← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Transcripts From The Hearing Dealing With Tyler Robinson’s Courtroom Appearance (Part 4) (7/26/26)
00:16:32
The October 24, 2025 hearing centered on Tyler Robinson’s request to appear at future court proceedings in civilian clothing and without restraints. His attorneys argued that routinely presenting him in jail clothing and shackles would undermine the...
Loading summary
Transcript8 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hey, guys. It is Ryan. For years, Chumba's been setting the bar for online social casino fun. And it just keeps getting better. With new games released every week and daily bonuses to collect, the fun never stops. So claim your welcome bonus now@chumbacasino.com no purchase necessary. BGW prohibited by law. See terms and conditions 21+.
- [00:16]
B
Hey, need a quick little escape? Open Cider Casino. It's free to download and there's always something fun waiting for you. Log in every day to collect daily rewards, explore tons of games, and keep the fun going. And when you're ready to redeem, the process is fast and straightforward. Cider Casino makes it easy to jump in and enjoy. Download it today and let's play the cider way.
- [00:42]
C
What's up, everyone? And welcome back to the program. In this episode, we're going to pick up where we left off with the Tyler Robinson hearing dealing with his appearance in court. Mr. Novak. Thank you, your honor. Richard Novak again for Mr. Robinson. And the court did say in its introductory remarks that it wants to take the weekend to think through things and review things. So I hope the court will permit me to suggest a couple of pieces of case law that the court may want to look at again over the weekend. I think where I want to start, which is where I think we should always start, is with the constitutional law as explained by the Supreme Court of the United States. And I know that the court has read our briefing, but DEC vs Missouri, a 2005 opinion of the United States Supreme Court guides us here initially. Basically, what Deck says is that a blanket policy of shackling criminal defendants violates the defendant's constitutional rights. And I would say in a capital case through the 14th Amendment, since we are in a state court and would be the fifth Amendment, the sixth Amendment, and the eighth Amendment. Because what the Constitution requires is an individualized assessment of whether shackling is necessary because of security risks emanating from the defendant. Now, I understand, I'm going to come back to that, but I just want to bookmark, if I may, that I understand that there's a fundamental disagreement between the parties about whether that constitutional framework applies outside of jury trial. Okay. The most recent Utah Supreme Court case on this is Cravens C R A V e n s, a 2000 decision, which basically gets it wrong in light of the subsequent decision of the U.S. supreme Court. Because in Cravens, what the state of Utah Supreme Court said is, the defendant's been found guilty, he can be shackled during the penalty phase. And clearly what the Supreme Court said in Dec. V. Missouri is, no, that's not true. Without an individualized determination. So I will address why we believe that this court, without any guidance from the Utah supreme court, is free and should make a finding that Mr. Robinson has constitutional rights not to be shackled in pre trial proceedings. But I do want to go back for a moment to the three different reasons, as explained by the supreme court, why shackling offends our concept of fairness and liberty and due process. The first is because these are applicable to a defendant at every stage of the proceeding. The concept, the rationale. Okay. The first is because there's a presumption of innocence. The second is a concern with the sixth amendment right to actively participate in his defense in the courtroom. And if the court, if I may, looks back at the rationale of Deck v. Missouri when it's considering this over the weekend, the court will see that the supreme court said that to be shackled in a courtroom necessarily interferes with the defendant's right to thoughtfully observe and participate in the proceedings because the shackling is inherently intrusive to his ability to do so. And then the third reason is what the high court referred to as dignity and decorum in the courtroom. Most of the hearings in the case will be public, and so for the public, and I'm not even talking about cameras and microphones, especially cameras, to see Mr. Robinson shackled at the feet, at the waist, at the hands, absent of an individualized determination by the court offends the dignity and decorum of the courtroom. This is not a jail. This is your honor's courtroom. And what security measures are necessary to ensure Everybody's safety, including Mr. Robinson's, are your honor's decisions, not the sheriff's decision. So we are not challenging the policy that exists. We're saying that the constitution requires that the court make an individualized determination as to whether that policy is appropriate. In this case, it's because it's a constitutional right. It's the state's burden to prove that shackling is necessary. And what Deck v. Missouri says is its defendant specific information that suggests that shackling is necessary. So I'm going to provide the court, if I may, with some hypotheticals. If in his first court appearance, Mr. Robinson did anything that suggested a lack of safety to himself, to the court, to the court staff, to the sheriffs, that would be information if Mr. Robinson demonstrated which he has not, some inability to control his conduct while in custody or while in the courtroom, that would be information that the court should take into consideration. Mr. Robinson's criminal history, which he has none until this incident, would also be something that the court could take into consideration. I think the court could look at the rap sheet or a pretrial services report and say this person has a history of assaulting law enforcement or fleeing or obstruction of justice, whatever it is. But none of that exists here. And so it's an individualized determination about the defendant, and it's the state's burden of proof. And I want to point out that two things. One is the state's opposition to our motion. The state provides nothing specific to. Nothing individualized as to why Mr. Robinson needs to be shackled in a courtroom. We're not asking that law enforcement officers not be present during jury trial. It may be a very different scenario, but the state has offered no specific evidence that he presents a risk to anybody in the courtroom or to himself by being unshackled. And it is, as I said before, the state's burden. And I'm going to say a couple of things because we're under seal and, and I think that it's appropriate to take advantage of that. And I appreciate the court created the freedom to address things that should not necessarily be further public publicized in the public sphere beyond what's already been publicized by others when Mr. Robinson was first arrested, redacted. And I think it's interesting that the sheriff's department hasn't provided the court with any information as to why that is, that he was convinced the sheriff's department that that's not necessary. Now, Mr. Robinson has, as I understand it, under state law, a right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to his medical records, his mental health records, his psychiatric records, if any, even those created in custody. And so I'm not going to offer up those records, nor would I think the court would interpret that or what I'm going to say as a waiver. But the sheriff has those rights. The state, to make the distinction, again, in terms of the parties, should not have those records. And that's complicated if they're represented by the same lawyers, or at least their communications with the court is facilitated by the same lawyers. But the sheriff presumably has an obligation to provide the court with all the information that it has available to it to make that individualized determination. We have those records and we're not afraid of them. So I would just ask the court to consider whether it needs more information from the sheriff to make an individualized determination. So what we're saying is, even if the court conducted an evidentiary hearing and conducted an in camera Review. There's no way that the court could reach a conclusion that shackling is necessary based on information directly related to Mr. Robinson. Now, in the state's opposition to our motion, there is a lot of information, and I'll try not to be sarcastic, but I do think it's kind of noise about the intense public interest in the case. There's a reference to, you know, unstable people coming to the courthouse, to conspiracy theorists saying things online. We're all aware of that. I mean, I don't know what the court has read. It's none of my business. I've received some wacky phone calls and emails, people telling me what they think had happened. It's noise. We're not litigating this case in the press. We're not talking to crazies. But that's all on the outside. No wonder Candace Owens is pissed. They're not talking to crazies. So we appreciate that the sheriff's department is concerned with the safety of the court and all of the participants. We were here a few weeks ago, and it was clear that the sheriff's department took the first appearance of counsel very seriously. And we appreciate that that's not Mr. Robinson. So we don't think that the intense public interest which may be drawing in unstable fringe people from the left and the right and the center and other places is imputed to Mr. Robinson. The question is, can the court trust Mr. Robinson to sit there the way he has been doing for the last hour and respect the decorum and dignity of the courtroom, just like the court would expect him to? And we think that the answer is obviously yes. So then I want to get to the slightly more open question, which is what would guide the court in determining whether that constitutional right should attach at all proceedings and not just before the jury? And there was a dispute in the pleadings about what I would call the relevance, although not, you know, relevant under the rules of evidence, the relevance of an en banc opinion of the Ninth Circuit. After Deck called United States versus Sanchez Gomez. It's a 2017 en banc decision of the Ninth Circuit. And I apologize if this is obvious to everybody, but I live and I practice in the 9th Circuit. So basically what that means is there was a three judge panel. Somebody didn't like the outcome of a ruling and invited the court to take the matter up en banc. And the court did, which meant that there had to be 18 judges who heard the case. And the citation to that decision is in our briefing, and I'll provide it again. But what the ninth circuit says is in an en banc ruling. And I'm going to talk about what it means, as the state points out, that the ruling was vacated by the supreme court. The holding in that case, which is based on a lot of rationale from the then circuit judge Kaczynski, is that the constitutional rights outlined in Dec. V. Missouri apply at all proceedings in a criminal case, not just in a jury trial. And I think that if your honor looks closely at the rationale, this court would conclude that the rationale applies at all hearings. That doesn't mean that there we abandon the individualized determination of the need. It just means that the individualized determination of the need should begin at the beginning of the case and not just wait for the jury trial. Sanchez Gomez is important because it's really the only well thought out opinion of a federal circuit court looking at the constitutionality of this question. But the way the procedural posture of that is what led to the United States supreme court and them vacating the decision. And so what happened there is in the southern district of California, which is basically San Diego and imperial counties, the United States marshal service adopted a policy that every defendant would be sheltered. And the federal judge in the southern district of California went along with it. They said, okay, fine. Four defendants sought review of the policy, which was affirmed by. By four district judges in four criminal cases through a writ of mandamus. By the time it got to the ninth circuit, and certainly by the time it got en banc, it was what most people would call moot. But what the ninth circuit said was, no, it's not moot. It's capable of repetition, and it's an important issue. And even the ninth circuit even referred to it as a quasi class action. So if you look, if the court looks at Sanchez Gomez, there's a lot of discussion about mandamus review and whether it meets the criteria of mandamus review and whether mootness interferes with the court reaching a conclusion. And ultimately, the en banc court says, we're going to resolve the merits of the case. Okay. And so what the 9th Circuit en banc opinion says, written by judge Kaczynski, is that those constitutional rights to be free from shackling, absent, and individualized determination apply at every hearing because dignity and decorum isn't limited to a jury trial, because the sixth amendment right to participate isn't limited to a jury trial, and because the presumption of innocence exists from the beginning of the case until the return of the verdict when it went to the supreme court, The Supreme Court said it's moot. We're vacating the opinion. It's moot those defendants are no longer in court. They're not being shackled. And the Supreme Court also rejected the notion that four criminal defendants can get together and create a quasi class action through a writ of mandamus. But I reviewed the Supreme Court decision again this morning, the one vacating Sanchez Gomez. And I looked for any hint of the Supreme Court that it was just taking issue with the merits. The substantive decision of Judge Kaczynski speaking for the majority of the panel. And there's not a word about it. There's not a footnote, there's not a concurrence. Tyler redick here from 23 XI racing another checkered flag for the books. Time to celebrate with Ciamba. Jump in@chumbacasino.com let's Chumba.
- [13:28]
A
No purchase necessary BTW Group void where prohibited by law CTNC21+ sponsored by Chumba Casino
- [13:35]
D
that sound could mean a lot of things. And when something's going wrong at home, the hardest part can be figuring out what the problem actually is. At thumbtack you can upload a voice message or a photo and our AI powered search will help diagnose your project. Plus the pros we know have over 14 million 5 star reviews so you can hire with confidence. Thumbtack we know Holmes hire the right pro.
- [14:01]
C
Today there is nothing. So first of all, we're not in the 9th Circuit, alright? We're in the 10th Circuit and we're in Utah. So it doesn't even bind. Even if Sanchez Gomez were still good law, procedurally it's not binding authority anyway. It's persuasive and I would suggest it should be very persuasive to this court. But what's important, because there was a big debate in our pleadings about its relevance, its viability, the rationale as to why the shackling, the right not to be shackled absent an individualized determination of security concerns applies at every hearing, is not addressed at all by the supreme court. And that's why the rationale is still worthy of this court's consideration. So what we're asking this court to conclude is that while there is nothing in Utah law that compels a decision either way, your honor has the opportunity to make a decision of constitutional law. And it's a decision that needs to be made by the trial court because here we are. So we think that the court should conclude based on what's in deck versus Missouri and the rationale in US versus Sanchez Gomez is that Mr. Robinson does have a constitutional right to be shackled and at all proceedings other than where the state has made a showing of an individualized risk of security to the decorum of the courtroom emanating from Mr. Robinson. And while we understand that there's a lot of what I call noise, there's noise on the outside. Redacted, maybe not. I saw one person with a camera in the lobby today. I don't know. We also got here at 2. So maybe there were more or maybe nobody was interested because it was going to be a sealed hearing. But none of that affects Mr. Robinson's right to be free from shackling in the courtroom absent this individualized showing. If we need to have an evidentiary hearing about an individualized showing, we can do that. I've already hinted to the court that the sheriff has information, and I don't think it's duplicitous or secretive. I just think that what we're saying that the court needs to make an individualized determination. The sheriff has information that the court may or may not want to review, but it's their burden of proof. And we're not waiving Mr. Robinson's right to protect the confidentiality of his information. We're not trying to run away from it, but we're just not going to lodge it as an exhibit that needs to be shown to the people, to the state, because it's their burden to make that individualized showing of risk. As long as this court permits cameras, whether it's video or still cameras, to broadcast either live or with delay proceedings in the courtroom. We also believe that Mr. Robinson should be dressed roughly like everybody else, because the entire world has already seen him. Because the sheriff's department released a booking photo and because there were cameras in the first remote appearance in the case, has already seen him in a jail jumpsuit with a vest on. But if he's going to be in the courtroom, and we're going to have a secure courtroom, but it's going to be a broadcast to the world, he should not be depicted as a jail inmate. He should be depicted as a citizen of the United States with a presumption of innocence. And that's why we believe he should be able to appear in street clothes that also are consistent with the court standard for what kind of clothing individuals can wear. If he shouldn't have shoelaces, we can get him shoes without shoelaces. If he shouldn't wear a tie and it's a cold and it's cold, we'll get him a sweater. But unless we're going to shut down all the video and all the photography of what goes on in the courtroom, he he shouldn't be wearing jail stripes. So that part of it maybe is wrapped up in another motion that we're going to brief the court on, as we said before. But we do believe that in the absence of that individualized showing, the shackling should end right now. I don't think there's anything more than that that I want to say unless my colleagues tell me I missed something and they're shaking their heads in the negative. So with that, I'll sit down and see if there's any need to reply when the state's done. Thank you, your honor. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up right here. And in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up fools?
- [17:59]
E
Main Event Jay USO here from the wwe. When it's just me between matches, it's day one. Ish. And that means it's Chumba Time. With hundreds of casino style games and new titles arriving weekly, there's always something fresh to try at Chumb. Chumba Casino the daily Boost. Make it even more fun and have me about to get them all during my downtime. Ready for a fun way to chill out and enjoy a few minutes for yourself? Let's chomp.
- [18:23]
A
No purchase necessary. VGW Group voidware prohibited by law. CTs and Cs 21 plus sponsored by Chumba Casino.