Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcript (Day 5 Part 3) (10/23/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcript (Day 5 Part 3) (10/23/26) · 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 pick up where we left
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: off with day number five of the Tyler Robinson prelim transcript.
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: And we're picking up with the prosecution. Judge, we would
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: like the benefit of the record before we start talking,
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: taking evidence today. Judge Graff, all right, and allow all
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: parties given the ruling of the court briefly. prosecution, and
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: I'll be brief, Judge, and this is in relation to
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: the continued taking of evidence today. And I'll start my statement, Judge,
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: with something that was very insightful that you said the
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: other day. You mentioned, and I quote, sometimes you need
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: to take time to save time. And so that's my
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: purpose for standing up here this morning. We've spent the
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: better part of a day, a little over five hours,
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: I believe, hearing from witnesses that the defense is called
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: at this prelim hearing. and no doubt the defense is
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: entitled to call witnesses at a prelim hearing, as allowed
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: by the rules, but I think it's important that the
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: court remind all parties about the purpose of this hearing.
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: This is a probable cause hearing. As Your Honor has
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: repeatedly stated, the defense has invoked the term reliability many times,
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: and the court frankly has found the evidence that's been admitted,
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: the testimony, as a gatekeeper, and it's been presented. The
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: exhibits have been found reliable, so any evidence question of
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: additional reliability are really questions of credibility of the witness
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: and weighing of the evidence. And that is not really
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: what this court engages in at the probable cause standard,
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: and so this is all couched in the context of
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: a likely forthcoming standing objection that the state may lodge.
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: If the testimony is long and drawn out and exceeds
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: the scope of the prelim hearing, gets into areas of
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: 702 hearing, possibly even trial, we will lodge this objection
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: and but I wanted to just simply state the authority, Judge,
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: behind our objection if we do make that. As your
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: court is well aware, the magistrate, at this stage of
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: the case, must view the evidence in the light most
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: favorable to the prosecution, and that's cited in a number
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: of Utah cases to include State v. Schmidt. Schmidt continues,
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: this means that when reasonable inferences from the evidence cut
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: both for and against the state's case, the magistrate lacks
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: the discretion to choose between them and must leave such
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: determination to the fact finder at trial. A few other
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: cases I would like to refer the court to. State v. Pledger,
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: which is a Utah 1995 Supreme Court case. Speaking of
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: this standard, the court says, the standard bars the magistrate
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: from requiring the prosecution to address or even eliminate alternative
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: inferences that could be drawn from the evidence in favor
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: of the defense. So even assuming the defense scores points today,
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: In calling these witnesses, again, the court cannot really weigh
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: those in favor of the defense. State v. Hester, which
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: is the Utah Court of Appeals case, 2000, where there
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: is conflicting evidence, quote, the magistrate may not sift or
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: weigh the evidence, but must leave those tasks to the
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: fact finder of trial. Of course, we're not at trial yet.
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: State vs. Virgin, a Utah 2006 Supreme Court case indicates
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: that a magistrate may only disregard at a prelim hearing
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: if it's, quote, so contradictory, inconsistent, or unbelievable that it's
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: unreasonable to base belief of an element of the prosecution's
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: claim on that evidence. There's a State vs. Drozbecki case,
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: which is a Utah Court of Appeals case, 2010. Magistrates
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: may only disregard or discredit evidence that is wholly lacking
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: in and incapable of creating a reasonable inference regarding a
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: portion of the prosecution's claim, but must leave all the
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: wane of credible but conflicting evidence to the trier of fact.
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: And finally, State v. Lopez, a Utah 2020 Supreme Court case.
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: Speaking of this probable cause standard, at a prelim hearing,
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: the court said, under this low bar, it may be
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: difficult for defense to overcome a prima facie showing of
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: probable cause. Even an alleged victim's recantation may sometimes be insufficient,
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: given that the magistrate must view all the evidence in
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: light most favorable to the prosecution, and draw all reasonable
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: inferences in favor of the prosecution. Judge, Your Honor, has
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: heard four days of testimony now. The evidence is overwhelming.
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: It's devastating. And the question needs to be asked the
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: purpose of continuing with testimony if it's long and drawn out.
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: Of course, the defense has the right to call witnesses,
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: but it needs to be within the context of of
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: this prelim hearing. So again, we may be lodging a
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: standing objection of relevance exceeding the scope of the hearing.
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: That's my record. Judge Graff, thank you. Do either party,
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: other parties wish to be heard as it relates to
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: the prosecution statement to the defense? The defense? I'm not
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: sure what's being requested by the prosecution. As I indicated
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: to the court during the testimony of the last witness,
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: we had discussions with the state prior to the start.
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: We had a scheduled date for the court to rule
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: on objections, and the purpose of that hearing was so
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: that we wouldn't have to fly witnesses out from the
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: East Coast if there was going to be a standing objection.
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: Prior to the hearing taking place, the state contacted us
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: after they had participated in interviews with Ms. Oliver and
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: other experts and indicated to us and we indicated to
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: the court that there was going to be no standing
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: objection to the testimony of these witnesses. So if he's
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: lodging a standing objection now, I think he's waived it
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: or he should have stopped from asserting it given the circumstances.
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: I didn't hear that, that he was asserting that. And
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: I intend to keep the next witness focused on the
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: issue that I think is relevant, which is the state
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: presented DNA reports through a non-expert. They selectively read into
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: the record a portion of those reports which left an
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: extremely misleading impression of the significance of that evidence. So
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: I have the author of the report here, and I'm
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: going to hopefully educate the court on what the limitations
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: are of the report, and that's it. I hope to
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: be done with the witness by noon, direct and cross,
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: and that'll be the end of it. Judge Graff, all right,
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: thank you. And before I have you call the witness,
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: I just want to make sure that the media, well,
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: I'm not sure the media needs to be heard. Judge,
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: all right, thank you. All right, defense, you may call
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: your next witness. Defense, thank you. We call Ms. Oliver.
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, Miss Oliver, if you'd like to come forward
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: and be sworn in. Do you solemnly swear that the
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: testimony you shall give in the case now pending before
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: the court will be the truth, the whole truth, and
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: nothing but the truth, so help you God? She agrees.
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: Questioning begins. Defense, thank you. Could you tell us your name? Answer,
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: Caitlin Oliver, O-L-I-V-E-R. Question, and Ms. Oliver, could you bring
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: the mic a little closer? I want to make sure
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: your voice is projected. Thank you. What do you do
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: for a living? Answer, I work at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: and Explosives as a DNA section chief. Question, and how
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: long have you held that position? Answer, I've been a
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: section chief since January, and I've worked with the ATF
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: for about nine years. Prior to that, I was a
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: forensic biologist. Question, And where were you a forensic biologist
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: before you started working for the ATF? Answer. Prior to
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: the ATF, I worked for Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office in
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: New Orleans, Louisiana, as a DNA analyst and a DNA
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: quality manager. Question. Back in September of 2025, what were
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: your duties and responsibilities? Answer. I was a forensic biologist. Question.
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: And do you recall that around September 11th, you received
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: a request to do some DNA work at the request
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: of the state of Utah? Answer, yeah. Question, can we
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: display State Exhibit 30, which is in evidence? For instance,
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: the next sample down, 1.2, where the state read paragraph D,
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: admitted paragraph F, you state in F, based on this calculation,
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: there is evidentiary support for the inclusion of Tyler Robinson, correct?
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: As a possible contributor. Answer, correct. Question, but to that,
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: the judge jumps in. Defense, I want to interrupt. I
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: was made aware of a question about the media as
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: it reflects this order. So the question was whether audio
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: could be transmitted, and my ruling covered the video display
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: of any exhibit. And so I just want to make
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: sure that the understanding of all parties, that the audio
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: of your portion discussing evidence, that you understand that that's
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: going to be captured by the camera and displayed, but
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: not any exhibits displayed. Is that your understanding? Defense, that
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: is my understanding of the court's ruling. Prosecution, yes. Judge
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: Graff into the media. Media, yes, your honor. There might
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: be concern about actual monitors, the council table, and the podium. Judge. Well,
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: that's why I give my notation at the beginning of
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: the morning that the parties are responsible to monitor their monitors.
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: And that's there because they're entitled to view it. But
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: they're responsible to ensure that the monitors, as the camera's
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: picking up the courtroom, it's directed not to focus on
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: the monitors. But inevitable capture may occur. And that's why
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: that instruction is given. Now we have somebody popping up
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: on behalf of the victim. Your Honor, Jeff Dyer, on
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: behalf of the victim, representing. We cannot see the court
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: from where we are sitting, so I don't know if
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: there's a way for us to view the monitor. Judge Graff,
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: I don't understand what you're saying. Dyer, it's not being
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: published on the monitor to the courts, right? Judge Graff, right,
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: the order of the court based as the sanctions is
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: no exhibits will be displayed. in the courtroom entirely? Judge Graff,
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: as it stands right now, yes, that's correct. He goes again,
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: but the judge has had enough, and now he asks
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: him to approach the lectern. Dyer, Your Honor, it's just
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: hard for the victim's family to be able to follow
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: the evidence if everyone but the victim's family is able
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: to view the exhibits here in court. Judge Graff, thank you.
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: I appreciate your concern. This monitor is not on either.
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: So it's only the attorneys. The attorneys have a right
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: to view that exhibit that are being displayed to make
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: their motions, objections, and to see it. It's the court's
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: discretion on what's displayed in the courtroom for publication, and
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: the court issued a sanction given the events of yesterday,
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: and that's the court's ruling. Dyer, Your Honor, I just
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: ask the court to consider the victim has the right
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: to be present, obviously, as a hearing in presence without
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: being able to see exhibits again, it's our position, is
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: not meaningful. Judge Graff, thank you. I appreciate your concerns.
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: All right, let's wrap up right here. And in the
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: next episode, we're going to pick back up with the
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: defense questioning Caitlin Oliver. All the information that goes with
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box.