant,
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: but the sheriff disagrees, we don't know what mechanism we
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: could use to lodge that objection. Utah Code seventeen Dash
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: twenty two Dashed twenty one c requires the sheriff to
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: obey all lawful orders. In rare circumstances, there are orders
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: issued by the bench that the sheriff's office deems unlawful.
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: In those circumstances, the sheriff's office has filed objections not
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: as parties, but as an interested party. That is unclear
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: in state law how the sheriff's office is supposed to
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: address the situation if an order is unlawful, How does
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: the sheriff's office voice that opinion. That's all I have,
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: Thank you the court. Can you give me an example
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: of what has happened in the past that helps the
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: court understand, mister van no Oh, Yes, absolutely. Just a
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: few months ago, in a probate case, the mental health
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: of the beneficiary was at stake was being questioned. The
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: court ordered the sheriff's office to transport this individual to
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: a mental health facility for a mental health evaluation in
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: Salt Lake City. In being a probate a civil case,
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: the sheriff's office objected because that, in their opinion, was
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: not a lawful order. There's no statute or rule that
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: allowed the court to include the sheriff to transport an
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: individual in a civil case. That matter was never fully
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: ruled upon, but it was an objection that the Sheriff's
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: office made as an interested party in that case. The court,
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: all right, thank you, mister van Ney. Yep, Miss Nestor,
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: under that scenario, what in your view would be the
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: proper approach if there is a divergence of opinions from
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: the Utah County Attorney's Office and the Utah County Sheriff's office,
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: how would the Sheriff's office be heard on the issue?
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: Miss Nestor, can you give me one second to ask
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: someone smarter than myself? Let me ask mister Visser or
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: miss Vistor really quick. I knew she would know your honor,
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: thank you, and I think she's right. So under that scenario,
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: when the sheriff has been ordered to do something by
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: the court that does potentially open the door, I would
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: say to responding to that order. And you know, I
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: have no idea what type of similar situation would arise
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: in this case, but I would hope that we could
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: all maybe just talk about it and see the proper
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: way to handle it. We don't ever want to concede
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: that the proper way to handle it would be to
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: enter an appearance as a party. I do think that
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: there's ways for non parties to object to orders they
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: get from judges, but and we can probably figure that
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: out later. But I honestly can't think of the scenario
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: where that would happen in a case like this. It's
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: never ever happened to me, and I've been doing this
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: quite a while, but I guess there's always the possibility
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: if it happens, we'll all confer and see if we
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: can figure that out. The court, all right, And I
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: just want to make sure anything else further on this
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: particular issue, mister Ballard, mister Ballard, Yeah, your honor, just
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: let me add I think for the purpose of this motion,
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: it sounds like we're all in agreement that the Court
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: can just consider this however it wants to consider it,
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: and making it clear that it's not the sheriff entering
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: an appearance or appearing as a party. If there's some
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: issue down the road and we've got an order that
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: requires the sheriff to do something, then that would be
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: a completely different situation. Then we've got right here. The
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: Court all right, all right, thank you all parties. I
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: will reserve ruling on that issue about the motion to
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: strike until Monday, but for the purpose of this hearing
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: today and it sounds like their's best can be stated.
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: The stipulation that the motion filed not acknowledging from defense
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: side that the Sheriff's office is a party, but it's
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: still accepting the information they're in to be considered as
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: we move forward on the other issues. Miss Nestor, yes,
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: the court, all right, so with that, we'll go ahead
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: and move forward with the issues of appearances and restraints.
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: All right, everybody, We're going to wrap up right here,
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: and in the next episode we're going to pick up
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: where we left off. All the information that goes with
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box.