00:05:49.920How does both sides not know exactly the moves
00:05:52.880the other side's going to make after this is all over?
00:05:55.000Haven't they presented essentially everything in the road map?
00:05:58.340There may be a couple of things they they were able to keep hidden.
00:06:01.620But like, for instance, on this thing with the boyfriend, they're going in so much detail now about this.
00:06:05.940Wouldn't this be the type of thing they'd want to pop at a trial to get the jury to be more inclined to their to their side one way or the other?
00:06:14.580That would be the way you'd see it on Perry Mason, wouldn't it?
00:06:17.260it would be a surprise at trial. But given the state of criminal law and due process and the
00:06:22.460rules of evidence, that wouldn't be the way that they would be allowed to do it. That's what
00:06:27.480prelims are for. They're not only for testing certain pieces of evidence, but have you seen
00:06:32.900with the Lance Twig's testimony with procedurally, how is it going to be admissible? How much is it
00:06:39.620going to be admissible? Are they going to sanitize it? In other words, are there some portions of
00:06:43.860this testimony there are too explosive or too irrelevant, you know, where it would be overly
00:06:48.860prejudicial to actually allow that to get into the record. Only what's relevant and only what
00:06:54.960doesn't fail that test of prejudice versus probative value gets into the record. That's
00:07:00.660what the judge is doing today. So there can be no surprises at trial, even though I agree,
00:07:06.400that's what many people in the public expect to see, because that's always the way it's portrayed.
00:07:10.440When you say about the information and that you just went to your checklist, bang, bang, bang, on either autopsy or ballistics, and remember, I'm a civilian in this, on either autopsy or ballistics, has really overwhelming evidence been laid out that proves it one way or the other?
00:07:30.280No, not overwhelming evidence. And one great example of that is the autopsy report was received in evidence, but we didn't see any of the photographs. We didn't hear from any doctors that described the wound. Thank God, because that would have been horrible for those friends, family members and loved ones in the courtroom.
00:07:49.260But you don't need to have that at a probable cause hearing.
00:07:52.680But that's a great point because that will be what you'll hear at trial.
00:07:56.760That will be the details that they'll go into at trial.
00:07:59.400In other words, they won't just enter in the autopsy report.
00:08:02.060You'll have somebody going through it line by line to determine not just the cause of death, manner of death, but then they'll tie that into the actual bullet that was fired, which, of course, will be tying back to Tyler Robinson.
00:08:15.100It won't just be somebody testifying sort of generally about where was the gun found, the DNA on the trigger, which was Mrs. Robertson's, is going to be all of the details as to how exactly they know that, where they found what.
00:08:28.640But you can't go into that type of detail that a prelim would never be done with it.
00:08:32.200And I know some people are thinking that that's what we're thinking about this prelim, but they're just making their record, testing the strength of the evidence, and they'll be done by Friday.
00:08:40.100there are obviously intense um interest and scrutiny on this and there are some people
00:08:50.460that have put up and and been on podcasts and put up alternative theories and some people may call
00:08:55.860those conspiracy theories and some of them may be a little out there but you do have a large
00:09:00.980amount of the public including the war room audience that just sitting there going something
00:09:05.720something doesn't feel right about this. They just don't. And I'm one of just something,
00:09:10.440something not right about this yet. It appears that we're trying to be sold a narrative. Is
00:09:16.300that too harsh? You're a professional and you see this all the time. Do you think this is
00:09:20.540pretty straightforward? So for those that are a little skeptical or feel like particularly in
00:09:24.980some of the comments made afterwards, you're trying to be sold like an FBI narrative. You're
00:09:29.060trying to be sold the established orders narrative that that is too harsh and that actually the way
00:09:34.780you see it professionally? This has been going in a pretty professional manner?
00:09:39.960Well, I think it's a great question because I've heard and read all the same theories that you
00:09:44.080have. And a lot of people say, look at this kid. He's such a sharpshooter. He fired one bullet
00:09:49.920and was able to execute Charlie Kirk. I've heard that. I've seen that. The problem in a court of
00:09:55.580law is even if the judge has heard all the same things, he can only deal with the evidence that
00:10:00.200is before him. And nobody's come forward with any evidence that there was another person involved in
00:10:05.080the shooting. Here's a video of somebody else doing it. Here's a video of a conspiracy between,
00:10:09.800you know, 10 outsiders that influenced Tyler Robinson to do what he did. If that information
00:10:15.660were to come to light, you bet that both sides would brief it and argue it and litigate it in
00:10:20.100court. But unless and until something tangible comes of it, we're not going to see it in this
00:10:25.840courtroom, even though it continues to be discussed vociferously. I've read all the same
00:10:30.660things in the court of public opinion. Do you think there's been enough probing or maybe this
00:10:36.240is not the place for it for the deep investigation of Tyler Robinson? Like not just the motives of
00:10:43.720his love affair with this furry, but other things like when we went up there, I flew out there the
00:10:50.940day that Charlie was uh was assassinated and we set up shop there for three or four days and
00:10:56.520actually I went around I was kind of shocked actually given my knowledge of Utah I was kind0.97
00:11:01.700of shocked in Salt Lake City particularly the amount of like gay pride flags out and uh you
00:11:07.260know they they have these militias of these uh these transgender ideology militia I was a little
00:11:13.060shocked about how well developed that is and there was a situation down in St. George George's where
00:11:19.160you know, a guy, one of these guys killed his entire family. Is there any evidence coming
00:11:24.280forward or is this the time to get it out there that the FBI or state officials actually sat down
00:11:30.740and did a thorough investigation of any sources, any money, any involvement at all, any support
00:11:37.300for Robinson? Or is that assumed that it's not important if you've got a love note between him
00:11:44.080in the furry. Yeah, I think the love note, the admission is front and center. That's the most
00:11:51.140important. In terms of what investigation was being done, you have to imagine behind the scenes
00:11:56.400that there was extensive investigation as to this defendant's ties to other individuals.
00:12:01.360Okay, but hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on. Okay, I assume that, you assume that.
00:12:07.660Where is that going to come out? Or is it not, if it's, they just, who decides that's not relevant
00:12:12.680to even say, we looked at this, we went down this route, they do that in trial?
00:12:17.360Or should that be done in this preliminary?
00:12:19.320Just if nothing more than the public can be assured that every stone was unturned
00:12:25.280to find out any potential involvement of anybody, any institution, any organization
00:12:29.700regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
00:12:32.880The frustrating thing about a court of law is they don't have to talk about everything they did or looked at.
00:12:38.780They have to talk about what they found that's relevant to the case.
00:12:41.780So, for example, in a case like this, they may have looked at all the social media they could.
00:12:47.560They may have talked to neighbors and friends because, remember, it is relevant why he committed the crime.
00:12:54.140Remember that Charlie Kirk was targeted.
00:12:56.000So his ideology in that sense was relevant.
00:12:59.880But that's probably the extent of it because the judge has to see what's relevant to what I have in front of me in the charging document.
00:13:06.800And there's no charges or allegations regarding any kind of conspiracy.
00:13:10.960So that's what's frustrating about what we won't get to hear in a preliminary hearing or at trial.
00:13:39.240The court is out. If they come back, we're going to cut right to it.
00:13:41.880But we are going to take a short commercial break, and I want to thank our sponsors who are very supportive of us doing it.
00:13:48.780We want to make sure that wall-to-wall coverage, you hear every minute and see everything that's going to the courtroom,
00:13:54.240just like if you were sitting in the grand jury. I think it's very, very important.
00:13:57.300We believe we owe that to Charlie, but we owe it to the country just as much because we've got to get to the bottom of the Charlie Kirk situation.
00:14:04.280We cannot have, as I said, it can't be a Warren Commission, and we can't have a grassy knoll, right?
00:14:10.600We can't be 60, 70 years later questioning what went on.
00:14:16.540I want to thank Birch Gold particularly.
00:23:27.120Now, let me ask you the question about the trial.
00:23:28.840In your professional opinion, since this is an intricate chess match of laying foundational elements for moves that you're going to make a year from now, five or six in advance, have you seen any screw-ups, either the defense or the prosecution, on this concept of foundation, where they're laying a foundation for evidence they're going to need later, ma'am?
00:23:49.560Not yet. And that's because they are being so meticulous about everything they say and do.
00:23:56.080And you know who's partially to thank for that is this judge.
00:24:00.440Not only have they briefed this case to death, you pointed that out yesterday, they papered each other to death.
00:24:06.260Not only did the judge read everything that was filed, but every time he rules on the foundation that's necessary to introduce a specific piece of evidence,
00:24:14.400he goes back and forth, back and forth, making sure both sides say everything they want to say.
00:24:19.100And then he articulates a long grounds and rationale for his ruling.
00:24:24.060That is the type of thing I expect him to do, not only between now and Friday, but on Friday, when he delivers his ruling, binding the case over for trial.
00:24:33.500Everybody knows that's where it's headed. He's heard enough.
00:24:35.600But he's really going to make sure that he articulates how all that evidence is admissible.
00:24:40.880Because it's hard to screw up in front of a judge that's so meticulous in wanting to create that record.
00:24:46.340But you're right. That's what both sides are looking for.
00:24:48.540What do we see now that we can exploit five moves later?
00:24:53.340And you're saying there's no doubt in your mind we're going to trial on this, as you see it so far?
00:24:58.360Unless there's some kind of a plea bargain.
00:25:00.720You know, that would require extensive negotiations behind the scenes, and the prosecution would have to want to ever do that.
00:25:06.980Do you see any assessment at all of the defense starting to weigh and measure that where they would try to go in and cut a deal to say, hey, we'll plead guilty, but take the death penalty off the table?
00:25:19.060Do you see anything in the prosecution's case? Because that negotiation will take place in months, not now.
00:25:25.360But do you see, do you sense that that will be one of, given the evidence they're presenting and the foundational elements they're laying out, that the defense could be thinking about that even right now?
00:25:35.940Yes, because the evidence is very strong and it's being established very strongly.
00:25:41.700You know, as we go day by day, the defense is testing to make sure that the authentication is there, that the relevance is there.
00:25:49.360They're testing the evidence to ensure the case is as strong as it looks and sounds.
00:25:53.700And when they are convinced that it is, then they'll have that conversation with their client as to, you know,
00:25:58.620if it's going to be easier to prove than maybe they thought before they got to prelim, is this something they want to bring up again?
00:26:04.700But Steve, the prosecution doesn't have to agree to that. That's up to them. They're going to talk to Erica Kirk. They're going to talk to the family. They're going to talk to everyone they need to, to make that decision. That's a collaborative decision between the family, the fans, the friends, the loved ones, and the state of the evidence, which up till now appears to be very solid.
00:26:24.780okay Wendy we're gonna let you take a little break there obviously having a longer break in
00:26:29.500the court we'll let you take a break uh and um and uh we'll get to you tomorrow morning
00:26:33.940when we're back all right sounds good Steve thank you Wendy Wendy really want to thank you you make
00:26:39.280things so clear for audience such a great job you've done for all the rav shows it's ironic
00:26:44.060that so much of the controversy around Charlie and Charlie Kirk dealt with Israel and dealt with
00:26:50.420the war in the Middle East, right? Well, today, in the irony of ironies, we're back at it. And
00:26:55.840what Charlie Kirk tried to stop, which was a regime change war, I know that personally,
00:27:00.180because I dealt with Charlie a lot on that very topic. So let's play a clip.
00:27:04.240We're back at it tonight on the third day of the hearing, evidentiary hearing of Charlie Kirk.0.59
00:27:09.600We're back at war in Iran. Let's go and play the clip.0.63
00:27:12.840Kind of covering all of the bases today. What else did he say?
00:27:16.680Yeah, I think the way you put it, Brianna, mixed messages is exactly right.0.99
00:27:20.280I think the one thing that is clear is that it's unclear what is next when it comes to Iran
00:27:25.780and what the president is thinking about how he wants to proceed.
00:27:29.060You mentioned some of those angry words from the president just earlier today, in the same day,
00:27:34.640hours earlier, saying that he believed the ceasefire was over, that the memorandum of understanding was over,
00:27:40.140just to later argue, no, we do not want to go back to full-out war.
00:27:43.580He also, at one point, you know, saying that the ceasefire was over in another breath, arguing that it really is up to the negotiators.
00:27:51.020He had a lot of praise for Steve Wyckoff, for Jared Kushner, for the vice president.
00:27:55.720He said it's up to them to decide how they want to proceed.
00:27:59.080But obviously, the president is very frustrated, Brianna, with how things are going, particularly with these negotiations.
00:28:58.540They were strong people, smart people.
00:29:00.520I think actually they're smarter than the first and second group.
00:29:03.900but they're not radicalized and they're you know looking to help their country you want to know the0.99
00:29:11.280truth they're scum but they're bad people very bad people i think they're incompetent i don't1.00
00:29:15.760want to deal with them anymore they're scum you know what scum is they're scum they're sick people1.00
00:29:20.160as far as i'm concerned it's just a waste of time dealing with them they're liars there's1.00
00:29:25.140something wrong with them they're cuckoo so as you see brianna two different moments two very0.96
00:29:32.060different viewpoints on how things are going and who, you know, the quality of the people that the
00:29:38.020United States is negotiating with when it comes to Tehran. The only other thing I would want to
00:29:42.760note is for what does come next. You know, the president had said earlier in Turkey that he
00:29:47.960believed there could be more strikes on Iran tonight, obviously following the strikes we saw
00:29:52.820take place last night. But then later, he seemed to soften that language. So it's really unclear
00:29:56.940at this point how they're moving, how they're looking at moving ahead. The one clear thing as
00:30:01.560well. It's just Trump is frustrated. He doesn't like how this is going, and he wants there to be
00:30:05.940more deal-making, less talking, and less strikes. Yeah, palpable frustration today during that
00:30:12.160appearance. The president also said, Elena, there was tremendous unity among NATO allies,
00:30:16.860but he also lashed out at various member countries at times. Which is it?
00:30:21.660I mean, what a difference, Brianna, a day makes. I mean, just yesterday, there was a lot of tension,
00:30:26.600And I think it was unquestionable that many European allies were going into this NATO summit uneasy.
00:30:33.340They were unsure of how this was going to go.
00:30:35.500The president obviously has been very outspoken.
00:30:38.000He's made no secret of hiding the fact that he believes many of these NATO members are not paying what he argues is their fair share of defense spending.
00:30:45.760And you saw some of that kind of spill out yesterday, a little bit this morning.
00:30:49.920When he came out to speak at this press conference, really concluding this visit, he said there was a lot of unity in the room.
00:30:55.980He made a point to argue that a lot of these different leaders had been coming up to him in private, telling them, sir, I love you.
00:31:02.440He said that kind of worked well with him.
00:31:04.900And, you know, he did previously call out a number of different countries, Spain being one of them.
00:31:09.940Much softer language he was using during that press conference when it came to Spain.
00:31:13.280All to say, I think this was a successful summit for the overall alliance,
00:31:19.300particularly when you look at some of the things that Ukraine has gotten out of this,
00:31:23.140new commitments on Patriot defense missiles and things like that. So overall, I think
00:31:26.980European leaders leaving happy with how this went and how the president concluded
00:31:31.400on a happier note, arguing that there was unity and he was glad to have been there.
00:31:39.240The Baltimore engine room has sent me the U.S. Central Command's statement, and it's backed up.
00:31:44.440And if we put this video up, if you get to it, it's pretty, we're lighting some things up over
00:31:49.780there. Okay, this is U.S. Central Command, and I quote, at the direction of the commander-in-chief,
00:31:54.480U.S. Central Command forces have started conducting additional strikes against Iran to
00:31:58.800further degrade their ability to threaten freedom of navigation in the Strait or Hormuz. The United
00:32:05.000States is holding Iran accountable for recent unjustified aggression against commercial
00:32:10.200shipping and civilian crews, freeing navigating a vital international orderway. I think it's
00:32:18.720also incumbent that you know we have another briefing from the pentagon and we you know we
00:32:24.420go back to being the department of war and not the department of wishful thinking and we just
00:32:29.320deal straight with this because we've been told that not simply the air force and the navy but
00:32:34.120all missiles are gone and it's obviously not the case they still have the ability to deliver a
00:32:39.840punch and deliver a punch against um against the countries in the in the gulf itself particularly
00:32:46.640you know, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, whatever you think of these countries,
00:32:55.380and I don't think much of them. They do control a big swath of the world's oil. This is why coming
00:33:01.200out of NATO also, I was very disappointed. I didn't see any, and maybe I missed it, and I will
00:33:06.460go back tonight and look, but I didn't see forcing them to step up to have the NATO navies down there,
00:33:12.420You know, with some commitments from the United States for Ukraine, these guys make commitments and President Trump got them to going to five percent so they can start paying more for their defense and we can start, you know, downplaying it.
00:33:23.880But right now, to me, the Strait of Hormuz, the Red Sea, the Suez Canal, those are European problems or Asian problems.
00:33:34.200And people better start stepping up and sending their navies up there instead of us having to go back in and do, you know, combat activity around Karg Island.0.54
00:33:42.420combat activity around, um, around, um, uh, the, the Hormuz. And now actually they're talking about
00:33:53.000us, you know, carving out our own waterway and have Navy escorts. That's not the role for the
00:33:57.740United States of America. This is a sideshow given, uh, our strategic focus on hemispheric
00:34:05.040defense, which is absolutely urgent, uh, and very important, including, uh, in the, uh, in the
00:34:11.480central pacific now the president was very complimentary of she now he's got this state
00:34:16.580visit in late september in the in the burning heat or of the of the midterms she's coming here
00:34:23.200for a state visit the president was very complimentary we'll break all that down tomorrow0.94
00:34:26.580but the the chinese just you know gave us a love tap by launching testing a you know submarine0.58
00:34:32.500launch ballistic missile right over the territory into the heart of where cleo pascal has been0.79
00:34:39.340warning us for months and months and months is an active participation of the Chinese Communist
00:34:44.920Party to try to roll us back out of the Pacific. Now, Captain Fennell, to the degree that we have0.86
00:34:48.720time, we're trying to get Captain Fennell on for either tomorrow or Friday to go all through that.
00:34:55.320It's quite a surprise to people. But the geopolitical situation, the rest of the world
00:35:00.040is quite tenuous. And we're still this opportunity cause of refocus. Now we've got,
00:35:05.400And look, the irony of ironies, it's on day three of Charlie Kirk's, the evidence you're hearing for Charlie Kirk.
00:35:14.460And Charlie Kirk's is central to the no regime option, no regime change option of kind of the American right.
00:35:22.480Charlie Kirk was an absolute diehard believer in this and really fought hard that we wouldn't get tangled up in a, in a tangled up in a regime change.
00:35:32.680number one, the politics of it. He knew it better than anybody, particularly since he had built a
00:35:37.860grassroots organization that focused on young people. And this is how he became a legend. This
00:35:41.720is how he became, you know, kind of a mythic in his origin story, about how he started this
00:35:47.900organization with nothing, because he had nothing. He started it with just his elbow grease and an
00:35:54.340idea, an idea that after we hired him at Breitbart to kind of write about college campuses, this is
00:35:59.820one the guy reached out to him after one of his articles said hey what do you think about building
00:36:04.040an organization he says I got a whole idea for you guy put a little money in then Charlie you
00:36:08.580know worked like crazy the other thing about Charlie Kirk remember everything he started
00:36:14.220took a while to get traction one of the great lessons of his life life is the grit determination
00:36:22.220and stick to it to this and just hard work besides the demeanor and humble and you know he's a happy
00:36:28.100warrior always laughing got that smile all the time you can even see that in
00:36:31.580the videos after people are attacking him relentlessly and that is hard to do
00:36:35.900that comes from the heart and the spirit that was the spirit of Charlie Kirk and
00:36:40.340here we are I can't get over it I mean you know the interim text me right away
00:36:44.780as soon as I said I said who would have thought you know last September 9th that
00:36:51.740nine months later we've been in a court of law going through a trial of
00:36:56.420of evidentiary hearing for the assassination of Charlie Kirk,0.85
00:36:59.960and you'd be talking about a gay, furry lover0.95
00:37:57.600I mean, Rob, Sig, and Parker came to the same conclusion, Jack, and all of us.
00:38:01.440I was adamant, as they were, that real America's voice, and right now we're in a recess as soon as it comes back in.
00:38:07.400But that the channel itself, the network itself, regardless of what anybody else did, and regardless of what the ratings were,
00:38:13.360if people didn't want to stick with it, that's fine.
00:38:15.180But it was we had an obligation. We had a duty to Charlie, a duty to the country.
00:38:22.540That if this was going to be kind of what they do in in Utah as grand juries, that we were going to present you with the opportunity to sit and really judgment of this evidence and see it all.
00:38:35.860And then have during the day analysis by guys like Wendy Patrick, of course, Jack Posobiec's out there with Kevin Posobiec.
00:38:42.500we've got our first team out there as far as the production
00:42:28.420It's a lot faster than trying to, like, scroll, and so I appreciate that being provided.
00:42:33.460It was helpful to the court, and to be fair, I found it to be a true and accurate representation of the actual recording.
00:42:40.300So did I listen to every word and compare it?
00:42:43.020No, but from what I reviewed, I did not find any inconsistencies just to put it on the record, so there's no misunderstanding.
00:42:49.640But there are portions of the transcript, Stace Exhibit 16, which relevance is still not clear to me.
00:43:00.280However, as the magistrate, I am able to distinguish between what is relevant to a probable cause determination and what is not.
00:43:11.900and what I take into consideration when I make my ultimate decision about probable cause
00:43:19.220I will not take into consideration what is not relevant so that is a constant balancing and
00:43:25.980evaluation I'm making throughout this this hearing and after this hearing my intent is to review
00:43:33.320everything again to be thorough this is not a case where I'm going to be shooting from the hip
00:43:38.180in making that determination because this is an important determination,
00:43:42.400so I will take the necessary time as is required
00:43:46.500and is as necessary to ensure that the constitutional rights of all parties are upheld.
00:43:53.740So as I'm making determinations, where I land is pages 19 and 20 of the transcript
00:44:02.940as it relates to State Exhibit 16, may contain irrelevant information,
00:44:09.500but I will reserve whether I consider those portions
00:44:12.660until I've heard the rest of the state's evidence.
00:44:17.280Therefore, as it relates to relevance, that ruling is reserved.
00:44:24.540Now, turning to the other objection, which is Rule 403, Prejudice.
00:44:30.160As I am acting as a magistrate, I do not have the same concerns that my decision will be influenced by undue prejudice as that of a jury.
00:44:40.500Therefore, for purposes of admissibility, the defendant's objection is overruled.
00:44:47.240Even so, there are portions of this transcript, and again, states Exhibit 16, that may not be admissible at trial and whose relevance I have not yet determined.
00:44:56.780In the abundance of caution and to protect the jury pool, the potential jury pool, from hearing potentially inadmissible evidence,
00:45:05.280I'm ordering that the audio cannot be published in the courtroom or on camera from page 19, timestamp 3255 until timestamp 3548.
00:45:18.040In other words, the state may publish the audio for all portions of the interview other than that one portion.
00:45:23.960And when I say audio, I mean audio and video, so both.
00:45:30.380I recognize there's approximately only one minute after 3548.
00:45:36.980The state can fast forward to that point for it's an approximate one minute and 12 seconds
00:45:43.360or may take the time to redact the video as they see fit.
00:45:46.820So where I'm landing today is up until from the beginning, until that page 19, 3255, that portion I am ruling is admissible and may be published.
00:46:12.820Again, if the state wishes that last minute and 12 seconds to be played,
00:46:19.440they can either take the time tonight to redact what the court is not going to allow to be published.
00:47:01.560It is not publishable in the courtroom or to be broadcast.
00:47:09.060Finally, I want to recognize both parties wanted the benefit of the record to be more specific in their arguments concerning their objections.
00:47:20.300So if those arguments pertain to time step 3255 through time step 3548, I'm willing to allow you to do that in a closed hearing.
00:47:31.080Please be mindful of the time and keep your arguments succinct.
00:47:35.860With that in mind, do the parties have any arguments they feel I have not considered in my ruling that require a closed hearing?
00:47:52.800And so I'm just going to tell the court what I think the general nature of that is without getting into the details,
00:47:58.640because I do think a closed hearing is appropriate.
00:48:00.600There are, okay, setting aside the 1102 issue and objections, there are statements in this video by Mr. Twiggs attributed to Mr. Robinson, okay?
00:48:37.140I will acknowledge that separate and apart from 1102, the statements of a party opponent are admissible if relevant.
00:48:46.300In fact, they're not even hearsay, right?
00:48:47.520They're excluded from the hearsay rule.
00:48:50.360But the question is whether statements of Mr. Robinson, of the nature that I'm referring to, can be published, not considered by the court, but published without violating Mr. Robinson's 14th Amendment due process rights.
00:49:11.280And it is our view, as we have said in our earlier papers, that the answer is no.
00:49:16.140Publication, especially in the way this proceeding is being published, would violate Mr. Robinson's due process rights under the 14th Amendment.
00:49:32.340We previously cited, and the reason why I'm saying this again is not to reiterate something just because if you say it twice, it means something different,
00:49:43.300but because my colleagues have suggested that maybe my argument earlier was not clear enough.
00:49:48.480And so I want to make sure it is clear so that the court makes a decision based on the arguments of counsel.
00:49:57.340The United States Supreme Court said in Estes v. Texas 381 U.S. 532 the following.
00:50:09.680In Rideau v. Louisiana, and that's R-I-D-E-A-U, this court constructed a rule that the televising of a defendant in the act of confessing to a crime was inherently invalid under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, even without a showing of prejudice or a demonstration of the nexus between the televised confession and the trial.
00:50:38.640I am not calling the statements of Mr. Robinson confessions, but that is what the state will call them.
00:50:49.500And so there are portions of this exhibit and the other exhibits that I've referred to,
00:50:55.140which implicate Mr. Robinson's right not to have what the state calls a confession televised.
00:51:02.660this court has authorized the televising of this proceeding
00:51:09.660and there are reporters in this courtroom who will go outside and speak on what we used to
00:51:18.960call television that opinion was from the 60s now we have other forms of technology but i'm just
00:51:24.700going to use what the supreme court says because it's the supreme court so we are very concerned
00:51:29.100that the publication beyond this court's eyes
00:51:32.840of what the state will call confessions at trial
00:51:36.620violates Mr. Robinson's due process rights
00:52:25.740I want to know exactly what you're referring to, whether it's in that 3255 through 3548, which is being excluded, or is it in the 40?
00:52:36.040It is not. It is earlier, and it's also the two other anticipated exhibits, so we may as well deal with all of it at the same time.
00:52:44.720It's probably easier to do it in a closed proceeding because nobody has to be obtuse.
00:52:49.080I don't have to be obtuse in order to protect my client's rights.
00:52:52.000No, I appreciate that. And it actually prompts, in order for me to get to that, I do want to ask the state, are you intending to introduce the text messages as an exhibit in this proceeding, the preliminary hearing?
00:53:06.240Yes, Judge, we will be attempting to and moving for the admission of the text thread, the discord thread, and I think, and the note that is referenced in Mr. Twiggs 1102.
00:53:23.940All right. And let me take one step at a time, just for clarity. And again, Mr. Novak, I really do appreciate you being so precise. It's helping me parse it out so we can address it. Because it's important. And I recognize that you're advocating for your client. And so I want to give it its due time.
00:53:41.320The text messages, from my understanding, and either side weigh in, my understanding that those were released to the public months ago in their entirety.
00:53:53.940Judge, if I may, they were not released in their entirety.
00:53:57.300Portions of them were placed into the charging document,
00:54:00.080the information that supported, in part, the charges that the state has filed.
00:54:05.760We did not put the entirety of them in.
00:54:08.780And now we wish to publish more of them than were included in the charging document.
00:57:06.840Just to clarify for the record and the court, the state's position is that we would like the audio played.
00:57:13.680The audio may be captured by the cameras in the state's position, but we never intended to visually put them on the monitors such that cameras can capture them and, you know, pause or get the actual exhibits, substances of the exhibits.
00:57:31.820I believe that was the media's position, if I remember correctly, is that they want everything audio and visually displayed.
00:57:41.180But the state's position is we just want the audio played.