Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 3 Part 1) (10/1/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 3 Part 1) (10/1/26) · 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 dive right back in to
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: the transcripts from Tyler Robinson's preliminary hearing. And this time,
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: we're going to start taking a look at day number three.
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: So what we're going to do is skip all of
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: the swearing in and all of the nonsense and get
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: right to the testimony. And first up is the state.
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: Thank you, Your Honor. We anticipate presenting evidence through Agent
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: Brian Davis this afternoon. Sergeant Jennifer Falmina is also present
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: in the courthouse and prepared to testify if we get
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: to her today as well. Following her testimony, which we
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: believe we'll carry into tomorrow, if we do get to
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: her today, that will close the presentation of the evidence
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: on the part of the state. Judge Graff, thank you. Defense?
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Good afternoon. Judge, we have two
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: remaining witnesses, Ms. Oliver from the ATF and Ms. Karner,
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: also from the ATF. Judge Graff, all right, and do
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: both parties, thank you, I appreciate that, do both parties
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: anticipate any issues concluding their case? Obviously, there's variables, cross-examination,
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: and kind of the fog of war that happens in
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: court proceedings. But any party anticipate issues concluding at or
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: before Friday at 5 p.m.? Prosecution, not from the state judge. Defense,
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: I just want to highlight one issue for the court
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: because it may be the court wants to do some
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: time management. The state is going to proffer a video 1102,
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: a video recorded 1102. We've provided to the state, I
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: want to say about a day and a half ago,
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: with proposed redactions because we believe that portions of it
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: are not admissible, even in a preliminary hearing. And the
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: way we did this is we provided a transcript and
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: then redacted version of the transcript of the entire video
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: recorded interview. It may be that the court wants to
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: look at the proposed redactions, not while court is in session,
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: but during some other time period, because the transcript of
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: the video which we prepared and we provided to the
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: state so the state could raise any concerns about the
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: accuracy of the transcript, that's not an issue. The admissibility
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: of portions of the video or the issue is about
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: 20 pages, maybe 22 pages, so to use court time
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: for the court to look at the proposed redactions may
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: be an inefficient use of time. I'm not saying when
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: the court should do it. I'm saying that we may
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: not want to do it between 9 and noon, and
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: one in five tomorrow or Friday, but it's going to
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: come up today. And so the question will be, when
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: does the court want to engage in the process of
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: reviewing the 22-page transcript that has proposed redactions? That's all.
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, I appreciate the heads up. Prosecution, do you
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: wish to be heard? Yes, Judge. Your Honor, the state
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: has received the proposed redactions and we're prepared to address
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: them when that time comes. However... We do intend on
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: presenting testimony through Mr. Davis, through Agent Davis. And when
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: we get to that point, when it's ripe for discussion,
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: we can address the matter with the court. That would
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: be our preference. Judge Graff. All right, well, I'll address
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: it as it comes. And to the defense, with the
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: remaining time, do you feel confident that it is sufficient
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: to accomplish your duty? Answer by the defense. We do,
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: Your Honor. Judge Graff. Thank you. All right. Does either
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: party require benefit of the record? before we begin to
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: the state? The state? Ryan McBride for the state, Your Honor.
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: Just to address an issue that's come up, and we
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: expect to come up as we enter the second half
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: of this prelim hearing regarding the admission of exhibits. Under
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: Rule 104a, the court must decide preliminary questions about whether
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: the witness is qualified, or privilege exists, or evidence is admissible.
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: In so deciding, the court is not bound by the
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: rules of evidence except those in privilege. And I'm bringing
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: this up because it's likely to come up and it's
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: going to affect the procedure we use as we go forward.
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: The court holds two roles really at this stage. One
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: is a gatekeeper role on admissibility and the second is
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: the fact finder role as a magistrate. And I know
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: you've referenced to those two roles earlier in this proceeding.
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: And rule 104 means the court can consider evidence even
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: though its admissibility has not yet been determined in its
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: gatekeeper role. And then after it's been admitted, it can
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: determine the admissible qualities of that evidence or that exhibit.
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: And that is especially relevant at a prelim hearing where
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: foundational evidence is reliable hearsay under 1102. Even at trial
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: State v. Griffin, which is a 2016 Utah Supreme Court case,
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: the court has held the rules of evidence do not
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: apply to evidence used to establish foundation for admission of
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: other evidence. It's a quote from paragraph 33. So the
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: point is foundational rulings On admissibility, can consider evidence that
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: is not in and of itself admissible. That's proper. The
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: second point is the court of appeals recognizes a presumption
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: that the court considers when acting in its fact-finding role
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: only the admissible evidence and disregards any admissible evidence. Most commonly,
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: that comes up in the bench trial type of case
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: where prior bad acts evidence is admitted and can have
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: a dual inference. State v. Adams was one of those cases.
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: That's 2011 Utah APP 163. And what it means is
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: we know that a fact finder is not tainted by
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: the judge's role as a gatekeeper, even though the judge
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: is a gatekeeper considers potentially inadmissible evidence. It also means
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: that the court doesn't have to distinguish which hat it's
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: wearing as we go through the proceeding. In this circumstance,
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: this hearing is taking place outside the presence of a jury.
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: The state is laid and intends to lay and continue
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: to lay foundation in open court. Such foundation sometimes will
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: include discussion of the actual exhibits rather than just proffers,
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: as well as foundation for the exhibits. Now, I don't
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: think that there's any real issue between us and the
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: defense in understanding that kind of statement of law. I
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: think the issue that has come up under Rule 104b,
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: determinations of admissibility, take place outside the presence of the jury.
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: The defense appears to be assuming the jury to be
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: basically the potential jury pool for and trying to avoid
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: the potential taint to a jury pool that discussion of evidence,
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: which may or may not be admissible, may cause. I
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: think that's a fair point. I just want to put
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: the court on notice of our view and how we
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: have and intend to proceed as we move forward. Under 104B,
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: the determination takes place outside the presence of the jury.
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: Under the rules, there is a presumption that these hearings
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: and the hearing is open to the public, including admissibility hearings.
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: Because of that, we intend to move forward and move
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: the admission of evidence and argue the admission of evidence
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: as in open court. Should the court close the hearing,
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: of course that would change. But that's because there's a
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: presumption in the law and it conforms with 104B. And
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: that's our intention unless the court or counsel moves to
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: close the hearing. So in summary, the court can and
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: often should consider evidence and review the exhibits before admission. Two,
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: the court is not tainted by doing so and can
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: distinguish between admissible evidence and improper evidence. and there's no
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: need for the court to identify which hat it's wearing,
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: and three, absent closure, we'll move forward with our evidence
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: in open court. All right, we'll hear from the defense,
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff says. If you want to be heard on
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: that issue, I see you, okay? Defense, briefly, Your Honor,
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I have two microphones. I'm just trying to
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: be technologically savvy. I think the 104 issue, I agree
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: completely with Mr. McBride on what he's saying. Because of
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court's ruling in Archuleta, concerning the availability to
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: the public of exhibits from a prelim hearing, which of
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: course is a fact-specific inquiry by the court. We will
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: continue to raise concerns about our client's right to a
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: fair trial when we think it's appropriate and the court
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: will make the rulings it makes. That's all I want
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: to say. Judge Graff, alright, alright. To both parties, the
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: standing request remains when you're moving a piece of evidence
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: into the record, I ask three steps to admit it
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: to be published in the courtroom immediately. and then it
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: to be published on that screen. And I'm going to
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: have the screen adjusted slightly because if it's published, I
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: want it to be meaningful and able to be viewed.
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: And I noticed somebody sent me a screenshot that the
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: angle creates an interesting angle that kind of distorts it.
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: So in the interest of, we're going to be transparent,
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: it should be viewable transparent. So we'll just adjust the
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: screen briefly, but please address those three issues. And I
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: understand that one side or the other side might say, well,
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: we agree or we don't agree, period. But please, I'm
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: just trying to make sure that the record before us
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: is as clean and it's a clear record. So it
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: would do that. The court would appreciate it. All right.
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: Anything further? No, Your Honor. Judge Graff. All right. The
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: court acknowledges that the exclusionary rule is in effect at
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: this time. Any witness who is subject to the exclusion
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: should be excused from the courtroom. I will leave it
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: to the parties to monitor the courtroom to ensure that
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: compliance is adhered to. With that turning to the state,
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: you may call your next witness. The state calls Agent
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: Brian Davis. Judge Graff, Agent Davis, if you'd like to
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: come forward and be sworn in. You do so solemnly
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: swear that the testimony you shall give in the case,
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: now pending before the court, will be the truth, the
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Davis, yes.
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, all right, agent, if you wouldn't mind having
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: a seat to your left is a water bottle. And
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: if you're seated, you'll have to adjust the microphone, pull
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: it down, and then pull it towards you to ensure
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: that it's picking up your voice and we'll have a
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: good record. All right, your witness. Prosecution, if you could
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: please state your name and spell your last name for
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: the record. Brian Davis, D-A-V-I-S. Question, what's your occupation? Answer,
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: I'm an agent with the Utah State Bureau. of Investigation. Question,
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: how long have you been with, is it fair to
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: call it the SBI? Answer, correct, yes. Question, how long
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: have you been with the SBI? Answer, a total of
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: 18 years. Question, I want to briefly go over your
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: experience as a law enforcement officer generally. Actually, are you
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: a law enforcement officer in that capacity? Answer, yes, correct. Question,
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: how long have you been a law enforcement officer? Answer,
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: a total of 27 years. Question, you mentioned that you
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: were with SBI for 18, is that right? Answer, correct, yes. Question,
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: what other agencies were you with prior to SBI? Answer,
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: so the Department of Public Safety, I've been a state
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: trooper for eight years. 18 years with SBI and one
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: year with Utah Transit Authority Police. Question, we've heard talk
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: from other officers about POST. What is POST? Answer, it's
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: Peace Officer Standards Training. Question, and did you complete that? Answer,
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: I did. Question, what year did you complete that? Answer, 1999. Question,
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: is that a type of certification that you hold? Answer, yeah.
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: It's a statewide certification that any peace officer in the
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: city of Utah, local, state, county, all go through to
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: become a certified peace police officer. Question, has the certification
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: lapsed or been any gaps in that time since you
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: received it in 99? Answer, nope. It's been constant since then.
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: All right, folks, we're going to wrap up episode one
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: right here. And in the next episode, we're going to
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: pick up with Agent Davis answering some questions from the prosecution.
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: All the information that goes with this episode can be
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: found in the description box.