Human Events Daily with Jack Posobiec - July 08, 2026


Human Events Primetime Special of Tyler Robinson Pretrial - Day Three


Episode Stats


Length

38 minutes

Words per minute

167.53

Word count

6,475

Sentence count

374


Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
00:00:00.000 Hey guys, it's Jack. I wanted to let you know that we're starting a new push for subscriptions
00:00:06.860 here on Human Events Daily. So make sure that when you're listening to this podcast, you
00:00:11.980 hit subscribe, you download it, and you share it with five of your friends. Make sure they're
00:00:17.420 all going and downloading as well, because we need to get the signal out as much as possible.
00:00:22.660 Look, we've done so much over the past couple of years since this show started, and we're
00:00:26.840 only going to do so much more. Let's get it.
00:00:35.020 This is what happens when the fourth turning meets fifth generation warfare.
00:00:44.120 A commentator, international social media sensation, and former Navy intelligence veteran.
00:00:50.860 This is Human Events with your host, Jack Posobiec.
00:00:53.860 Christ is king.
00:00:55.440 never ever stop fighting no matter what we will achieve american greatness we are just getting
00:01:04.720 started the reason you went down there was you had been told that an individual wanted to turn
00:01:20.300 themselves in? That's correct. Did you observe that individual? I did. And where was that person
00:01:26.640 at the time? So when we arrived, we went into the room that we were in. It was one of their office,
00:01:32.100 the cubicles there. On the wall, there was a television monitor where I viewed an individual
00:01:38.420 on that screen that was sitting in one of the soft interview rooms. That room was equipped
00:01:43.820 with audio video recording device. And so I observed him on that screen at that time.
00:01:50.420 Did you speak with this individual that we've been talking about?
00:01:54.460 Yes, I did.
00:01:56.440 Did you get his name?
00:01:58.460 Yes, we obtained his name and date of birth.
00:02:00.900 What was his name?
00:02:02.160 Tyler Robinson.
00:02:03.640 The Kirk family believes strongly that if the evidence is being admitted in this preliminary
00:02:07.480 hearing, it should be made public for the world to see. No redactions. This court has
00:02:13.780 tools at its disposal to make sure the defendant receives a fair trial. You'll use them if you
00:02:21.480 find that you need to. To not be transparent here, to not be open, to not let the world see what
00:02:27.400 happened will create doubt and distrust in the judicial system. And we'd ask the court to
00:02:32.820 consider the position of the family in making its ultimate decision. All right, folks, Jack
00:02:39.580 Pacific back live here. Human events daily. We are on human dance primetime. I should say we're
00:02:45.540 on our very special coverage. I want to say thank you to real America's voice for allowing us to do
00:02:53.400 this where we've got this just incredible insight here in Provo in the courtroom. I've just left
00:03:01.820 the courtroom a few about an hour ago, I would say at this point to be able to come in and and
00:03:09.020 And I'll just say, I said this on a couple shows already, and I'll say it here again.
00:03:14.200 I'm hot.
00:03:15.620 I'm livid that we have not gotten the video of Lance Twiggs into the record yet.
00:03:23.900 We were told that this was going to come today.
00:03:26.720 We knew there would be a fight.
00:03:27.680 But the fact that it hasn't even come in, even with the redactions now being put on,
00:03:33.160 Even with blocking of this coming in, it's something where it's incredibly frustrating that here we are three days in and we still don't have this evidence and only two days left in the hearing.
00:03:48.540 I want to bring on our guest now, Dr. Wendy Patrick.
00:03:52.020 Dr. Wendy, how are you?
00:03:53.760 Oh, good, Jack.
00:03:54.760 I really feel for you having to sit there and listen to this now for three full days.
00:03:59.120 And you're right, we're not there yet.
00:04:00.360 well no and and look you know there's there's certain moments where look when i go to court
00:04:08.420 i want to hear the evidence i want to hear what was collected i want to hear what the investigative
00:04:12.980 went investigation went in and you know you'd hope that the court here in this case would then
00:04:18.680 determine whether or not there's probable cause then there's the arraignment then you go to the
00:04:22.320 actual trial okay but it just feels like we're not getting to that uh process because it seems
00:04:29.160 like the defense keeps throwing up these roadblocks to whether or not evidence was even
00:04:34.720 going to be allowed to be heard in open court. And something like the testimony, the direct
00:04:40.620 testimony of the roommate and boyfriend of Tyler Robinson is obviously relevant in this case. And
00:04:48.400 even that is still now being denied to us. And I just have to say, I'm very frustrated. I'm very
00:04:55.240 frustrated. A completely frustrating day for you, for the Kirk family, for the for Erica Kirk's
00:05:02.060 lawyer, as you heard expressed in court. They want transparency. They want this out there. I mean,
00:05:06.560 this is the person who probably knew Tyler Robinson the best. I know him the best. He's
00:05:11.860 the roommate. He's the lover. And we know he made a statement and we even know what the substance of
00:05:16.120 that statement is. So we want to see it. We don't just want to hear about it and we don't want to
00:05:20.540 see a redaction. We want to see it. Now, this is what the judge said. And this is very frustrating.
00:05:24.820 The judge is really trying his best. So he made a record to balance constitutional rights of the defendant with transparency.
00:05:31.940 And everybody in that courtroom wants transparency. But this is the problem that he is articulating.
00:05:37.240 There's something in that transcript. There's something in the interview that apparently is so explosive or so unduly prejudicial is probably what the judge is going to say tomorrow that it can't be shown.
00:05:48.340 It can't be shown to the public. It can't be shown even to a potential jury.
00:05:53.380 Now, he hasn't made that ruling yet, but one thing they're all doing tonight is getting ready to re-argue this in court tomorrow.
00:06:00.460 And I know you're going to be there. You're going to have a front row seat for it.
00:06:03.160 The rest of us are waiting with bated breath to see this video, to hear about the substance of this.
00:06:10.060 That's what we've been building up to for the last two days, laying other types of foundation.
00:06:15.260 Now it's time to hear from the defendant's own mouth.
00:06:17.880 What did he say?
00:06:20.820 Well, and that's what it is.
00:06:22.960 And, you know, the attorney, the attorney Novak, Richard Novak from L.A., he is a very
00:06:32.200 experienced defense lawyer.
00:06:34.640 It's very clear that he's quite capable and knows exactly what he's doing.
00:06:38.380 He has successfully helped clients avoid the death penalty in the past.
00:06:45.260 And potentially that could be what he's trying to do here, not just in, of course, able, you know, in the criminal case, but also at the appellate level.
00:06:57.400 And, you know, going to the Constitution for everything, it really seems to me to be a case where, and I'll just say it, you know, my personal opinion was I felt that the state was much more assertive yesterday,
00:07:11.920 was more willing to stand up for themselves,
00:07:15.980 was much more willing to push the envelope when it came to the evidence saying,
00:07:21.200 you know, we will not go into closed session.
00:07:22.980 We will refer to the evidence.
00:07:24.940 We will cite these things.
00:07:26.160 That was yesterday, whereas today it seemed like a different strategy from the state
00:07:30.700 where they were being much more accommodating, much more passive.
00:07:34.220 And, again, when you're dealing with evidence that is so crucial to the case,
00:07:39.160 Like, obviously, as we all know, that Lance Twiggs and Tyler's relationship with him are right at the center of this case.
00:07:48.720 To see the state not take on that more assertive role was just very frustrating.
00:07:53.920 And of course, the defense used that to their advantage to really just get it blocked for yet another day.
00:08:00.860 That's right. And part of the frustration from the prosecutor's standpoint, this is probably what they're talking about back at the office right now,
00:08:07.560 is that it's one thing to maybe be more assertive when it comes to evidence like ballistics evidence,
00:08:13.340 even DNA evidence, scientific evidence, video evidence.
00:08:17.180 Those things are pretty much uncontroverted.
00:08:19.620 I mean, you could argue the science, but it is what it is.
00:08:21.740 And this evidence was captured and collected, and it's good circumstantial evidence.
00:08:25.960 When it comes to statements made by a suspect, we're in a little bit different area.
00:08:31.020 We're on thinner ice as a prosecution team.
00:08:34.400 That could be, and I'm sure you'll hear more of this tomorrow, that could be why they're
00:08:38.320 a little more nervous to make sure that the rulings are accurate.
00:08:41.240 Not that they're not going to fight for it, but that they want to make sure they're very
00:08:44.620 accurate about what they get into the evidence.
00:08:46.500 Because if, God forbid, something came in that shouldn't have legally, if that's what
00:08:51.080 a higher court decided, then what might happen is it would be reversed and would have to
00:08:55.580 do it all over again.
00:08:56.640 Can you imagine, Jack, you, the Kirk family, Erica, having to sit through this trial again?
00:09:02.140 I'm not saying that's going to happen, but that's a concern of the prosecutor. It's a concern of the judge.
00:09:08.520 That might be why this evidence is being treated a little differently by that team than a lot of the scientific evidence that was merely collected from the scene.
00:09:18.580 So walk us through that. And we just have two minutes in this segment. But what makes the defendant's statements different?
00:09:25.620 I mean, you know, looking at this as a layperson, if the defendant makes a statement, text messages, discord that reads to me like a confession, you would think from a common sense standpoint that that would be very critical evidence.
00:09:39.200 It is. But I wonder what else is in there, because that's always the case is if you're talking about a confession to the police, it's a lot different than you're talking about a conversation with a lover, with a roommate.
00:09:50.180 What I was wondering as I watched the hearing today is what else is on that tape?
00:09:55.780 What else is there that might be so unduly prejudicial that the judge wants it redacted?
00:10:01.040 I mean, we don't know what it is, and we would love to know what it is so we could better understand the why.
00:10:06.080 Why did we build up to today?
00:10:08.220 Throughout the last couple of days, this has been referred to, and all of a sudden we've pulled the brakes.
00:10:13.460 I hope we hear more about that tomorrow.
00:10:15.880 I know both sides are briefing it, and the judge is going to be reading everything as well.
00:10:19.400 And we're going to start out of the gate with it. Maybe we can get this resolved and finally get some of that transparency that everybody wants in the courtroom.
00:10:28.100 And frankly, you know, both sides know that this is coming into evidence.
00:10:31.720 I think it's right now at this stage in the game, what format and how much.
00:10:38.380 Well, no, I think that's exactly right. And so we're going to be looking for that.
00:10:42.580 We're going to be looking for so much more. We're going to take a quick break here on our coverage throughout a commercial.
00:10:47.820 want to say thank you again to the team for being out here of course special thank you to allegiance
00:10:53.100 gold by the way our partners over at allegiance gold protect with pozo.com they are providing
00:10:58.360 our protection while we're here on the ground seeking justice for charlie kirk
00:11:03.160 stop fighting no matter what we will achieve american greatness we are just getting started
00:11:33.160 All right, folks, Jack Posovic back live here, Human Events Daily, Real America's Voice.
00:11:43.260 And we're here in Provo, Utah.
00:11:46.920 We are seeking justice for Charlie Kirk.
00:11:49.220 This is Human Events Primetime.
00:11:50.780 We are, of course, working to push on this case.
00:11:55.760 And I want to get up with our expert here, Dr. Wendy Patrick, who is walking us through all of this.
00:12:02.840 And Dr. Wendy, you're exactly right when you say that the big issue, one of the big issues that could come up is, you know, should this be overturned on appeal or something happens on appeal that either the case gets thrown out, has to be retried or any number of pieces of this.
00:12:24.580 And so walk us through the prosecution's, you know, sort of that overarching strategy, how they have to look far into the future at potential future risks that they're planning ahead for now.
00:12:38.920 Yeah. And you're right, Jack. That is one thing about this hearing that really personalized it for me.
00:12:45.080 I mean, I've been a prosecutor for almost 30 years, and I was thinking as I watched the argument, what I would be considering is whether or not the judge is feeling under a time pressure to make a decision, whether he's thinking to himself, you know, this is a probable cause hearing.
00:12:59.380 I don't need to make the ruling deciding what, if any, redactions are necessary before this is played.
00:13:04.740 He might be thinking if I release too much of the statement now, it might taint a potential future jury pool.
00:13:10.940 you talk about looking to the future. What he might be thinking is between the prelim and the
00:13:15.820 trial, there'll be ample opportunity for both sides to further brief the issue, to have hearings,
00:13:22.100 to decide what's admissible. He may be thinking he doesn't want to scramble and make a ruling now.
00:13:27.140 But Jack, on the other hand, I'm thinking, why are we scrambling? I mean, you no doubt know both
00:13:31.980 sides have probably papered each other to death with objections, with motions, with whatever it
00:13:37.240 is to make this admissible. But that might be one saving grace in maybe not seeing as much of it as
00:13:44.320 we would like to tomorrow, but maybe left with the hope that we will see it in its entirety,
00:13:50.100 and so will a jury if we get to trial. Well, I certainly agree on that, and that
00:13:58.840 ultimately what we want is justice, right? Ultimately one is that. And I guess, though,
00:14:04.820 for those of us who are out here who knew Charlie as well, that we do still want that transparency.
00:14:13.140 There's still so much of that earnest yearning to see what other evidence is there that's been
00:14:20.800 collected. And to be fair, they've released a lot of evidence this week. But it seems to me that the
00:14:28.180 judge is really splitting the baby on almost every single one of these decisions. And so,
00:14:33.080 So for example, we're getting only limited disclosures in court and what's being shown
00:14:38.480 on that TV screen, I can see it in extremely high quality definition, but for folks at
00:14:45.200 home who are recording it or getting over the live stream, it's not coming through as
00:14:49.620 much and we don't even know if those exhibits are going to be later shown.
00:14:53.880 And so I guess one of my other frustrations is I don't know if the transparency in this
00:14:58.800 case is where it should be.
00:15:01.200 Yeah. And, you know, Jack, I feel that that sentiment as well. And I think part of it has to do with the contrast between how transparent Charlie Kirk was about everything he believed, all the dreams that he had. I interviewed him on my radio show last year. He's just such an exceptional man.
00:15:16.940 And to say that somebody that assassinated him in broad daylight doesn't have the have doesn't isn't going to be subjected to the same standard of letting us know what he did, what he said, what he told his roommate about it is enormously frustrated.
00:15:30.640 And it is that level of emotion that really has characterized this preliminary hearing both in and out of the courtroom.
00:15:36.720 I mean, it's bad enough out here. I can't imagine how tense it is inside the courtroom for all of you that are sitting literally feet from the assassin, from the defendant.
00:15:46.940 But the transparency question, let me be very clinical and legal about it, because a probable
00:15:52.880 cause hearing legally only requires a very small showing, sort of a sampling of the type
00:15:59.120 of evidence that's going to be admissible at trial, sometimes judges, and this one in
00:16:03.160 particular, really narrows the scope of what might otherwise be admissible at a prelim.
00:16:08.580 Because think about it, a case this high profile, whatever comes out at prelim is going to be
00:16:12.660 all over the court of public opinion between now and trial. And we already know that this judge is
00:16:18.300 taking into consideration, making sure nothing out there taints a jury pool. So that might be
00:16:24.060 part of his thinking. But Jack, more importantly, it's also why we're frustrated at a probable cost
00:16:29.700 hearing, given the narrower scope of the evidence that this judge is going to admit. And I think
00:16:35.260 this video, whatever parts of it we see, falls into that category.
00:16:41.900 No, I think that's right. And in fact, we are still going to get more information. We're told,
00:16:47.300 by the way, in terms of the text messages, and we've seen quite a few amounts of text messages
00:16:53.060 in various motions and filings, but we're including Discord messages, these group chat
00:16:58.720 messages. We're also told, by the way, it came out in court, that there's going to be more text
00:17:04.180 messages that have not yet been released. And of course, today, the one piece of actual evidence
00:17:10.560 that we did get, probably the only thing that from my perspective, that transparency publication
00:17:15.840 perspective was, of course, the video of Tyler Robinson playing in the Washington County Sheriff's
00:17:24.460 Department. And I actually, as I was looking at it, I turned and I watched Tyler looking at himself
00:17:30.460 from the courtroom over to that video of himself walking in,
00:17:34.820 and he was staring very intense.
00:17:36.500 I would say he looked like he was fidgeting.
00:17:38.620 He looked like he was fidgeting in his seat.
00:17:41.440 He looked uncomfortable,
00:17:42.480 and that was something that I hadn't noticed in him before,
00:17:47.340 so I'm laughing on day one.
00:17:49.140 But this level of discomfort was something that I noted for the first time.
00:17:54.560 And keep in mind, I didn't even see that when they showed the graphic videos
00:17:59.700 of charlie's murder but seeing himself on video in that room made him um you know have that reaction
00:18:06.740 we will see we'll see what else happens dr wendy i'd love to get your analysis on it but
00:18:11.140 unfortunately we're we're out of time we'll have to do that the next time we have you on in the
00:18:15.060 meantime where can people go to follow you wendy patrick phd got dot com thank you so much for
00:18:20.180 having me on jack all right and hold me to that i want your analysis of his reaction the next time
00:18:28.420 We have you back here, Human Events Primetime.
00:18:45.700 Where's Jack?
00:18:47.800 Where is he?
00:18:49.080 Jack, I want to see you.
00:18:52.740 Great job, Jack.
00:18:54.240 Thank you.
00:18:54.960 What a job you do.
00:18:56.420 You know, we have an incredible thing.
00:18:57.600 We're always talking about the fake news and the bad.
00:19:00.120 But we have guys, and these are the guys who should be getting policies.
00:19:06.980 All right, folks, Jack Posobiec back live, human events, primetime here, Provo, Utah.
00:19:11.940 And we want to welcome you in for this coverage of the Tyler Robinson hearing.
00:19:16.300 Before we get started, I want to thank Allegiance Gold for making this special coverage possible.
00:19:21.040 Covering your travel like this from the scene takes a lot behind the scenes,
00:19:25.500 including the security that's required for our team to be here safely.
00:19:29.560 Their support is a big part of making that possible, and we are grateful for it.
00:19:33.860 Spending time here also reminds me that security means different things for different people.
00:19:38.380 For us this week, it's physical security while we're on location,
00:19:41.660 but for all of us, it's also about that financial security,
00:19:45.680 doing what we can to protect our families and what we've worked so hard to build.
00:19:50.020 That's why I'm especially thankful for Allegiance Gold.
00:19:53.280 We've been working together for the past five years,
00:19:56.440 and relationships like that aren't built overnight.
00:19:59.580 They're built on trust, consistency, and showing up for each other.
00:20:02.880 We appreciate their support of this special coverage,
00:20:06.060 and we're proud to have them standing with us.
00:20:07.840 If you'd like to learn more, visit protectwithposo.com.
00:20:11.200 That's protectwithposo.com or call 844-577-POSO to learn more.
00:20:16.860 All right, I want to bring on now Andrea Burkhart from Andrea Burkhart Law.
00:20:21.960 She's been live streaming all of this. And of course, I am getting a little bit of FOMO because
00:20:28.280 I don't have the Andrea Burkhart live stream in my ear while I'm sitting there in the courtroom.
00:20:35.900 Andrea, how are you? I'm great, Jack. I hope you're hanging in there.
00:20:42.000 I am. And by the way, for the record, so I have like my IFB, that's what we call this little
00:20:47.120 thing in our earpiece. And I've been thinking, what if I try to smuggle one of these in so I
00:20:51.080 can have Andrea in my ear while I'm in the court. Probably not a good idea.
00:20:56.460 Probably not ideal.
00:20:59.480 No, no, the court, the court rounds. In fact, there was somebody with a, with a cell phone
00:21:04.400 the other day who was asked to leave, but I did, I will, I will admit I, I did used to do that when
00:21:10.560 I was in college and I would have like Rush Limbaugh in my ear. You're not the only one,
00:21:16.280 I'm sure. And funny enough. And funny enough, actually, Catherine Limbaugh, this hasn't been
00:21:22.360 reported as much. And I should have I should say it as well. Catherine Limbaugh, Russia's Russia's
00:21:28.200 wife, has been there with us every single day so far in court. So, you know, here we are come
00:21:33.840 coming full circle. But, you know, look, I'll just say I mean, you probably know what I'm going
00:21:38.780 to say already that today felt pretty frustrating for those of us that have been fighting to get
00:21:43.460 evidence out, fighting to get, you know, more of the transparency in the case. Mr. Novak came in
00:21:52.060 and, you know, fought tooth and nail to block that video of Tyler Robinson's boyfriend, Lance
00:21:59.020 Twiggs. And then when he couldn't fully block it, he then went for redactions, got the video off,
00:22:04.860 then more redactions. How do you think that all played out? And, you know, he's really,
00:22:11.260 pushing on due process and saying the rights of the accused to a fair trial. And none of us are
00:22:17.940 disputing that, but it really seems as though that this was key evidence. And so we're trying
00:22:23.980 to understand the balance here. Yeah, well, I have to say, I said before, I've been a fan of
00:22:32.860 Mr. Novak. I've probably been one of the biggest boosters out there for Judge Graff. But on this
00:22:37.780 particular issue, I have to say, I think they're flat wrong, squarely wrong. And to some extent,
00:22:45.840 I think the way that today unfolded is a product of the process that allowed it to unfold.
00:22:52.660 It's got a little flavor of sandbagging to it, to, you know, spring something like this on the
00:22:59.260 court that is a fairly sophisticated legal issue. It happens to be an issue that's near and dear to
00:23:05.860 my heart, public access to court proceedings. So it's one that I've researched extensively and very
00:23:10.860 familiar with. But I don't expect most of these parties to have done that. And certainly not this
00:23:16.160 judge who from his own account has something like 1400 open cases besides this one. So to expect the
00:23:25.060 judge to handle the intricacies of these types of constitutional issues and to be familiar with how
00:23:32.200 the law has developed over time and has changed over time is a little bit of an unrealistic
00:23:39.300 expectation. So I do think there, he's wrong on the law. There have been subsequent developments
00:23:45.660 since the case they have relied on, this Estes versus Texas case, that I think to some extent
00:23:53.620 overrule it and to some extent just undermine it substantially. So my hope for this process
00:24:02.180 right now is the fact that the court has kicked this over to tomorrow and he's invited the
00:24:09.400 additional input, the additional briefing from Mr. Novak as well as from the state. And so I hope
00:24:16.540 that's going to be a little bit of a cure to this, expecting him to handle it on the fly. It will
00:24:23.100 enable him to be more fully informed about the bigger legal picture that's involved here because
00:24:30.200 there is U.S. Supreme Court precedent that's pretty squarely on point with the situation
00:24:35.900 that is in direct contradiction with the kind of way the balancing was handled today.
00:24:45.320 So when you're saying it's in contradiction, now my ears are perking up a little bit.
00:24:50.300 See, Andrea, this is why we booked you on the show. So you're giving me a little bit more hope.
00:24:54.480 I might actually be able to sleep tonight now. So yeah, they're bringing up the Estes case. And
00:24:59.560 And, of course, he's, to your point, he's bringing up a very, as Novak himself stated in court, it's an extremely complex case.
00:25:06.960 And he knew that he was bringing up an extremely complex case on the fly.
00:25:11.340 And he said, well, Judge, we could go to closed chambers.
00:25:14.620 We could do all the rest.
00:25:15.340 And I'm like, I know a sandbagging when I see one.
00:25:18.140 I've been in politics.
00:25:19.460 I've been in media.
00:25:20.060 I know.
00:25:20.700 All right.
00:25:20.940 I know what's going on here.
00:25:22.740 It's very clear to me what's going on here.
00:25:25.160 and, you know, oh, it would only take a couple hours, maybe just another open session. Okay,
00:25:31.060 okay, okay. Let's cut to the chase. What do you want? So when you say that it was unbalanced,
00:25:37.920 it felt unbalanced, certainly from the perspective of those of us that want to see this transparency,
00:25:44.180 what should the balance be when it comes to something like this?
00:25:48.380 Well, let me explain the background first off. So Estes versus Texas is a case from the 1960s.
00:25:53.620 It's in the very early days of certainly court being televised at all and in an institution that is notoriously conservative, not real receptive to technological advancement and so forth.
00:26:09.000 And so it reflects the mindset of the court from that era. But most of our First Amendment
00:26:14.180 jurisprudence that recognizes that access to courts is part of our civic duty as citizens
00:26:20.320 to monitor our government and be informed about what's taking place so that we can
00:26:25.600 make good decisions about how to improve it. Most of that developed in the 1980s at a later time.
00:26:32.120 And so since the Estes decision in 1968, we have, first off, a full reversal of the basic holding of Estes, which was that it is a per se due process violation to televise a criminal trial.
00:26:47.680 In a landmark case, Chandler v. Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly said, we're not holding that anymore.
00:26:56.500 It's a case-by-case determination whether there are due process considerations.
00:27:01.520 Subsequently, then we had this First Amendment right of access jurisprudence that began to develop.
00:27:07.620 And the most notable cases in that arena are what's called the press enterprise cases.
00:27:14.560 They dealt with the right of access to various proceedings in criminal cases.
00:27:19.820 And so press enterprise, too, the second time it went up to the court, dealt very specifically with the public's right of access to preliminary hearings.
00:27:29.900 A similar process that was taking place in California, as we're seeing in this Utah courtroom here today.
00:27:37.540 And so the Supreme Court dealt with all of these issues and it acknowledged, yeah, there's a countervailing interest in the defendant's right to a fair trial.
00:27:46.240 However, it explicitly recognized the points that the lawyer for the media was in court making today, which is that often these types of pretrial proceedings are the only time the public is going to have access to the process because so many of our criminal cases result in pleas.
00:28:05.440 And so if you're interested in the evidence being vetted and understanding how the process
00:28:11.980 got to the point that it did, this may be the only opportunity for us to have that insight.
00:28:18.820 And second, the mere fact that evidence might ultimately be inadmissible at trial is not
00:28:27.220 in and of itself, like per se, grounds to exclude the public, particularly when that
00:28:32.480 evidence is crucial for the trial court's decision that it's being asked to make. Because
00:28:38.780 if we can't understand why the court is making its decision, then we're not informed as citizens.
00:28:45.060 We don't know if the court is doing a good job. We don't know if the laws are operating the way
00:28:49.340 that we expect them to. We don't know what action we may need to take. Andrew, we are coming up on
00:28:55.180 a hard break, but thank you for saying this because everything you're saying now makes so
00:29:00.860 much more sense to me than what happened in that courtroom just a few hours ago.
00:29:07.560 Jack Posobiec, Andrew Burkhardt, right back, Human Events, Prime Time.
00:29:13.300 Appreciation hour.
00:29:14.180 I can say confidently, I believe, I think Josh Shapiro would be the vice presidential
00:29:18.420 nominee if it wasn't for Jack Posobiec.
00:29:20.120 And that is, I'll be honest.
00:29:22.260 All right, folks, Jack Posobiec back live here at Human Events Daily, Real America's Voice.
00:29:35.120 We're on, of course, this is the Human Events special primetime coverage of the Tyler Robinson hearing live from Provo, Utah.
00:29:42.160 Folks, this week has been a reminder of what really matters, faith, family, freedom, the legacy that Charlie Kirk helped to build and has left us with.
00:29:54.340 And even as something as ordinary as your cell phone service, it starts to matter more in times like this.
00:30:01.120 The people you trust to protect and defend your communication matter just as much as the calls that you make on it.
00:30:07.160 And that's what Patriot Mobile is all about.
00:30:08.980 For more than 12 years, they've stood with Americans who want their money to reflect their values.
00:30:13.820 Back in the Christian conservative movement and showing up for the movement that Charlie helped build.
00:30:18.020 Switching is easy.
00:30:19.100 You can keep your number, keep your phone, or upgrade.
00:30:21.220 Their 100% U.S.-based customer support team can get you activated in minutes.
00:30:25.720 And if you're still paying off a device, they can even help you deliver a contract buyout.
00:30:31.420 Best of all, they deliver premium priority access on all three major U.S. networks.
00:30:36.080 So you're not sacrificing quality to make a principled choice.
00:30:39.700 If you believe it matters, who you trust to protect and defend your communication,
00:30:43.780 Patriot Mobile is worth a look.
00:30:45.320 Go to PatriotMobile.com slash POSO or call 972-PATRIOT.
00:30:48.720 Use promo code POSO for a free month of service.
00:30:51.600 That's PatriotMobile.com slash POSO or give them a call 972-PATRIOT.
00:30:56.280 All right, we're on again with Andrew Burkhart.
00:30:59.120 And, Andrew, there was a moment in the case today,
00:31:02.440 And it's generated quite a few headlines where the Kirk family lawyer, Jeff Neiman, came up.
00:31:08.880 And I believe this was the first time in this hearing that he's made a direct address of the court and was fighting very strenuously for, as you say, the public's First Amendment right to access to not just trial, but also pretrial proceedings.
00:31:25.460 meetings and uh that that seemed to me like a very forceful uh thing for for not only for him
00:31:31.940 to say but the fact that this was the first time he weighed in it just shows how much of a priority
00:31:36.620 it is to the kirk family yeah i was very impressed with uh the the passion he spoke with i kind of
00:31:44.880 took me by surprise because i wasn't really expecting him to have such strong feelings
00:31:49.760 about it. But I can understand, just given the commentary environment surrounding this case,
00:31:57.740 why this matters so much to the Kirk family. His point was that if we can't see what's going on,
00:32:06.040 that undermines the legitimacy of this process. And the legitimacy of this process is critical
00:32:12.220 for anybody to have a sense that justice is being done. So for that to be threatened is a real
00:32:18.560 threat to everything that the Kirk family is having to go through in order to kind of
00:32:24.980 endure this extended process through the judicial system that is far from kind to victims of
00:32:31.860 crime?
00:32:35.080 No, it's not.
00:32:37.620 And I do understand where the prosecutors are coming from in terms of they have to think
00:32:44.080 about the risks and appeals and all of the things that can later be overturned.
00:32:48.380 I totally get that. But at the same time, I really am with Jeff very much in in this belief that it is the public's direct access to our courts.
00:33:03.280 And he talked about it as, you know, as a guy who does a show like this or you or you who do live streaming, this is how we access our legal proceedings.
00:33:13.100 And so it's it's really speaks to whether or not the system itself has that public integrity if we can have direct access to it.
00:33:22.060 It's not the 1960s anymore. And in fact, Mr. Novak kept bringing that up as if it was like a like a joke.
00:33:28.400 Oh, well, they mentioned television, but I'll have to edit that out a little bit.
00:33:31.960 Well, yeah, because that decision is like 60 years ago.
00:33:34.440 Mm hmm. Yeah. The culture has has shifted significantly since then and the environment has shifted significantly since then.
00:33:42.200 One of the, I think, big changes in perspective that's occurred is that when cameras were novel in courtrooms, it's scary. You're not quite sure what's going to happen. There's concerns about things like people are going to play to the cameras. It's going to undermine the dignity of the process.
00:34:03.860 My counter argument to that is that if we had cameras in every single courtroom in this country, which, by the way, we already have, because since COVID, every court in the country is equipped for remote court.
00:34:18.800 And so the systems are already in place. They're just not being broadcast to us live.
00:34:22.920 But if that was available from every courtroom in the country, then it would be the most normal thing in the world.
00:34:28.040 It's only because it's treated as this extraordinary accommodation to allow those of us who can't be physically present in a courtroom to see it, that it has this potential effect on the participants in the process.
00:34:43.920 Make it normal and that won't happen.
00:34:45.460 i i completely agree with you and obviously this is a a role for um we're in federal court so
00:34:54.660 obviously we're in state court now had he been brought up on federal charges for example we
00:35:00.260 would not be getting a live stream of this at all and so i have heard people point out they say well
00:35:05.580 you know should he be charged federally and that's that's obviously a question for the legal system
00:35:09.480 But just basic understanding for people that, you know, rules of the road here that at the state level, that's the only level of state and local where you have access to live stream criminal proceedings at the federal level.
00:35:22.980 They are banned completely. And to your point about the slowness of them, I think it's really only been in the last couple of years where the Supreme Court is at least allowing audio of the oral arguments to be broadcast and people get to tune in.
00:35:38.180 And I think it's wonderful. I think it's phenomenal to be able to hear the different justices, to hear the Supreme Court arguments being made, these arguments at the constitutional level, which, of course, affect all cases like we saw today here in Utah.
00:35:51.880 So we want more transparency. We do live in a more transparent time. That's just the nature of the world that we live in now. And, you know, to his point, that that's the reason they were talking about television back then, because television was brand new.
00:36:08.180 Mm hmm. Yeah, television was just a couple decades old at that point. And I realized there's a lot of different implications with the different media environment that we have today. We're not at really a high point in terms of the trust we have in our institutions. And the media is part of that as well. The trust in the media is not at a particularly high point.
00:36:35.520 But we're dependent on the media in the absence of cameras, in the absence of some kind of direct access to the courtroom ourselves to tell us what's going on.
00:36:47.100 I would say, I have to say, like, I have been very, it's sat very well with me to see the role, the active role that the media has taken in this particular case to advocate for access the way that they are.
00:37:04.040 The problem with these types of arguments is that the state and the defense, they have their own interests at stake. And there are going to be situations where it's not to their benefit to have the cameras there. And so they're not going to be advocating on behalf of all of us who have no dog in the fight. We just want to see the process for ourselves.
00:37:26.300 And so that's the critical role that the media advocacy is playing in this particular case is that making sure we actually have a place at the table for our interests to be expressed to the court.
00:37:39.380 No, I think it's exactly right, and there's been a number of times where I've noted as well, there was a different representative today, but even for the first two days and for today, it's been that media advocate who is really calling out all of this and standing on that idea of the public's right to access to these proceedings as protected and understood through the Supreme Court's decisions under the First Amendment.
00:38:07.440 And Andrea Burkhart, unfortunately, that is all the time I have for tonight.
00:38:11.820 Where can people go to follow you and get so much more of your incredible analysis?
00:38:15.320 Find me on andreaburkhart.substack.com for your access to the legal document archive that I'm maintaining for this case.
00:38:24.260 You can also find me under the handle aburkhartlaw on X and on YouTube.
00:38:29.620 And as I said, I will be having a live stream tonight to discuss some of this legal issue.
00:38:34.080 well i'm gonna be there ladies and gentlemen as you as always you have my permission