Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 2 Part 15) (9/28/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 2 Part 15) (9/28/26) · 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 the Tyler Robinson Day 2 transcript from the
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: prelim hearing. Picking back up with the defense. Question, sure.
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: Did the NIST report conclude that it remains unclear if
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: visual inspection renders consistent number of contributor estimations across analysts
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: over time? Answer, can you repeat that? Answer, yeah. Did
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: the NIST report that you referenced conclude that it remains
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: unclear if visual inspection renders consistent number of contributor estimations
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: across analysts over time? Answer, I think that goes to
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: DNA evidence. Again, we never truly know the number of
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: contributors in a forensic sample. Like I mentioned before, you
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: could have DNA mixtures that are made up of two, three,
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: four individuals. I have training. I have experience. I followed
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: standard operating procedure. So I'm making the best determination based
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: on the DNA evidence that I have as far as
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: the number of contributors go. Question, now, if I could,
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: I'd like to return to your case notes. And could
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: you display for the witness page 365 of tab number 4?
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: And while he's doing that, by the way, it's true
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: that if you change the number of contributors, you're going
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: to get a different number from the software program? Answer,
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: it depends. So actually, each time you run the software,
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: you'll get a different number based on the math that
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: the software system does. But there are studies and validations
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: that show we don't expect the math to be greatly different,
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: usually by a factor of 10. Changing the number of contributors?
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: It depends. If you have a major contributor, someone who's
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: made up most of the DNA profile, if I originally
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: interpret something as 3, calculated statistic, if that major contributor
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: is the individual that I'm comparing to, if I change
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: the number of contributors to 2, Based on the study
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: and based on my own experience, it doesn't change the
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: likelihood ratio of the major contributor by much. Question, but
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: it does change it, correct? Answer, yes. Question, and you
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: just said, I think that even when you put in
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: the same parameters, you don't get the same answer if
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: you run it through STRMix more than once, right? Answer,
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: that is correct. Based on how STRMix utilizes math and distributions,
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: you will never get the same answer twice. But, it
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: will be no more than a magnitude of 10. Question,
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: that test is not reproducible in the sense that you
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: can run a sample of your assumption in there 10 times.
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: You could get 10 different answers. Answer, that is true.
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: The first time I run STR mix, I'm not going
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: to get a likelihood ratio of 10. And the second time,
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: get 10 quadrillion. I might get 10 quadrillion the first time,
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: 2 quadrillion the second time. But even if I run
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: it 10 times, I'm going to get around the same
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: likelihood ratio value. Question, could you look at tab number four,
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: your case notes at page 365, if you could bring
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: that up for the witness? Let me know when you
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: have that in front of you. I think you need
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: to scroll up one page. There we go. Can you
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: identify this page from your notes? Answer, yes, I can.
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: These were my notes that my technical reviewer made. My
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: technical reviewer, they will review all of my DNA evidence.
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: They will draw their own conclusions as far as number
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: of contributors, and comparisons, then compare it back to my conclusions. Question,
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: this is regarding the seven sample, correct? Answer, that is correct.
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: That is one of the samples. Question, and your original
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: assessment was that there were three contributors to the sample, right? Answer,
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: that is correct, yes. Question, and that conclusion was reviewed
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: by a reviewer, correct? Answer, correct, yes. Question, she read
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: the same electropherograms, or the name for the output of
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: the technology you used, correct? Answer, she utilized the same electropherogram,
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: which is the chart that the DNA is on. Question,
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: this page in front of you, is that an accurate
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: representation of your case file? Answer, yes it is. Question, alright,
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: moving to evidence page 365. And that would be Baker 4.
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: Prosecution jumps in. I'll object on relevance grounds. The judge, alright,
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: do you want to respond defense? Answer, your honor, it's
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: relevant because the witness originally determined... that there were three contributors,
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: and I'd like her to explain to the court how
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: she reached that conclusion, because I think it does go
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: to the reliability of her testing here. Judge Graff, all right,
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: so as it relates to Baker 4, and this is
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: her personal notes from Ms. Baker as it relates to
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: what I'm assuming is State Exhibit 31, that these notes
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: were prepared as part of the report. In State Exhibit 31,
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: I'll find that it's relevant and that it's admitted into evidence.
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: In regards to publication, what's the request? Prosecution, Your Honor,
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: if I may clarify, I think the testimony was that
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: this was not her notes, that these were notes of
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: her technical reviewer, is what I heard. Judge Graff, please
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: correct me if I misheard that from both sides. I
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: want to make sure that these are Ms. Baker's notes. Question, Ms. Baker,
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: these are notes in your case file, correct? Answer, these
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: are notes in my case file, but they're not my notes. Question,
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: and the way your lab works... You're not the only
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: one who does all the different steps in the testing process, correct? Answer,
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: that is correct. Question, other analysts have input. And then
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: it all goes into the case file, which you have
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: access to and rely upon in rendering your opinions. Answer,
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: that is correct, yes. Question, and this particular page is
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: a note written by your peer reviewer that you relied upon. Answer, correct.
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: After I made my interpretation and drew conclusions, my technical
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: reviewer then reviews the data and draws their own conclusions.
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: So this was created after I had already drew my
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: own conclusions. Judge Graff, all right, I'm trying to put
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: it together here. So my question is trying to get to, counsel,
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: is was this particular, I recognize it as being prepared
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: by someone else, but as it relates to state exhibit 31,
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: was this relied upon in order for state exhibit 31
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: to be put together as a report? Because I'm trying
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: to determine relevancy as it relates to that. And that's
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: a crucial point I don't have the answer to just yet. Defense, okay.
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: Let me lay a more adequate foundation. The case file
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: notes are assessed by you at every step of the analysis, correct? Answer,
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: not necessarily at every step. Before I issue a report,
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: before I write a report, I review all the case notes.
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: So that'll be my communication, log entries, any documentation from
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: the laboratory, the biologists that perform the DNA testing. I'll
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: review all of that. write a report, and give that
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: to the technical reviewer. They will draw their own conclusions
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: to determine if they agree with me. If they do,
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: they'll sign off. And then my report, my case file,
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: will go for administrative review to make sure that the
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: laboratory number is correct on all the pages. That if
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: there's any crossouts, there's dates and initials and so forth.
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: Those two reviews have to be done before I can
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: actually make it a final report and case file that
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: gets submitted and sent to the field. Question, and in
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: this case, correct me if I'm wrong, but the sequence
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: you originally determined in 7 sample, 7, that there were
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: 3 contributors, that conclusion got reviewed. Then you ran some
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: further testing, and then you change your conclusion, correct? Answer,
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: that is correct, yes. Question, and before you change your conclusion,
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: you of course go back and look at what the
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: reviewer said about her review. Answer, we would have discussions.
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: If I say a number of contributors was 3... Here
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: she notated that it was two. We had that discussion.
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: She agreed with three. So for that step of the process,
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: because again, we're piecemealing this. Typically in a normal case,
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: we will work all of the evidence. I'll write a report.
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: And for this situation, I had DNA evidence coming to
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: me throughout the day, throughout the night. So I had
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: reviewers at different steps, which is not unusual for a case.
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: Usually I have one reviewer. So in this case, at
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: that particular time, I had a reviewer. And then when
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: I was submitted additional known samples and use those for comparison,
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: then I did have additional conclusions and additional reviewers. Question,
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: but you certainly took into account this notation on this
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: page before you change your conclusion, correct? Answer, I don't
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: know that I would agree that I took it into account.
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: We had already had that conversation. And again, once I
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: received additional known samples and additional information from the field,
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: I then did amend my conclusion. Question, and these notes
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: are kept in the ordinary course of your business? Answer, yes. Question,
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: and they're a part of the case file that you
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: rely upon in reaching your conclusions? Answer, they are kept
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: with the case file after I draw my conclusions. Question,
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: so your honor, I think there's foundation for this. The
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: state has offered all kinds of hearsay here, and certainly
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: there's no question about the reliability of the entries. Judge Graff,
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: all right, anything further from the parties before I weigh in? Well,
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: make my ruling on Baker 4. Prosecution, no. Defense, no.
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, the court finds that it's relevant, and as
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: it relates to State Exhibit 31 and Baker 4, is
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: admitted into evidence in regards to publication. Prosecution, or defense,
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: excuse me, what's your request? Defense, that it be published.
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: The judge, all right, in the courtroom. Defense, in both
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: courtroom and to the cameras. Judge Graff, prosecution, any objection? Prosecution, no.
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, go ahead and publish that to all the
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: screens and it may be captured by the media. Question,
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: so these notations at the top there are 71 male
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: discussed 3 NOC and okay with 3. Could you translate
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: that for us? What does that mean? Question, sure. So
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: when my technical reviewer took a look at DNA evidence,
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: she determined that 2 male DNA were present and she
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: concluded that that she would have called it a number
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: of contributor of two. She compared it to my conclusions.
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: I said number of contributor of three. So we had
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: the discussion as to why she thought it was two,
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: why I thought it was three. And she said she
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: agreed with me calling it three based on her discussion. Question, okay,
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: so that was an extended discussion you had with her? Answer, no,
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: it was just a quick discussion. And this is not unusual.
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: We have discussions like this during the technical process quite often.
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: Question and the stamp on the bottom. Approved by Tara Benson.
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: Is that the reviewer? Answer, yes, it is. Question, all right,
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: thank you. Now, I want to ask you to look
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: at page 128 of that same exhibit. Is this an
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: electropherogram that is part of your case file? Answer, yes,
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: it is. Question, and is this an accurate representation of
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: what's depicted on the page? Answer, I'm sorry, there's nothing
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: on the screen. So they get it back up. Is
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: this the picture that we're talking about, an accurate representation? Ms. Baker,
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: yes it is. Defense, I move that into evidence, Your Honor.
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: This would be Baker 4, page 128. Judge Graff, oh,
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: I thought I already admitted Baker 4. Is this different?
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: The previous one was Baker 4, as I understood it. Defense, yeah,
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: Baker 4, page 365. And so this is Baker 4, 128.
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, right, so the previous admitted exhibit is Baker 4, 365.
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: The current proposed one is Baker 4, 128. Answer, that's correct.
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, prosecution. If I can have just a minute
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: to update my notes on those pages. Judge Graff, all right,
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: 365 was the previous one, unless I heard it wrong.
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: All right, and the current one is 128. Prosecution. First,
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: I'll note that this is the first I'm seeing these exhibits.
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: Of course, I have this file. but I was unaware
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: that these were going to be offered as exhibits, so
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: I'm looking to find them in my file as we go. Second, again,
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: I'm going to object on the relevance grounds to the
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: probable cause determination. We're going through the finite details of
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: the analysis here, and once again, I think these are
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: appropriate questions to raise in a 702 hearing. But with
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: the same standard that applies at the prelim hearing that
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: I've already discussed, I think we're beyond the scope of
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: probable cause determination as we dive into the evidence. Defense,
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: Your Honor, I think this exhibit is particularly important because
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: the court does not yet have it in front of it,
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: what an electropharogram is and how it's interpreted. And this
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: particular page will illustrate to the court how the analyst
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: interpreted the peaks of this electropharogram to reach the conclusions
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: that she reached and that there were three and not
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: two contributors. And I think it'll assist the court in
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: determining exactly how this comparison process works. and what the
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: output looks like, so the court can see exactly how
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: the interpretations are being made. Judge Graff, and is this
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: the dose that we're relied upon? So I'm viewing State
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: Exhibit 31 as a summary, and this more of showing
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: the work of how the summary was reached. Am I
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: misunderstanding how this fits in? Defense, this fits into how
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: the analyst originally was of the opinion that there were
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: three people here, not two. and she'll go on to
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: explain how she changed the interpretation from 3 to 2.
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: And the point of this is to illustrate to the
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: court that this is a subjective process to a certain extent,
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: and that people can read these things different ways. And
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: so I think it will help the court understand exactly
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: what's being compared here. You've got Peeks on the line,
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: she'll say, and just let the court know in response
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: to Mr. McBride's statement that he was unaware that this
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: is going to be an issue. He and I met
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: with this analyst before the prelim hearing. The analyst pointed
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: this page out to us as to why she originally
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: concluded that there were three contributors. So this is not
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: something that's being sprung on the state. He was part
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: of the conversation. And this particular page was identified by
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: the analyst, not by me. So it's important to understand
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: why we went from three to two and what the
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: impact on those numbers the state's offering. Judge Graff, all right,
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: anything further? Nothing from the prosecution. Judge Graff, all right,
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: under Utah rule of evidence, 1102B4, it says Scientific Laboratory
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: of Forensic Reports and Records, I find that this is admissible,
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: and it's admitted into evidence as Baker 4, page 128.
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: And is there a request to publish the document? Defense, okay. Judge,
• 15:01
  Speaker 1: was that a yes? Defense, yes. Judge, all right, so published,
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: I'm assuming, to all the screens. Defense, yes, correct. Judge Graff,
• 15:09
  Speaker 1: all right, it may be published. Counsel, just as a reminder,
• 15:13
  Speaker 1: as this is probable cause, I understand and I appreciate
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: you giving me a pointer of where it's going. But
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: just as a reminder, as probable cause, it's admitted and
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: you may discuss it. But I definitely want to keep
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: this within the track of probable cause. All right, folks,
• 15:27
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up right here. And in the
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: up where we left off. All the information that goes
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.