HEARING: UT v. Tyler Robinson - Day 5 — Charlie Kirk Assassination Trial — COURT TV

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: in accordance with the court decorum order. [00:00:02] Speaker 2: And I apologize. Would you mind putting your names on the record? [00:00:05] Speaker 1: Tess Crowley. Megan Thackeray with KSL. [00:00:08] Speaker 2: Thank you. Have you both reviewed the court's standing decorum order? [00:00:13] Speaker 3: Yes. Yes. [00:00:14] Speaker 2: Do you understand the requirements set forth in that order as it applies to your activities today? [00:00:19] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:00:19] Speaker 2: Do you require additional time to review the order or to adjust equipment to ensure compliance? [00:00:25] Speaker 4: No. No. [00:00:26] Speaker 2: Do you anticipate any difficulty complying with the order? No. All right. Thank you both. Before we begin this morning, the court wishes to acknowledge the importance of the 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 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 or electronic device in the courtroom may be addressed by the court. For those individuals who have a cell phone, I invite you to join me as I silence my cell phone to ensure that the proceedings today can proceed without distraction. The court also expects every person in attendance will be treated with the dignity and respect to which they are entitled. Consistent with this 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 the 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, and orderly, and faithful to the rights and dignity of every person involved. All rights. My understanding is the parties wish to address an issue before we get started. Is that correct? [00:03:04] Speaker 5: We may. [00:03:05] Speaker 2: Mr. Novak. [00:03:08] Speaker 5: Thank you, Your Honor, and good morning. I passed up to the court after providing copies of it to counsel for the state and counsel for the media a single piece of paper. Does the court have that? [00:03:22] Speaker 2: I do. Thank you, Mr. Novak. [00:03:24] Speaker 5: Thank you, Your Honor. So every morning, this court has a colloquy with the camera operators about their ability to comply with this court's orders. And they acknowledge that they understand the order and that they can comply with it. And the court asks them if they have any problem with it. And they state to the court that they do not have a problem with it. We also spent many, many, many hours of court time addressing which exhibits will and will not be published through the electronic media. And this exhibit, the court ordered, would not be published through the electronic media. And it was. And without belaboring the point, the court can imagine our concern that the media and the state who control this exhibit and the publication of this exhibit in the courtroom as per the court's orders failed to comply with this court's orders after all of the effort that we made and the court made to make sure that the court balanced everybody's rights. including the rights that we're concerned about, which are Mr. Robinson's. No doubt the council for the media and council for the state will say that it was a very, very brief mistake, that it was corrected as soon as they realized the error. But it's done. It's out there. It's photographed. I'm informed secondhand that if I want to buy this image and maybe even have it framed and put behind museum-quality glass, I can do so and put it up in my office. Obviously, I'm not going to do that. But my point is, it doesn't matter how long the court's order was violated when we live in an electronic world. It's done, and it's permanent. And we just wanted the record to be clear that we're concerned that the court's orders have been violated and they've been violated with respect to an order that was specifically designed to protect Mr. Robinson's right to a fair trial. And I don't want to belabor the point any further. I'm also not going to refer to the exhibit with any more specificity because it's not necessary. [00:05:51] Speaker 2: Is there a requested remedy or potential sanction that you feel is warranted given the actions which you have outlined this morning? [00:06:00] Speaker 5: I think that we would like to think, when I say we, I mean Mr. Robinson's counsel, about that. We have, as the court knows, repeatedly asked this court, moved this court, not to have electronic broadcast of this proceeding, of any of the proceedings and specifically this proceeding. The court denied those motions and overruled our objections to the specific EMC requests. So, I think it's a little premature, but I can represent to the court that we will suggest a remedy in advance of the next hearing. [00:06:40] Speaker 2: Well, Mr. Novak, I appreciate that, but I would ask that if it is something that is concerning, that it be addressed immediately. So, I'm not going to wait until this, I recognize and appreciate what you have described and this was on my mind a lot last night as well. Okay. I don't want to sit on this. So, I ask you respectfully to confer with your counsel and come up with that because I want to address it. I agree. It is concerning and it warrants examination and to be addressed immediately, especially as we have a little bit left of our preliminary hearing. So, I want to give it the way it is needed and I don't disagree with you. [00:07:22] Speaker 5: Then, why don't we make the court's indulgence? We don't need to empty the courtroom. We can go talk about what we think an appropriate measured sanction would be and we can bring that suggestion back to the court in a few minutes. [00:07:35] Speaker 2: All right. Well, before we do that, I want to turn to the state and to the media to address what you've addressed and then, obviously, if there's a part two, then therefore... And I appreciate [00:07:45] Speaker 5: the invitation and I also appreciate the court's desire to address the consequences, if any, immediately. [00:07:53] Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. [00:07:53] Speaker 5: I was not trying to delay it. I just think it's an issue which warrants some thought. The court has said it gave it some thought. We will have a suggestion very briefly. [00:08:06] Speaker 2: Thank you. Turning to the state. [00:08:17] Speaker 6: Thank you, Your Honor. I think at the outset it's important to recognize that everyone's doing their best here. The court is. I know the clerks are. I think the media is. We certainly are. And the defense is. This issue came up in the context of an examination of a witness. One exhibit was published before the exhibited issue was also brought onto the screen. I explained what we were going to do and then the exhibit was brought onto the screen. I reviewed the video last night. The camera captured this for approximately two seconds. The camera operator, I think, acting in diligence and appropriate list, immediately panned as soon as she realized that there was a new exhibit on the screen. The court took it down and as soon as they realized that an exhibit was on the screen, I immediately instructed my paralegal to take it down and it was. Defense, I think everyone involved here made quick and appropriate efforts as soon as they realized the mistake had been made to remedy and mitigate that issue. As I explained what I was having, what we were going to do, defense counsel did not object as that happened. And the reason I bring that up is because of the requirement for timely objections. Moreover, I do want to say this exhibit was read into the record. It was allowed to be read into the record earlier. It is also in an earlier pleading, which is the information. This portion of that exhibit, I understand, is in the information. And it is largely cumulative of exhibit 16 and 16.1, which were previously admitted into evidence and published to the media. Finally, we are going to be dealing with a lot of publicity when it comes to media coverage. And I think that's really where the remedy is going to be addressed. I understand there may be a remedy that can be fashioned today to prevent this kind of thing going forward or going on in the future in this hearing. But I think ultimately that's where this will be addressed. Any other questions for me, Your Honor? [00:10:38] Speaker 2: Well, not at this time. I will afford you the opportunity, obviously, to respond when the fence comes back. I want to weigh this and taking it into consideration. And I find your representations to be accurate as to what occurred. I believe that I noticed it and asked for it to be taken down because I have a live stream on my screen for that very purpose. and the sequence, I believe I made note and if I'm wrong, please correct me. It's been a long four past days but that's the only addition that I find to the representation and certainly, Mr. Novak, feel free to correct it if you believe the sequence was any different. I just want to make sure a clear record is being made of what happened in order for whatever happens next to be appropriate and proportional to the actions that occurred. [00:11:31] Speaker 6: No, and that's consistent with my memory and I also reviewed the video, the live stream as well in preparation for this issue today. So that's exactly what I think happened. From my perspective, examining the witness, I did not have a view of what was being published to the public and the media and so I think the court immediately as soon as it recognized that brought that to everyone's attention. Thank you, Mr. McBride. [00:11:54] Speaker 2: To the media. [00:11:56] Speaker 3: Good morning, Your Honor. Good morning. Appreciate the opportunity to be here to speak on behalf of the media. I think our understanding of what happened is consistent with what both the defense and the state have said here. So I don't want to belabor that point but here's how I understand them. There's two exhibits at issue. Those exhibits were used yesterday in part because the juxtaposition of those two exhibits might have provided some sort of benefit to the court. The first of those exhibits was asked to be published through all three of the court's phases. The court said it will be admitted into evidence, be shown in the courtroom, will not be shown on the cameras. That happened about three hours in the hearing. That all went smoothly and well. That operated exactly as it is intended to. That requires the participation of everyone, the court, the defense, the state, media, the camera operator all to do that well. Later in the day, in the video I reviewed, this was about five hours into the run time yesterday, the second exhibit that was going to be compared side by side was introduced. That also went through that three-step process. In that case, the court said that that could be admitted into evidence, shown to the court, and then also shown on the cameras. So it was. It was put on the courtroom cameras. At that point, there was what I think is a useful practice by the camera operator to wait a beat because sometimes mistakes do happen, right? In that case, though, that was authorized. So the camera then panned to the screen which is set up specifically for the camera operator to be able to capture that. Examination on that exhibit began. Then, because the examination seemed to call for that juxtaposition without much warning for anyone involved, the previous exhibit that was intended to be juxtaposed was placed on the screen from, I think, an observer's view who didn't know where the testimony was going without warning. The camera operator, I think, quite astutely, within seconds, recognized this is a different exhibit and recalling the court's prior order recognized I should pan off and did within seconds. I think at the time that was happening, the court also caught that and said, let's not do that. Now, and that was the end of it. I think the two seconds is about right. I don't want to minimize that. I understand the point that Mr. Novak is making. We are operating in some ways on high wire and we are trying to place as many nets as we can and all the parties are working together to try to do that but in the age in which we live, one of the challenges is that sometimes when something like that is placed on a live screen, someone can screenshot it and like Mr. Novak said, if they want to put that for sale on the internet, then they can. That's why working together to ensure that even small mistakes like that don't happen is critical and the media has full, the media coalition that are given the opportunity and the benefit of being able to be here to run cameras and to take photographs have complete buy-in on that point. There are, of course, people out there watching a live stream that are not part of our coalition that we can't control and that's why it's so important that we get these pieces right. I do want, without going too far into the evidence, to note not only that several lines of this exhibit are available publicly in the information but that the full text, full text, every word, of that exhibit is contained in a search warrant in this case that was initially filed on September 17th, this is in the 4th district but in a different court, was held for six months as search warrants often are but then on March 17th, March 16th, March 17th, was released in full. On page 7 of that search warrant is the full text of this exhibit. I don't want to suggest that anybody gets the right to say, well, I think it's public, the court has said don't show it in the screen but since I think it is, we'll just come back later on and tell the court it's not a big deal because it's already public. That's not how it works. If we say we think it's in the public, the court says I understand that but I'm going to make an order. That order should be adhered to but I do for the purposes of prejudice, for potential remedy, for the court's concern and the court's sleepless nights, I do want the court to know that as well and members of our coalition have pointed out to me as we've talked about this while we take this very seriously, it is true in this case that the full text of that, not the image of the exhibit itself but the full text is already in the public sphere, has been reported on and is out there. I only want to reinforce to close the recognition that the media, our coalition, I as an attorney for that coalition have an obligation to make sure that mistakes don't get made and in this case even though I believe that the camera operator didn't act in violation of the court's decorum order, you know, didn't do something that was forbidden by that, that there was an order that said don't publish this exhibit and because it flashed on the screen when the camera operator was filming that screen, that did happen. The media is fully bought in. I as one of the attorneys and the other attorneys for the media coalition are fully bought in on a goal to make sure that this kind of thing doesn't happen. Of course, I understand Mr. Novak and the defense's need to make a record and make an objection and I also recognize and appreciate and understand the court's role in trying to make sure it imposes whatever sort of direction, caution, sanction, response that it believes is needed to make sure that its orders are recognized and adhered to and I want the court to know that we'll understand that and we'll comply with whatever it is that the court orders. [00:17:41] Speaker 2: Thank you. Anything further before we break? Mr. Novak. [00:17:45] Speaker 5: We don't need a break. [00:17:46] Speaker 2: Okay. [00:17:47] Speaker 5: The court wants a break. [00:17:49] Speaker 2: I want to review this. I'm sure there is a stream out there. I want to look at it again in order to appreciate the full effect and exposure. I remember it, but given the nature of this and trying to weigh the constitutional rights of all parties, I want to be thorough and look at it exactly so as we move forward, as I evaluate what's being requested by the parties that I am at the level of knowledge and because what it is, it was on screen, I want to look at it how long, what exactly was on screen and in order to be at the point of saying, okay, I fully understand. I mean, I was here. I saw it. I noticed it on the screen, but again, I want to take that extra two minutes to review that. [00:18:44] Speaker 5: I'm not suggesting that we rush through this at all. I just wanted the court to understand that our request for the remedy and the sanction. We are prepared to share that with the court, but we can certainly wait until the court has had an opportunity to review whatever the court thinks it needs to review. The permanence of this violation of the court order is a different issue from how long it took to correct the violation. It's a permanent consequence. In other words, that image is out there forever and ever in violation of the court's order no matter what actions the court, the state, and the media took to remedy it because that's the technological world we live in. So that's my response, if I may, to the arguments, but we can hold our suggestion until the court's ready for it. [00:19:41] Speaker 2: All right. And if the parties feel it would be helpful to confer while the court is reviewing it, you may, just so that if you choose to, I encourage it. If you don't, I respect that. The court's going to take about five minutes. Again, I just want to review it to be brought up to full speed and just to have it freshly in my mind. [00:20:01] Speaker 5: I'm going to make one more point, if I may, and that is, this is not the first time that this has happened. We had earlier proceedings in this case where the cameras depicted images inside the courtroom that the court had prohibited and the court imposed certain consequences on the media as a result of that. And so, that's just something to keep in mind. In my opinion. In my opinion. Thank you. [00:20:31] Speaker 2: All right. Before the court takes a five-minute recess and to review this, does any party need the benefit of the record based off the dialogue between me and Mr. Novak? All right. Not seeing any power to respond. The court's in recess. We'll come back at 9.45. The court is in a brief recess. [00:20:51] Speaker ?: Okay. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court is in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. [00:47:58] Speaker 2: The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. [00:48:32] Speaker ?: The court will be in a brief recess. [00:48:33] Speaker 2: The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. The court will be in a brief recess. And after I put this on the record, certainly if either side wishes to be heard about the court's understanding, I welcome your comments. Exhibit 24 was displayed on the monitor visible to the media camera. Exhibit 16 was displayed on all monitors and appeared on the live stream for approximately three and one-half seconds. The camera operator redirected the camera before any party called attention to the display of Exhibit 16. Approximately 16 seconds later, the court observed the image and stated, "Let me stop you, Mr. McBride. I'm not sure. Is this being broadcast?" Mr. McBride responded, "Let's take that down." The full text of Exhibit 16 had previously been made public through a search warrant that was publicly available on or before April 2026. The portion displayed on the monitors did not contain the full note and consisted of approximately 78 words. Approximately 15 of those words were included in the information filed on September 16, 2026. In addition, the full note was read into the record during the preliminary hearing. The court previously ordered that Exhibit 16 be admitted into evidence and permitted its display within the courtroom, but prohibited its publication through the camera used for the live stream. And that concludes the findings of the court as it relates to this issue. Do the parties wish to be heard, before we go into what you're requesting, about the record on what occurred? [00:50:17] Speaker 6: Your Honor, your recitation is accurate. My earlier comments were based on my memory of reviewing this last night. In the recess, I reviewed the feed again and what you have said today is accurate. [00:50:29] Speaker 2: Thank you. Mr. Novak, any... [00:50:31] Speaker 5: No, Your Honor, I don't take issue with the court's factual summary. [00:50:39] Speaker 2: All right. Turning to you, Mr. Novak. [00:50:41] Speaker 5: Thank you, Your Honor. We're going to renew our request to exclude all electronic media coverage from all future proceedings. That was our motion docketed at number 305, and that included video cameras, still photography, and audio. This is the second time that the court's orders concerning the scope of electronic media coverage have been violated. I'm a baseball fan, and I just don't think the court needs to wait for the third strike. Two strikes is enough. If I may, the alternative remedy, which we think is not wholly adequate, which is why we think it's an alternative and a less desirable alternative, is for this court to both reverse its prior order authorizing electronic media coverage of today's hearing, which we had previously filed an objection to after the court, I would say, preliminarily granted the request for today. This is sort of the chain of events. And that the court proactively preclude electronic media coverage at the last day of the preliminary hearing, which will be September 1st. Now, I understand that there has not yet been a request for electronic media coverage for September 1st, but there is no doubt that there will be. Just as this court previously observed that it wasn't prepared to preclude electronic media coverage at the preliminary hearing because there had not been any requests, there were requests. And those that were timely were all granted. The court denied one request because it was not timely for one particular day. So I guess the way it would be is any request for electronic media coverage of September 1st will be denied because that's the appropriate sanction for what happened yesterday. The fact that the content of the exhibit was previously summarized by the state in certain documents which became public because the state didn't take any actions to seal them beyond the six month period. The fact that the contents of the exhibit were read and open court is not the issue. The issue is when the court issues an order, everybody must comply with it. And there are reasons for the order. And the reasons, as this court stated, are to protect Mr. Robinson's right to a fair trial. So no doubt that the court balanced those prior ways in which the content of this exhibit had already been disclosed when the court decided that there would not be electronic media coverage. That's the fact that we have all known of that exhibit. That's the fact that we've all been aware of as we've gone along. So to summarize, and then I will stop because I know we still have a witness here. And of course, the court needs to hear from the state and counsel for the media, I suspect, is we would like the court to reconsider its order denying motion 305 and grant it for the balance of all of the proceedings in this matter. Or as an alternative, the court prohibit any further electronic media coverage of the preliminary hearing, which includes September 1st. Thank you, Mr. Novak. Thank you very much. [00:54:36] Speaker 2: Turning to the state and then to the media. [00:54:39] Speaker 6: Yes, Your Honor, as to the remedy, we've heard of instances where the media has been able to delay publication of the recordings of the proceedings. We've heard of instances where that has been a short delay of like 30 seconds. I've talked to the media attorney about this and they do not have the capability to do that right now. My suggestion would be for future proceedings to hear or the media to look into that capability. And that would be a remedy that perhaps could be used in the future. I think that would be a satisfactory remedy to avoid this type of thing in the future. As to the other remedies requested, we have one witness, the final witness. Well, the defense has one witness. That witness is an ATF DNA forensic biologist. And I assume that the exhibits that will be admitted through her will be of that nature. We've already, in fact, admitted the report that she is going to be testifying to. The reports, I should say, that's exhibits 30 and I believe 34. And so I don't think we have, and those have already been published. I don't think we have the same risks or, yeah, I'll just say risks with her testimony as we do with some of this other evidence that has already been admitted. Thank you. Thank you. To the media. [00:56:20] Speaker 3: In a proceeding like this, the parties and the court and the media are working together to learn and to refine their processes. I hear Mr. Novak's remarks about challenges that we've run into in the past. I recall, it hasn't been that long ago, a time when the camera was placed in a location in the courtroom that was causing challenges. The court moved it. When there were challenges with aspects of the court's ruling, the court reiterated those and those processes improved. We are getting better at this. Media is on board and recognizes the court's obligation and its significant efforts to balance in the interests here. In light of the court's ruling, including its recognition that the media operator in this case beat almost all of us to the punch. Right? And saw what was happening on the screen and moved away as quickly as they could. We believe that the procedures that the court currently has in place, even if they don't, every moment of every hearing delivered the result that we are intending to deliver. Those processes are working. I don't believe that a further adjustment, much less a sanction, much less a revisitation of something that says, let's keep every photographer, every camera out of this courtroom for every proceeding. In light of the court's well-reasoned and exhaustive rulings, after a long briefing on all of this, the court is currently balancing these interests correctly. And we therefore ask the court to allow the parties to recognize that the time we're dedicating this morning represents a reiteration of the importance of these principles. The media and the parties all recognize that. We'll continue to endeavor at all times to do all that we can to ensure that those are adhered to. And let the parties go forward under the current procedures without further order or sanctioned by the court. Thank you. [00:58:20] Speaker 2: Any further arguments before the court issues its ruling? [00:58:27] Speaker 5: No, but thank you for the opportunity. Thank you. [00:58:30] Speaker 2: Thank you. And I'm just updating my notes as I'm intending to issue this ruling right now. I'm just making sure that I'm capturing all the points made in the argument right now. [00:58:45] Speaker ?: I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. [01:02:34] Speaker 2: I'm going to be able to do this. [01:03:01] Speaker ?: I'm almost done. [01:03:19] Speaker 2: I appreciate the party's patience. This issue rises to the level that necessitates great care. As my practice, I don't like to rush or make snap decisions. I want to give this the full analysis that it's due. So thank you again for your patience. [01:03:49] Speaker ?: I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. I'm going to be able to do this. [01:04:06] Speaker 2: All right. The court will issue its ruling on the request by defense. The constitutional rights of Mr. Robinson and Ms. Kirk are paramount. Although transparency in judicial proceedings is a fundamental interest, it must be balanced against the constitutional rights of all parties. Having considered the arguments presented by counsel and having reviewed the events that occurred yesterday, the court finds that its order prohibiting the publication or broadcast of Exhibit 16 by the media camera was violated. The court agrees with defense. This constituted a violation of the court's order. Compliance with court orders is essential in all proceedings and is of particular importance given the nature of these proceedings. With respect to defense's request as a sanction that the court reverse its ruling on defense motion 305, motion to exclude cameras, the request is respectfully denied. The analysis underlying the court's prior ruling remains unchanged and the court adheres to its reasoning and conclusions. With respect to the defense's alternative request as a sanction to prohibit all cameras and electronic equipment from today's proceedings, thereby preventing the electronic capture of the proceedings for those inside and outside of the court room, the request is granted in part and denied in part. Effective immediately, members of the media shall no longer capture or broadcast any exhibits displayed by the parties during today's proceedings. The court finds this sanction to be proportional and appropriate in light of the violation of the court's prior order. The court reserves this sanction as it relates to September 1st. It is not before the court. There has not been a request for electronic media coverage and the court won't issue a pre-ruling. When that request has been filed and all the deadlines which the court has imposed in regards to the MC filing are in place, if motions are filed, the court will entertain motions in brief argument ahead of the September 1st hearing. and address it at that time. This is the ruling of the court. Thank you. Turning to the defense. If you wish, you may call your next witness. [01:06:56] Speaker 7: Judge, we would like the benefit of the record before we start taking evidence today. [01:07:01] Speaker 2: Yes, Mr. Grenander. And I'll allow all parties, given the ruling of the court, briefly. [01:07:06] Speaker 7: And I'll be brief, Judge. And this is in relation to the continued taking of evidence today. And I'll start my statement, Judge, with something that was very insightful that you said the other day. You mentioned, and I quote, "Sometimes you need to take time to save time," close quote. And so that's my purpose for standing up here this morning. We have spent the better part of a day, a little over five hours, I believe, hearing from witnesses that the defense has called at this preliminary hearing. And no doubt the defense is entitled to call witnesses at a preliminary hearing as allowed by the rules. But I think it's important that the court remind all parties about the purpose of this hearing. This is a probable cause hearing, as Your Honor has repeatedly stated. The defense has invoked the term reliability many times. And the court, frankly, has found the evidence that's been admitted, the testimony. As a gatekeeper, the court has found it reliable. It's been presented. The exhibits have been found reliable. So any questions of additional reliability are really questions of credibility of the witness and weighing of the evidence. And that is not really what this court engages in at the probable cause standard. And so this is all couched in the context of a likely forthcoming standing objection that the state may lodge. If the testimony is long and drawn out and exceeds the scope of the preliminary hearing, gets into areas of a 702 hearing, possibly even trial, we will lodge this objection. But I wanted to just simply state the authority, Judge, behind our objection if we do make that. As your court is well aware, the magistrate at this stage of the case must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. And that's cited to in a number of Utah cases to include State v. Schmidt. Schmidt continues, "This means that when reasonable inferences from the evidence cut both for and against the state's case, the magistrate lacks the discretion to choose between them and must leave such a determination to the fact finder at trial." A few other cases I would like to refer the court to. State v. Pledger, which is a Utah 1995 Supreme Court case. Speaking of this standard, the court says, "The standard bars the magistrate from requiring the prosecution to address or even eliminate alternative inferences that could be drawn from the evidence in favor of the defense." So even assuming the defense scores points today in calling these witnesses, again, the court cannot really weigh those in favor of the defense. State v. Hester, which is a Utah Court of Appeals case 2000, where there is conflicting evidence, quote, "The magistrate may not sift or weigh the evidence, but must leave those tasks to the fact finder at trial." Of course, we're not at trial yet. State v. Virgin, a Utah 2006 Supreme Court case, indicates that a magistrate may only disregard evidence at a preliminary hearing if it is, quote, "so contradictory, inconsistent, or unbelievable that it is unreasonable to base belief of an element of the prosecution's claim on that evidence." There's a State v. Drozbecki case, which is a Utah Court of Appeals case 2010. Magistrates may only disregard or discredit evidence that is wholly lacking and incapable of creating a reasonable inference regarding a portion of the prosecution's claim, but must leave all the weighing of credible but conflicting evidence to the trier of fact. And finally, State v. Lopez, a Utah 2020 Supreme Court case. Speaking of this probable cause standard at a preliminary hearing, the court said, "Under this low bar, it may be difficult for the defense to overcome a prima facie showing of probable cause. Even an alleged victim's recantations may sometimes be insufficient, given that the magistrate must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution." Close quote. Judge, Judge, Your Honor has heard four days of testimony now. The evidence is overwhelming. It's devastating. And the question needs to be asked, the purpose of continuing with testimony, if it's long and drawn out. Of course, the defense has the right to call witnesses, but it needs to be within the context of this preliminary hearing. So, again, we may be lodging a standing objection of relevance and exceeding the scope of this hearing. That's my record. [01:11:52] Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Grunander. Do either party, other of the parties, wish to be heard as it relates to Mr. Grunander's statement? To the defense. [01:12:02] Speaker 8: I'm not sure what was being requested by Mr. Grunander. As I indicated to the court during the testimony of the last witness, we had discussion with the state prior to the start. We had a scheduled date for the court to rule on objections. And the purpose of that hearing was so that we wouldn't have to fly witnesses out from the East Coast if there was going to be a standing objection. Prior to that hearing taking place, the state contacted us after they had participated in interviews of Ms. Oliver and the other experts. And indicated to us and we indicated to the court that there was going to be no standing objection to the testimony of these witnesses. So if he's lodging a standing objection now, I think he's waived it or he should be a stop from asserting it given the circumstances. I didn't hear that, that he was asserting that. And I intend to keep this next witness focused on the issue that I think is relevant, which is the state presented DNA reports through a non-expert. They selectively read into the record a portion of those reports which left an extremely misleading impression of the significance of that evidence. So I have the author of the report here, and I'm going to hopefully educate the court on what the limitations are of the report, and that's it. I hope to be done with the witness by noon, direct and cross, and that will be the end of it. [01:13:41] Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Mr. Burton. Before I have you call the witness, I just want to make sure that the media had a -- well, I'm not sure if the media needs to be heard on Mr. Grunander's response. No, Your Honor. All right. Thank you. All right, Mr. Burt. [01:13:57] Speaker 8: You may call your next witness. Thank you. Call Ms. Oliver. [01:14:09] Speaker 2: Ms. Oliver, if you'd like to come forward and be sworn in. [01:14:12] Speaker 9: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give in the case now pending before the court will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. [01:14:24] Speaker 2: All right, ma'am. You may be seated. And there's a water bottle to your left, if you wish. And after you're seated, if you wouldn't mind adjusting that microphone, bringing it close to you to pick up your testimony from today. Mr. Burt, your witness. [01:14:44] Speaker 8: Thank you. Could you tell us your name, please? [01:14:46] Speaker 1: Caitlin Oliver, O-L-I-V-E-R. [01:14:49] Speaker 8: And Ms. Oliver, could you bring that mic a little bit closer? So I want to make sure your voice is projected. Thank you. What do you do for a living? [01:14:57] Speaker 1: I work for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives as a DNA Section Chief. [01:15:04] Speaker 8: And how long have you held that position? [01:15:06] Speaker 1: I've been a Section Chief since January, and I've worked with the ATF for about nine years. Prior to that, I was a forensic biologist. [01:15:14] Speaker 8: And where were you a forensic biologist before you started to work for the ATF? [01:15:21] Speaker 1: Prior to the ATF, I worked for Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office in New Orleans, Louisiana, as a DNA Analyst and a DNA Quality Manager. [01:15:30] Speaker 8: Back in September of 2025, what were your duties and responsibilities? [01:15:36] Speaker 1: I was a forensic biologist. [01:15:38] Speaker 8: And do you recall that around September 11th, you received a request to do some DNA work at the request of the State of Utah? [01:15:49] Speaker 1: Yes. [01:15:50] Speaker 8: Could we display State's Exhibit 30, which is in evidence? [01:16:20] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [01:18:50] Speaker 8: Thank you. For instance, the next sample down 1.2, where the state read paragraph D, admitted paragraph F, you state in F, based on this calculation, there is evidentiary support for the inclusion of Tyler Robinson, correct? As a possible contributor. Correct. [01:19:41] Speaker 2: Mr. Burt, I just want to interrupt. Sure. I was made aware of a question about the media as it reflects this order. So the question was whether audio could be transmitted, and my ruling covered the video display of any exhibits. And so I just want to make sure that's the understanding of all the parties that the audio of your portion discussing evidence is, that you understand that that's going to be captured by the camera and displayed, but not any exhibits displayed, is that your understanding? [01:20:19] Speaker 8: That is my understanding of the court's ruling, yes. [01:20:22] Speaker 2: And to the state? Yes. And to the media? Yes, Your Honor. [01:20:25] Speaker 3: Yes, Your Honor. [01:20:26] Speaker 2: There might be concern about the actual monitors at Council table and podium, but any clarification [01:20:31] Speaker ?: on that? [01:20:31] Speaker 2: Well, that's why I give my notation beginning of the morning that the parties are responsible to monitor their monitors. And that's there because they're entitled to view it, but they're responsible to ensure that the monitors, as the camera's picking up the courtroom, it's directed not to focus on the monitors, but inevitable capture may occur, and that's why that instruction is given. Thank you. [01:21:00] Speaker 10: Your Honor, Jeff and I are on behalf of the Vickers, Representative. You cannot see it in court, so I don't know if there's a way for us to view the monitor. [01:21:12] Speaker 2: I don't understand what you're saying. [01:21:16] Speaker 6: It's not being published on this one. [01:21:17] Speaker 10: It's not being published on the monitor to the courts, right? [01:21:19] Speaker 2: Right. The monitor, the order of the court based as a sanction is no exhibits will be displayed. [01:21:25] Speaker 10: In the court of entirety? [01:21:27] Speaker 2: As it stands right now, yes, that's correct. [01:21:31] Speaker ?: Well, I have to. [01:21:32] Speaker 2: Okay, please approach the lectern. [01:21:35] Speaker 10: Your Honor, it's just hard for the victim's family to be able to follow the evidence if everyone but the victim's family is able to view the exhibits here in court. [01:21:50] Speaker 2: Thank you. I appreciate your concern. This monitor is not on either, so it's only attorneys. The attorneys have a right to view what exhibits are being displayed to make their motions, objections, and to see it. It is the court's discretion on what's displayed in the courtroom for publication, and the court is a sanction given the events of yesterday, and that's the court's ruling. [01:22:18] Speaker 10: Your Honor, I just asked the court to consider that the victim has the right to be present, obviously, at the hearing, and the presence without being able to see the exhibits, again, it's our position, is not meaningful. [01:22:30] Speaker 2: Thank you. I appreciate your concerns. Mr. Burke. [01:22:34] Speaker ?: Thank you. [01:22:37] Speaker 8: Mr. Burke. Could you re-display it to the 30, please? And, again, while he's doing that, that same conclusion where you include the language, go back to that page, please, 5. use the term, there is evidentiary support and possible contributor. I want to focus your attention on the words evidentiary support. We've had a prior witness testify that, from the FBI, testify that they use a scale, and they characterize the support along the lines of strong, are you familiar with that type of a scale? [01:23:26] Speaker 1: Yes. [01:23:27] Speaker 8: Does your agency employ that scale? [01:23:30] Speaker 1: We can come to five conclusions at our agency, so there can either be exclusion, limited support for exclusion, uninformative, limited support for inclusion, and support for inclusion. [01:23:44] Speaker 8: And I take it from what you just said, you don't use these qualifiers strongly. The word strongly include things of that nature. [01:23:53] Speaker 1: Yes, we don't use a verbal scale at our laboratory. [01:23:56] Speaker 8: Is that a scientific phrase, when you talk about some, instead of saying that there's support for an inclusion, you instead say there is strong support for the conclusion? [01:24:08] Speaker 1: So our laboratory doesn't use a verbal scale, due to the fact that they add subjective words to the front of the word support. It is our stance that the likelihood ratio statistic, the number, stands on its own. So we report the likelihood ratio and either support for inclusion or support for exclusion. Thank you. [01:24:32] Speaker 8: Would you go to page eight of the report, and highlight the very top of the first two sentences. You included this language in your report, correct? Correct. In fact, you included this language in all three of your reports, referring to the conclusions conformed with the relevant Department of Justice policy on uniform language. [01:25:00] Speaker ?: That's correct. [01:25:01] Speaker 1: Right. [01:25:02] Speaker 8: And why do you include that language in all three of your reports? [01:25:06] Speaker 1: It's standard language for our reports. Our reports adhere to the DOJ ultra statement. Okay. [01:25:14] Speaker 8: And could you go now to exhibit Oliver for the witness only? Not admitted yet. Are you familiar with this document, the Department of Justice uniform language for testimony and reports for forensic autosomal DNA examination using probabilistic genotyping systems? Yes, I am. [01:25:40] Speaker 1: Right. [01:25:41] Speaker 8: And would you go to page four of that document, please? And the court has heard some prior testimony about this Department of Justice directive. What is your understanding of what the qualifications and limitations are that are required by this policy of the Department of Justice? What are you not supposed to be saying in connection with the reports that you wrote in this case? [01:26:12] Speaker 1: There's a few things that the ultra document states. First, it states if you use a verbal scale, which we do not, then you need to use the one dictated in the document. This isn't an effort to unify the language coming out of DOJ laboratories. It also says that we cannot state that our evidence is infallible, nor can we state that there is a inconclusive result. [01:26:46] Speaker 8: Shall not state that it's infallible or have a zero error rate, correct? Correct. It also states, does it not, that you shall not assert that a likelihood ratio of any magnitude provides an absolute identification or source attribution of an individual to an evidentiary sample? Correct. And are your reports in conformity with that? You're not stating or implying that anything you did here is asserting an absolute identification of someone as the source of any of the evidence that you examined, correct? [01:27:29] Speaker 1: Correct. With forensic evidence, it's impossible to state with 100% certainty anything. That's why we report a likelihood ratio to speak to that uncertainty with a statistic. [01:27:40] Speaker 8: All right. And would you go to the next page of that document? This policy requires that you not state or use the expressions reasonable degree of scientific certainty, reasonable scientific certainty, or similar assertions of reasonable certainty. You didn't do that in any of your reports, correct? Correct. You're not asserting anything with respect to any reasonable degree of scientific certainty. Correct. Correct. Now, you can take that down. When did you first receive the assignment in this case? [01:28:14] Speaker 1: I would have to refer to my case record to know the exact date. [01:28:19] Speaker 8: Do you have those in front of you? I do not. Okay. Let me pull up Oliver III for the witness only and go to the third page. Does the third page help refresh your memory on when you may have received this case? [01:28:53] Speaker 1: Yes, on September 12, 2025. [01:28:56] Speaker 8: Okay. Is that when you first started doing work on the case, do you think? Yes, it is. Now, prior to doing work on the case, did you receive permission from someone to consume any samples in the case? Yes, I did. And could you go to page 15 of those case notes, please, again for the witness only? Do you recognize this email? Yes, I do. And can you tell me what the email is and what information it conveyed to you in connection with your examination? [01:29:35] Speaker 1: Yes, so it's standard procedure at our laboratory that when we receive a case, we request permission to consume from the agent. We request that they reach out to an attorney if one is assigned. In this case, we will not begin any work on the case until we've received that permission to consume. So this email is us receiving permission to consume the samples and move forward with testing. [01:29:59] Speaker 8: Okay. Now, does your policy have, does your lab have a policy for preserving samples for independent testing by the defense? [01:30:09] Speaker 1: Where possible, we will not consume samples where it's possible. [01:30:16] Speaker 8: And that policy is a longstanding one, not only in your lab, but pretty much everywhere in forensic DNA analysis, right? That's correct. Goes back to 1996, does it not, when the National NRC recommended a policy that samples be split wherever possible at the front end of the analysis to allow for independent examination? [01:30:44] Speaker 1: Where possible, yes, that's correct. [01:30:46] Speaker 8: And they did that because it was their conclusion, was it not, that a wrongfully accused person's best insurance against the possibility of being falsely incriminated is the opportunity to have the testing repeated. Such an opportunity should be provided whenever feasible. Correct. Okay. Could you now go back to exhibit 30? Page 8. Were certain DNA samples consumed in your analysis? Yes, they were. And for the record, are those listed on page 8 of your report? Yes, they are. Which samples were entirely consumed in your analysis? [01:31:37] Speaker 1: analysis? It would be exhibits 1.4, 1.6, 1.9, 1.10, 1.12, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, and 5.1. Okay. Then are there a number of samples listed above there in the report where you say the DNA extracts will be retained? And then you list 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 1.7, [01:32:07] Speaker 8: 1.8, 1.13, 7.1, and 8.1. Correct. Does that mean that those are all swab samples, correct? They were swabs, yes. Right. Does that mean, does your report mean that you consume the swabs but you have some liquid extract remaining as to those samples? Correct. Now are all of the samples, let's talk about the samples in Exhibit, Plenist Exhibit 30. Were all of the samples you looked at there mixed samples? [01:32:50] Speaker 1: Did I refer to my tables in my report? Sure. Go to page 2, please. And can we go to page 3 and 4? 3 and 4, please. With the exception of the known samples from the known individual, that was a single source sample, but otherwise the evidence samples were all mixtures. [01:33:25] Speaker 8: And in many cases, they were mixtures of sometimes four and five people, correct? Correct. Now, when you look at mixtures, such as the ones in this case, you use terms like major and minor contributor, right? Correct. Is that language meant to convey that anything with respect to activity of anybody who might be assigned to that DNA way? In other words, are you saying the person you label as a major contributor was engaged in any sort of activity? Is there any connection between the use of that language and activity? [01:34:09] Speaker 1: None of the testing that I perform could speak to activity or what activity led to the deposition of the DNA. [01:34:16] Speaker 8: So nothing in your report is somebody who reads that and says, oh, this one says, this person is a major contributor. You're not commenting on anything about the person's activity, correct? Correct. And is it true also that there are also several other limitations concerning the language of your report that it's important for courts and people who are reading the report to understand? [01:34:53] Speaker 1: I'm sorry, what was the question? [01:34:55] Speaker 8: Are there other limitations in addition to the one we just reviewed that it's important to understand about the language you use in your report? [01:35:07] Speaker 1: In terms, is there something specific that you're... [01:35:11] Speaker 8: Yeah, there is. Could you go to Baker Exhibit 30, page one, for the witness only? Are you familiar with this publication? Yes. This is a publication by the National Institute of Standards and Technology called Forensic DNA Interpretation and Human Factors? [01:35:45] Speaker 1: Correct. [01:35:46] Speaker 8: This is put together as a guidance document for practitioners on what to simplify, essentially, what to say and what not to say. [01:35:59] Speaker 1: I don't know that I would call it a guidance document. NIST is not a regulatory body for DNA testing. It was a report that looked into forensic DNA reporting and specific human factors that could affect our testing. So they may have had recommendations, but as far as them being a regulatory body that's issuing guidelines, I wouldn't state that. [01:36:24] Speaker 8: Okay, that's fine. Could you go to 136, please? [01:36:26] Speaker ?: Thank you. [01:36:26] Speaker 8: Thank you. This is a Baker of 30. [01:37:00] Speaker ?: Thank you. [01:37:02] Speaker 8: Keep going. There we go. Right there. Wait, at 135. I'm sorry. And then scroll down to the next page. So they're making recommendations here as to how the report should be worded, correct? Correct. Let me ask you whether you agree with some of these limitations or they call them caveats. They talk about how you describe the number of contributors and they say the true number of contributors of DNA to an item can never be known. Do you agree with that? Yes. They also say, let me ask one question before I ask this one, which is, do you use something called a reporting cap in all three of your reports? [01:38:31] Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. So for our likelihood ratio statistics, we cap the statistic at one trillion. The actual number could be a lot higher. It could be quintillion, octillion. We chose a trillion because it has meaning, I think, to people that can understand what a trillion is. An octillion and a quintillion gets a little high at that point. So we cap at one trillion. [01:38:55] Speaker 8: And they talk here, do they not, about how you convey the idea of a reporting cap? And they say the report, the LR reporting cap was chosen because of the limitation of biostatistical modeling and independence assumptions of STR loci. Do you agree that that's why the cap is chosen? [01:39:20] Speaker 1: I believe we chose our cap for the reason I stated. [01:39:25] Speaker 8: Do you disagree with that statement in terms of why the cap is chosen? [01:39:30] Speaker 1: I'm not familiar with the paper that's referenced there, so I would have to familiarize myself before I said I agreed or disagreed. [01:39:37] Speaker 8: Fair enough. And then they also suggest that you alert in your report that profile descriptors cannot be applied to activity level issues. Do you agree with that? [01:39:56] Speaker 1: Yes. So this is what you were stating about calling a major contributor. It doesn't speak to the activity that led to the DNA deposition. [01:40:03] Speaker 8: Right. DNA profiles may be described as major, minor. However, these descriptors should not be interpreted in the context of a decision regarding the nature or the mechanisms, actions, or timing that led to the deposition of the DNA. You agree with that? [01:40:22] Speaker 1: Correct. Yes. [01:40:23] Speaker 8: Right. And then the other sort of limitation, convey that the DNA results cannot be interpreted as the analyst providing an opinion regarding who the source of the DNA is. [01:40:41] Speaker 1: Yes. So this is, once again, we don't make source attribution statements. We will say there's support for inclusion, and then we back up that with a statistic. [01:40:52] Speaker 8: So from a scientific standpoint, you couldn't read the paragraph that sets out the likelihood ratio in your report, whatever the number, and then blast the headline in the media, Mr. Robinson's DNA is found on this item. That's a source attribution, is it not? Correct, yes. And that would not be scientifically defensible, would it? Correct. Okay. Another limitation, they talk about unlikelihood ratios. On the next page, please, 137. Likelihood ratios cannot speak to the likelihood of a proposition, only to the probability of the results given a pair of propositions. Do you agree with that? Yes. Explain that, because that's a little, above my pay grade in terms of understanding. [01:41:44] Speaker 1: So a likelihood ratio statistic compares the probability of the DNA profile of the evidence given two competing hypotheses or two competing scenarios. Typically, the first is that the person of interest is included, and then the exclusionary hypothesis would be that the person of interest is excluded. So there's a random, unknown, unrelated individual contributing. [01:42:07] Speaker 8: And when they're elaborating on that point, they say a likelihood ratio indicates if, and to what extent, the DNA analysis results support one proposition over another, it is not possible on this basis alone to determine which is the most probable proposition. Do you agree with that? Do you agree with that? Yes. Yes. Okay. And then the next limitation they suggest you convey is that, convey that DNA statistics cannot imply uniqueness within a population. Do you agree that that's a legitimate limitation? [01:42:48] Speaker 7: Yes. [01:42:49] Speaker 8: And explain what that means. Does that go back to the issue of source? You can't assign a source to a DNA sample? [01:42:58] Speaker 1: Correct. [01:43:00] Speaker 8: Okay. It says you should delineate the meaning of a verbal qualifier, but you didn't use one in this case, right? Correct. Okay. Now, you mentioned that your testing cannot, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to mischaracterize it, your testing, none of the testing in any of the three reports can answer the question of how and when DNA got deposited. Is that true? [01:43:34] Speaker 1: That is true. DNA can't speak to the activity that led to the deposition of the DNA. [01:43:39] Speaker 8: And the report says, with regard to that issue, with the increased sensitivity of DNA techniques and sophisticated software, a DNA profile may be developed even when the contributor of that DNA never touched the item or area that was swapped. Alternatively, a person's DNA may be present when they were not involved in the crime. Do you agree with that? [01:44:05] Speaker 1: Yes. Once again, I cannot speak to the activity. [01:44:08] Speaker 8: How can you explain how it's possible that a DNA profile may be developed even when the contributor of that DNA never touched the item or area that was swapped? [01:44:21] Speaker 1: So it's possible if, say, the pen that you're sitting there using for the week, you, say, hand it off to the judge and the judge then touches it for a period of time and then I swab it. It doesn't speak to who handled it last. I could test that. I could get both of your profiles. I wouldn't know which person was the last person to handle that item. [01:44:46] Speaker 8: All right. And similarly, if you had a lot of DNA on your hand, we shook hands, I then went to pick up an exhibit, a gun, I touched the trigger of it, your DNA could be on that trigger, right? [01:45:04] Speaker 1: It is possible, yes. [01:45:06] Speaker 8: Okay, even though you never touched a gun. Yes. And that's why, because of those possibilities, you can't make any assessment of how or when DNA got deposited, correct? Correct. How long can DNA persist on a night? [01:45:21] Speaker 1: DNA is quite stable over time. It can be broken down due to environmental insults, so things like heat and humidity are known to break down DNA over time, but I couldn't give you an exact number. [01:45:38] Speaker 8: Were certain of the samples that you tested in this case degraded samples? [01:45:43] Speaker 1: There was degradation present in some of the samples. [01:45:46] Speaker 8: And what can cause degradation? [01:45:48] Speaker 1: Like I said, there's environmental insults, heat, humidity. [01:45:54] Speaker 8: Now, the second report that you wrote had to do with a Dremel item that was taken from Mr. Robinson's home? Correct. And did you request certain what are called elimination samples in regard to items that were recovered from his home? [01:46:22] Speaker 1: Yes. [01:46:23] Speaker 8: Tell the court what an elimination sample is as opposed to a sample that relates to a, what's called a POI, person of interest. [01:46:32] Speaker 1: So an elimination sample is a sample taken from a known individual that it may be assumed that they could have come into contact with it. If I were to, say, swab your vehicle, then I would want your DNA sample as an elimination to eliminate you in order to look for any additional DNA that may be there. [01:46:52] Speaker 8: And you say they're assumed contributors because depending upon the location, for instance, somebody's house, you would expect if there were multiple people in that house that perhaps everybody in the house could contribute to a certain DNA result. [01:47:10] Speaker 1: It's possible. [01:47:11] Speaker 8: So you'd want samples from all those folks to see if they contributed to an item that would be associated with a place where they congregated. Correct. And I noticed from your case probably you also requested, but I don't think you received, elimination samples from agents who were involved in this case. [01:47:32] Speaker 1: Correct. [01:47:33] Speaker 8: Why do you request those samples? [01:47:34] Speaker 1: The type of testing we perform is quite sensitive. And so it is a standard practice that we request elimination samples from any of the investigators involved in order to potentially eliminate them in case they could have contaminated the evidence. [01:47:52] Speaker 8: Okay, now in report number 157, if you could bring that up please, Oliver 157, which has been admitted. So the elimination samples that you requested in connection with item C's for Mr. Robinson's apartment were from Amber Robinson, Matthew Robinson, and Lance Twiggs, correct? Correct. And that's because you had information and those people were associated with the house. [01:48:28] Speaker 1: Correct. [01:48:30] Speaker 8: And when you tested or compared, first of all, you determined their DNA types, right? Correct. Then you compared their types to what you found on the evidence. Correct. And for a certain number of those samples, you found the presence of DNA of your elimination samples, not because they were suspects, but because they were associated with the premises, right? [01:49:03] Speaker 1: There was support for inclusion of some of these individuals, yes. [01:49:05] Speaker 8: Okay, and if you could scroll down to page four, which is the table, I just want to review briefly with you. For instance, item number 1.4, which was a swab from the rifle. You used the elimination sample of Mr. Robinson's father, and you found his DNA on that particular swab, correct? [01:49:41] Speaker 1: I would say there was support for inclusion of Matthew Robinson on the sample obtained from the swabs of the bolts of the rifle. [01:49:49] Speaker 8: I'm glad you pointed that out. That's, again, consistent with your other testimony. You're talking, again, about support for inclusion as a possible contributor. [01:50:01] Speaker 1: Correct. [01:50:02] Speaker 8: Again, not because he's a suspect, but because he's associated with that premise. [01:50:08] Speaker 1: Correct, and there would have been a likelihood ratio statistic calculated to go along with that. [01:50:13] Speaker 8: Okay, could you go to the next page? Similarly, with respect to 1.6, you found, again, Matthew Robinson on swap number 1.6, or a profile that indicated he was a possible contributor. [01:50:33] Speaker 1: There was support for inclusion of Matthew Robinson. [01:50:36] Speaker 8: Okay. The next page, actually go two page to page seven. You found support for inclusion of Lance Twiggs on swabs of buttons of a Dremel tool, correct? [01:51:00] Speaker 1: Correct. [01:51:01] Speaker 8: And going back to what we were talking about before, if a person named Lance Twiggs lived in that residence, came into contact with Tyler Robinson, and then touched a button on a Dremel tool, you'd expect Mr. Robinson and Mr. Twiggs' DNA to be on there, right? Or you could. [01:51:24] Speaker 1: It's reasonable to assume that anyone living in the household could have contributed to DNA on an object found in that household. [01:51:32] Speaker 8: And similarly, you found profiles to suggest support for inclusion of Mr. Twiggs on other areas of the Dremel tool, correct? Correct. Okay. Now, the last area I want to ask you about is you're familiar with something called NGS? [01:51:59] Speaker 1: Yes. [01:52:00] Speaker 8: What is NGS? [01:52:01] Speaker 1: NGS stands for Next Generation Sequencing. It's a DNA technique that sequences your DNA. So it looks at the individual sequence of your DNA. [01:52:11] Speaker 8: And is it true that in your field, that whole area of NGS is something that's at the forefront of everybody's attention? For instance, when you go to seminars and you look at the presentation, presentations, there's a lot of talk about NGS, right? [01:52:27] Speaker 1: That's correct. Yes, it's a newer technique. [01:52:29] Speaker 8: And is it being developed by ATF as a technique that's going to be used or has been used? [01:52:36] Speaker 1: Not at this time, no. [01:52:38] Speaker 8: And is there plans to do that? [01:52:40] Speaker 1: Not at this time, no. [01:52:42] Speaker 8: Okay. Do you know if other labs have implemented it? [01:52:47] Speaker 1: I believe there may be some laboratories in the United States that have it in use, but I wouldn't have direct knowledge of that. [01:52:54] Speaker 8: Now, you used a program in this case called STRMix, correct? Correct. And that's sold by a company in New Zealand, that software? [01:53:04] Speaker 1: Correct. [01:53:05] Speaker 8: Have they developed another program called STRMix, NGS? [01:53:11] Speaker 1: I'm not aware of NGS software. [01:53:14] Speaker 8: Could you go to 1-5-6, Oliver 1-5-6? Let me know when you're there. Are you aware that STR, the developers are selling a product called STRMix, NGS? [01:53:42] Speaker 1: I was not aware, no. [01:53:44] Speaker 8: Okay. Now, sequencing analysis is different than what you did in this case, correct? [01:53:52] Speaker 1: Correct. [01:53:53] Speaker 8: And how so? [01:53:55] Speaker 1: As I said, sequencing is looking at the individual sequence, the individual bases that make up your DNA, as opposed to the testing that I'm performing, which is looking at length variations. So STR testing, which is the testing I perform, looks at areas of the DNA that are known to be highly variable between individuals. And there are areas where the DNA sequence repeats itself over and over again. And depending on who you are as an individual, you may have a different number of repeats present at that location. So the testing we're performing is looking at those length variations. There's a distinction between, say, if you have 10 repeats versus 12 repeats. [01:54:39] Speaker 8: But you're not looking within those lengths to see what the sequence of the DNA is. Correct. And that's what this new technology is designed to look at. Correct. And the reason it's designed to look at that is because it's been found that there are DNA areas that are different in sequence, even though they're the same length. Is that true? [01:55:03] Speaker 1: I think the reason for developing NGS software is to add another tool to a forensic biologist tool belt. [01:55:14] Speaker 8: Okay. Now, could you go to 154, please, for the witness only? You're familiar with this chart? Yes. Okay. This lists all the alleles that you found for all the testing in your three analysis, correct? [01:55:35] Speaker 1: No, it looks like... [01:55:37] Speaker 8: No, you were right, 154. Yeah. This is one... What's the exhibit on this? [01:55:53] Speaker 7: This is 154 on the second page. [01:55:56] Speaker 8: Okay. You're familiar with this chart, right? [01:56:00] Speaker 1: I reviewed the first page of this chart. I have not reviewed the entire page. Sure. [01:56:04] Speaker 8: Go to the first page. This lists the alleles that you found, correct? [01:56:11] Speaker 1: For the known samples, yes. [01:56:12] Speaker 8: Okay. Now go to the second page. And is it true that for the alleles of interest in this case, one of the alleles of interest is at the D3 location, allele 17? [01:56:25] Speaker 1: One of the locations that we look at on the DNA strand is called D3. That's a location, yes. [01:56:32] Speaker 8: Right. And in this case, the 17 allele is important because Mr. Robinson had a 17 allele, correct? Correct. And some of the evidence had a 17 allele. Correct. At that location. Correct. So as I understand the way you do this, you look and compare whether those are the same number, basically. [01:56:54] Speaker 1: I wouldn't say that's how we do our comparison. So it's not just number matching. We're using STRMICS, the STRMICS software, in order to perform an analysis of the software that looks at the possibilities for a DNA profile and make comparison to the knowns that way. We aren't using a chart and just doing number matching. [01:57:18] Speaker 8: Yeah. And I wasn't suggesting you did, but you're looking at the alleles and measuring the peaks, and it's a fairly sophisticated process, correct? Correct. But the bottom line is you're comparing alleles one against another. Correct. So if a person is a 17-17, and the evidence sample is a 17-17, you're looking at that comparison. Correct. And again, measuring only length. Correct. But it's true, is it not, that researchers have found that that particular allele, the D3-17 allele, that there are actually three different 17s, 17A, 17B, 17C. [01:58:02] Speaker 1: Yeah, so there's something known as isoalleles. What that is is you may have, in this case, a 17 allele, but the sequence within that 17 allele is different. So two people may have a 17, but they may have a different sequence within their 17 allele. [01:58:20] Speaker 8: And it's been found that there is a 17A, a 17B, and a 17C, correct? [01:58:26] Speaker 6: Objection. Relevance to the probable cause hearing. At this point, I think we've once again gone beyond probable cause, and based on Mr. Grunander's argument, I would invoke his argument here in the case law that he referenced, and I object to this question. [01:58:44] Speaker 8: Let me withdraw the question, reframe it, and move beyond it. [01:58:47] Speaker 2: All right, so I'll sustain the objection. It will be reframed, and we'll go from there. [01:58:52] Speaker 8: It's true, is it not, that at least one, two, three, five of the locations of interest in this case, researchers have found that the alleles that you are looking at, these iso-alleles, have different sequences but the same length. [01:59:10] Speaker 6: Objection. Relevance. The witnesses testify she does not do sequencing analysis here, and that's what the question is asking, is about sequencing analysis. [01:59:20] Speaker 8: Counsel? The point, though, is that her testing cannot distinguish between these iso-alleles, and therefore it goes to the weight of the comparisons. [01:59:32] Speaker 2: But if she didn't do that? [01:59:34] Speaker 8: Yeah, that's the point, is that she didn't do it, and therefore she's not in a position to draw conclusions. [01:59:41] Speaker 2: Mr. McBride? [01:59:47] Speaker 6: That proffer is inaccurate, that she's not able to draw conclusions because she did not do NGS or sequencing analysis. She has testified that her lab and the analysis she did here is not sequencing analysis. It's something different. Whether or not she could do sequencing analysis is irrelevant to the analysis that she did do. If Mr. Burt wants to call an expert to say sequencing analysis is better or something like that, that's fine. But this expert does not do sequencing analysis. Therefore, the line of questioning that goes into sequencing analysis is irrelevant to her testimony. [02:00:20] Speaker 8: Let me see if I could lay a further foundation. [02:00:23] Speaker 2: All right, so I'm going to sustain the objection. Sure. And the question may be asked if Council chooses. [02:00:29] Speaker 8: When you do your analysis using length only, do you go by the rule that if any STR locus fails to match when comparing the genotypes between two or more samples, then the comparison of profiles between the question and reference sample is usually declared a non-match, regardless of how many other loci match? [02:00:57] Speaker 1: No, it's not quite that simple. What you're speaking of is an exclusion, is that correct? Yeah. [02:01:05] Speaker 8: Right. [02:01:05] Speaker 1: So it's possible for DNA evidence to, we spoke about, it's possible that DNA evidence be degraded. In a case like that, there may be the potential that some of the profile has what we call dropped out. So it's not present. In that case, we wouldn't expect necessarily to have an inclusion or exclusion at that location because there's no information present there. So it's not quite as simple as is every allele in this chart present in the evidence. There's more to it than that. [02:01:40] Speaker 8: If you had a difference in sequence between a known and a question across many loci, would you exclude the person? It depends. [02:01:50] Speaker 6: Again, objection, Your Honor. We're going back into sequencing, which is not the analysis that was done in this case. Mr. Burt. [02:01:57] Speaker 8: Again, Your Honor, if there could be an exclusion based on this and the testing was not done, I think that is relevant. [02:02:08] Speaker 2: But as it relates to this witness and her firsthand knowledge, I'm not seeing that tie-in as it relates to her. All right. [02:02:16] Speaker 8: Let me move on then. [02:02:17] Speaker 2: So I'll sustain the objection. [02:02:20] Speaker 8: Now, you said that all the samples you looked at in that one report were mixtures, correct? [02:02:26] Speaker 1: Correct. [02:02:27] Speaker 8: And the number you get in the likelihood ratio depends on how many contributors you estimate, right? The number is going to vary if you say it's, I think it's a mixture of two people versus I think it's a mixture of five people. [02:02:48] Speaker ?: It's not necessarily the number of contributors. [02:02:48] Speaker 1: It's not necessarily the number of contributors. It could be a low number and be a single-source sample. It could be a high number and be a four-person mixture. And so it's comparing known individuals to the unknown sample. It could be a low number and be a single-source sample. It could be a high number and be a four-person mixture. It's not necessarily directly correlated with the number of contributors. [02:03:15] Speaker 8: Let me ask you if you agree with this. This is from the NIST mixture study. A likelihood ratio numeric value is not a measurement of the physical quantity. Do you agree with that? Correct. Rather, it is a ratio of probabilities in the opinion of the expert assessing the likelihood ratio and is dependent on the specific propositions used to formulate it and also on the individual making the assessment. [02:03:50] Speaker 1: Correct, yes, I agree. [02:03:55] Speaker 8: And does the final likelihood ratio depend on the number of contributors you assume? [02:04:03] Speaker 1: No, it does not. [02:04:05] Speaker 8: It has no effect whatsoever? [02:04:07] Speaker 1: It can have an effect. It's possible. It's possible multiple other factors could contribute to the likelihood ratio. [02:04:15] Speaker 8: Is it somehow difficult to figure out how many contributors there are in a sample? [02:04:20] Speaker 1: Yes, I would say that I use my training, education, and experience in order to determine the number of contributors present in a profile. [02:04:36] Speaker 8: Well, I noticed throughout your report you used the phrase, for instance, with regard to the 1.2 sample, the profile consistent with at least five contributors, at least one of which is male. And for 1.1 you say the profile is consistent with at least four contributors. So I assume by the word at least you're signaling that it could be more. Correct. And as the number of people to a mixture increases, the difficulty in sorting out that mixture increases well, correct? Correct. I noticed in your standard operating procedure there's some guidance on interpreting three-person mixtures. You're familiar with that, right? Yes. And it says, and correct me if I'm wrong, approximately 70% of four-person mixtures present present as two- or three-person mixtures based solely on number of alleles present. [02:05:55] Speaker 1: You said you're referencing my SOP? [02:05:59] Speaker 8: Yes. Is it possible for me to take a look at it? Yes. It's possible for them to present? Yes. Well, it doesn't say it's possible. It says, for example, approximately in all cases, assuming a mixture is a result of the combination of three people must be done with caution. For example, approximately 70% of four-person mixtures present as two- or three-person mixtures based solely on number of alleles present. [02:06:20] Speaker 1: You said you're referencing my SOP? Yes. Yes. Is it possible for me to take a look at it? [02:06:27] Speaker 6: Sure. I'm going to object at this point. The point that defense counsel is getting at is, made in the last answer, which is the difficulty of sorting out mixtures increases as the number of contributors increases. That's all understood, but that has nothing to do with probable cause determination. Even if it's difficult, the inferences and the evidence is weighed in favor of the state. The court cannot weigh the difficulty in determining this evidence. Is it fair for a trial of fact at a jury? Sure it is. But we're now getting into weight issues that are relevant for a jury but not for this court. [02:07:02] Speaker 8: Thank you. Well, he's implying it's going to be an extended discussion. I have one question which she wants to look at her manual to make sure it's in there. So, and then I'm done. All right. [02:07:12] Speaker 2: I'll allow this question. So I'll overrule the objection. Thank you. She may review the material and the question can be rephrased. [02:07:17] Speaker 8: So could you bring up Oliver 148? That's, this is your SOP document, correct? [02:07:30] Speaker 1: Correct. [02:07:31] Speaker 8: And then go to page 83. all right did i read that correctly yes and so it's true is it not that approximately 70 percent of four person mixtures present as two or three person mixtures it's possible thank you that's all i [02:08:15] Speaker 2: have thank you we've been going for a bit uh and depending on how much cross and trying to decide if a break is warranted or if mr mcbride you wish your cross is limited again not trying to say which way you should go i'm just trying to wait whether we should take a break um i will probably be oh excuse me i'll probably be 20 minutes all right let's just let's just keep going and then at that point we can uh take a break thank you mr mcbride so [02:08:56] Speaker ?: good morning [02:09:06] Speaker 6: good morning morning is your lab accredited yes it is what does that mean [02:09:31] Speaker 1: so our laboratory goes through a voluntary accreditation process where a external third party comes in and audits our laboratory to a set of standards specifically the atf laboratories accredited and specifically the dna section of the um atf laboratories accredited to two sets of standards one is a international set of standards called iso 17 025 for testing laboratories and additionally uh and additionally dna specific set of standards uh put forth by the fbi [02:10:04] Speaker 6: does the accreditation require that the methodologies you use be validated yes the methodologies used in this case have been accepted by courts across the country correct correct does the accreditation require that forensic biologists like yourself satisfy certain qualification standards [02:10:23] Speaker 1: yes we're required to perform competency testing prior to participating in case work and additionally we participate in uh twice a year proficiency testing [02:10:34] Speaker 6: and do you satisfy the competency and qualification standards required by accreditation yes and at the time you did the testing in this case did you satisfy those standards yes yes moving to your opinions where on the firearm did you find evidentiary support for the conclusion of tyler robinson [02:11:02] Speaker 1: there were several locations i'd have to refer to my report okay would you look at your report and [02:11:07] Speaker 6: this is it looks like report number or exhibit number 30 if we can pull that up just for the witness [02:11:34] Speaker ?: thank you kimberly [02:11:58] Speaker 6: we have it for a minute here a minute ago okay okay if we could go to uh page number two please we just list off the areas of that uh firearm where there was support for evidentiary support for inclusion of tyler robinson [02:12:21] Speaker 1: the swabs of the stock and grips of rifle the swabs of the butt plate of rifle swabs of the trigger and trigger guard of rifle with possible rich detail slash smudging the swabs of the bolt of the rifle with possible rich detail slash smudging and the swabs of the forend of the rifle we go to page uh three swabs of the barrel of the rifle with possible rich detail slash smudging the swabs of possible rich detail smudging on the optical accessory [02:12:59] Speaker 6: and page four [02:13:04] Speaker 1: the swabs of the swabs of the swabs of the one 30-06 cartridge case the swabs of one 30-06 cartridge and the swabs of one 30-06 cartridge [02:13:23] Speaker 6: i want to ask you about a couple of those conclusions let's look at page five please and calculation number three exhibit 1.3 do you know where that swap was taken from i'd have to refer back to page two can we refer back to page two please kimberly thank you [02:13:55] Speaker 1: one dot three is the swabs of the trigger and trigger guard of the rifle all right going back to page five [02:14:06] Speaker 6: and we've had some talk uh some testimony from you and some questions for you about the likelihood ratios what was your conclusion as to the likelihood ratio that you analyzed in this question calculation number three [02:14:27] Speaker 1: for this exhibit the dna profile was at least one trillion times more likely if it originated from tyler robinson as the major component and three unknown unrelated individuals than if it originated from four unrelated individuals you say at least one trillion times more likely [02:14:48] Speaker 6: so it could be a much higher number than one trillion is that accurate it's possible but the protocols in your laboratory say you cap that at the number one trillion is that right correct we [02:15:02] Speaker 1: would not report a number higher than one trillion and it looks like you also did a probability [02:15:09] Speaker 6: statistic as well in paragraph e is that right correct it's another way of stating the likelihood ratio statistic and will you state your findings uh you made here in paragraph e and that's on page six [02:15:27] Speaker 1: the probability of an unrelated individual in the population who has not contributed dna to the sample yielding this level of support is less than one in a trillion [02:15:44] Speaker 6: and same question there the the trillion number it could be far less than that but you stop your calculations or the statistics at a trillion is that right correct let us move to page seven with regard to statistical analysis calculation number seven now do you remember what 1.3 or 1.13 and 2.1 are i'd have to refer back to page three i believe [02:16:16] Speaker 1: you could jump to page three thank you kimberly page four i'm sorry page four the 1.13 is the swabs of the protected underside of the receiver of the rifle after disassembly and 2.1 is the swabs of 130-06 cartridge case [02:16:33] Speaker 6: now did you do the swabs themselves i did not and 2.1 and 2.1 is a cartridge case is that right correct and what's the difference between a cartridge [02:16:47] Speaker 1: case and a cartridge the cartridge is unfired cartridge case has been fired all right [02:16:54] Speaker 6: let's jump back to page seven and what was your conclusion with regard to well first of all why do you group these two together exhibits 1.13 and 2.1 in your conclusions here they were both mixtures of two individuals [02:17:11] Speaker 1: and they both yielded a likelihood ratio of the same magnitude so they can be grouped together okay [02:17:21] Speaker 6: it's not that they were tested together correct it's just that the results were were of the same magnitude so they were reported together is that right correct all right what was your conclusion as it relates to both of these as to the likelihood ratio the dna profiles are at least one trillion times [02:17:37] Speaker 1: more likely if they originated from tyler robinson as the major contributor and an unknown unrelated individual than if they originated from two unknown unrelated individuals and did you make a conclusion here as well about the uh a probability statistic yes so the probability of an unrelated individual in the population who has not contributed dna to these samples yielding this level of support so meaning yielding this likelihood ratio is less than one in a trillion [02:18:19] Speaker 8: the 1.3 sample is described as swabs of trigger and trigger guard right correct you didn't do the swabs but am i correct that you have no way of knowing which part was from the trigger and which part was from the trigger guard [02:18:52] Speaker 1: correct so they were swabbed together so i wouldn't be able to say where the dna came from [02:18:59] Speaker 8: and that's one of the samples that was degraded correct there were signs of degradation present in that sample yes and you said with regard to that sample that that was a sample consistent with at least four contributors correct correct and did the what you termed the major profile have the largest amount of degradation in that sample [02:19:32] Speaker 1: there was yes [02:19:36] Speaker 8: um and you can't tell us anything about when the dna was deposited on the trigger guard or the trigger correct correct you can tell us anything about whether when you say it's at least four it could be five six or seven people with dna on that trigger [02:19:58] Speaker 1: or trigger guard correct correct correct which is why we have the major contributor that is suitable for comparison and the minor contributor is not suitable for comparison due to that complexity [02:20:09] Speaker 8: and again major minor just has to do with the levels of dna you were seeing has nothing to do with someone being engaged in activity that is major in relation to the minor contributor yes so the major [02:20:24] Speaker 1: contributor is the majority of the dna contributed to that sample okay and some of these samples you have [02:20:33] Speaker 8: major contributors of more than one person right correct so for a sample 1.1 swabs of stock you have two major profiles and there are at least four contributors on that sample right can i refer to my report sure um it's uh exhibit 30. plainest 30. [02:21:07] Speaker ?: right [02:21:14] Speaker 1: you said exhibit 1.1 yes yes it was a mixture of four individuals there were two major contributors [02:21:22] Speaker 8: um okay and again with regard to all these samples no way of knowing when or how the dna got on those samples correct correct correct you referenced another statistic in your report which is the statistic related to paragraph e i guess correct is it what's called a random match probability [02:21:54] Speaker 1: statistic or is that something else it itself is not a random match probability statistic um it is a way to represent the likelihood ratio um similar to a random match probability but it's still a likelihood ratio computation right correct it's based off the likelihood ratio computation and it's still [02:22:14] Speaker 8: subject to all the limitations we've talked about correct can't attribute it to any person can't state it's infallible can't state there's a zero error rate and you can't state that it is a source [02:22:29] Speaker 1: connected with any one person correct right so part of not being able to state source attribution is um the reason we report the likelihood ratio statistic it is speaks to the weight of the evidence and so so yes we can't do a source attribution and we report that statistic and address that uncertainty that way [02:22:52] Speaker 8: and address the uncertainty along with the other limitations we talked about [02:22:58] Speaker 2: correct thank you that's all i am thank you anything further for this witness no all right may this witness be excused yes yes all right thank you man can you step down anything further from defense no we have no further all right returning to prosecution any any further no judge we have no [02:23:32] Speaker 7: rebuttal evidence to present this hearing um the state has no rebuttal evidence to present at this hearing however before we break there is the uh matter that was discussed yesterday with respect to publishing in the courtroom exhibit 12.1 so that the [02:23:50] Speaker 2: victim's family can observe that thank you all right uh do the parties wish to be heard as it relates to this uh briefly and then uh court will issue its ruling and your honor i actually just want to make a quick [02:24:07] Speaker 4: record we have advised mr robinson of his right to testify at this hearing and he is choosing to take our advice to our advice and not testify is that correct mr robinson and i note that he's nodding in the [02:24:20] Speaker 2: affirmative thank you miss visser all right uh just in regards to the outstanding issue about the publication of states exhibit 12.1 uh to the courtroom only uh to persons here any further input from any of the parties before the court issues this ruling [02:24:45] Speaker 10: jeff and i'm on behalf of the vic my understanding is you ruled yesterday that you were going to play it that you did grant our request so i don't know if we thank you [02:25:02] Speaker 7: judge i might simply add given the court's ruling this morning with respect to just to displaying exhibits we want may want to make a record with the uh live streaming folks here that [02:25:13] Speaker 2: it's not going to be published thank you all right nothing further from any of the parties okay just uh updating some notes all right and the court wishes to readdress yesterday's ruling in light of this morning's sanction as it relates to exhibit 16. the court separately addressed that issue incident and imposed a sanction on the record having considered all applicable public access fair trial privacy and victims rights interests the court adheres to its prior ruling court finds that temporarily limiting live stream to audio only while exhibit 12.1 is displayed is necessary to prevent the inadvertent publication of the exhibit from being transmitted to outside the courtroom and no broader and in the court as well and and is taking the uh least restrictive means to accomplish what is being requested accordingly exhibit 12.1 may be viewed by all persons physically present in the courtroom including victim representative miss kirk in her capacity as the victim representative the same in court viewing rules applies to all parties and courtroom attendees and uh that is the ruling of the court let's go ahead and proceed to that uh to the state so i'll could the camera operator let me know when we're switched to an audio only we are okay all right and as it's switched to audio only uh to the state now in my understanding there's no audio on this uh surveillance on 12.1 is that correct all right all right so let's go ahead and play that and i'm going to rule that the um this also applies to the still photographer it cannot be captured the screen in any way i i noted video recording but i intend as well as no still capture of any of the monitors during the publication of 12.1 all right and uh to the state just let me know if you're ready let's go ahead and play it now [02:28:12] Speaker ?: um um um um uh um um um um um um um um um um um um um um um um um um um um um um um um um 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. [02:37:42] Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [02:37:58] Speaker ?: Thank you. [02:37:58] Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [02:38:04] Speaker ?: Thank you. [02:38:04] Speaker 2: Thank you. [02:38:06] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. [02:38:10] Speaker 2: Thank you. [02:38:12] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [02:38:16] Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. [02:38:20] Speaker ?: Thank you. [02:38:22] Speaker 7: Thank you. [02:38:24] Speaker 2: Thank you. [02:38:26] Speaker ?: Thank you. [02:38:26] Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. person hearing the court will allocate up to four hours total for argument that's encompassing both parties does the defense request that mr robinson be physically present for that hearing yes your honor all right we'll make the recording thank you the court appreciates the professionalism civility and respect shown by counsel the parties and all persons in attendance throughout these proceedings as there are no matters no further matters before the court this proceeding is adjourned until september 1st at 10 a.m good afternoon to you all all right [02:39:27] Speaker ?: you