← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Transcripts From The Hearing Dealing With Tyler Robinson’s Courtroom Appearance (Part 6) (7/29/26)
00:14:14
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
Transcript4 lines
- [00:01]
A
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.
- [00:38]
B
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 ZipRecruiter.com Zip ZipRecruiter.com Zip Nobody does it
- [01:01]
C
better than Regent Seven Seas Cruises. Enjoy all inclusive unrivaled luxury with unlimited shore excursions, indulgent cuisine, personalized service and more aboard spacious all suite ships. Visit rssc.com to experience the unrivaled.
- [01:16]
D
What's up everyone? And welcome back to the program in this episode. We're getting right back to the Tyler Robinson hearing about his appearance. Mr. Van Noy. Thank you, your honor. Mr. Ballard and your honor expressed and got it right with the general concerns the Sheriff's office and Mr. Palmer have about civilian clothing. The specific concern about this case is that in the filing documents, the State alleges that Mr. Robinson changed his clothing along the way. So specifically in this case, if he's in civilian clothing, that is at least in the allegations, that's a real concern to the sheriff's office that the clothing could be changed if it were or was commotion. We recognize that most pre trial proceedings there's public law in motion calendars, there's other defendants and attorneys in here that create more commotion. Not in the sense that it's undignified, but there's more people. So those are the sheriff's office's specific concerns about the case. I think going to the suggestion and I think agreement that no video or photographic reporting, the articles that the defense counsel cites in their motion, they hit on a visual prejudice. When a person sees the individual in jail, clothing that creates the prejudice. I think there's a different effect from based off of what they've provided from seeing the individual as opposed to a reporter writing about it. The court. All right, Mr. Novak, did the court have more questions for the state? The court. It takes me a little bit for my brain to kind of go through all my tick points. So I'm still thinking. Mr. Novak. I just don't want to interfere. The court know. And I appreciate that. Mr. Ballard. I'm happy to answer your honor's questions. The court and I appreciate that, the willingness of both sides. I'm just trying to think. I'm looking at my notes. I've been trying to take detailed notes, and I appreciate the presentation by all parties. Going back to the clothing, and let's assume that this court orders no video, no cameras, and even goes even further and says to the press, you can't write about clothing. And even if it extends to the weekend blogger or influencer or anyone, do not write about it. What stops prejudice to potential jurors because this is an open courtroom. What stops anyone, 75 people is, is what we've limited this courtroom for security reasons, from them talking to others and saying, you know, I was in court, he was in jail. Clothing. Does that prejudice the potential jury pool? Mr. Ballard? I don't think it does, your honor. This has been the practice. Every pretrial detainee in the state of Utah to date comes to trial, comes to the hearings in jail, clothing and restraints. I don't know why this, this situation presents any different or any difference than any of those other situations. And to the extent that there is some potential for prejudice, this court can fully explore that at Voir Deer. The court. Okay, all right, thank you. I appreciate the response. So, Mr. Novak, and I don't mean to make this into a law school scenario. Novak. It's fine. The court. But why has no court found that this right of shackles and vestiture, how they're dressed, doesn't apply prior to jury. We've had this, I imagine that this has come up throughout the United States throughout the years, but we don't have a single opinion that says prior to a jury trial that this should be in effect. Mr. Novak. Well, we actually did have that opinion. I'll let you talk about that. We actually did have an opinion that addressed that, which is the vacated on other grounds opinion we've been talking about. So that actually was the prevailing law in the Ninth Circuit in 2017 and, and 2018. And there were district courts that applied that ruling, which applied to the Southern district of California, to other districts within the ninth Circuit, until, as Counsel is right. The Supreme Court vacated it for the reasons that we've talked about. So I think it's more accurate to say that there was case law that governed the entire western corner of the United States. If I can talk about west of Utah and Colorado for quite a period of time. Well, a period of time until the Supreme Court vacated it on other grounds. I want to go back to that rationale. Okay. And so I think that's important. And unfortunately, it falls on this court's lap, so to speak. Is this is an open question in Utah. That's where we are. We're in the trial court and it's an open question. There isn't a binding authority one way or the other on this court. We're suggesting that existing law and, and the rationale in existing law and rationale expressed by well considered jurists in other jurisdictions guide this court in what it should do. But that's just where we are. I can't really give the court law school answer, which is why don't we have case law on this from this jurisdiction or others? Maybe it's because nobody raised it. Maybe it's because not every defendant is actually shackled in court. I mean, I'm just going to testify, okay? I've been in many courts in many jurisdictions and with clients who are in custody and sometimes they're shackled and sometimes they're not. It depends on local practices. It also depends on what judicial officers standards are. So I don't think that that's. Everybody is shackled everywhere and now all of a sudden Mr. Robinson bringing up something that settled practice. Otherwise it's an open question that the court has the opportunity to wrestle with. I'm not trying to avoid the court's question. I just think that's the reality, is that it's an issue for first impression. Since deck in Utah, the court and I appreciate your candor, sir. The second question I have is applying individualized approach and basically determining security risk or potential is in the criminal court. As you are well aware, issues can turn on the moment. And for example, hypothetically in a prelim hearing, a witness could testify to something that could cause someone who's in custody to suddenly have a surge of emotion. And how can we account for that when there are so many variables in a courtroom that we can't control? How someone reacts to a statement, how someone reacts to a shout out from the crowd, how someone reacts from a glance that may cause them to react emotionally. How can we apply that in real life or real time if we're relying upon assessments that has to be done before a hearing. Mr. Novak, I think that's a fair question, and I have two answers that may or may not be sufficient for the court. One is, I think that it can be evolving understanding of how the defendant before the court does handle themselves in the courtroom. Okay, so so far, we've got a couple of hours of experience. I don't think that the court. If it's an individualized determination, which is what DE says, that's still good law, then that the individualized determination, of course, can always be subject to reconsideration by the court. I'm sure that your honor has been involved in a situation where somebody who was not even in custody but was appearing in their criminal case became a problem in the courtroom. And similarly, you could have somebody who maybe was a problem and is in custody, but over time has demonstrated that they should not be. So I think that the individualized determination can be one subject. I don't mean to reconsideration in the technical legal sense, but review. So that's one thing. The one thing is that the court can look at the information it has before it. So I'm going to provide what I think is responsive to this court's question by pointing out that even with the state having the opportunity to stand here, they still haven't provided any individualized information at all. I invited it multiple times. There's nothing individualized that has been represented by the state. Whether we accept the proffer or not, what we do know about Mr. Robinson, that goes to the court's question, is he surrendered. A neighbor of his. I'm sure the court has read enough of the material. I think it's even in the probable cause statement. You don't even have to read the public accounting. A neighbor of his was a retired sheriff from Washington county, and he got in that man's car and they took him to the sheriff's department with his parents in the vehicle with him. That if you were just doing sort of a run of the mill bell assessment would be a factor in support of release. A factor. Okay, so what information does the court have to say that if somebody was testifying in a prelim hearing who said something that Mr. Robinson felt uncomfortable with, that he would react in a way that placed somebody at risk? And with all due respect, it's total speculation because you're talking about somebody who surrendered. Okay, I'm happy to engage in this colloquy. Wanted to say a few things about what the people said. The court, of course, Go ahead, Mr. Novak. Your Honor's questions are more important than my retort. The court know, and I appreciate, and I know it's a difficult question because there are so many variables. I guess the other factor I wish to touch on is on this is not speaking to Mr. Robinson. This is speaking to all criminal cases, as criminal cases proceed. And. And I don't know how this case is going to proceed. It could last a week, it could last a year. It could last. Who knows? But I believe it's the experience of all attorneys in the criminal world that as cases progress, pressure progresses. And in a case where the potential death penalty. And again, not referring to Mr. Robinson, but the psychological effect on a person as they go down the track puts in a variable that's hard to examine in real time. And how do we address for that if we were even to go down that route? I don't know about this case, but you have the experience. What insight can you provide, Mr. Novak? I've never. So I've never been a criminal defense attorney since. I don't know. I can't remember how long. It's been a long time. I can't think of any client who's ever attempted to harm me or myself. Me or himself or herself, or a law enforcement officer in a courtroom or tried to flee a courtroom or. Or lash out at a witness or throw something in the courtroom. I, of course, have heard about such things, and usually because of my own experience, it's somebody who spent decades in prison, and now they're being prosecuted for something they did in prison, and they got nothing to lose. That's the best I can do the court. Thank you, Mr. Novak. Okay, a couple things, if I May, about Rule 17 5. I think the 14th Amendment says that Mr. Robinson has a right to be present and at all of his proceedings. And I know, I hope I don't say this too many times, but I'm from another state, and most of the time practicing in that other state, it has been in federal court. And with respect to the motion of hybrid hearings and remote hearings, the pandemic is over. I understand it's convenient for the sheriff. I understand it saves the government money. But this is a capital case, and Mr. Robinson wants to be present at every hearing in person. If he's not present at every hearing in person, then he's either appearing remotely in a place in the sheriff's jail facility where there are staff present with him, he's not in a room by himself, and then that would mean that maybe one of his attorneys could be over there, but that attorney wouldn't be able to consult with the other attorneys. Or I mean, I just think it's a shortcut which this court should not engage in in this type of case. Mr. Robinson is not going to waive his appearance for hearings. And in order to eliminate the need for him to assert his right not to be shackled, okay, that's not a voluntary waiver. If the court, as it has, which has been fine with us, wants to convene a hearing on short notice, the court says, hey, I need to get everybody on the telephone. And we do that. But from our standpoint, that's appropriate for the administration of justice. But when we're having meaningful hearings, and I'm not going to use the word critical, it's a legal sense. Mr. Robinson wants to be in court in person so that your honor and he. Or here in the same room, so that he knows what's going on, so that you can fully observe him, so that he can fully observe the witnesses. So it's not an accommodation that interests us. Respectively, the question about jail clothing, which your honor asked, I would ask the court to consider the cases we cite at page 13. They are Mitchell, which is a case, Utah decision, Estelle, which is a supreme court decision, and Hernandez versus Beto, which is a fifth circuit decision, which basically all say that there is no essential state interest in compelling somebody to wear gel clothing. The idea that because Mr. Robinson maybe changed clothes before or after the charged shooting has nothing to do with whether Mr. Robinson sitting there in a sweater and blue jeans, or whatever the sheriff and Mr. Robinson's counsel agree on, could somehow turn into Superman, you know, by spinning around in a circle. It's just not going to happen. And I have no problem with it. But there have been redacted. So I think what your honor is saying is like, why does he need to be in the prison garb when we have all the security in the courtroom, generally speaking, Is that right? If I may ask the right question. And if things happen in the courtroom which suggests to the court that it has made an assumption that Mr. Robinson demonstrated it shouldn't have made, then the court can make restrictions. I do want to say something about presumptions in language. Sure. We can have a statewide or district wide policy that doesn't create presumption. The constitution is what controls where the presumptions are. And it's the people's burden, it's the state's burden to interfere with a constitutional right. The policy doesn't create a presumption that we have to rebut the policy is what the sheriff and the county's security specialist would like. It's not a presumption. It may be guidance for this court once the court completes its individualized determination. I think that's the last thing I want to say, and I'm sure that will make everybody happy, is that it's not correct that the defendant charged with very serious offenses who are in custody always appear in shackles and in jail clothing. Ms. Nestor has pointed out to me twice in the last 15 minutes, and I appreciate it because I forget things, that she actually represents a defendant who. Who's in custody who is charged with first degree murder in another state. I'm sorry, another county who sits in court without shackles and who wears street clothing because the judicial officer made an individualized determination that that was okay. If I've left something out, please tell me. Submit it. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here. And in the next episode dealing with the topic, 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.