Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 3 Part 7) (10/7/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 3 Part 7) (10/7/26) · 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 Tyler Robinson day number three transcript from the prelim hearing.
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, I'll write to the media. Media, your honor,
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: I know how much time the court's already dedicated to
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: considering this, and I appreciate the additional time being afforded
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: to the media. There's just one additional thing that, well,
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: two additional things that I wanted to mention to the court.
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: I do want to reiterate the point that I made
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: before about the fact that if this is in fact
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: a key consideration that the court is entering into when
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: trying to make the determination that it's going to make
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: at the conclusion of the hearing, Utah case law including
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: Archuleta case, that the defense is referred to over and
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: over again stresses that the same consideration that urged for
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: access to a prelim hearing itself, allowing the proceedings to
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: be televised, allowing people to be in the courtroom, also
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: advocate for access to documents on which the court bases
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: its rulings. Disclosing documents used, this is from Archuleta page
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: 238 to 239. Disclosing documents used by courts in reaching
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: a decision in a prelim hearing will discourage decisions based
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: on the improper means and will promote conscientious performance by
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: all officials involved in the criminal justice system. Therefore, providing
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: a presumptive right to access to documents filed in connection
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: with the prelim hearing can play a significant positive role
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: in the function of that process. Do want to reiterate
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: the belief that the providing access to the documents on
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: which the court bases its decisions in this proceeding is critical.
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: The second thing I want to do is mention, because
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: the court referred to it before, is the fact that
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: without going into the content of the interview itself, I
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: believe that I understand from the arguments being made today
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: that many of these references are to text messages. Again,
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: the public doesn't have access to that, but I do
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: believe that the documents filed in the case, including the
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: information that was filed 10 days after this, contain many,
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: if not all, the text messages that are now at
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: issue that are going to be kept from the public
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: in the proceeding. I know that the court in previous
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: occasions has said if this information is in the public already,
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: it shouldn't be in the business of trying to now
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: keep that from the public for two reasons. One, it's
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: already out there. Second, it suggests to the public that
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: something else lurks in there. Something else is being kept
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: from them that isn't. And so not only does it
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: run counter to the idea of transparency generally, but it
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: seems to suggest that there is something embedded in there
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: that the public doesn't already have access to when the
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: court denies access to material in a proceeding like this
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: that are already public. And so again, recognizing how much
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: time the court's already invested in this, I believe it's
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: wise and I believe it would help avoid potentially making
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: a mistake that the court later on then thought, oh,
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: I wish someone had brought this to my attention to
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: check whether or not any of the material that are
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: now under consideration to be withheld from the public are
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: actually already in the public domain because they are a
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: part of the information and probable cause statements that were
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: filed at the outset of the case. That's all I have,
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: Your Honor. Judge Graff, thank you, and all right, counsel,
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: if you would like to state your name. Your Honor,
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey Neiman, on behalf of the Kirk family. I've been
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: very hesitant to speak up at these proceedings. We understand
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: it's the state, the defense, and the judge. You're all
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: doing your job, but I feel as if we need to.
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: I want to be clear as to what the Kirk
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: family position is on all of this. The Kirk family
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: believes strongly that if the evidence is being admitted in
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: this prelim hearing, it should be made public for the
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: world to see. No redactions. This court has tools at
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: its disposal to make sure that the defendant receives a
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: fair trial. You'll use them if you find that you
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: need to. That's it, Your Honor. To not be transparent here,
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: to not be open, to not let the world see
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: what happened, will create doubt and distrust in the judicial system.
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: And that's not what anybody wants. That's not what any
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: of us believe should happen here. And we'd ask the
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: court to consider the position of the family in making
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: its ultimate decision. Judge Graff, thank you. Anything further before
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: I issue my final ruling to clarify what's been stated?
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: Just so it's clear to all parties. Defense, yeah. We
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: just wanted to say that we totally respect Ms. Kirk's
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: position in the situation. As well stated by her counsel,
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: media counsel's suggestion that because the state, in our view,
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: improperly disclosed what the state is going to call a
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: confession in charging documents does not mean that this court
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: can just let it go. This has been the most
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: transparent criminal proceeding I've ever been involved in, and I'm
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: sure it will continue to be transparent. But there are
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: some things which the Supreme Court has said the public
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: has to wait for the jury trial in order to
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: hear evidence, because the number one preeminent question is how
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: do we protect Mr. Robinson's right to a fair trial?
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: And with all due respect to the Kirk family, and
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: with all due respect to the media, and with all
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: due respect to the public, the number one concern in
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: this proceeding is Mr. Robinson's right to a fair trial,
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: which means a jury which has not been exposed before
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: It's in this courtroom, under this court supervision, with the
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: court's guidance to pretrial information of this nature. Judge Graff,
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: all right. I do have a follow-up question for you, Mr. Novak,
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: and returning to the Estes case. It's an important point.
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: I want to make sure I fully understand it before
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: I issue my final ruling. My understanding in Estes cited
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: to a dissenting opinion in Riddow, yes. Judge Graff, that
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: constructed the rule that publicizing a confession runs afoul at
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: the 14th Amendment, but that didn't appear to be the holding.
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: The opinion talked about coerced confessions being put out to
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: the public. Could you cite the portion that supports Estes? Defense,
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: the portion that the court's looking at is exactly what
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: I would read to the court. It says we constructed
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: a rule. Now, I understand there is a parenthesis there
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: where it refers to a dissenting opinion on Riddell, because
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: I think that was a case where there were multiple opinions.
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: And I think that we all understand how complicated it
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: is to figure out what comes out of a Supreme
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: Court opinion when there are multiple concurring and dissenting opinions.
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: But what the court says in Estes is that televising,
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: I'm going to paraphrase a little bit, televising what the
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: prosecution calls a confession de facto violates a defendant's 14th
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: Amendment right to due process. Without a prejudice analysis, without
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: even looking at what happened in the trial vis-a-vis the
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: earlier televised analysis. So yes, we could go down a
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: what a lawyer's like to do. We could go down
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: the rabbit hole of what were all of the different
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: opinions in Riddell and why is Estes citing to a
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: dissenting justice? But what Estes said is we constructed a rule.
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: It's not a reference to a dissenting opinion. And I
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: think that the Supreme Court says we have a rule.
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: We should just take it at face value that that's
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: what the rule is. I understand that it's in parentheses,
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: that it's a little confusing. But what the Supreme Court
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: is saying in Estes is we have a rule. And
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: if I may have one moment, the Estes opinion was
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: written by Justice Clark. There was a concurrence by Chief
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: Justice Warren, Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Goldberg, and then
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: there were dissents by Justice Stewart, Black, Brennan, and White.
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: So we could spend some time deconstructing that, but it's
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: a 5-4 opinion of the United States Supreme Court saying
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: what the rule they adopted in Riddow versus Louisiana. It's
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: a 5-4 opinion. And I would have to sit down
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: with the cases, just like your honor probably is wishing
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: he's had time to do right now. The court had
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: time to do right now, but it's a 5-4 opinion
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: of the United States Supreme Court saying what the holding
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: in Riddow is. Judge Graff, thank you. All right. I
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: appreciate that guidance. So to take into consideration all the
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: factors and previous edits starting at, I believe I said
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: at six minutes and 56 seconds going to 20 minutes
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: and 27 seconds. Does that comport with what I previously said?
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: A defense, yes. Question, all right. And then the other
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: edit is from 3255 until 3548. Does that comport with
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: what I previously said? Answer, yes. Question, all right. And
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: then from 3548 to the remainder 37 can be included.
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: So there is that gap, but that can be included.
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: And part of the reason in responding to the media
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: and its important point to the representative, the victim representative,
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: Erica Kirk, is I recognize the importance of transparency. I
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: also recognize the importance of balancing constitutional rights, and it's
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: a fine line. One of the reasons why these edits
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: included under my analysis under 403, going to the last part,
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: needlessly presenting cumulative evidence, and based off the representation of
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: the state, that the text messages may be introduced, the
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: court is ruling that this may be revisited in case
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: that doesn't happen. But to throw back the curtain, much
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: of this is the text messages to be clear. And again,
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: all of this is going to be considered by the
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: court on balancing all the competing rules, the constitutional rights,
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: as well as transparency. And sometimes it's an imperfect balancing act.
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: But I'm trying to act in the interest of justice
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: in making this balancing act and for the transparency to
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: actually be transparent. And so that is the ruling of
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: the court as it relates to State Exhibit 16. Turning
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: to the state, do you wish to make the edits
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: as identified by the court and play it tomorrow to
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: publish it? Or do you want to go a different route?
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: Answer by the prosecution, I think just to make sure
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: that we are completely in line with the court's ruling,
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: I think we would like to take the evening just
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: to make sure the edits are all correct and start
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: out tomorrow by playing it. Judge Graff, and if you
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: wouldn't mind, when you have a final copy, if you
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: could send it to defense to review it, inform just
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: to make sure it comports with the timestamps that the
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: court's identified. And I know this has been a long conversation,
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: but I just want to make sure everyone understands, okay?
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: This is what the court said. And we're all on
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: the same page that what is being presented reflects that.
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: So doubting the state, simply allowing everyone to review it
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: before it's introduced into court. Prosecution, absolutely, we'll do that.
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, all right, on this issue, anything further? Defense
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: to this exhibit, no. Judge Graff, all right, well, Ms. Hunt,
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: let us move forward. Being that you indicated that you're
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: going to prepare this for tomorrow, how would you like
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: to proceed for the remainder of our time together? Prosecution,
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: if we can just have a moment. Judge Graff, of course.
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: And I know the state's engaged, but if someone could
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: send a copy of that to the court after it's
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: been reviewed by counsel so the court can review it
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: to double check that it comports with what I said
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: to make sure that it reflects what I was intending
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: to reflect. That way we can save ourselves some time.
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: Thank you. Prosecution, Judge, the state's position is that we
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: close for today, come back once the edits have been made,
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: and we just start tomorrow, and then we proceed from there.
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, all right. Any opposition from the defense? Defense? No,
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: Your Honor. I just want to point out that there
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: is one additional exhibit which we think the state will
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: offer through Ms. Davis. Agent Davis, I'm sorry. As to
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: which we propose redactions. It's five screenshots of Mr. Twigg's phone.
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: It's not a 25-page transcript. I'm not suggesting that we
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: should argue about that now, but I'm just making the
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: court aware of that. It's a much simpler exercise. It's
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: not merely as complicated. I think that's only the one
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: where we proposed other redactions. But the publication questions the
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: remains as to all of the asserted statements by Mr. Robinson.
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: So it's according to Mr. Twiggs, according to text messages,
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: according to Discord, and the note. All of that's part
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: of the SD issue. I just want the court to
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: be aware of that. And I understand it's hard because
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: the court doesn't have all the exhibits in front of it.
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: But I just want the court to understand. I think
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: that all of the arguments that we've had with respect
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: to the transcript lays the foundation for the legal issues.
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: But it's going to come up with respect to those
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: exhibits as well. And the comments the court made about 403,
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: I understand it with respect to relevance and admissibility. But
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: I'm not sure how 403 applies to the televising of
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: statements that the prosecution will call confessions. Judge Graff, It
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: was a different problem that I was addressing. Defense, okay, good.
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, the duplicative part or accumulative part as it
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: relates to the text messages, and that's why I reserve
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: that if it doesn't come in. And then it can
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: be revisited to the redaction that's made public. Defense for
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: evidentiary purposes as opposed to the publication purposes, Judge Graff, right. Defense, understood.
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: But if the court wants recess, we have no problem
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: with that. Judge Graff, and just going to your point,
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: and again trying to maximize our efficiency given your arguments,
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: which you articulated well, would you mind perhaps preparing a
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: memorandum or a short brief that can help us move forward?
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: Because I want to look at it in detail, what
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: you're citing to. It's difficult on the fly to jump
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: into Estes and get a portion, and I want to
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: give your argument full consideration. And as a suggestion, if
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: you can, I know you're extremely busy, but it may
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: be helpful if you choose to. If you choose not to,
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: I will certainly allow the time for the argument. I
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: just want to make sure I'm fully up to speed.
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: as opposed to trying to shoot from the hip there. Defense,
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: when the court says I'd like to know which exhibit
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: and what the legal issues are ahead of time so
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: that at 9 o'clock the court has already had an
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: opportunity to understand what's coming, we're happy to do that,
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: and I'll try to get something to the court by
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: 8 a.m. Thank you, Mr. Novak, and if you wouldn't
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: mind obviously sending a copy to the state as well.
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: All right, folks, and with that, day number three comes
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: to a close. In the next episode dealing with the topic,
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: we're going to pick up with day number four. All
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: in the description box.