About this transcript: This is a full AI-generated transcript of HEARING: UT v. Tyler Robinson - Day 3 — Charlie Kirk Assassination Trial — COURT TV from COURT TV, published July 9, 2026. The transcript contains 14,465 words with timestamps and was generated using Whisper AI.
"Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. County Attorney Jeff Gray and Chris Ballard are also present. Good afternoon. Kathy Nestor, Richard Novak, Michael Burt, and Stacey Visser for Mr. Robinson, who's present in the..."
[00:00:00] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[00:05:00] Speaker 1: Thank you.
[00:05:29] Speaker 2: County Attorney Jeff Gray and Chris Ballard are also present.
[00:05:33] Speaker 1: Good afternoon.
[00:05:35] Speaker 3: Kathy Nestor, Richard Novak, Michael Burt, and Stacey Visser for Mr. Robinson, who's present in the courtroom, Your Honor.
[00:05:42] Speaker 1: Good afternoon. Mr. Robinson, good afternoon. And also for the record, the court recognizes the presence of victim representative, Ms. Erica Kirk. Good afternoon. First, with respect to courtroom protocol, to maintain security and decorum, any individual who exits the courtroom during proceedings will not be permitted to reenter until the recess. All counsel are expected to take reasonable measures to safeguard confidential communication. Such measures may include the use of screen protections on electronic devices and care to avoid inadvertent capture of privileged or private discussions by recording equipment or by those present in the courtroom. And as you note, the microphones on your tables are turned off. So please come to the lectern for making, when you're addressing the court. Second, the court will address the camera and still photographer. camera operator and still photographer. And if you both could come forward, please, to the lectern. All right. Could you both state your names?
[00:07:03] John Wilson: John Wilson, KSL Television.
[00:07:06] Tess Crowley: Tess Crowley, Deseret News.
[00:07:07] Speaker 1: Good afternoon. Could you state your rules for today's hearing?
[00:07:13] John Wilson: Video recording and streaming of the proceedings.
[00:07:16] Tess Crowley: I'm the pool still photographer.
[00:07:18] Speaker 1: All right. And have you both reviewed the court's standing decorum order? Yes. Do you understand the requirements set forth in that order as they apply to your activities today? Yes. Do you require additional time to review the order or to adjust equipment to ensure compliance?
[00:07:34] Speaker 3: No.
[00:07:35] Speaker 1: Do you anticipate any difficulties complying with the order? No. Thank you both for your cooperation.
[00:07:42] Speaker ?: Yeah.
[00:07:45] Speaker 1: As we begin this afternoon, the court wishes to acknowledge the importance of safety, dignity, and well-being of all those who are present or who may be present during these proceedings, including the parties, counsel, witnesses, court staff, and members of the public. The court is also mindful of its solemn obligation to protect and uphold the constitutional rights of both Mr. Robinson and Ms. Kirk. In furtherance of those important interests, all persons attending these proceedings are reminded that portable electronic devices are not permitted in the courtroom or on the fourth floor. Cell phones are not permitted in the courtroom unless expressly authorized. Any unauthorized possession or use of a cell phone in the courtroom may be addressed by the court. For those individuals who are authorized to have a cell phone, please place your device on silent at this time so that these proceedings may continue without interruption. The court also expects that every person in attendance will be treated with the dignity and respect to which they are entitled to. Consistent with the court's standing decorum order, all spectators shall remain quiet, civil, and orderly at all times. Spectators shall not engage in conduct that is distracting, disruptive, provocative, disrespectful, uncivil, or threatening in any manner. Spectators shall not make audible comments of any kind, shall not shake or nod their heads, and shall not make gestures or other visible reactions during their hearing. Spectators shall also not wear or display pins, buttons, signs, clothing, photographs, or other items expressing support for or in opposition to any person connected with this case or expressing any position concerning the status of this case as a capital offense. The court appreciates the cooperation of all present in maintaining a courtroom environment that is safe, respectful, orderly, and faithful to the rights and dignity of every person involved. Finally, I wish to note that this preliminary hearing is scheduled to conclude this Friday at 5 p.m. I raise this as simply a reminder for the parties, particularly given that we have now reached the midpoint of this week. I recognize and respect the constitutional rights of all parties. When this preliminary hearing was set, the court allocated a substantial amount of time for both sides to address the matters they consider necessary and appropriate for purposes of this proceeding. The standard at a preliminary hearing is probable cause, and with that in mind, I ask counsel to remain mindful of the time that remains and manage your time appropriately so each of you is able to fulfill your duties to your respective clients within the time frame that has been provided. And with that, I wish to inquire a brief overview on what is anticipated from each party in order the court has a roadmap on how we are proceeding for the remainder of this preliminary hearing. First, turning to the state, and if you wouldn't mind coming forward, Mr. Grunander.
[00:10:59] Speaker 6: Thank you, Your Honor. We anticipate presenting evidence through Agent Brian Davis this afternoon. Sergeant Jennifer Falmina is also present in the courthouse and prepared to testify if we get to her today as well. Following her testimony, which we believe we'll carry into tomorrow, if we do get to her today, that will close the presentation of the evidence on the part of the state. Thank you, Mr. Grunander. For defense.
[00:11:31] Speaker 7: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Good afternoon. Michael Byrd for Mr. Robinson. Judge, we have two remaining witnesses, Ms. Oliver from the ATF and Ms. Karner also from the ATF.
[00:11:49] Speaker 1: All right, and to both parties, thank you, I appreciate that. Do both parties anticipate any issues concluding their case? Obviously, there's variables, cross-examination, and kind of the fog of war that happens in court proceedings, but any party anticipate issues concluding at or before Friday at 5 p.m.
[00:12:11] Speaker 8: Not from the state, Judge. I just want to highlight one issue for the court because it may be that the court wants to do some time management. The state is going to proffer a video, a video recorded 11-0-2. We have provided the state, I want to say about a day and a half ago, with proposed redactions because we believe that portions of it are not admissible, even in a preliminary hearing. And the way we did that is we provided a transcript and then a redacted version of the transcript of the entire video recorded interview. It may be that the court wants to look at the proposed redactions, not while court is in session, but during some other period of time, because the transcript of the video, which we prepared and we provided to the state so the state could raise any concerns about the accuracy of the transcript, that's not an issue. The admissibility of portions of the video or the issue is about 20 pages, that may be 22 pages, so to use court time for the court to look at the proposed redactions may be an inefficient use of the time. I'm not saying when the court should do it, I'm just saying we may not want to do it between 9 and noon and 1 and 5 tomorrow or Friday, but it's going to come up today, and so the question will be when does the court want to engage in the process of reviewing a 22-page transcript that has proposed redactions. That's all.
[00:13:53] Speaker 1: I appreciate the heads up. Mr. Gernander, do you wish to be heard? Yes, Judge.
[00:13:59] Speaker 6: The State has received the proposed redactions, and we are prepared to address them when that time comes. However, we do intend on presenting testimony through Mr. Davis, through Agent Davis, and when we get to that point, when it's ripe for discussion, we can address the matter with the court. That would be our preference.
[00:14:19] Speaker 1: All right. Well, I'll address it as it comes. And to the defense, with the remaining time, do you feel confident that it is sufficient to accomplish your duty? We do, Your Honor. Thank you. All right. Does either party require the benefit of the record before we begin? To this date. Thank you.
[00:14:39] Speaker 9: Ryan McBride for the State, Your Honor. Just to address an issue that's come up, and we expect to come up as we enter the second half of this preliminary hearing, regarding the admission of exhibits. Under Rule 104A, the court must decide preliminary questions about whether the witness is qualified, or a privilege exists, or evidence is admissible. In so deciding, the court is not bound by the rules of evidence, except those on privilege. And I'm bringing this up again, because it's likely to come up, and it is going to affect the procedures we use as we go forward. The court holds two roles, really, at this stage. One is a gatekeeper role on admissibility, and the second is the fact finder role as the magistrate. And I know you've referred to those two roles earlier in this proceeding. And the court, Rule 104A means the court can consider evidence, even though its admissibility has not yet been determined, in its gatekeeper role. And then, after it has been admitted, it can determine the admissible qualities of that evidence, or that exhibit. And that is especially relevant at a preliminary hearing, where foundational evidence is reliable hearsay under 1102 B-3. Even at trial, a State v. Griffin, which is a 2016 UT33 Utah Supreme Court case, the court has held that rules of evidence do not apply to evidence used to establish foundation for admission of other evidence. It's a quote from paragraph 33. So the point is, foundational rulings on admissibility can consider evidence that is not in and of itself admissible. That's proper. The second point is, the courts of appeals recognize a presumption that the court considers, when acting in its fact-finding role, only the admissible evidence, only the admissible evidence, and disregards any inadmissible evidence. Most commonly, that comes up in a bench trial-type case, where prior bad acts evidence is admitted, and it can have dual inferences. State v. Adams was one of those cases. That's 2011 UTAP 163. And what it means is, we know that a fact-finder is not tainted by the judge's role as a gatekeeper, even though the judge as a gatekeeper considers potentially inadmissible evidence. It also means that the court doesn't have to distinguish which hat it's wearing as we go through the proceeding. In this circumstance, this hearing is taking place outside the presence of the jury. The state has laid and intends to lay and continue to lay foundation in open court. Such foundation sometimes will include discussion of the actual exhibits, rather than just proffers, as well as foundation for the exhibits. Now, I don't think that there's any issue between us and the defense in understanding that kind of statement of the law. I think the issue that has come up is, under Rule 104B, determinations of admissibility take place outside the presence of the jury. The defense appears to be assuming the jury to be basically the potential jury pool. And trying to avoid the potential taint to a jury pool that discussion of evidence, which may or may not be admissible, may cause. I think that's a fair point. I just want to put the court on notice of our view and how we have and intend to proceed as we move forward. Under Rule 104B, that determination takes place outside of the presence of the jury. Under the rules, there's a presumption that these hearings and this hearing is open to the public, including admissibility hearings. Because of that, we intend to move forward and move the admission of evidence and argue the admission of evidence in open court. Should the court close the hearing, of course, that would change. But because that's the presumption in the law and that conforms with 104B, that's our intention unless the court or counsel moves to close, unless the court or counsel moves to close the hearing. So in summary, the court could, the court can and often should consider evidence and review the exhibits before admission. Two, the court is not tainted by doing so and can distinguish between admissible evidence and improper evidence. And there's no need for the court to identify which hat it's wearing. And three, absent closure, we'll move forward with our evidence in open court.
[00:19:26] Speaker 1: All right. Well, well, I'll hear from defense if you want to be heard on that issue. I see what, okay.
[00:19:34] Speaker 8: Briefly, briefly, your honor, I'm sorry I have two microphones. I'm just trying to be technologically savvy. I think the 104 issue, I agree completely with Mr. McBride on what he's saying. Because of the Supreme Court's ruling in Archuleta concerning the availability to the public of exhibits from a preliminary hearing, which, of course, is a fact-specific inquiry by this court, we will continue to raise concerns about our client's right to a fair trial when we think it's appropriate, and the court will make the rulings it makes. That's all I want to say.
[00:20:14] Speaker 1: All right. To both parties, the standing request remains. When you are moving a piece of evidence into the record, I ask three steps. To admit it, to be published in the courtroom, and then to be published on that screen. And I'm going to have the screen adjusted slightly. Because if it's published, I want it to be meaningfully able to be viewed. And I noticed somebody sent me a screenshot that that angle creates an interesting angle that kind of distorts it. So, in the interest of, if we're going to be transparent, it should be viewable transparent. So, we'll adjust that screen briefly. But please address those three issues. And I understand one side or the other might say, well, we agree or we don't agree, period. But please, I'm trying to make sure that the record before us is a clean and clear record. So, if you would do that, the court would appreciate that. All right. Anything further? No, Your Honor. All right. The court acknowledges that the exclusionary rule is in effect. At this time, any witness who is subject to exclusion should be excused from the courtroom. I will leave it to the parties to monitor the courtroom to ensure that compliance is adhered to. With that, turning to the state, you may call your next witness.
[00:21:39] Speaker ?: Your Honor, you want this to be able to be able to?
[00:21:41] Speaker 1: Yes. I mean, I want the press to be able to see it, too. But when it's, there is a bit of a distortion when it's at that particular angle. So, while the parties are getting, moving forward, go ahead and adjust it. And let's put a sample image of something that has nothing to do with this case on the screen.
[00:22:02] Tess Crowley: So, that's another issue. I don't know that it is projecting yet. And I don't know if we need to take a break to make sure that's what we need.
[00:22:13] Speaker 1: Is it not projecting on the monitors? We're seeing it now. Okay. Technology is challenging us again. Well, what's our thought, staff, on projecting? Is this something that's not going to be cured by turning off and turning on, I'm assuming? I think I'm going to need the other tables. I just need some other tables besides three so we can... All right. If all of you, council table, again, I'm trying to do this to get this out of the way so we can move forward cleanly. If you wouldn't mind turning off your monitor and then turning it back on. And if I could borrow somebody to do that to the witness monitor as well so we all get them in sync. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. And for the lectrum as well, let's just see if we can get that up because that could cause a delay. I just want to knock this out first.
[00:23:09] Speaker 7: My judge.
[00:23:11] Speaker 1: Yes.
[00:23:11] Speaker 7: If you would prefer, I mean, we could promote TV or by the media. Can they see it for this more commandment or however it works?
[00:23:20] Speaker 1: If that doesn't address any security issues, let's do that. I just want to make it easy. That way that TV can be more flat and it's not a distorted view. And then the media can look at that TV. Again, transparency needs to be viewable, not just there in concept. All right. Yeah. Let's go ahead and do that. How are the monitors looking? Nothing? All right. Could I have someone with your laptop plug in so we can test, so we can check if it's receiving the data or the information from your laptop to allow us to project? That may be the issue.
[00:24:12] Speaker 8: Mr. Ellis has plugged in.
[00:24:14] Speaker 1: All right. Let's take a look here. I appreciate the party's patience, especially after I just said we're at the halfway point.
[00:24:30] Speaker 8: We're getting a thumbs up.
[00:24:33] Speaker 1: All right. So it's displaying for defense, for prosecution.
[00:24:38] Speaker 2: We're working on it right now, judging. Yes.
[00:24:43] Speaker 1: All right. And on the screen monitor here, it looks like something came up.
[00:24:49] Speaker 7: It's looking. It's looking.
[00:24:51] Speaker 1: All right. And all right. We'll just hope that the monitor for the witness works as well. All right. So we're ready to go.
[00:25:00] John Wilson: You can give it to me if you want or just use this.
[00:25:03] Speaker 1: Just bring it in and go ahead and we'll get started. And how much time is needed for that? Well, let's go ahead and proceed. And then when we take a break, then we can do that. But for now, the media, if you can see that TV, if you have any problems, please let me know. And we're going to bring in that second TV. We just want to get the train on the track here. All right. Ms. Hunt.
[00:25:30] Tess Crowley: This date calls Agent Brian Davis.
[00:25:34] Speaker 1: Agent Davis, if you would like to come forward and be sworn in. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give in the case now pending before the court
[00:25:41] Speaker 10: will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
[00:25:43] Speaker 1: So help you God. All right, Agent, if you wouldn't mind having a seat. To your left is a water bottle. And if you're seated, you'll have to adjust that microphone, pull it down, and then pull it toward you to ensure that it is picking up your voice and will have a good record. All right. Ms. Hunt, your witness.
[00:26:08] Tess Crowley: If you could please state your name and spell your last for the record.
[00:26:11] Speaker 11: Yeah, it's Brian Davis, D-A-V-I-S.
[00:26:15] Tess Crowley: What is your occupation?
[00:26:17] Speaker 11: I'm an agent with the Utah State Bureau of Investigation.
[00:26:22] Tess Crowley: How long have you been with, is it fair to call that SBI?
[00:26:26] Speaker 11: Correct, yes.
[00:26:27] Tess Crowley: How long have you been with the SBI?
[00:26:29] Speaker 11: A total of 18 years.
[00:26:32] Tess Crowley: I want to briefly go over your experience as a law enforcement officer generally. Actually, are you a law enforcement officer in that capacity?
[00:26:41] Speaker 11: Yes, correct.
[00:26:42] Tess Crowley: How long have you been a law enforcement officer?
[00:26:44] Speaker 11: A total of 27 years.
[00:26:47] Tess Crowley: You mentioned you were with SBI for 18, is that right? Correct, yeah. What other agencies were you with prior to SBI?
[00:26:54] Speaker 11: So, Department of Public Safety, I've been a state trooper for eight years, 18 years with SBI and one year with the Utah Transit Authority Police.
[00:27:04] Tess Crowley: We've heard talk from other officers about POST. What is POST?
[00:27:09] Speaker 11: That's Peace Officer Standards and Training.
[00:27:12] Tess Crowley: Did you complete that?
[00:27:13] Speaker 11: I did.
[00:27:14] Tess Crowley: What year did you complete that?
[00:27:15] Speaker 11: 1999.
[00:27:21] Tess Crowley: Is that a type of certification that you hold?
[00:27:25] Speaker 11: Yeah, it's a statewide certification. The any peace officer in the city of Utah, a local, state, county, I'll go through to become a certified peace or police officer.
[00:27:35] Tess Crowley: Has that certification lapsed or been any gaps in that time since you received it in 1999?
[00:27:40] Speaker 11: No, it's been constant since then.
[00:27:44] Tess Crowley: I want to talk a bit about your training and experience within law enforcement. What roles have you had at SBI?
[00:27:54] Speaker 11: I began as a call enforcement team. We did covert and overt operations. I was assigned to an ATF, the PSN task force, focusing on violent felons with guns and drugs. I was on a FBI task force, Safe Streets. It was a gang violent crime task force. I was on the U.S. Marshals Fugitive Apprehension Team task force. I've been on several different OICI protocol teams, officer of our clinical incident teams around the state of Utah and within SBI. I've been on dozens of those scenes. And within major crimes of SBI, I've been, we've worked a variety of cases. I work anything with violent crime, homicides, sex crimes, drug crimes, firearm crimes, white-collar crime, fraud. I was also on a task force with a FBI public corruptions task force as well.
[00:28:51] Tess Crowley: Was that all on-the-job training or did you receive specific training or conferences, things like that?
[00:28:57] Speaker 11: Yeah, throughout the years, various trainings, conferences in all those capacities over the years.
[00:29:05] Tess Crowley: You mentioned you've been a part of homicide investigations.
[00:29:08] Speaker 11: Yes.
[00:29:09] Tess Crowley: Can you estimate how many?
[00:29:13] Speaker 11: My best guess would be 60-plus, where I've had some involvement. I also currently work on a cold case unit with NSBI, so we consult with agencies around the state of Utah. And I've probably consulted on over 50 of those as well in various capacities and roles.
[00:29:33] Tess Crowley: Have you received training specific to homicide investigations?
[00:29:36] Speaker 11: Yes, I have.
[00:29:37] Tess Crowley: What types of things have you been trained on in that regard?
[00:29:42] Speaker 11: Just several different times, week-long course training, conferences on homicide, from case studies to how to manage a case. Also, I've been on several trainings with crime scene investigation. I'm a Feral certified. It's a 3-D Feral scan of crime scenes.
[00:30:06] Tess Crowley: What's a Feral scan?
[00:30:07] Speaker 11: It's a 3-D laser imaging that is used pretty commonly on crime scenes. It just accurately documents crime scenes. And I've been on, I'm a certified, I've been certified as a forensic interview, and the forensic interview technique with more child victims. So just various things like that.
[00:30:31] Tess Crowley: You mentioned currently you're a part of the cold case team within SBI?
[00:30:36] Speaker ?: Correct.
[00:30:38] Tess Crowley: Have you been assigned as part of the investigation into the homicide of Charlie Kirk?
[00:30:44] Speaker 11: Yes.
[00:30:45] Tess Crowley: And what is your role? Do you have a specific role in that investigation?
[00:30:51] Speaker 11: Yes, I was assigned to be a case agent along with Agent Dave Hull.
[00:30:57] Tess Crowley: What does it mean to be a case agent?
[00:31:00] Speaker 11: Essentially, you manage the case, responsible for it, ultimately. You direct the case as you go along. You make assignments as needed. Ultimately, everything comes back to you, like in the form of reports, evidence, and such. And then, ultimately, you screen that case, if applicable, to the appropriate county attorney or DA.
[00:31:29] Tess Crowley: You mentioned that you are a co-case agent, or were with Agent Hull. Is it typical to have two case agents on a case?
[00:31:38] Speaker 11: It can be, especially on a large case, yes.
[00:31:42] Tess Crowley: Has this particular case been large?
[00:31:45] Speaker 11: Yes, it has.
[00:31:51] Tess Crowley: Have other police agencies been involved in the investigation of this case?
[00:31:55] Speaker 11: Yes.
[00:31:57] Tess Crowley: Who has been designated as the primary investigative agency?
[00:32:00] Speaker 11: The State Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigating agency.
[00:32:06] Tess Crowley: I know there are probably several or dozens, but what other agencies have you been working with?
[00:32:13] Speaker 11: FBI, ATF as well, several local state agencies, UVU Police, Oren Police, Utah County Sheriff, Washington County Sheriff, St. George, PD. Most of all the agencies within Utah County, and even others outside of the county. So, we've worked with a lot of agencies with this case. It was a pretty large-scale investigation.
[00:32:39] Tess Crowley: You mentioned ATF. What does that stand for?
[00:32:42] Speaker 11: Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms.
[00:32:47] Tess Crowley: All right. I know a lot about what we've... So, as a case agent, have you been in court during this preliminary hearing?
[00:32:55] Speaker 11: Yes.
[00:32:56] Tess Crowley: You've heard prior testimony?
[00:32:57] Speaker 11: Yes.
[00:32:58] Tess Crowley: We've talked a lot about the events of September 10th of 2025. I want to direct you, your attention, to September 11th, 2025. Do you remember that day? I do. What happened on that day in relation to your investigation?
[00:33:17] Speaker 11: I spent the day at the command post with various assignments. That evening, it was about 8.30 p.m., I believe, on the 11th, I received a phone call from Sergeant Elschelz requesting that I travel to St. George.
[00:33:32] Tess Crowley: Who is Sergeant Elschelz? What agency is Sergeant Elschelz with?
[00:33:38] Speaker 11: With SBI.
[00:33:41] Tess Crowley: And he requested that you travel to St. George? Correct. What was the reason stated for that?
[00:33:45] Speaker 11: We received information that an individual was turning himself in or was going to turn himself in to police in regard to his involvement with the incident, the shooting on U of U campus.
[00:34:02] Tess Crowley: And I'm sorry, what time did you get that information, that call?
[00:34:06] Speaker 11: About 8.30 p.m.
[00:34:07] Tess Crowley: Did you travel down to St. George?
[00:34:09] Speaker 11: I did.
[00:34:10] Tess Crowley: On what day?
[00:34:12] Speaker 11: Of September 11th.
[00:34:16] Tess Crowley: Did anyone else go with you?
[00:34:18] Speaker 11: Yes. So we traveled to the Salt Lake City Airport to a hangar there, and we were flown down on a fixed-wing aircraft. It was Sergeant Elschelz, it was Agent Folger with FBI, Agent Anderson with FBI, Ryan McBride and myself, and the two pilots.
[00:34:36] Tess Crowley: And who is Ryan McBride?
[00:34:38] Speaker 11: With the Utah County Attorney's Office.
[00:34:42] Tess Crowley: What time did you arrive in St. George?
[00:34:44] Speaker 11: We landed probably about 11.30 p.m. at the St. George Airport.
[00:34:51] Tess Crowley: And again, this would be the evening of September 11th, 2025?
[00:34:55] Speaker 11: That's correct.
[00:34:56] Tess Crowley: Where did you go once you landed in St. George?
[00:35:00] Speaker 11: There we were transported via ground to the Washington County Sheriff's Department.
[00:35:06] Tess Crowley: Did you coordinate at that time with any other law enforcement agencies down in southern Utah?
[00:35:13] Speaker 11: We did.
[00:35:15] Tess Crowley: You did? We did, yeah. What other agencies?
[00:35:17] Speaker 11: Well, with FBI, as we were traveling, and then along with mainly the Washington County Sheriff's Department, we also have agents with an SBI assigned in southern Utah area. So working with them as well, just making plans and coordinating resources and manpower and personnel.
[00:35:33] Tess Crowley: And you stated you went to the Washington County Sheriff's Office?
[00:35:37] Speaker 11: Yes.
[00:35:38] Tess Crowley: What time did you arrive there?
[00:35:40] Speaker 11: Probably somewhere close to midnight, maybe just a little bit before midnight of the 11th.
[00:35:45] Tess Crowley: What happened next?
[00:35:47] Speaker 11: So we met several other investigators, agents, and detectives there, along with some other prosecutors. There were some federal prosecutors as well that were present. And from there, we began kind of making plans, determining how to handle the situation there.
[00:36:05] Tess Crowley: Did you, you mentioned, the reason you went down there was you had been told that an individual wanted to turn themselves in.
[00:36:13] Speaker 11: That's correct.
[00:36:13] Tess Crowley: Did you observe that individual?
[00:36:15] Speaker 11: I did.
[00:36:16] Tess Crowley: And where was that person at the time?
[00:36:19] Speaker 11: So when he arrived, we went into the room that we were in. It was one of their office, the cubicles there. On the wall, there was a television monitor where I viewed an individual on that screen that was sitting in one of the soft interview rooms. And that room was equipped with an audio-video recording device. And so I observed him on that screen at that time.
[00:36:44] Tess Crowley: Were you aware or did you become aware what time that individual arrived at Washington County Sheriff's Office?
[00:36:50] Speaker 11: I was told he arrived there about 9 p.m. that evening.
[00:36:55] Tess Crowley: And was he with anybody else?
[00:36:59] Speaker 11: He had been, yeah, he'd come there with his parents and a family friend.
[00:37:04] Tess Crowley: Did you speak with this individual that we've been talking about?
[00:37:08] Speaker 11: Yes, I did.
[00:37:10] Tess Crowley: Did you get his name?
[00:37:12] Speaker 11: Yes, we obtained his name and date of birth.
[00:37:15] Tess Crowley: What was his name?
[00:37:16] Speaker 11: Tyler Robinson.
[00:37:19] Tess Crowley: Did he tell you that himself?
[00:37:21] Speaker 11: He did.
[00:37:24] Tess Crowley: You mentioned other individuals came there with him. And then you also said that you had kind of coordinated with the team of law enforcement officers that were there. Were those other individuals spoken with by law enforcement? They were. Let's go through them. Who, or I guess, how did that happen? Who was spoken to first of the other individuals?
[00:37:55] Speaker 11: So Tyler's mother was interviewed by SBI agent Holgreen and FBI agent Cox. And kind of simultaneously, his father was being interviewed by SBI agent Terry and FBI agent Smith. And also at that time, the family friend Mike Mitchell was interviewed by other agents as well.
[00:38:23] Tess Crowley: And you said that this was, these interviews were being conducted simultaneously?
[00:38:28] Speaker 11: Yes.
[00:38:31] Tess Crowley: Were you part of the interview with either of Tyler's parents?
[00:38:40] Speaker 11: Yes. Yes, myself and Agent Folger. Did I misspeak earlier? Myself and Agent Folger interviewed the mother.
[00:38:46] Tess Crowley: All right. Let's make sure the record's clear on that. So Agent Folger, what agency is he with?
[00:38:52] Speaker 11: With FBI.
[00:38:53] Tess Crowley: And yourself interviewed Tyler's mother.
[00:38:55] Speaker 11: Yes, that's correct.
[00:38:56] Tess Crowley: I just want to make sure the record's clear. Who interviewed Tyler's father?
[00:39:00] Speaker 11: Yeah, I think I misspoke. It was Agent Holgreen, Agent Cox that met with his father.
[00:39:05] Tess Crowley: And then who spoke with family friend Mike Mitchell?
[00:39:09] Speaker 11: Agent Terry, Agent Smith.
[00:39:16] Tess Crowley: Down in St. George, Washington County Sheriff's Office, was Mr. Robinson detained at that time?
[00:39:22] Speaker 11: Yes, he was.
[00:39:24] Tess Crowley: Was he formally arrested at that time?
[00:39:28] Speaker 11: Yeah, following, after all the interviews were completed, when we talked to everybody, that he was formally arrested at that time.
[00:39:35] Tess Crowley: And I'm going to come back to that in a second. Well, excuse me, where did the arrest take place?
[00:39:44] Speaker 11: At the Washington County Sheriff's Office.
[00:39:52] Tess Crowley: And what date did that happen on?
[00:39:59] Speaker 11: Would have been September 12th. It was about 4 a.m., I believe, of September 12th.
[00:40:13] Tess Crowley: All right, I want to show just on your screen, not for public yet, what's been marked for identification as State's Exhibit 15. Let me know when you're able to see that.
[00:40:33] Speaker 11: Okay, it's there.
[00:40:34] Tess Crowley: Before I ask you about that, did you have an opportunity to, you stated that you observed Mr. Robinson at Washington County Sheriff's Office, is that right?
[00:40:47] Speaker 8: Yes, that's correct. Mr. Hunter, could I have a moment with Ms. Hunt? May I have a moment with Ms. Hunt? You may.
[00:40:55] Speaker ?: You're just going to do the redacted version. Thank you.
[00:41:01] Speaker 8: That may happen a couple more times as we go through exhibits. I understand. Because of agreements and disagreements that we have. Thank you for the heads up.
[00:41:11] Tess Crowley: At Washington County Sheriff's Office, where you initially observed Mr. Robinson, you stated that he was in a room. Is that room equipped with video recording?
[00:41:22] Speaker 11: Yes, it is.
[00:41:23] Tess Crowley: Is that standard practice for a facility like that to have video recording in such a room?
[00:41:28] Speaker 11: Yes, very common.
[00:41:30] Tess Crowley: Have you reviewed that video?
[00:41:31] Speaker 11: I have.
[00:41:32] Tess Crowley: And in your review of that video, does it fairly and accurately depict Mr. Robinson at that time? It does. You see on your screen what's been marked as State's Exhibit 15. Do you recognize that?
[00:41:47] Speaker 11: I do.
[00:41:48] Tess Crowley: What is that?
[00:41:49] Speaker 11: That's the interview in which Mr. Robinson was seated and waiting.
[00:41:59] Tess Crowley: State moves to admit Exhibit 15.
[00:42:02] Speaker 1: And Ms. Hunt, and the other two steps, what's your request?
[00:42:08] Tess Crowley: Oh, we would ask to admit it into evidence. We have, defense counsel and I have agreed upon, I guess, redaction of the video. And I would ask to publish it both to the courtroom and to the media.
[00:42:32] Speaker 1: Mr. Novak? It's silent, correct?
[00:42:35] Speaker 8: Ms. Hunt?
[00:42:36] Tess Crowley: Yes.
[00:42:37] Speaker 8: Yes, Your Honor. Ms. Hunt is correct. The state had originally proposed a longer image with audio. And we've agreed to a shorter image without audio. And so. That's correct. Yeah. So we're fine with all three steps as to this exhibit.
[00:43:05] Speaker 1: All right. Does the state wish to review this to make sure that what's queued up comports with what you believe? If not, we can move forward. I just want to allow all parties the opportunity to double check.
[00:43:18] Tess Crowley: Let me just confer with my paralegal.
[00:43:31] Speaker 2: Oh, Beth's probably right. They're different.
[00:43:46] Tess Crowley: It has no audio, so we would like to admit and publish it at this time.
[00:43:54] Speaker 1: All right. State exhibit 15 is admitted pursuant to discussion and may be published in the courtroom and may be recorded or transmitted electronically.
[00:44:09] Speaker 8: And, Your Honor, of course, this is subject to all of the objections which have been previously reserved in writing and reiterated over the last couple of days. I assume that we don't need to start over with that today.
[00:44:23] Speaker 1: Thank you. I appreciate that. I note the standing objection by defense as previously made. And that objection is overruled and this exhibit is admitted.
[00:44:34] Speaker 8: And in this case, it wouldn't be the 1102 issues. It would be the electronic media coverage of the proceeding.
[00:44:42] Speaker 1: Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Neback. I appreciate that. All right. With that, to the media. Can you view that screen okay? All right. State's exhibit 15 may be played.
[00:44:59] Tess Crowley: And, Agent Davis, who are we seeing here?
[00:45:02] Speaker 11: That's Tyler Robinson.
[00:45:04] Tess Crowley: And, although we are watching it on video, what is he wearing at this time?
[00:45:10] Speaker 11: He's working a dark-colored baseball cap with a, that's like a, I believe it's like maybe the Hurdy symbol on it, like a white symbol on front. It's a burgundy short-sleeved shirt with no graphics. It's blue jeans and gray and white tennis shoes, Bluther Converse-style tennis shoes.
[00:45:29] Tess Crowley: Thank you. Was Mr. Robinson, you stated that he was arrested in the early hours of September 12th. Is that right?
[00:45:38] Speaker 11: Yes, that's correct.
[00:45:39] Tess Crowley: Did he remain in Washington County Sheriff's Office or was he taken somewhere else?
[00:45:43] Speaker 11: No, he was transported from there to the Utah County Jail.
[00:45:48] Tess Crowley: Prior to being transported to the Utah County Jail, was any, I guess, personal property taken from him, clothing, anything like that?
[00:45:59] Speaker 11: The only thing that was, so prior to like our arriving to the St. George, to the Washington County Sheriff's Office, his cell phone was seized and taken from his person. But that was the only thing that was taken from him at that time.
[00:46:12] Tess Crowley: After he was transported to Utah County Jail, was any personal, were any personal items taken from him?
[00:46:20] Speaker 11: Yes, they were.
[00:46:21] Speaker ?: Yes, they were.
[00:46:21] Tess Crowley: And what were those?
[00:46:22] Speaker 11: After a search warrant was granted, his clothing was recovered, along with buckle swabs to collect his DNA and major case prints, which is fingerprints, palm prints, pretty much the entire hand. And those are all collected from him.
[00:46:41] Tess Crowley: And sorry, you may have already stated what time, when did he arrive in Utah County?
[00:46:47] Speaker 11: We arrived at the Utah County Jail about 7 a.m. on the 12th, September 12th. And he was formally booked in at about 8 a.m. of that morning. And then I was the booking officer.
[00:47:01] Tess Crowley: What does it mean to be the booking officer?
[00:47:03] Speaker 11: I filled out the necessary paperwork, essentially, with the jail, which gives the individuals personal identification of the charges, the probable cause statement, and then it's signed and submitted to the system.
[00:47:21] Tess Crowley: All right, I want to talk a bit about search warrants, some of the search warrants that were executed in this case. As part of the investigation, were search warrants obtained specifically for areas in southern Utah?
[00:47:35] Speaker 11: Yes, they were.
[00:47:36] Tess Crowley: And obviously, do not give me exact addresses, but generally, for what locations?
[00:47:41] Speaker 11: It was the residence of Tyler Robinson and the residence of his parents.
[00:47:46] Tess Crowley: Were those warrants executed?
[00:47:48] Speaker 11: They were.
[00:47:48] Tess Crowley: By whom?
[00:47:50] Speaker 11: The residence of Tyler Robinson was a team led by Sergeant Favoina with SBI, along with the Utah State Crime Lab. And the residence of his parents was a team led by the FBI, their evidence response team.
[00:48:07] Tess Crowley: Are you aware of what date or dates, if applicable, those warrants were executed?
[00:48:14] Speaker 11: Yeah, September 12th. I believe Tyler's residence, they started the search warrant about 8 o'clock in the morning, and then his parents' residence, they started about 4 p.m. of September 12th.
[00:48:27] Tess Crowley: So, to be clear, you've stated who was involved in executing those warrants. Were you physically present for the execution of either of those warrants?
[00:48:35] Speaker 11: No, I was not.
[00:48:37] Tess Crowley: Are you aware of whether Mr. Robinson lived with anyone else at that residence at the time?
[00:48:45] Speaker 11: Yes.
[00:48:46] Tess Crowley: Do you know who that was?
[00:48:47] Speaker 11: Lance Twiggs.
[00:48:53] Tess Crowley: And we won't get too into it right now, we'll cover this with Sergeant Favoina, but did you receive information from officers involved in those execution of those warrants about what, if anything, had been found?
[00:49:04] Speaker 11: Yes, I did.
[00:49:08] Tess Crowley: All right, turning to another area. As part of this investigation, you have previously mentioned that a family friend came in initially with the Robinsons. Who was that family friend?
[00:49:22] Speaker 11: His name was Mike Mitchell.
[00:49:24] Tess Crowley: And who is he in relation to the Robinsons?
[00:49:27] Speaker 11: So he's a family friend, a close, a good family friend.
[00:49:30] Tess Crowley: And what was his involvement here?
[00:49:34] Speaker 11: So he helped facilitate working with Tyler and his parents with the Sheriff's Department for Tyler to turn himself in.
[00:49:45] Tess Crowley: And I believe you mentioned previously that law enforcement conducted an interview with Mr. Mitchell?
[00:49:49] Speaker 11: They did.
[00:49:51] Tess Crowley: Remind us when that interview occurred.
[00:49:53] Speaker 11: So that was the early morning hours of September 12th at the Washington County Sheriff's Department.
[00:50:01] Tess Crowley: And I know you've already stated, but remind me who was present for that interview.
[00:50:05] Speaker 11: That one was Agent Terry and Agent Smith.
[00:50:09] Tess Crowley: What agencies are they with?
[00:50:12] Speaker 11: Terry's with SBI and Smith is with FBI.
[00:50:17] Tess Crowley: Are you aware if a second interaction or statement was collected from Mr. Mitchell?
[00:50:24] Speaker 11: Yes, it was.
[00:50:24] Tess Crowley: When did that happen?
[00:50:26] Speaker 11: It was March 31st of this year.
[00:50:29] Tess Crowley: Who was present at that time?
[00:50:32] Speaker 11: It was Ryan McBride, Chad Grunander, Kimberly Durfler, and Agent Chris Terry with SBI.
[00:50:40] Tess Crowley: You mentioned Ryan McBride, Chad Grunander, and Kimberly Durfler. What office do they work for?
[00:50:46] Speaker 11: The Utah County Attorney's Office.
[00:50:49] Tess Crowley: And you mentioned Agent Chris Terry?
[00:50:51] Speaker 11: Yes.
[00:50:52] Tess Crowley: So you were not present for this collection of this statement?
[00:50:55] Speaker 11: No, I was not.
[00:50:56] Tess Crowley: Have you communicated with Agent Chris Terry about how this happened?
[00:51:00] Speaker 11: Yes, I have.
[00:51:01] Tess Crowley: How did this happen?
[00:51:03] Speaker 11: So all those individuals met with Mike Mitchell at the St. George, well, St. George Court House there. They met and discussed briefly. I was going to kind of talk generally about the situation. From there, Mr. Mitchell was given a handwritten 1102 paper statement. And he left the room, went into a separate office by himself, was there for about an hour where he handwrote a statement, filled the statement out. When that was complete, he came back into the room where the others were waiting and provided that 1102 statement to them.
[00:51:41] Tess Crowley: We've heard quite a bit about 1102 statements. It sounds like there's an official form that is used. What's present on that form, if you know?
[00:51:51] Speaker 11: There's an admonition or warning given on those forms that states that the information you're giving is true and accurate to the best of your knowledge, that any false statement that is given or may be given would be punishable by a class A misdemeanor.
[00:52:08] Tess Crowley: Aside from that being written on the form, are you aware of this admonition was discussed with Mr. Mitchell?
[00:52:13] Speaker 11: It was.
[00:52:14] Tess Crowley: Do you know by whom?
[00:52:16] Speaker 11: Yeah, Ryan McBride provided that admonition to him.
[00:52:19] Tess Crowley: And you stated that Mr. Mitchell then went into a separate room for about an hour and wrote his statement down?
[00:52:24] Speaker 11: Correct.
[00:52:26] Tess Crowley: Does anyone, including prosecutors or law enforcement, direct him what to say?
[00:52:30] Speaker 1: Foundation objection. Personal knowledge. Would you like to respond, Ms. Hunt?
[00:52:36] Tess Crowley: I can lay a little more foundation.
[00:52:39] Speaker 1: All right, so I'll sustain the objection for now. And Ms. Hunt is moving forward with laying more foundation.
[00:52:45] Tess Crowley: You discussed with Agent Chris Terry about how this statement was obtained?
[00:52:49] Speaker 1: Yes.
[00:52:50] Tess Crowley: Did he mention anything to you about anyone directing Mr. Mitchell about what to say or what to include in the form?
[00:52:55] Speaker 11: No, I spoke to him personally and reviewed his report also.
[00:53:01] Tess Crowley: I'm going to show you what's been marked for identification as State's Exhibit 14.1. Let me know when you see that on your screen.
[00:53:17] Speaker 11: Okay, I see it.
[00:53:19] Tess Crowley: What is that?
[00:53:20] Speaker 11: This is the written 1102 statement that was provided by Mr. Mike Mitchell.
[00:53:27] Speaker 8: Your Honor, may I have a minute with Ms. Hunt? The same purpose.
[00:53:35] Speaker 11: All right.
[00:53:37] Tess Crowley: And how do you know that?
[00:53:39] Speaker 11: I reviewed it in its original. As soon as it came to us, I've seen it prior, so.
[00:53:46] Tess Crowley: And, Kimberly, if I can have you slowly scroll down. - Sorry, Judge, if I can just have a moment.
[00:54:29] Speaker 1: - You may.
[00:54:35] Speaker ?: - You may.
[00:55:05] Tess Crowley: - I apologize, Your Honor, I misspoke. It's not 14.1, it's just Exhibit 14. So if we can place that again on the screen for the witness only. Yes, and sorry, we had been scrolling through that. Do you recognize that? - I do. Does it, is it fair and accurate from what you remember?
[00:55:40] Speaker 11: - Yeah, with the exception of the redactions, yes. It's fair and accurate.
[00:55:44] Tess Crowley: - And Judge, I'll make a record. Defense counsel and I have stipulated on the redactions that are present. I would move for its admission, States Exhibit 14 into evidence, but we do not wish to publish it either to the courtroom gallery or the cameras.
[00:56:05] Speaker 1: - All right, can I have a copy of it? What I have is the unredacted version. So I want to review it before I make that decision.
[00:56:30] Speaker ?: - If I may approach. - You may. Thank you. - Thank you. - Thank you. - Thank you. - All right, I've had a chance to review States Exhibit 14 and I'm noting the standing of objections by defense concerning 1102s, court accepts into evidence States Exhibit 14
[00:58:05] Speaker 1: and pursuant to the parties is not published. - Thank you, Judge. - All right, I want to move on to another topic. You've stated that you've been present for the duration as the case agent of the preliminary hearing, is that right? - Yes. - We heard testimony yesterday about turning to the scene at UVU on September 10th.
[00:58:31] Tess Crowley: That a bullet was found on a roof. Do you remember that testimony? - I do. - Do you have knowledge about what that, about that bullet, what that was found on a roof?
[00:58:40] Speaker 11: - I do.
[00:58:41] Tess Crowley: - Do you have knowledge about what that, about that bullet,
[00:58:44] Speaker ?: what that was found on a roof?
[00:58:45] Tess Crowley: - I do. - Do you have knowledge about what that, about that bullet, what that was found on a roof? - I do. - Do you remember that testimony? - I do. - Do you have knowledge about what that, about that bullet, what that was found on a roof? - I do. - I do. - Do you have knowledge about what that, about that bullet, what that is about?
[00:59:02] Speaker 11: - Yes, I do.
[00:59:06] Tess Crowley: - What roof was that bullet found on?
[00:59:09] Speaker 11: - I believe it was the, well, it was found on the computer science building, on the roof, on the far east side of the, of the roof of the building itself.
[00:59:18] Tess Crowley: - How do you know that it was found there?
[00:59:21] Speaker 11: - I reviewed the agent's report that, that found that, documented it, and collected it.
[00:59:27] Tess Crowley: - What agent was that?
[00:59:29] Speaker 11: - It was agent Ben Schneider with SBI.
[00:59:33] Tess Crowley: - Are you aware of where, of where the computer science building is on campus? - Yes, yes. - Can you explain generally where that is located?
[00:59:42] Speaker 11: - Yeah, from where the low C building is, it's a building directly kind of south and east of there, from the low C.
[00:59:49] Tess Crowley: - Southeast from the low C building. where is it in connection to the auditorium section that we've been talking about where Mr. Kirk was stationed?
[00:59:58] Speaker 11: - It's east of there. East and a little bit, east and a little bit south, mostly east.
[01:00:06] Tess Crowley: - Would there have been, from that roof of the computer science building, to your knowledge, would there have been a line of sight to Mr. Kirk's tent?
[01:00:13] Speaker 11: - No, not according to the agent, Agent Ben Schneider. There was not a line of sight from there to where the tent was, where Mr. Kirk was.
[01:00:24] Tess Crowley: - Did you learn from Agent Schneider what caliber that bullet was? - Yes, I did. - And what was that?
[01:00:30] Speaker 11: - It was a .223 caliber.
[01:00:33] Tess Crowley: - What is a live round?
[01:00:35] Speaker 11: - It's a round that had not been fired, so it still had the projectile and it was a fully functional bullet with, you know, ammunition with the bullet.
[01:00:45] Tess Crowley: - Did you learn if this .223 bullet found on top of the computer science building was a live round? - Yes.
[01:00:52] Speaker 11: - And how do you know that? - It was still intact, still had the primer had not been, it was not dented up and fired. It still had the bullet projectile in the end and still sealed.
[01:01:06] Tess Crowley: - Did you observe this bullet personally or is this information you're getting from Agent Schneider?
[01:01:11] Speaker 11: - From Agent Ben Schneider.
[01:01:18] Tess Crowley: - All right, turning to a different topic. Judge, I'm aware that there are going to be some objections about this that we'll have to address, but I just want to lay a little bit of foundation first before we get there. - Are you, you've mentioned him already, are you familiar with an individual named Lance Twiggs?
[01:01:36] Speaker 11: - Yes, I am.
[01:01:38] Tess Crowley: - And who is he in regards to this investigation?
[01:01:43] Speaker 11: - He's the roommate of Tyler Robinson.
[01:01:46] Tess Crowley: - Was he interviewed as part of this investigation? - He was. - How many times? - Two times.
[01:01:53] Speaker 11: - When was the first time? - The first time was the early morning hours of September 12th and that occurred at St. George Police Department.
[01:02:02] Tess Crowley: - So we've heard of several people coming in and being spoken with at Washington County Sheriff's Office. - Correct. - Mr. Twiggs was spoken with at St. George PD? - Correct. - Do you know who was present for that interview?
[01:02:20] Speaker 11: - It was FBI agents Larson and Agent Ling.
[01:02:25] Tess Crowley: - Are you aware of Mr. Twiggs' buckle swab was taken at that time?
[01:02:29] Speaker 11: - I don't recall happening there. I think, I believe it happened later. I'd have to, but it did occur that that was obtained from him. - Okay.
[01:02:40] Tess Crowley: But you're not sure if it happened on the 12th?
[01:02:42] Speaker 11: - I don't recall if it was there or later at his residence.
[01:02:47] Tess Crowley: - But ultimately he, a buckle swab was obtained from Mr. Twiggs? - Yes, it was. - Do you know if his phone was taken from him?
[01:02:56] Speaker 11: - It was.
[01:02:57] Tess Crowley: - When did that happen?
[01:03:00] Speaker 11: - So it was during that interview with FBI at St. George Police Department. They conducted an interview of him and then he provided his phone. He did it voluntarily also, provided it to those agents.
[01:03:13] Tess Crowley: - And that would have been on September 12th, 2025? - Correct. - You mentioned a second interview of Mr. Twiggs?
[01:03:21] Speaker 11: - There was a second interview, yes.
[01:03:23] Tess Crowley: - When did that take place?
[01:03:25] Speaker 11: - April 20th of this year.
[01:03:27] Tess Crowley: - Where was that?
[01:03:29] Speaker 11: - It happened at the Utah County Attorney's Office.
[01:03:31] Tess Crowley: - Who was present at that second interview?
[01:03:34] Speaker 11: - It was Mr. Twiggs with his attorney, Jill Cuttrell. It was Lauren Hunt, Sam Pede with the U.S. Attorney's Office. Ryan McBride, Sergeant Elshils, well now it's Lieutenant Elshils, and myself.
[01:03:52] Tess Crowley: - We've talked about two interviews of Mr. Twiggs. One on the morning of September 12th, 2025. Second on April 20th, 2026. Are you aware if both of those interviews were recorded?
[01:04:05] Speaker ?: - They were.
[01:04:08] Tess Crowley: - Have you reviewed those recordings?
[01:04:10] Speaker 11: - I have.
[01:04:12] Tess Crowley: - Before Mr. Twiggs' interview on April 20th, 2026. Well, first let me ask you this. Are you aware of what use immunity means?
[01:04:21] Speaker 11: - Yes.
[01:04:22] Tess Crowley: - What does it mean?
[01:04:24] Speaker 11: - It's a letter that the use of immunity is essentially giving the individual during the limited time of their statement. They're given that immunity from statements that are made in regard to an incident. But it does not preclude them from prosecution. from evidence that would be known or found then or later outside of that interview. It just gives them that limited immunity during the time of the interview.
[01:04:54] Tess Crowley: - Okay, so for any statements made during the interview, they're given immunity for that, but they're not generally prohibited from being potentially prosecuted outside of that interview. Is that fair?
[01:05:05] Speaker 11: - That's my understanding, yes.
[01:05:07] Tess Crowley: - Was Mr. Twiggs given use immunity? - Yes, he was. - By what offices?
[01:05:14] Speaker 11: - The Utah County Attorney's Office as well as the United States Attorney's Office.
[01:05:19] Tess Crowley: - You mentioned that both of Mr. Twiggs' interviews were recorded. Have you reviewed those recordings?
[01:05:27] Speaker 11: - Yes, I have.
[01:05:28] Tess Crowley: - Do they fairly and accurately depict those interviews?
[01:05:31] Speaker 11: - Yes, they do.
[01:05:33] Tess Crowley: - We've talked about 1102 statements. We've talked about a form and you talked about that there's an admonition on there that warns that if false statements are given pursuant to 1102, then that person may be subject to a class A misdemeanor. Is that fair?
[01:05:53] Speaker 11: - Yes, that's correct.
[01:05:54] Tess Crowley: - Was a similar admonition given to Mr. Twiggs during his second or before his second interview on April 20th, 2026? - Yes, it was. - By whom?
[01:06:08] Speaker 11: - By Ryan McBride with the Utah County Attorney's Office.
[01:06:11] Tess Crowley: - And again, you were present for that interview? - I was. - Yes. - Did Mr. Twiggs say that he understood that admonition?
[01:06:18] Speaker 11: - He did. Yep.
[01:06:20] Tess Crowley: Yes. - Was he told that the April 20th, 2026 interview was being taken in lieu of him having to come and testify at the preliminary hearing?
[01:06:31] Speaker 11: - Yes, it was. Yes, it was.
[01:06:33] Tess Crowley: - All right, Judge. I'm aware that defense counsel has objections to this recorded 1102. I think now is probably a good time to address them. But I do have, I guess, I understand that they are suggesting redactions to the video. I have some procedural objections first. And if Your Honor sustains those, I think it may make the substance of the statements or the objections or the redactions that defense is proposing moot. So I'm wondering if Your Honor will entertain my responses procedurally first before we get into the substance of what defense is objecting to. Does that make sense?
[01:07:26] Speaker 1: Yes. Yes, but if you want to move it because right now nothing's before me.
[01:07:31] Tess Crowley: Yes. Well, what I want to move. So defense is proposed about a day and a half ago. They created a transcript. Mr. Novak has proffered this earlier to Your Honor. On April, and I'll give you a little more proper. On April 28, 2026, the Utah County Attorney's Office provided this recorded 1102 statement of Mr. Twiggs to defense counsel. They have acknowledged the receipt and mentioned the recorded statement at previous hearings. In fact, they even filed a brief that Your Honor has decided about whether 1102 can be applicable to Mr. Twiggs at this hearing, which Your Honor has ruled upon. Monday at about 4:00 PM, defense counsel sent us a transcript that was prepared by defense, the defense team, and it had significant redactions that they were suggesting. It was about a 21-page transcript and their suggested redactions are approximately 11 pages of it. In total, redactions appear on 16 of the 21 pages. My procedural objections to this are that this is essentially by surprise. We were already a day into the preliminary hearing. Defense counsel had been aware since at least April 28, 2026, when the recorded 1102 of Mr. Twiggs was provided to them that that is how we intended to proceed. And like I said, they had already briefed the 1102 issue as it relates to Mr. Twiggs. At that time, they did not raise any objections to the substance of it or proposed any redactions that they wished. And yeah, frankly, it's by surprise and it's at this point disrupting the hearing. It's not -- I did mention that defense prepared a transcript of this recorded interview. How the state intended to present it and how we have given it in discovery to defense is it's a video, audio and visual. Making redactions to that is not as simple as a transcript where you can just, you know, block out sections of the text. So it's far more complicated than that to edit or redact portions of the video at this time. So we would reject -- object procedurally basically on the timeliness of it. That they had an opportunity to make these objections if they had them at the time when the 1102 issue in regards to Lance Twiggs was briefed and decided by your honor. They did not do that or raise the issue at this time. And so we would object just procedurally on those grounds. Additionally, the remedy requested, which I'm assuming is that we make redactions to the video or present it as a transcript rather than a video, is disproportionate. Even assuming if there are isolated statements that the court would not ultimately consider. Again, as Mr. McBride pointed out, and as your honor has stated throughout this hearing, this is a preliminary hearing to the court. It's not to the jury. The court is fully capable of disregarding any statement and determines exceeds the proper scope. As Mr. McBride cited this morning, several cases give your honor that authority and presumption that judges are able to basically make the difference, make the difference between what's admissible evidence and disregard what may not be at a preliminary hearing or even at a bench trial. State v. Adams is one of those cases. If your honor wants the citation, again, I'm happy to give it. State v. Featherson is another one. That one is 781 P2D 424. State v. Hannigan is another one. 2014 UT AP 165. And State v. Rosecrans 2024 UT AP 128. And those cases all stand for the notion that essentially judges, and this is to quote from Rosecrans, judges are not subject to many of the same concerns about prejudices and improper influences as jurors. And so again, procedurally, the remedy asking us to now in the middle of a week long preliminary hearing of which everyone was aware, if you can edit or alter or redact portions of this video recording 1102, that remedy is disproportionate. If there are any potentially objectionable statements within that, your honor has the ability to disregard those. And so we would prefer not to get into the substance and argue each statement line by line. And we would prefer to just move for its admission and have the court use its discretion as a judge to take what's proper versus improper, disregard anything the court might find improper. If we would like to move into substantive objections, then we're happy to. But if the court can rule on those procedural objections first, it may make any substantive objections moot. All right.
[01:13:16] Speaker 1: So you're moving into evidence states exhibit 16?
[01:13:20] Speaker ?: Yes.
[01:13:21] Speaker 1: And as it relates to publication, what is your request?
[01:13:25] Tess Crowley: So, Judge, we believe, and I believe this has been discussed before on the record, that the state is in agreement that the media should not have the ability to handle or replicate certain exhibits. Because it's video, Mr. Twiggs is shown certain exhibits. So we would agree that this should not be captured by cameras and projected by the media outside of the courtroom. But we would like at least the audio and maybe even the video within the courtroom itself to be captured is the state's position.
[01:14:06] Speaker 1: All right.
[01:14:07] Speaker ?: I want to make sure I understand.
[01:14:07] Speaker 1: So your request is that the video not be projected and captured by the video camera, but the video and audio is played in the courtroom and the audio is able to be transmitted, just not the video via the camera. Is that my understanding?
[01:14:26] Tess Crowley: Correct.
[01:14:27] Speaker ?: That's correct.
[01:14:27] Tess Crowley: That's the state's position.
[01:14:28] Speaker 1: All right. And in regards to this exhibit is in the, as states exhibit 16, is there any portion of that recorded statement that occurred before the, um, the 1102 warning was given to me? Mr. Twiggs. Not that we are presenting today. Okay. All right.
[01:14:49] Speaker ?: So turning to the defense. Mr. Novak. Thank you.
[01:14:52] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you.
[01:14:54] Speaker ?: Thank you.
[01:14:55] Speaker 1: Ms. Hunt. So I'm going to address first your honor, the, what Ms. Hunt describes as the procedural issues, um, with our proposed redactions.
[01:15:04] Speaker 8: Um, I'm going to address first your honor, the, what Ms. Hunt describes as the procedural issues, um, with our proposed redactions. Um, many, many weeks ago, the state lodged their anticipated exhibits with the court. And then the court said, I'm not going to review them. I'm in fact, I'm returning them.
[01:15:38] Speaker ?: I'm sorry.
[01:15:39] Speaker 8: The court said that the court is returning the exhibits to the state. Um, there is no moment to make objections to an exhibit, which the court is not, uh, inclined to entertain until the moment, as the court has said many times until the exhibit is presented. Um, and so what we have done is we have given the state, it's only a 20 page transcript. Excuse me. It's only a 20 page transcript. We have given the state a transcript we prepared ahead of time so that the state could make sure make sure that the transcript is accurate. The state has never said that the transcript is inaccurate. So I'm going to assume for purposes of the moment that the state doesn't have any dispute, that the transcript is an accurate transcription of Mr. Twigg's recorded 11:02 interview. Um, there's no surprise here. There's been all of Monday evening, all of Tuesday, this morning. Um, in fact, the state informed me yesterday morning that they don't agree to the redactions. So there's no surprise here. And we're actually doing exactly what the court signaled should be done, which is at the time an exhibit is proffered, objections shall be made. This wouldn't be as much of a problem if Ms. Hunt had just said to your honor, um, following Archuleta and in light of the electronic coverage of this proceeding and in light of Mr. Robinson's right to a fair trial, the court will consider those portions of the exhibit which are admissible and the court will not consider those portions which it determines are not admissible, but it will not be broadcast either audio or video. So that becomes a problem because the categories of objections that we have to this video recording, I'm going to talk about a little bit so that the court understands why Ms. Hunt's suggestion that the entirety of an exhibit which may not be admissible under the rules of evidence at a preliminary hearing be played in open court and that the audio be captured by electronic media and broadcast because of our client's right to a fair trial. That's a problem. And I don't want to sound flippant, but this is actually the Ryan McBride 1102. The vast majority of this video is Mr. McBride testifying and Mr. Twiggs agreeing. If we were in a courtroom, it would be a leading examination virtually from start to finish. I don't want to say that every single statement by Mr. Twiggs is just an affirmation of what Mr. McBride says, but the vast majority of it is. There are also portions of this 1102 where Mr. McBride is basically testifying as to what other exhibits that this court will see say. So there are two other exhibits that this court will be asked to receive into evidence today, which are text messages and group chat. I'm just going to distinguish between the two. And so this 1102 statement is basically Mr. McBride saying, and then the chat says this, and then the chat says that, and then the chat says this. He's basically testifying as to what the exhibits say. So in some ways the 1102, those portions of the 1102 violate the best evidence rule, because I have no doubt that those two things that I just talked about are going to be presented to the court by the state. There are also portions of this 1102 which are not relevant and really implicate Mr. Twiggs' privacy rights. And I am not Mr. Twiggs' counsel. As Ms. Hunt said, he has counsel. I don't know if he's -- well, I don't want to speculate. But it's not relevant. There are portions of it which are not relevant and there are portions of it which I think, especially to be broadcast, implicate other privacy interests. So I'm not trying to create complications and I'm definitely not trying to take the state by surprise because I went to great lengths to provide the state with a transcript, with a proposed redacted transcript. And, in fact, today we prepared to make it easier on the state and actually on your honor. Instead of having redactions with big black sections, we highlighted them instead. So if the court wants to look at our proposed redactions, the court can do that without having to compare two documents. The other thing I want to say is that if the court did order ultimately that portions of it would be broadcast in any way, in the courtroom, outside the courtroom, we're not trying to change the state's exhibit from a video with audio to a transcript. The transcript is really being used as a tool to address the inadmissible portions of the video. Because there's no way to communicate to the court efficiently which portions of a video we think are not admissible. It's much easier to do it on paper. So the transcript is just a tool. We have the ability right here in this courthouse to cut the video into the pieces that the court deems admissible. Mr. Ellis tells me it would probably take a couple hours at the most. So maybe that's also not a concern. There's no delay associated with this in light of the fact that it's Wednesday and this court is going to conclude this hearing by Friday afternoon. So I've gone beyond the procedural issues I've addressed that we think portions of it are not admissible. There's no surprise. We've followed exactly what the court has signaled, which is I don't want to hear about exhibits until we're in the middle of the hearing, and I don't want to hear objections about it until we're in the middle of the hearing. The litigation over whether Section 1102 is constitutional under Mr. Robinson's federal due process rights and the other rights that were addressed, that litigation does not mean that we should have brought to the court proposed redactions to an exhibit in a hearing which hasn't started yet, in a hearing in which the state hadn't until 20 minutes ago even proffered an exhibit. So I understand that the state wants to avoid the substance by trying to short-circuit this with a procedural argument, and Ms. Hunt is a very excellent advocate for her client, but the reason why the state is going to the procedural issue is because the exhibit contains significant content that is not admissible even in a preliminary hearing. So I'm going to stop now, but I do want to go back and say that if the court concluded that only Your Honor was going to review this exhibit, and the Archuleta rule would be extended to this exhibit, including that it's not going to be broadcast, then I think that we have a different path toward the efficient resolution of this issue. All right. Does that make sense, Your Honor?
[01:24:14] Speaker 1: I believe I understand what you're saying. So let me respond to you before I go to Ms. Hunt. So going to your first point in regards to this court's position and not looking at the exhibits, that doesn't preclude any party from filing a motion in Lemon A, which is anticipated before anything is moved into evidence. Typically motions in Lemon A are used by either side on anticipated exhibits or that may come into court. And that allows pre-litigation. So I want to clarify that the court statement, like I'm not looking at the exhibits, is far different than what the parties choose to do and file in regards to a motion in Lemon A. But going to the -- I really want to go to what you've talked about, what specific objections are you making? I want to make sure the rule -- the request is clear so I can rule specifically on that. What exactly -- I think I understand some of them, but I wish for you to articulate what are your objections to State's exhibit 16.
[01:25:15] Speaker 8: Significant -- we could do it line -- we could do it line by line or page by page. I know we have had hearings in this matter where the court has wanted to look at transcripts line by line, word by word. We're prepared to do that. But I'm going to give the court categories. Thank you. Without referring to specific portions. Specific -- there are many portions of it which are not the statement of Mr. Twiggs. Mr. McBride testifying on video as to what other exhibits say. And Mr. Twiggs is saying, yeah, that's what it says. Yeah, that's what it says. Yeah, that's what it says. Yeah, that's what it says.
[01:25:56] Speaker 1: I apologize. I don't mean to interrupt you. I just want to categorize it and put it in a box. So what objection under the rules of evidence is that specifically? What are you boxing that as?
[01:26:09] Speaker 8: Well, first of all, it's counsel testifying. Second of all, it's hearsay. It's Mr. McBride's out-of-court statements as to what an exhibit says. There's a best evidence rule, which I'm sure the court is familiar with, which is that the best evidence of what an exhibit says is the exhibit. So we may have a little bit of a cart before the horse here. Sure. Because there are two exhibits that I'm very confident are coming. There are portions which are not relevant. There are portions which I believe are inadmissible when the court balances under 403 the probative value versus the prejudicial value, especially in light of the manner in which this hearing is being broadcast. So we have improper testimony by counsel. We have the best evidence rule, which I think also includes hearsay. We have relevance issues and we have 403 issues. And so, but what I'm saying is that those are all things that this court can manage as Ms. Hunt and Mr. Bride have taught us today in terms of the court's preliminary assessments, the court's role as a magistrate, and the archer letter rules that allow this court to decide certain exhibits will not be viewed or heard by the public because it interferes with Mr. Robinson's right to a fair trial.
[01:27:53] Speaker ?: Okay.
[01:27:54] Speaker 12: Thank you.
[01:27:55] Speaker 8: And I do, I do, I heard exactly what the court said about the inimini situation, but I do want to just say this and I hope this is taken in the right spirit. If this court had said to us, I'm returning the exhibits, but if any party has any objections to any exhibits, I want to hear about that before the hearing. We certainly would have done so. And I think that it's probably for counsel, a suggestion about how future hearings where there are many or complex exhibits, because there will be such hearings, should be handled, which is we can do in liminees before the hearing begins so that the court knows these exhibits, there are no disputes, these exhibits, there are disputes, these are the disputes, and we don't have to waste courtroom time bringing the court up to speed on what those concerns are. And we will be briefed ahead of time. And we're happy to do that.
[01:28:58] Speaker 1: Thank you. Well, going to the last point, let me be clear on the record that I don't intend to interfere with the duties of either party. It's not my job to say, well, here's what you should do, here's what you shouldn't do. I'm independent. I'm not team prosecution, team defense. And so I will not dictate how you run your case. Obviously if it goes against certain rules, constitutional rights, statutes, case law, I will weigh in. But I never want to put my finger on and say, well, Mr. Novak, here's what I think you should do, or to the state, Mr. McBride, here's what I think you should do. And that goes outside my role, and I will not deviate from my role, which is not to interfere with the business of counsel. And I am fortunate as a district court judge that I have very experienced attorneys who I have watched and have done an excellent job. And your experience, as I stated on, I believe in the pro hoc vicie, highly experienced attorneys on defense, highly experienced attorneys on prosecution. And so I do not want to get into the business of saying, here's what you should do. I hear what you're saying, but I want to be clear from this point on, in case there's any ambiguity. The court does not need to go into the business of dictating what you feel is in the best interest of your client to the state, what is in the best interest of your client. I'm staying clear of that. But I appreciate the point you're making, and I hope that clarifies any ambiguity that may exist.
[01:30:34] Speaker 8: I think there was no ambiguity. I don't think that what I was conceptualizing puts the court's finger on anybody's scales. And I think it's really about case management. And now I think we're moving pretty far away from the admissibility of this 1102 statement. And we could have a conversation later, if the court wants to, it's up to the court, about case management issues. But as I said before, if I say anything else, I'm going to be repeating myself. So I'm just going to stop.
[01:31:05] Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Mr. Novak. Appreciate your thoughts. Ms. Hunt.
[01:31:09] Tess Crowley: Thank you, Judge. Yes, thank you, Judge. And as I tried to parse out, obviously, we have procedural objections, which may, depending on how the court rules, make the substantive objections moot or unnecessary. But to Mr. Novak's point about this not being by surprise, yes, to be fair, he did send me a transcript with proposed redactions Monday, I believe at about 4:00 PM. It was not accompanied by any objections that he actually had. So we had to compare the transcripts and, to our best guess, come up with what the substantive objections may be. I am ready to respond to what I believe they may be, and obviously, he's now given categories. But I think we're now at the point where the court needs to exercise its ability and obligation under Rule 104A to decide a preliminary question about whether evidence is admissible. But before we do that, because to argue the substantive objections, I want to actually get into the substance of it. And so I think we need to consider whether this is going to be a closed hearing. And then probably, I don't know, I'm assuming the media attorneys will want to weigh into that. Because I do want to quote specific sections to be able to advocate for my position, state's position on this. I think we will need to get into the meat of what is actually stated here. And so I think the court needs to decide if this is going to be an open or a closed hearing. And hear from the media or any other parties that need to weigh in on that.
[01:32:55] Speaker 1: All right. Anything further from the parties as it relates to that?
[01:33:03] Speaker 8: Only that Ms. Hunt invited the media to comment on what the court is going to do. And as your honor knows from conducting jury trials and other types of proceedings, sidebars are not for the public. They're not for the public in real time. They're not for the public subsequently. It is very standard that sidebar proceedings where information is only to be exchanged between counsel for the parties and the court are conducted at sidebar so that witnesses, jurors, members of the public don't hear about those things. And so we are assuming that if the court wants to do this in what we would call sidebar or in a closed hearing, that the transcript of that is going to remain at least temporarily sealed until these proceedings conclude or the court conducts some closer analysis on a topic by topic basis. So that's what sidebars are about, whether it's done in a closed hearing or in an open hearing through whisper. The public, potential witnesses, jurors, potential jurors don't get to hear what the court decides needs to be addressed in a manner which protects the parties' rights.
[01:34:32] Speaker 1: All right.
[01:34:34] Speaker 10: Michael Judd: Your Honor, if I may, Michael Judd on behalf of the media. A request to close a court proceeding isn't a sidebar and calling it a sidebar doesn't make it one. The court knows the rules at this point. Any attempt to close a hearing requires that the court engage in some sort of hearing about that closure that is open to the public. It can't be done in whisper. That can't be done with the cameras off. There are occasions where a court may find it necessary to put some portion of some hearing behind closed doors. But the conversation about whether or not that happens, of course, has to take place in public. I don't want to belabor any of the points that are made. I think the court recognizes the interests at issue here and what the media's position would likely be on these. I'd like to find common ground. It appears to be a significant piece of common ground here is that everybody seems to believe that the video interview, that it's at issue here, is very important. And that, of course, makes people want to invoke protections, invoke closures. From the media's perspective, from the public's perspective, of course, that pushes the other direction. There may be moments of this preliminary hearing. There may be exhibits that do not present significant pillars of support for the decision that the court will ultimately be called on to make as a gatekeeper and as a magistrate. It seems to me, I haven't seen this video, the public hasn't seen this video, it seems to me that this appears likely to be one of those pillars on which the state intends to base its case and on which the court's ultimate decision will likely rest. That counsel's in favor of access, in favor of publication, in favor of allowing the public to see the work that the court is doing and why it's doing it. I recognize Archuleta has been invoked. We respect and understand Archuleta. Factfully, Archuleta, at least part of its reasoning is based on something very different than putting something on a screen. In Archuleta, there was a request to say, hey, is there a murder weapon? Are there crime scene photos? Can we come handle those? Can we look at them? Can we turn them over on our hands? And part of the reasoning in Archuleta was we're worried about that will impact the quality of the evidence and the obligation everybody has to keep that evidence reliable and safe. Putting something on the screen doesn't present any of those sorts of risks. Because this is so important, this interview appears to be such a critical piece of the case being presented here in this courtroom today, the media's position is that it should be shown on the screen and that the public should be allowed to see it as well. To the extent there's any sort of compromise at all, the one that is presented by the state, which would allow the public to monitor and oversee and understand and comprehend and assist with the work being done by the court, then something like the state has provided, which is, we would put it, we allow the audio to play, if there is some sort of, it sounds to me like what the state is saying, is there's some sort of witness privacy issue that would be served by turning that video off. Maximalist advocates on behalf of the media would always want that video to be on. But I recognize that that may be a reasonable compromise. But the idea of shutting the courtroom down to argue about closure or keeping this recording from the people in the courtroom who are allowed here, the victim representatives, the media representatives, the public itself, is simply a non-starter, I believe, under the rules that govern this proceeding. We ask the court to keep this as open as possible. And if there is any sort of narrowing of the public's right of access here, that it be done only in the narrowest way possible. And that it be based only upon recognized interests. And finally, I would say, Your Honor, to the extent that I hear any sort of real counter-interest at all, it continues to be a fair trial interest. We take that important, we take that, we recognize that it's important, we take it seriously. The court has also, over and over again, recognized what the right approach to that is, is to say there are mechanisms in place under Algier to say we do an expanded voir dire, we do a jury questionnaire. We can handle those counter-interests, and on behalf of the media and the public, I'd ask that the court handle this dispute that way.
[01:38:48] Speaker 1: Thank you. Any further comment by any of the parties? All right, Mr. Novak.
[01:38:58] Speaker 8: Only that I want to make an additional assertion about why the court should handle this exhibit, pursuant to Archuleta, but I want to make that argument a sidebar. Because the whole point is to protect my client's right to a fair trial. By making part of this argument in open court, it's a self-defeating exercise. So when the court resolves whether it will hear from us at Sidebar, we're prepared to do that.
[01:39:32] Speaker 1: All right. The issue is Sidebar is public, because the transcript's open. So it's just because the parties request Sidebar, and the court invokes the white noise, that doesn't make it private. It simply obscures the noise in the courtroom, because that goes in the transcript unless it's a closed hearing.
[01:39:53] Speaker 8: So we would like to have a very brief closed hearing to lodge another objection about the publication of this, of any portion of this exhibit, well, of certain portions of this exhibit beyond your Honor's eyes. That's what I'm saying. All right. Thank you.
[01:40:14] Speaker 1: All right. Right now, what we're going to go ahead and do, and what I want to do is I want to look at the redactions that you're proposing and take a look at that. It's also a perfect time to take a break, because we need to bring in the monitor, potentially, for future exhibits. So that's going to give us our 15 minutes. I want to review that so I can be brought up to speed, because the transcript, from what I understand, is just a transcript with suggestions of what defense wants to redact. Is that correct?
[01:40:48] Speaker 8: That's correct, Your Honor. And so what I would suggest, well, if this works for the court, is we will email to the court staff something we've already given the state, which is the proposed redacted version of the transcript. I understand that the state wants a video to be presented as evidence. We can get there if the court concludes there should be redactions. It's not redacted through blackout. It's highlighted. So the highlights are the proposed defense redactions, and Mr. Ellis can make sure that your court staff receive that, and it can either be emailed to you or printed out, whatever works.
[01:41:27] Speaker 1: Any objections, Ms. Hunt, for the court reviewing the proposed redactions in order to bring the court up to speed at whatever argument the court may entertain?
[01:41:37] Tess Crowley: No, Judge. But I want to clarify for the record, and for myself, is the court ruling on my procedural objections, and I want to reserve the right to make my substantive arguments using what's actually in the exhibit. So being able to quote directly from it, knowing that if it's not a closed hearing, those portions of what I'm saying are going to be on the record and broadcast.
[01:42:03] Speaker 1: So the court is not making a ruling right now. We're just going to take a break, and then we're going to come back on the record. But on the break, I'm trying to maximize the time, and that's why I'm asking, is there any objection to me reviewing what it sounds like defense has sent you, which is just the transcript highlighting what they're anticipating redacting. I just want to bring myself up to speed. So on the next step, when I make my ruling, the court is ready to go in maximizing the time, because we also want to put up a monitor, so there's like three things we can accomplish in the space of 15 minutes.
[01:42:32] Tess Crowley: Fair enough. The state has no objection to that.
[01:42:34] Speaker 1: All right. Mr. Novak, if you wouldn't mind sending what you sent to the state to the court for review, and we will take a 15-minute break. It is now -- let's go a little bit longer, just I want to make sure everything is in place. Let's come back at three o'clock, and we'll proceed from there. Court is in a brief recess.
[01:43:16] Speaker ?: Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. and a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. and Court is in a brief recess. Court is in a brief recess. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[02:40:36] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[02:46:36] Speaker 13: Thank you.
[02:47:06] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you.
[02:48:06] Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[02:52:36] Speaker 1: Thank you.
[02:53:06] Speaker 8: Thank you.
[02:53:36] Speaker 1: Thank you.
[02:54:06] Tess Crowley: Thank you.
[02:54:36] Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[02:57:06] Speaker 1: Thank you.
[02:57:36] Tess Crowley: Thank you.
[02:58:06] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you.
[02:59:06] Speaker 8: Thank you.
[02:59:36] Tess Crowley: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[03:02:36] Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[03:04:35] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[03:09:05] Tess Crowley: Thank you.
[03:09:35] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[03:11:05] Speaker 10: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[03:14:35] Speaker 12: Thank you. Thank you.
[03:15:35] Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[03:17:35] Speaker 1: Thank you.
[03:18:05] Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[03:21:05] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[03:23:35] Tess Crowley: Thank you.
[03:24:05] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[03:26:05] Tess Crowley: Thank you.
[03:26:35] Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[03:28:34] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you.
[03:29:34] Speaker 8: Thank you.
[03:30:04] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you.
[03:31:04] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you.