Transcripts From The Hearing Dealing With Tyler Robinson’s Courtroom Appearance (Part 3) (7/26/26)

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: The Epstein Chronicles

Episode: Transcripts From The Hearing Dealing With Tyler Robinson’s Courtroom Appearance (Part 3)

Host: Bobby Capucci
Date: July 26, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode dives into a real-time courtroom transcript concerning the legal procedures around Tyler Robinson’s appearance in court — specifically, whether the Utah County Sheriff's Office can provide input on security issues, and if their position constitutes a legal 'appearance' in the case. The discussion also unpacks how the sheriff's input fits within court protocols and what happens when the sheriff and the county's attorney have conflicting views. The conversation is highly technical, shedding light on the subtleties of court procedure, party status, and the sheriff's direct involvement in criminal case logistics.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Role of the Sheriff’s Office in Court Proceedings (00:24–06:00)

• Christopher Ballard (State):
  • Defends the state's compliance with court orders for the sheriff to respond to security matters.
  • Explains that the sheriff is not entering as a party, but is giving “limited purpose standing”:
    • “The sheriff or anyone in a case can have limited purpose standing when you’ve got a rule or a statute that allows that person to either claim a right or to offer input.” (01:50)
  • Provides legal precedent (referencing the 'state. JT' child welfare case) where non-parties like relatives have been granted standing for limited input.
• Clarification from the Court:
  • Two separate orders were issued; the first was just a courtesy on a holiday for timely preparation, but only the second order was official (04:00).
  • The importance of accurate court orders to avoid procedural confusion.

2. Acceptable Forms of Sheriff Input & Witness Testimony (06:00–08:00)

• The court considers whether the input from the sheriff should come strictly as witness testimony, rather than as a response filed alongside the state.
• Ballard expresses flexibility as long as court security expertise reaches the judge:
  • “As long as it gives your honor the information he needs to make the decisions about security issues.” (06:20)

3. Attorney for the Sheriff’s Office Weighs In (Ben Van Noy) (06:50–08:10)

• Clarifies the sheriff’s office does not intend to be a litigating party, only seeks to ensure their voice is heard on issues directly relating to their responsibilities:
  • “They just want to make sure they have a seat at the table… The safety and security of this court is paramount.” (07:20)
• Highlights regular court orders to the sheriff (transport, library access) and what makes this scenario unique.

4. Defense Opposition to ‘Limited Appearance’ (08:10–09:00)

• Mr. Nestor (Defense):
  • Opposes creating standing for the sheriff akin to a victim or grandparent in other types of hearings:
    • “We do not think there is sufficient statutory or administrative authority that would open the door to a limited appearance [for the sheriff].” (08:48)
  • Suggests the issue may now be moot, but wants the objection on the record.
• The court thanks participants, signaling a narrowing of disagreement.

5. Hypotheticals & Mechanisms for Sheriff Objections (09:00–13:30)

• Mr. Van Noy raises future concerns should the county attorney and sheriff ever disagree:
  • “If the county attorney agrees with the defendant, but the sheriff disagrees, we don’t know what mechanism we could use to lodge that objection.” (09:20)
  • Points out ambiguity under Utah Code about how the sheriff should act if an order seems unlawful.
• Court asks for examples:
  • Van Noy recounts a probate case where the sheriff objected to an order to transport a person for mental health evaluation, contending there was no legal basis for the order.
• Ms. Nestor offers practical resolution:
  • “I do think there’s ways for non-parties to object to orders they get from judges, but… I honestly can’t think of a scenario where that would happen in a case like this. It’s never, ever happened to me.” (12:20)
  • Suggests informal resolution through discussion between parties if such a scenario arose.

6. Resolution & Next Steps (13:30–14:23)

• The court decides to reserve ruling on the motion to strike until Monday but agrees that for now, information submitted is not an indication the sheriff’s office is a party.
• Minor stipulations are made for how to handle appearances and information sharing as the case proceeds.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Christopher Ballard (State):
  • “The sheriff or anyone in a case can have limited purpose standing... That’s all we’re trying to do in accordance with what the court requested.” (01:50–02:10)
• Mr. Van Noy (Sheriff’s Attorney):
  • “The sheriff’s office is a unique participant in criminal cases… They want to ensure the safety and security of this court is paramount.” (07:10–07:30)
• Mr. Nestor (Defense):
  • “We just don’t think that exists here… we don’t see the judicial regulations that are referred to in their opposition…” (08:40)
• Ms. Nestor (Defense):
  • “I personally can’t think of a scenario where that would happen in a case like this… but I guess there’s always the possibility.” (12:15)

---

Key Segment Timestamps

• 00:24–04:00 — State and court discuss joint response, procedural questions about sheriff’s standing.
• 04:01–06:20 — Court clarifies confusion; State and defense discuss acceptable input formats.
• 06:21–08:10 — Sheriff’s attorney (Van Noy) clarifies the office’s position and rationale.
• 08:11–09:00 — Defense maintains record opposition; parties near an agreement.
• 09:01–12:30 — Parties debate hypothetical future disagreements, practical procedures for sheriff objections.
• 12:31–14:23 — Court outlines resolution for current motion and next steps.

---

Conclusion

This episode provides a detailed, inside look at how legal technicalities around "party" and "non-party" status play out in a complex case touching on high-profile criminal justice and courtroom security. Listeners get to hear the interplay between state, defense, and sheriff's office, as well as the thoughtful handling of legal gray areas by the presiding judge.

Stay tuned for the next installment, where issues of appearance and restraints regarding Tyler Robinson will be addressed in greater detail.

---

For all transcripts and additional information, check the episode’s description box.

Transcript

[Lady Luck]

Hey guys, Lady Luck here. Are you going on any road trips this summer? I know I'm going to be going on a bunch of road trips and being that I'm going to be Passenger Princess, I Love playing on Spinquest.com Spinquest has all of my favorite slot games. Live blackjack, live craps. Head over to Spinquest right now and get yourself a 30 coin pack for just 10 bucks.

[Court Official]

Spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details. Tang Luck Luck's on tap. We're talking hundreds of beautifully designed slots inspired by eastern art and packed with bonus rounds. It's fair, it's transparent, and it's honestly just a great time. Try Tang Luck now and your good luck could turn into big wins. What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. In this episode, we're gonna pick up with the transcript from the Tyler Robinson hearing about his court attire. Mr. Ballard. Your Honor, Christopher Ballard on behalf of the State, there's nothing improper about what the state did about the state and the sheriff filing a joint response to the motion when the court ordered the sheriff to respond, when the motion implicates court security, which is the joint responsibility of the sheriff and the court, and when the state's interests and the sheriff's interest are aligned. And let me just make it clear at the outset, the state is not trying to sneak in the sheriff's participation. The state is not trying to make the sheriff a party or be able to offer his input, the sheriff's office input, on anything that is not directly related to the sheriff's responsibilities. In this case. The state was simply trying to comply with this court's orders, the first of which ordered the sheriff to respond and then also ordered the state to respond. And both of those orders require the defendant to serve his motion on the sheriff. And so I don't think you can fault the state for doing its best to just try and comply with the court's orders. I think even if there were something improper about the way the state did this, procedurally, I think the information, the rules, the authority that we've cited in our opposition to the motion to strike explained that the sheriff does have standing where persons can have standing and as limited purpose parties, not a broad purpose party or a main party in the case. That's not what we're trying to do. The sheriff or anyone in a case can have limited purpose standing when you've got a rule or a statute that allows that person to either claim a right or to offer input. And as opposing counsel pointed out, this comes up most often in situations of crime victims. But it's not just limited to crime victims as we cited in state. JT that was a case that you've got, it's a child welfare proceeding. You've got a statute that says that relatives can give input as to the placement in those kinds of cases. And so the grandmother had limited purpose party standing to be able to give her input. Here we've got authority that allows the sheriff to give input on these kinds of decisions. And that's all we're trying to do in accordance with what the court requested. If the court has further questions about limited purpose standing and, and the reasons for that, Mr. Van Noy can address that on behalf of the sheriff. But that's the state's position. Unless you have further questions for me, the court. Well, perhaps the court can give a little bit of clarification because there were two orders and what happened was on that day, it was a holiday, the court came in and was reviewing the order and it wasn't the official order because it was trying to be sent out as a courtesy given the time constraints. The court then issued the order the second day with the removal of requiring the sheriff's response. And so for clarification purposes, that's what happened. The first one was simply a courtesy copy just to be like, alright, we have these tight deadlines and wanted to put all parties on notice to give them opportunity to prepare given the holiday. But the second order was the actual order that was entered in. The first was not. So for whatever clarification that gives to all parties, that's what happened. But I understand the confusion with that in regards to the position of Ms. Nestor, that the evidence should come in as witness testimony as opposed to as it was brought in today. What's your position, Mr. Ballard? As long as your honor fully considers the information that's in that response, whether it's just as a witness or limited purpose party, we just want the information before the court because the sheriff is the expert on court security, the court and moving forward. That's your position on adopting what has been proposed by Ms. Nestor for future input as opposed to filing a motion going the route of calling witnesses and then based off witness testimony or affidavits, using that to supplement a motion post witness testimony. Ballard? I think that's fine as long as it gives your honor the information that he needs to be able to be able to make the decisions about security issues. The court. All right, thank you, Mr. Ballard. Mr. Ballard, you're welcome. The court. Yes. And if you'd like to give a little bit more background on the limited purpose standing of the parties. Mr. Van Noy, who is the lawyer for the sheriff's office? Absolutely. Ben Van Noy, county attorney's office. The sheriff's office wants to make it clear that they're not entering an appearance in the case, and they do not intend to ever enter an appearance in the case. The sheriff's position is that they would be okay if the state's opposition was entered in or if there was an order entered in. Finding that this is an opposition from the state. Like Mr. Ballard just expressed, there was some confusion with the two orders. The sheriff's office, being a non party, didn't have the benefit of not knowing that the first order wasn't entered. We didn't get the notice until it was too late. So, I mean, quite simply, the sheriff's office was just trying to respond to the court's orders, which wasn't unusual because the sheriff's office gets ordered by the judges all the time to do various things. Orders to transport, orders to allow inmates to have access to the law library stuff. That's part of the criminal case, but not. It is more tangentially related, which that's another reason why the sheriff decided it was proper to respond. The sheriff's office is a unique participant in criminal cases. Both statute and rule obligate the sheriff to have input in security measures, and the defendant's motion directly implicates those. And the sheriff, to be clear, is less concerned about how the objections are made. They just want to make sure that they have a seat at the table, because they are. They want to ensure that the safety and security of this court is paramount. So whatever the court needs to do to clarify that, the sheriff would be okay with that. Whether that's treating them as a witness, their statements as witness statements, we'd be okay with that. I think that's all I have from the sheriff. I would submit, unless your honor has any questions, the court. No. Thank you. Mr. Nestor, would you like to respond? Mr. Nestor? Just briefly, your honor, as far as the limited party appearance, I mean, it sounds like we're getting close to agreeing to how this should happen in the future, which I appreciate that. But just to make it very clear for the record that we do not think there is sufficient statutory or administrative authority that would open the door to a limited appearance, such as there would be for a grandparent in a custody hearing or for a victim in a restitution hearing. We just don't think that exists here. And we don't see the judicial regulations that are referred to in their opposition that provides that a bailiff, you know, that sheriffs be present and keep us safe in the courtroom. We don't think that opens the door to a limited party appearance along of the nature of which was argued in the opposition, but I think that might be moot. But I just wanted to say that for the record. Your honor, the court, thank you. All right. Anything further on this motion to strike? Mr. Van Noy? Your Honor, one more thing, if I may. The court. Yes, Mr. Van Noy. The scenario at hand has the sheriff's office and county's attorney's office agreeing. Hypothetically, if the county attorney agrees with the defendant, but the sheriff disagrees, we don't know what mechanism we could use to lodge that objection. Utah Code 1722 21C requires the sheriff to obey all lawful orders. In rare circumstances, there are orders issued by the bench that the sheriff's office deems unlawful. Oh, I have had no luck lately.

[Advertiser 1]

Wait.

[Court Official]

Lady luck.

[Lady Luck]

Britsky. I got you. I've had so much luck on spinquest.com they have all of my favorite games, slot games, live blackjack craps and bubble craps. You can even get a $30 coin pack for just 10 bucks.

[Court Official]

10 bucks for 30.

[Advertiser 1]

I'm headed over to spinquest.com right now.

[Court Official]

Spinquest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[Advertiser 1]

Finding great candidates to hire can be like, well, trying to find a needle in a haystack. Sure, you can post your job to some job board, but then all you can do is hope the right person comes along. Which is why you should try ZipRecruiter for free at ZipRecruiter.com Zip ZipRecruiter doesn't depend on candidates finding you. It finds them for you. Its powerful technology identifies people with the right experience and actively invites them to apply to your job. You get qualified candidates fast. So while other companies might deliver a lot of hay, ZipRecruiter finds you what you're looking for. The needle in the Haystack. See why 4 out of 5 employers who post a job on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day. The smartest way to hire. And right now, you can try ZipRecruiter for free. That's right. Free at ZipRecruiter.com Zip that's ZipRecruiter.com Zip ZipRecruiter.com Zip warning the following ZipRecruiter radio spot you are about to hear is going to be filled with F words when you're hiring.

[Advertiser 2]

We at ZipRecruiter know you can feel frustrated, forlorn, even, like your efforts are futile and you can spend a fortune trying to find fabulous people only to get flooded with candidates who are just fine. Fortunately, ZipRecruiter figured out how to fix all that, and right now you can try ZipRecruiter for free at ZipRecruiter.com Zip with ZipRecruiter you can forget your frustrations because we find the right people for your roles fast, which is our absolute favorite F word. In fact, four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.

[Advertiser 1]

Fantastic.

[Advertiser 2]

So whether you need to hire four, 40 or 400 people, get ready to meet first rate talent. Just go to ZipRecruiter.com Zip to try ZipRecruiter for free. Don't forget that's ZipRecruiter.com Zip finally, that's ZipRecruiter.

[Court Official]

Com Zip in those circumstances, the sheriff's office has filed objections not as parties, but as an interested party. That is unclear in state law how the sheriff's office is supposed to address the situation. If an order is unlawful, how does the sheriff's office voice that opinion? That's all I have. Thank you. The court. Can you give me an example of what has happened in the past that helps the court understand? Mr. Van Noy? Yes, absolutely. Just a few months ago, in a probate case, the mental health of the beneficiary was at stake was being questioned. The court ordered the sheriff's office to transport this individual to a mental health facility for a mental health evaluation in Salt Lake City. In being a probate, a civil case, the sheriff's office objected because that in their opinion, was not a lawful order. There's no statute or rule that allowed the court to include the sheriff to transport an individual in a civil case. That matter was never fully ruled upon, but it was an objection that the sheriff's office made as an interested party. In that case, the court. All right, thank you, Mr. Van Noy. Yep, the court missed. Ms. Nestor, under that scenario, what in your view would be the proper approach? If there's a divergence of opinions from the Utah County Attorney's office and the Utah County Sheriff's Office, how would the Sheriff's office be heard on the issue? Ms. Nestor, can you give me one second to ask someone smarter than myself. Let me ask Mr. Vister or Ms. Vister really quick. I knew she would know, your honor. Thank you. And I think she's right. So under that scenario, when the sheriff has been ordered to do something by the court, that does potentially open the door, I would say, to responding to that order. And, you know, I have no idea what type of similar situation would arise in this case, but I would hope that we could all maybe just talk about it and. And see the proper way to handle it. We don't ever want to concede that the proper way to handle it would be to enter an appearance as a party. I do think that there's ways for non parties to object to orders they get from judges, but. And we can probably figure that out later, but I honestly can't think of a scenario where that would happen in a case like this. It's never, ever happened to me, and I've been doing this quite a while, but I guess there's always the possibility if it happens. We'll all confer and see if we can figure that out. The court. All right. And I just want to make sure. Anything else further on this particular issue, Mr. Ballard? Mr. Ballard? Yeah. Your honor, just let me add, I think for the purpose of this motion, it sounds like we're all in agreement that the court can just consider this however it wants to consider it, and making it clear that it's not the sheriff entering an appearance or appearing as a party. If there's some issue down the road and we've got an order that requires the sheriff to do something, then that would be a completely different situation. Then we've got right here the court. All right. All right. Thank you, all parties. I will reserve ruling on that issue about the motion to strike until Monday. But for the purpose of this hearing today, and it sounds like there's at best can be stated the stipulation that the motion filed, not acknowledging from defense side that the sheriff's office is a party, but is still accepting the information therein to be considered as we move forward on the other issues. Ms. Nestor. Yes, the court. All right. So with that, we'll go ahead and move forward with the issues of appearances and restraints. All right, everybody, we're going to wrap up right here. And in the next episode, we're going to pick up where we left off. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.

[Lady Luck]

Hey, guys, lady luck here. Are you going on any road trips this summer? I know I'm going to be going going on a bunch of road trips and being that I'm gonna be passenger Princess, I Love playing on Spinquest.com Spinquest has all of my favorite slot games. Live blackjack, live craps. Head on over to Spinquest right now and get yourself a 30 coin pack for just 10 bucks.

[Court Official]

Spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.