Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 2 Part 12) (9/24/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 2 Part 12) (9/24/26) · 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 going to pick up where we left
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: off with Tyler Robinson and day number two of the
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: prelim hearing. And we're picking up with the cross-examination of
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: Agent Fomina. Defense, Your Honor, I'd like to reserve the
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: right to cross-examine after the witness completes her testimony, after
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: the following witness. Judge Graff, oh, would you mind grabbing
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: the microphone? I just want to make sure what you
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: say is on the record. Defense, with the court's permission,
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: I'd like to reserve the right to cross-examine on the
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: area she testified about until she has completed her testimony. Judge, okay,
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: I see what you're saying. Any input, prosecution? Inaudible. Go
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: back to the judge. All right. Now, prosecution, your honor,
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: that's what we expected to happen. Judge, okay. Prosecution, we've
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: discussed this beforehand. We stipulate. Judge, all right, that's fine.
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: And so, should I have the sergeant step down? Answer, yes. Judge, okay, sergeant,
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: if you'd like to step down, you're still under oath,
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: and so please don't discuss your testimony with anyone. And
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: she's being asked to exit the courtroom. Or what's the
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: request of the party? Answer, yes, to exit the courtroom
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: at this time. Question, okay, all right, agent, if you
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: wouldn't mind exiting the courtroom, and then we'll come back
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: and get you when we're ready for you, all right?
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: All right, defense, turning to you. Your Honor, out of order,
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: the defense would be calling Amanda Baker. Judge, all right, Ms. Baker.
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: All right, Ms. Baker. If you wouldn't mind coming forward,
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: right up here by the bailiff and being sworn in.
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: So she gets sworn in, and it begins. Prosecution. Your Honor,
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: we're going to need a monitor switched over to our
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: side if we could. Judge, okay. So they get the
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: monitor all set up, and now it's time for the questioning. Defense,
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: while we're doing that, good afternoon. Answer, good afternoon. Question,
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: tell us your name, please. Answer, hi, good afternoon. My
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: name is Amanda Baker. My last name is spelled B-A-K-K-E-R. Question,
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: and Ms. Baker, what do you do for a living? Answer,
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: I'm a forensic examiner in the DNA casework unit of
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: the FBI laboratory located in Quantico, Virginia. Question, and how
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: long have you been a DNA analyst at that location? Answer,
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: a little more than 10 years. Question, and just in general,
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: what are your duties? Answer, my duties are to manage
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: a case. When a case comes in to DNA Casework Unit,
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: I'll review any information associated with that case. I'll review
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: any evidence that's submitted for the case, determine which items
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: of evidence need to be tested, and which tests need
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: to be performed. I will then create something called an
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: exam plan. You can think of this as a to-do
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: list to let the biologist know which items I need tested.
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: Once that testing is complete, I'll review all the data,
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: draw conclusions in the form of a report, and then
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: testify if needed. Question, Ms. Baker, in this case, were
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: you requested by the state of Utah to do certain testing? Answer, yes,
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: I was. Question, and when you were called upon to
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: do that testing? Answer, that was September of 2025. Question,
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: and do you recall when the case first came into
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: your lab? Answer, I believe we received evidence the first
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: time was September 11th, 2025. And just in general, when
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: the FBI or unit receives evidence for analysis, is it
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: true that the turnaround time is about 200 days? Answer,
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: it depends. We've wavered between 90 days and over 200 days.
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: I would say on average, it's somewhere between 180 and
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: 200 days. Question, however, did this case come in on
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: what's called priority one level? Answer, yes, it did. And
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: what that means is we work 24 hours a day,
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: seven days a week until examinations were complete. Question, and
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: is it true that you were conducting the analysis as
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: the evidence was being inventoried? Answer, that is true. Because
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: of the high profile nature of the case, an item
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: of evidence would be submitted to the lab. It would
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: be inventoried by our evidence management group and then sent
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: to the various units for testing. For example, the DNA
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: casework unit. We would begin testing as additional evidence was
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: being delivered to the FBI lab. Question, now as a
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: result of your analysis, do you produce case files? Answer, yes,
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: I do. Question, and document your examination in other ways? Answer, yes. Question,
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: do you have your case file with you? Answer, yes,
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: I do. Question, okay, and in your case file, are
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: there notes of conversations that you've had with people that
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: are relevant to your testing? Answer, yes, that's called our
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: communication log. Question, now, do you have your case file
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: there in front of you? Answer, yes, I do. Question,
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: I think the pages are numbered, so I'll ask you
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: to go to page 22 of your case file notes.
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: And if you could direct your attention to the bottom
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: of the page, there is a communication log dated September 13th.
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: Do you see what I'm referring to? Answer, yes, I do. Question,
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: and would you read for the court what your entry
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: is for that date? Answer, yeah. This is my communication date,
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: excuse me, communication entry on September 13th, 2025. I spoke
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: with FBI agent Folger and Utah SBISA David Hull. gave
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: technically reviewed results that Robinson was included as a possible
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: contributor to the DNA from the towel and the screwdriver.
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: We discussed the additional examinations conducted by DCU, and they
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: both agreed that no additional immediate comparison are needed at
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: the time. All remaining comparisons will be in the laboratory report. Question,
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: is that an accurate reflection of what you told the
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: agents at the time? Answer, yes it is. Question, and
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: you told them that quote, Robinson was included as a
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: possible contributor to the DNA from the towel and the screwdriver, correct? Answer, yes. Question,
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: was that the language you used in conformity with requirements
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: that you have for reporting our test results? Answer, yes. Question,
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: all right. I'd now like to direct your attention, if
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: I could, to exhibit number, state exhibit 31, which is
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: in evidence. I think it's our tab number two, and
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: that's in evidence. So if you could display that on
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: the screen. Judge Graff and Mr. Bird, are you requesting
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: it to be displayed to just your screen or all
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: the screens? Defense. No, since it's evidence, Your Honor, I'd
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: like it displayed to the public. The judge. Okay, let's
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: go ahead and put it on the main monitor as well. Defense.
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: Could you please go to page 6 and highlight the
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: third paragraph? This is your report dated September 15th, 2025. Answer. Yes,
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: that is correct. Question. Yes. So this is two days
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: after you had the conversation with the agents as to
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: what your results were. Answer, that is correct, yes. Question,
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: and in your report, you wrote that two days later,
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: you included this language that's highlighted there, correct? Answer, that's correct. Question,
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: this report conforms to the Department of Justice uniform language
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: for testimony and reports for forensic DNA examination, correct? Answer, yes. Question, okay,
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: now I'd like you, if you could, to take a
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: look at that standard that you referenced And then I
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: believe is that, and this will be just to the witness,
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: not to the public, calling up tab number seven. Do
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: you see that on your screen? Answer, yes, I do. Question,
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: do you recognize the document? Answer, yes, I do. Question
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: and tell the court what it is. Answer, this document
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: is the approved standard for scientific testimony and reports for
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: autosomal DNA testing. Question, and is this a document that
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: you were referencing in your report? Answer, one of them, yes. Question,
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: and is it true and accurate statement of what the
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: policy of the FBI is in regard to reporting DNA
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: in a case in this type? Answer, yes. Question, I
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: move that document into evidence, Your Honor. Judge Graff, so
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: it's just this page or all the pages because it
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: says only one of six. Defense, yes. So this would
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: be the entire document. Judge, all right. Prosecution? Prosecution jumps in.
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: Your Honor, I don't see the relevance of the document.
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: I object on relevance grounds. Defense, Your Honor, the document
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: is referenced in her report, and it defines the parameters
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: of what her opinion means. So, I think it's very
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: important for the court to understand the limitations of the
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: opinions being expressed. Judge Graff, and just for my understanding,
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: when you say in her report, are you referring to
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: State Exhibit 31? Answer, that is correct. Question, all right. Prosecution,
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: any further thoughts? Answer, no. The judge, all right, so
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: state exhibit, well, I'm sorry, how am I labeling this
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: exhibit for the defense? Defense, your honor, we have our
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: exhibits organized by witnesses, and we would be submitting to
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: the court electronic copies of these under-named witnesses, so this
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: would be Baker 7. Judge Graff, all right, defense exhibit
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: Baker 7 is admitted into evidence. Judge, and as it
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: relates to a publication, what's your request? Answer, your honor.
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: I would ask that this be published since the report
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: is published. And this is important to understanding the limitations
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: of the report. Judge Graff and so published in the
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: courtroom and on the monitor for the meeting. Answer. Yes. Judge. Okay.
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: Then he turns to the prosecution. Any thoughts on that? Prosecution.
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: No objection. Judge. All right. It'll be admitted and published
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: both in the courtroom and on the monitor for the
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: video camera. Question. Okay. So this document has various subjects, correct? Answer.
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: That is correct. Question, and in the beginning, tells you
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: how to frame your testimony in terms of inclusions or exclusions, mixtures,
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: sex determination, etc. Answer, correct, yes. Question, and then there's
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: a section called statements not approved for FBI autosomal DNA
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: testimony in our laboratory reports. Answer, that is correct, yes. Question, okay,
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: so if we go to page five for that statement,
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: under the topic absolute identification, is it the policy of
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: the FBI when you're reporting out results that an examiner
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: may not state or imply that a match provides an
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: absolute identification of the individual from the biological material originated? Answer,
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: that is correct. Question, and were you following that policy
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: in this case when you told investigators that this was
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: a possible match, correct? Answer, that is correct, yes. Question,
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: you never said it was an absolute identification of Mr. Robinson,
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: did you? Answer, correct, no, I did not. Question, Now,
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: the second guidance under that policy is that an examiner
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: shall not use the expression reasonable degree of scientific certainty,
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: reasonable scientific certainty, or similar assertions of reasonable certainty in
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: either reports or testimony, unless required to do so by
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: a judge or applicable law. If you're not in your report,
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: did you use any of the language that suggests you
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: were giving an opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty? Answer,
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: that is correct, I was not. Question, okay. And then
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: the next one, Not that one, but one down. I'm
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: not going to talk about race, ethnicity. That doesn't apply
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: to this case, right? But 5.4 says, an examiner may
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: not state or imply that forensic autosomal DNA examination have
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: a zero error rate or are infallible. Answer, that is correct. Question,
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: and you followed that policy in this case, correct? Answer, yes,
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: I did. Question, you're not in your report stating that
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: the court that you're testing has a zero error rate, correct? Answer, correct. Question,
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: and you're not stating that the state is infallible. Answer,
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: I am not, no. Question, what is the source of
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: your error rates in DNA testing? Answer, can you clarify
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: your question? Question, yeah, when it refers to don't state
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: that there is zero error rate, what in general are
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: the sources of error in that kind of DNA testing
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: that you do? Answer, human error can be the error. Question,
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: anything else? Answer, not that I can think of off
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: the top of my head. One of the biggest things
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: is potential human error. I guess you could associate the
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: DNA testing itself and how items are collected or how
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: those items are tested. Question. Now, to your knowledge, that
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: policy statement that we just read in Exhibit 7, Baker 7,
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: was based on a more general Department of Justice policy, correct? Answer. Correct. Yes. Question.
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: And that policy is called Department of Justice. Uniform language
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: for testimony and reports for forensic autosomal DNA examination is
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: using probabilistic genotyping systems, correct? Answer, that is correct, yes. Question,
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: and could you please display eight for us, please, to
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: the witness? Question, and you're familiar with that policy, yes? Answer, yes,
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: I am. Question, and does it contain a statement that
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: support for inclusion is an examiner's conclusion that there is
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: evidentiary support for inclusion of a known individual as a
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: possible contributor to the DNA typing result obtained from an
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: evidentiary sample? Answer, I believe it does, yes. Question, and
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: did you follow that procedure in this case? Answer, yes,
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: I did. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: right here. And in the next episode, we're going to
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: pick up with the defense continuing to ask questions of Ms. Baker.
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: All the information that goes with this episode can be
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: found in the description box.