Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
Speaker 1: this episode, we're jumping back into the Tyler Robinson conversation,
Speaker 1: and we're going to take a look at the defendant
Speaker 1: Tyler James Robinson's opposition to the EMC order for the
Speaker 1: September 1st, 2026 hearing. And this just builds on what
Speaker 1: we were talking about yesterday with Tyler Robinson and cameras
Speaker 1: in the courtroom. State of Utah plaintiff. First, Tyler James Robinson,
Speaker 1: the defendant. Defendant Tyler James Robinson's opposition to EMC order
Speaker 1: for the September 1st, 2026 hearing. Case number 251403576. Defendant
Speaker 1: Tyler James Robinson, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby
Speaker 1: files this opposition to KUTV's August 17th, 2026 EMC request,
Speaker 1: docket 710. This objection is grounded in Mr. Robinson's rights
Speaker 1: to a fair trial. to due process of law, and
Speaker 1: to a reliable penalty determination under state and federal constitutional provisions,
Speaker 1: including the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments to
Speaker 1: the United States Constitution and to Article I, Section 7
Speaker 1: and 12 of the Utah Constitution. First, Mr. Robinson reiterates
Speaker 1: his continuing objection to the EMC Challenge procedure in the
Speaker 1: May 8, 2026 order. The four-page Limitation on Objections The
Speaker 1: prohibition on oral argument, the lack of an opportunity for
Speaker 1: an evidentiary hearing, and the inability to seek relief from
Speaker 1: a challenged EMC order violate state and federal constitutional rights
Speaker 1: to due process because the procedural restrictions deprive the parties
Speaker 1: of a meaningful opportunity to be heard. C.U.S. Constitution Amendment
Speaker 1: 14 Utah Constitution Article 1 Section 7 Coleman v. Alabama
Speaker 1: 377 U.S. 129-12933, 1964, Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560-577, 1981. Second, Mr. Robinson,
Speaker 1: objects to EMC of the preliminary hearing, including the oral
Speaker 1: arguments on September 1st, 2026, because there is a reasonable
Speaker 1: likelihood that electronic media coverage will prejudice the right of
Speaker 1: the parties to a fair proceeding. Utah, administration rule 401.012BI.
Speaker 1: Continuing EMC of the proceedings, in this case, particularly the
Speaker 1: preliminary hearing, threatens Mr. Robinson's rights to a fair trial
Speaker 1: by an impartial jury by perpetuating bias in the public
Speaker 1: against Mr. Robinson. The pre-existing bias and the lasting threat
Speaker 1: to a fair trial posed by that bias was detailed
Speaker 1: in Mr. Robinson's motion to exclude still photographers, TV cameras,
Speaker 1: and microphones from the courtroom in in his reply and
Speaker 1: was elucidated in the evidence presented in support of the
Speaker 1: motion on April 17, 2026. See Docket 305-399. The motion, reply,
Speaker 1: and the evidence supporting these pleadings are hereby incorporated by reference.
Speaker 1: Additional evidence of bias developing as a result of the
Speaker 1: widespread publication of this case can be tracked in real time, redacted.
Speaker 1: Specific to the oral argument on the preliminary hearing, The
Speaker 1: EMC will memorialize and widely disseminate argument discussing the largely
Speaker 1: hearsay-based evidentiary presentation made by the state. Such evidence is,
Speaker 1: by its very nature, insufficiently reliable for admission at trial.
Speaker 1: CEG Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560-567, 1986 Central to
Speaker 1: the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Sixth
Speaker 1: and Fourteenth Amendments is the principle that one accused of
Speaker 1: a crime is entitled to have his guilt or innocence
Speaker 1: determined solely on the basis of the evidence introduced at trial.
Speaker 1: By continuing to livestream these proceedings and the anticipated discussions
Speaker 1: of the evidence not yet deemed reliable enough for trial,
Speaker 1: there is a substantial risk that potential jurors will develop
Speaker 1: prejudgments based upon inadmissible evidence. It bears repeating that the
Speaker 1: state of Utah is seeking the death penalty against Mr. Robinson.
Speaker 1: The taking of evidence during the prelim examination, oral arguments
Speaker 1: on that evidence, and the determinations made by the court
Speaker 1: based upon that evidence is a critical stage of these
Speaker 1: capital proceedings. The media presence in the courtroom both distracts
Speaker 1: and places added pressure on hearing participants to present for
Speaker 1: the media as opposed to focusing on the facts, evidence,
Speaker 1: and mechanics of the case. See State v. Aguayas, 2003
Speaker 1: Utah 102-63 P. 3D 731. Trial judges are encouraged to continue
Speaker 1: to exercise caution in maintaining quiet and non-distracting courtroom environments
Speaker 1: in all cases, and particularly in capital proceedings. Weighing Mr.
Speaker 1: Robinson's interest in a fair proceeding against the interest in
Speaker 1: an EMC, Mr. Robinson's interests must necessarily prevail. This is
Speaker 1: so because Mr. Robinson is constitutionally entitled to a fair proceeding,
Speaker 1: but conversely, there is no right to electronic media coverage.
Speaker 1: See Richmond Newspapers, Inc., 1st Virginia, 448 U.S. 555-564-1980, noting
Speaker 1: the defendant's superior right to a fair trial compared to
Speaker 1: the public's right of access. See also Nixon, 1st Warner Communications, Inc.,
Speaker 1: 435 U.S. 589-610-1978. The requirement of a public trial is
Speaker 1: satisfied by the opportunity of members of the public to
Speaker 1: and the press to attend the trial and to report
Speaker 1: what they have observed. And as the Utah Court of
Speaker 1: Appeals has articulated, the Utah Rules of Judicial Administration are
Speaker 1: not intended to limit, modify, or create substantive rights for
Speaker 1: any other court participant. See Scott v. Majors, 1999, Utah
Speaker 1: Appeals 139, 12980 P. 2D 214. Third, Mr. Robinson objects to
Speaker 1: EMC of the preliminary hearing in its entirety because this
Speaker 1: court's procedure for adjudicating the request does not allow any
Speaker 1: opportunity for witnesses to address privacy or security concerns relevant
Speaker 1: under Rule 4-401.01, 2B2, and 4. As previously argued, those
Speaker 1: concerns are substantial with respect to defense counsel, and witnesses
Speaker 1: should be afforded the opportunity to be heard on these issues.
Speaker 1: of note based upon information provided by the Utah County
Speaker 1: Attorney's Office, individuals who provided 1102 statements for the prelim
Speaker 1: hearing and whose information was put into the public record
Speaker 1: during the hearing, shortly thereafter experienced harassment by media and
Speaker 1: interested parties appearing at their home. The ECM of the
Speaker 1: proceedings has real-world consequences for witnesses. Therefore, Mr. Robinson requests
Speaker 1: that this court deny the request for EMC of the
Speaker 1: prelim hearing. Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of August, 2026,
Speaker 1: and it was signed by Kathy Nestor, Richard Novak, Michael Burt,
Speaker 1: and Stacey Visser. All the information that goes with this
Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box.