Loading summary

Transcript10 lines

[00:00]
SpinQuest Advertiser
You know what? It sucks to be bored. But when I get on my phone and play real casino games on spinquest.com, the time flies by. That two hour wait at the DMV seems like 10 minutes. Play your favorite slots, live blackjack, live craps with a live dealer. New players $30 coin packs are on sale for 10 bucks. Play spinquest.com and you'll never be bored again.
[00:24]
Court Reporter
Spin Quest is a free to play
[00:25]
SpinQuest Legal Disclaimer
social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details. Score big with the DQ $7 meal deal. Crispy chicken strips, hot fries, a refreshing drink and a tasty sundae, all for just seven bucks. It's so much delicious food, you'll bring home the win every time and keep on winning when you upgrade to a small blizzard treat for just $2. More like the limited time Biscoff Cookie blizzard treat. The $7 meal deal with a $2 small Blizzard upgrade for the win. DQ Happy tastes good. Participation may vary.
[01:01]
Court Reporter
What's up everyone? And welcome back to the program. In this episode, we're gonna get back to the Tyler Robinson hearing about his court appearance. The court. All right. And is there anything further from either side that you wish me to consider? And before I go there, I also want to clarify that my understanding is I'm not ruling about the media. I'm not ruling about which hearings he should or should not be able to attend. My understanding is that's going to be further briefed. And so I want to be clear that even though it is there is an attachment that that's not the expectation of my ruling on Monday. I'm ruling on the issue of striking the motion, which is obviously the easier of the motions. And in regards to how he is dressed and whether he is restrained is my focus. Even though I've heard from both sides about other issues, I. I want that to be more fully briefed, even though it does touch upon that. And it sounds like we may have the time if we continue the 30th hearing so that the issue is not immediately upon us, but with that, I want to open it up to either side. Any other information or argument you want me to consider as it relates to those three issues, Mr. Ballard? Well, I think your honor raises a good point in that if we're going to have further briefings on an issue, then that talks about potential limitations on what the media can cover. And if the ruling is going to bear directly on the ruling on the motion today, then I think maybe, and we're not going to have that hearing on the 30th, then maybe the court delays its ruling on this motion until it has the fully brief motion about what the media can do. Mr. Novak, if I may, that reminds me that I did forget something, but my co counsel wouldn't know because I didn't share it. The suggestion that this court can order the entire world not to say anything about Mr. Robinson or what he's wearing in court is both impractical. I think it's a prior restraint and the burden would fall on us to enforce it. I mean, that's what's asked with a question mark at the end. It's completely unenforceable. The idea of prohibiting cameras and video in the courtroom is very easy for this court to enforce. That's easy. What people can say outside the courtroom, even if it's constitutional. I understand that it's very common for courts to order the media not to comment upon what jurors, what they look like, information they provide, and voir dire like all kinds of limitations. But to somebody to somehow believe that this court can effectively prohibit everybody, every blogger in the world from commenting on what Mr. Robinson is wearing in court is totally unenforceable. And I actually don't think anybody is going to enforce it other than the defense. And that would be completely impractical. I mean, our effort to keep track of who is saying what about our client is already, you know, an insane project. And I also don't think that if this court were to eliminate cameras and video in the courtroom, which I know we haven't fully briefed at all, doesn't go to the shackling issue, because the shackling issue is, is about other constitutional rights. Then just the first concern, which is the visual appearance of somebody in shackles suggests that they're guilty of something. Because the other two interests are the decorum in the courtroom, the sanctity of the courtroom, and the sixth amendment right to be free from shackles in order to participate with your counsel. So I don't think that banning video depictions from the courtroom addresses the shackling issues as at all the court. All right, Mr. Ballard. Mr. Ballard, if I could just add. Your honor. Your honor has a difficult decision to make. Really what it comes down to is a weighing right, a balancing of the defendant's right to a presumption of innocence and a fair trial in security and at trial. There is no question that a right to a fair trial and to the presumption of innocence when you're in front of the jury, there is no question that the balance tips in favor or of the defendant's requesting at pre trial hearings, the calculus is completely different. And even with the media, and even if this court is uncomfortable with an order saying, don't talk about it, don't write, don't state the way the defendant appeared in court, I think a description of the way the defendant appeared has far less prejudicial, potential prejudicial impact than a photo, which I think the court could restrict a photo or a video. Just two other issues, your honor, I'd like to briefly mention defendant repeatedly made the point that the state hasn't provided any individualized information about the defendant. The state hasn't done that at this point because there's no requirement for the state to do so. Until this court finds that it's going to plow completely new ground and extend the rights that defendant's asking for beyond the jury process, then there's no need for the state to provide that information. And as far as the right to present, a defendant is guaranteed the right to be present. This is from State vs. Mastis, a Utah supreme court opinion that's cited in both of all of the briefing from both sides. A defendant's guaranteed the right to be present at any stage of a criminal proceeding that is critical to its outcome if his presence could contribute to the fairness of the procedure. And it's the state's position that defendants certainly would be be entitled to be present in the the courtroom with his counsel during those kinds of proceedings, but in others, he does not need to be in the courtroom. He can still be present, but he can't be present virtually where he can communicate in real time and confidentially if necessary. And just one final point, your honor, it sounded to me like defense counsel was saying that if he were in civilian clothing, redacted. I'm curious if that's accurate, but that might be one way to further balance interest the court. Thank you. And just to clarify, I don't mean to repeat myself because we're coming to an end. I'm not making a ruling on what hearings he can or cannot be on that I'm assuming both sides is requesting more briefing on. I'm simply limiting it to the motion to strike, the filing of the state, the clothing issue and the restraints. I just don't want there to be. I don't want there to be any miscommunication or expectation. Are we all on the same page, Mr. Novak? We're asking leave of the court to more fully address what we thought, which we addressed very, very quickly, which we thought was a motion under 17.5 to limit Mr. Robinson's appearances. We want to address that more fully. So for example, in the state's paper they address the 11 factors that a court should consider under 17.5. I didn't want to take that up today given the timing. But yeah, we, we want to address that more fully and we will. And we can work it out with the state whether we file simultaneous briefs or apply and sur apply or whatever we call it. They're saying they didn't file a motion. We thought they filed a motion. So we filed an opposition to nothing. We'll get the court points and authorities from both sides. The court. Thank you. I just want to clarify that. All right. It sounds like with the expectation and does Monday one o' clock on WebEx work for all parties? Ms. Nestor? Yes, sir. The court. And because we are in a sealed proceeding, I want to address an issue that goes to the very heart of what we're dealing with. It seems to me that we're addressing the issue of Mr. Robinson's dress and restraints. And because that ruling will be public and will be streamed, it seems to protect the interest of Mr. Robinson, his constitutional rights. First of all, he should be able to participate. But it seems counterproductive if his camera was on because it would defeat the whole purpose of why we're here. How do all parties feel? I'm not saying that's what should happen. I'm saying I want your input. So we're all in agreement. Come Monday at 1 o'. Clock. Mr. Novak, we're agreeing to a WebEx hearing as the court proposed. Which would mean that for this. For the court to issue its ruling. Right. The court's not entertaining more argument. The court is issuing a public ruling on documents and that were mostly publicly filed. And then there was an appropriately sealed. We are okay for purposes of receiving the Court's ruling with Mr. Robinson appearing from the jail audio only for the same reason we did last time and for the reason that the court just stated. The court. Alright. And I just wanted to check because I don't want us to get out there and someone has an issue. Because this kind of goes to the heart of what we're dealing with today. Mr. Novak. Yeah, the court. Thank you. I think we're all on the same page, Mr. Ballard. I think it. It's the perfect procedure. Your Honor, the court. All right, so we have that Monday at 1:00 clock via WebEx in regard to are we in agreement to strike the 30th. The hearing on the 30th, Mr. Novak. Yeah. And our suggestion, if we may, is that the court give us a date that's convenient to the court in early January.
[09:49]
Lady Luck (SpinQuest Promoter)
Hey, everybody, lady luck here. And we're celebrating America's 250th birthday. Now, all summer long, I'm going to be celebrating by playing on finquest.com which is an American owned social casino. It obviously features over a thousand slot games and live blackjack, live craps, live bubble craps. Head on over to spinquest.com get yourself a $30 coin pack for just 10 bucks.
[10:13]
SpinQuest Legal Disclaimer
Spin Quest is a free to play social casino, Boyd. Where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more detail.
[10:20]
Court Reporter
I think we can work out amongst ourselves a schedule for sort of briefing, all of that stuff with the understanding that we will file our motion before Thanksgiving and the parties have committed to working through the responsive pleadings in December. We just would like the court to tell us while we're all here with our calendars, what works in January. The court. All right, let's pull up a date. But while we're going there, one of the purposes of the 30th hearing is I wanted to get an update on, on the discovery because that's going to guide where we go. And I just wanted to check the pulse of both sides to see where we're at, to see are we on track. And the state has indicated they wish to be setting a preliminary hearing. So while we have the time, I'm fine with that. I think it's appropriate, I want that time to be well used to ensure that we don't come back on the 30th and say, oh, your honor, there was this issue with discovery. Now we're back another 60, 90 days. And so that was one of the purposes of the 30th hearing. I want us to have an ability to address that in a timely basis for Mr. Robinson's speedy rights and for alleged victim rights of disposition, as well as in the interest of justice. And so I know it's late, but I want to touch on that to see where we're at, if we have any other issues that we can quickly address or if we just need another hearing. And so I wanted to keep us on track for everyone's benefit. Mr. Grunader. Chad Grunader for the state, your honor, I can provide an update for the court and defense counsel in the state. We met before this hearing and talked about this. First of all, our offices are working together. Our paralegals are in constant communication about sending and receiving Discovery we have to date, as of this afternoon, received in the range of about 4085 files for from law enforcement. We received about 1700 of those within the last probably 12 hours. There's a process that our office is going through and making the necessary redactions per statute, per the law, and then we're moving that to the defense as quickly as possible. We've provided 1442 files to the defense so far, so it's about 35% of what we have in hand right now. Every week, at least once a week, we provide a batch of of information to the defense. There's been a couple of hiccups because of the size of the files and the system we're using that we're working through. I think we're getting to the bottom of that, and we'll continue to work through that when issues arise. We're also identifying the dates when the information is received and trying to push that out chronologically to the defense as quickly as possible as well. This case involves a lot of surveillance camera from UVU, and we're starting with September 10th being the most probative, most important day and then working backward from that. So we're trying to prioritize our efforts as well. So I think we're making progress there, and I think we're going to iron out a few kinks and the progress will be expedited as we move forward. All right, folks, 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.
[13:27]
SpinQuest Advertiser
Forget whatever plans you have this weekend because you're staying at home and playing on spinquest. And there's never been a better time to sign up than right now. New users get $30 coin packs for just $10. All the table games you love with hundreds of slot games and real cash Prizes. That's at spinquest.com S P I N
[13:47]
Court Reporter
Q wuest.com SpinQuest is a free to
[13:51]
SpinQuest Legal Disclaimer
play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

Summary5 min read

The Epstein Chronicles

Episode: Transcripts From The Hearing Dealing With Tyler Robinson’s Courtroom Appearance (Part 7)
Host: Bobby Capucci
Date: July 31, 2026

Episode Overview

This episode continues the forensic analysis of court transcripts from Tyler Robinson’s legal proceedings, focusing particularly on the complex issues around courtroom proceedings, the rights of defendants, media restriction, and the management of evidence in a high-profile case. Bobby Capucci dissects key moments from the latest hearing, capturing the debate around Robinson’s right to a fair trial, media coverage, and updates on discovery.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Primary Focus of the Hearing

The court aims to clarify the issues under consideration:
- Robinson’s attire and physical restraints during hearings
- The appropriateness and enforceability of limiting media coverage
- Motions to strike state filings and procedural concerns

Quote

"I'm not ruling about the media. I'm not ruling about which hearings he should or should not be able to attend... I'm ruling on the issue of striking the motion, which is obviously the easier of the motions. And in regards to how he is dressed and whether he is restrained is my focus."
– The Court | [03:00]

2. Media Restrictions and Enforcement Challenges

Discussion about whether the court can effectively limit global/media commentary on Robinson's in-court appearance
Distinction between enforceable courtroom restrictions (like banning cameras) versus unenforceable wider media gag orders
Defense argues prohibiting all comment on Robinson’s appearance is "completely impractical" and unenforceable

Quote

"The suggestion that this court can order the entire world not to say anything about Mr. Robinson... is both impractical. I think it's a prior restraint and the burden would fall on us to enforce it. I mean, that's what's asked with a question mark at the end. It's completely unenforceable."
– Mr. Novak (Defense) | [04:10]

3. Presumption of Innocence and Shackling Concerns

Deliberation about the visual impact of defendant shackling and courtroom attire
Argument that photo/video depictions carry more prejudicial weight than written descriptions
Reference to the right to participate fully and meaningfully in proceedings without prejudice

Quote

"The first concern, which is the visual appearance of somebody in shackles, suggests that they're guilty of something... banning video depictions from the courtroom addresses the shackling issues as at all."
– Mr. Ballard (Prosecution) | [05:40]

4. Defendant's Right to Presence and Participation

Citing case law: State v. Mastis on when a defendant must be physically present during critical proceedings
State argues that for many hearings, virtual appearance with real-time confidential communication suffices

Quote

"A defendant’s guaranteed the right to be present at any stage of a criminal proceeding that is critical to its outcome if his presence could contribute to the fairness of the procedure."
– Mr. Ballard | [06:55]

5. Upcoming Procedural Path and Additional Briefings

Both sides signal need for additional legal briefings, particularly regarding the scope of Robinson's appearances
Agreement to further brief and settle media restriction and presence issues in detail
Uncertainty over whether a motion was filed, but agreement to move toward clarity

Quote

"We want to address that more fully and we will. And we can work it out with the state whether we file simultaneous briefs or apply and sur apply or whatever we call it."
– Mr. Novak (Defense) | [08:15]

6. Scheduling and Next Steps

Agreement on a public ruling via WebEx with Robinson’s appearance limited to audio only to protect his rights
Hearing on July 30th is to be struck, with sides agreeing to reschedule for early January
The court emphasizes the importance of keeping discovery on track for both speedy trial and victim disposition

Quote

"One of the purposes of the 30th hearing is I wanted to get an update on, on the discovery because that's going to guide where we go...I want us to have an ability to address that in a timely basis for Mr. Robinson’s speedy rights and for alleged victim rights of disposition, as well as in the interest of justice."
– The Court | [11:15]

7. Discovery Update

4,085 files received from law enforcement, with over 1,442 provided to the defense so far
Ongoing redactions and technical hiccups discussed, but steady progress reported
Prioritization of key evidence (e.g., surveillance from September 10th)

Quote

"To date, as of this afternoon, received in the range of about 4,085 files for from law enforcement... We've provided 1,442 files to the defense so far, so it's about 35% of what we have in hand right now."
– Chad Grunader (Prosecution) | [12:08]

Memorable Moments

Sharp debate over the futility of court-imposed global media silence [04:00–05:20]
Clarification and consensus on how Robinson will appear for future rulings (audio only to avoid prejudicial visuals) [08:45–09:30]
Detailed logistical update on the scale and pace of discovery in a high-profile, document-heavy case [12:00–13:00]

Timestamps for Key Segments

[03:00] – Focus of Court Ruling and Limitations
[04:10] – Debate on Media Gag Orders
[05:40] – Shackling and Prejudice Concerns
[06:55] – Defendant’s Right to Presence
[08:15] – Need for Further Legal Briefings
[09:30] – Scheduling and Future WebEx Format
[11:15] – Purpose of Upcoming Hearings and Discovery Discussion
[12:08] – Discovery Progress Report

Notable Quotes

"It's completely unenforceable... to somehow believe that this court can effectively prohibit everybody, every blogger in the world from commenting on what Mr. Robinson is wearing in court."
– Mr. Novak, Defense | [04:15]
"The visual appearance of somebody in shackles suggests that they're guilty of something."
– Mr. Ballard, Prosecution | [05:40]
"A defendant’s guaranteed the right to be present at any stage of a criminal proceeding that is critical to its outcome if his presence could contribute to the fairness of the procedure."
– Mr. Ballard | [06:55]

Overall Tone

The conversation is formal, thorough, and often intense, with both defense and prosecution deeply engaged in balancing constitutional rights, procedural realities, and media scrutiny. The court’s approach is methodical and seeks consensus while emphasizing transparency and fairness.

For Future Listeners

This episode is essential if you want to understand the often-overlooked nuances of courtroom management in high-profile criminal cases, especially those under relentless media scrutiny. It brings to light the day-to-day procedural grind that shapes the fair trial process for all parties involved in the Epstein orbit.

Loading summary

Transcript10 lines

[00:00]
SpinQuest Advertiser
You know what? It sucks to be bored. But when I get on my phone and play real casino games on spinquest.com, the time flies by. That two hour wait at the DMV seems like 10 minutes. Play your favorite slots, live blackjack, live craps with a live dealer. New players $30 coin packs are on sale for 10 bucks. Play spinquest.com and you'll never be bored again.
[00:24]
Court Reporter
Spin Quest is a free to play
[00:25]
SpinQuest Legal Disclaimer
social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details. Score big with the DQ $7 meal deal. Crispy chicken strips, hot fries, a refreshing drink and a tasty sundae, all for just seven bucks. It's so much delicious food, you'll bring home the win every time and keep on winning when you upgrade to a small blizzard treat for just $2. More like the limited time Biscoff Cookie blizzard treat. The $7 meal deal with a $2 small Blizzard upgrade for the win. DQ Happy tastes good. Participation may vary.
[01:01]
Court Reporter
What's up everyone? And welcome back to the program. In this episode, we're gonna get back to the Tyler Robinson hearing about his court appearance. The court. All right. And is there anything further from either side that you wish me to consider? And before I go there, I also want to clarify that my understanding is I'm not ruling about the media. I'm not ruling about which hearings he should or should not be able to attend. My understanding is that's going to be further briefed. And so I want to be clear that even though it is there is an attachment that that's not the expectation of my ruling on Monday. I'm ruling on the issue of striking the motion, which is obviously the easier of the motions. And in regards to how he is dressed and whether he is restrained is my focus. Even though I've heard from both sides about other issues, I. I want that to be more fully briefed, even though it does touch upon that. And it sounds like we may have the time if we continue the 30th hearing so that the issue is not immediately upon us, but with that, I want to open it up to either side. Any other information or argument you want me to consider as it relates to those three issues, Mr. Ballard? Well, I think your honor raises a good point in that if we're going to have further briefings on an issue, then that talks about potential limitations on what the media can cover. And if the ruling is going to bear directly on the ruling on the motion today, then I think maybe, and we're not going to have that hearing on the 30th, then maybe the court delays its ruling on this motion until it has the fully brief motion about what the media can do. Mr. Novak, if I may, that reminds me that I did forget something, but my co counsel wouldn't know because I didn't share it. The suggestion that this court can order the entire world not to say anything about Mr. Robinson or what he's wearing in court is both impractical. I think it's a prior restraint and the burden would fall on us to enforce it. I mean, that's what's asked with a question mark at the end. It's completely unenforceable. The idea of prohibiting cameras and video in the courtroom is very easy for this court to enforce. That's easy. What people can say outside the courtroom, even if it's constitutional. I understand that it's very common for courts to order the media not to comment upon what jurors, what they look like, information they provide, and voir dire like all kinds of limitations. But to somebody to somehow believe that this court can effectively prohibit everybody, every blogger in the world from commenting on what Mr. Robinson is wearing in court is totally unenforceable. And I actually don't think anybody is going to enforce it other than the defense. And that would be completely impractical. I mean, our effort to keep track of who is saying what about our client is already, you know, an insane project. And I also don't think that if this court were to eliminate cameras and video in the courtroom, which I know we haven't fully briefed at all, doesn't go to the shackling issue, because the shackling issue is, is about other constitutional rights. Then just the first concern, which is the visual appearance of somebody in shackles suggests that they're guilty of something. Because the other two interests are the decorum in the courtroom, the sanctity of the courtroom, and the sixth amendment right to be free from shackles in order to participate with your counsel. So I don't think that banning video depictions from the courtroom addresses the shackling issues as at all the court. All right, Mr. Ballard. Mr. Ballard, if I could just add. Your honor. Your honor has a difficult decision to make. Really what it comes down to is a weighing right, a balancing of the defendant's right to a presumption of innocence and a fair trial in security and at trial. There is no question that a right to a fair trial and to the presumption of innocence when you're in front of the jury, there is no question that the balance tips in favor or of the defendant's requesting at pre trial hearings, the calculus is completely different. And even with the media, and even if this court is uncomfortable with an order saying, don't talk about it, don't write, don't state the way the defendant appeared in court, I think a description of the way the defendant appeared has far less prejudicial, potential prejudicial impact than a photo, which I think the court could restrict a photo or a video. Just two other issues, your honor, I'd like to briefly mention defendant repeatedly made the point that the state hasn't provided any individualized information about the defendant. The state hasn't done that at this point because there's no requirement for the state to do so. Until this court finds that it's going to plow completely new ground and extend the rights that defendant's asking for beyond the jury process, then there's no need for the state to provide that information. And as far as the right to present, a defendant is guaranteed the right to be present. This is from State vs. Mastis, a Utah supreme court opinion that's cited in both of all of the briefing from both sides. A defendant's guaranteed the right to be present at any stage of a criminal proceeding that is critical to its outcome if his presence could contribute to the fairness of the procedure. And it's the state's position that defendants certainly would be be entitled to be present in the the courtroom with his counsel during those kinds of proceedings, but in others, he does not need to be in the courtroom. He can still be present, but he can't be present virtually where he can communicate in real time and confidentially if necessary. And just one final point, your honor, it sounded to me like defense counsel was saying that if he were in civilian clothing, redacted. I'm curious if that's accurate, but that might be one way to further balance interest the court. Thank you. And just to clarify, I don't mean to repeat myself because we're coming to an end. I'm not making a ruling on what hearings he can or cannot be on that I'm assuming both sides is requesting more briefing on. I'm simply limiting it to the motion to strike, the filing of the state, the clothing issue and the restraints. I just don't want there to be. I don't want there to be any miscommunication or expectation. Are we all on the same page, Mr. Novak? We're asking leave of the court to more fully address what we thought, which we addressed very, very quickly, which we thought was a motion under 17.5 to limit Mr. Robinson's appearances. We want to address that more fully. So for example, in the state's paper they address the 11 factors that a court should consider under 17.5. I didn't want to take that up today given the timing. But yeah, we, we want to address that more fully and we will. And we can work it out with the state whether we file simultaneous briefs or apply and sur apply or whatever we call it. They're saying they didn't file a motion. We thought they filed a motion. So we filed an opposition to nothing. We'll get the court points and authorities from both sides. The court. Thank you. I just want to clarify that. All right. It sounds like with the expectation and does Monday one o' clock on WebEx work for all parties? Ms. Nestor? Yes, sir. The court. And because we are in a sealed proceeding, I want to address an issue that goes to the very heart of what we're dealing with. It seems to me that we're addressing the issue of Mr. Robinson's dress and restraints. And because that ruling will be public and will be streamed, it seems to protect the interest of Mr. Robinson, his constitutional rights. First of all, he should be able to participate. But it seems counterproductive if his camera was on because it would defeat the whole purpose of why we're here. How do all parties feel? I'm not saying that's what should happen. I'm saying I want your input. So we're all in agreement. Come Monday at 1 o'. Clock. Mr. Novak, we're agreeing to a WebEx hearing as the court proposed. Which would mean that for this. For the court to issue its ruling. Right. The court's not entertaining more argument. The court is issuing a public ruling on documents and that were mostly publicly filed. And then there was an appropriately sealed. We are okay for purposes of receiving the Court's ruling with Mr. Robinson appearing from the jail audio only for the same reason we did last time and for the reason that the court just stated. The court. Alright. And I just wanted to check because I don't want us to get out there and someone has an issue. Because this kind of goes to the heart of what we're dealing with today. Mr. Novak. Yeah, the court. Thank you. I think we're all on the same page, Mr. Ballard. I think it. It's the perfect procedure. Your Honor, the court. All right, so we have that Monday at 1:00 clock via WebEx in regard to are we in agreement to strike the 30th. The hearing on the 30th, Mr. Novak. Yeah. And our suggestion, if we may, is that the court give us a date that's convenient to the court in early January.
[09:49]
Lady Luck (SpinQuest Promoter)
Hey, everybody, lady luck here. And we're celebrating America's 250th birthday. Now, all summer long, I'm going to be celebrating by playing on finquest.com which is an American owned social casino. It obviously features over a thousand slot games and live blackjack, live craps, live bubble craps. Head on over to spinquest.com get yourself a $30 coin pack for just 10 bucks.
[10:13]
SpinQuest Legal Disclaimer
Spin Quest is a free to play social casino, Boyd. Where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more detail.
[10:20]
Court Reporter
I think we can work out amongst ourselves a schedule for sort of briefing, all of that stuff with the understanding that we will file our motion before Thanksgiving and the parties have committed to working through the responsive pleadings in December. We just would like the court to tell us while we're all here with our calendars, what works in January. The court. All right, let's pull up a date. But while we're going there, one of the purposes of the 30th hearing is I wanted to get an update on, on the discovery because that's going to guide where we go. And I just wanted to check the pulse of both sides to see where we're at, to see are we on track. And the state has indicated they wish to be setting a preliminary hearing. So while we have the time, I'm fine with that. I think it's appropriate, I want that time to be well used to ensure that we don't come back on the 30th and say, oh, your honor, there was this issue with discovery. Now we're back another 60, 90 days. And so that was one of the purposes of the 30th hearing. I want us to have an ability to address that in a timely basis for Mr. Robinson's speedy rights and for alleged victim rights of disposition, as well as in the interest of justice. And so I know it's late, but I want to touch on that to see where we're at, if we have any other issues that we can quickly address or if we just need another hearing. And so I wanted to keep us on track for everyone's benefit. Mr. Grunader. Chad Grunader for the state, your honor, I can provide an update for the court and defense counsel in the state. We met before this hearing and talked about this. First of all, our offices are working together. Our paralegals are in constant communication about sending and receiving Discovery we have to date, as of this afternoon, received in the range of about 4085 files for from law enforcement. We received about 1700 of those within the last probably 12 hours. There's a process that our office is going through and making the necessary redactions per statute, per the law, and then we're moving that to the defense as quickly as possible. We've provided 1442 files to the defense so far, so it's about 35% of what we have in hand right now. Every week, at least once a week, we provide a batch of of information to the defense. There's been a couple of hiccups because of the size of the files and the system we're using that we're working through. I think we're getting to the bottom of that, and we'll continue to work through that when issues arise. We're also identifying the dates when the information is received and trying to push that out chronologically to the defense as quickly as possible as well. This case involves a lot of surveillance camera from UVU, and we're starting with September 10th being the most probative, most important day and then working backward from that. So we're trying to prioritize our efforts as well. So I think we're making progress there, and I think we're going to iron out a few kinks and the progress will be expedited as we move forward. All right, folks, 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.
[13:27]
SpinQuest Advertiser
Forget whatever plans you have this weekend because you're staying at home and playing on spinquest. And there's never been a better time to sign up than right now. New users get $30 coin packs for just $10. All the table games you love with hundreds of slot games and real cash Prizes. That's at spinquest.com S P I N
[13:47]
Court Reporter
Q wuest.com SpinQuest is a free to
[13:51]
SpinQuest Legal Disclaimer
play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.