Court Proceeding — LIVE: UT v. Tyler Robinson, Hearing | Charlie Kirk Assassination Trial

Document text

Court Proceeding — LIVE: UT v. Tyler Robinson, Hearing | Charlie Kirk Assassination Trial
Court proceeding — State of Utah v. Tyler James Robinson (Case 251403576, 4th Judicial Dist. Ct., Utah County). Transcript is the YouTube auto-caption track of the Court TV feed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s-S8pEK280) — verbatim ASR, not a certified court transcript.

Mhm. >> [snorts] [clears throat] [cough] [laughter] Counsel, if you could enter your appearances, please. Your Honor, Christopher Ballard, Ryan McBride, Chad Grunander, and Lauren Hunt on behalf of the state. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kathy Nester, excuse me, Richard Novak, Stacy Visser on behalf of Mr. Robinson. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jeff Hunt and David Ryman appearing on behalf of the media interveners that are identified in our motion papers. Good afternoon. Michael Judd, Your Honor. Parsons Behle & Latimer on behalf of another set of media interveners also identified in the in the briefs. Good afternoon, and I recognize Mr. Robinson in the courtroom as well. Good afternoon. And to further benefit the record, calling case 251 403 576, State of Utah versus Tyler James Robinson. Counsel, as we're moving forward today, I want to give an an overview of what we anticipate doing, and it comes down we're addressing three issues. The first is the October 14th, 2025 audio recording of the closed hearing, and the October 24th, 2025 transcript of that hearing. The second is the state's motion to amend or clarify the publicity order, commonly known or referred to as the gag order. And finally, and the motion for limited intervention and request for notice of motions to close, seal, or reclassify, um and which has been filed by the media organizations and by counsel who are present today. So, as we begin, the first part is we'll begin by addressing the October 14th audio recording and the October 24th transcript. This portion of the hearing will be closed, so that I may hear from the parties regarding which portions of the recording the record should remain sealed. All members of the public and the press will be excused and the hearing will not be broadcast. This is because I need to hear what should or should not be sealed or protected and it would not benefit to have everyone listen to what should be sealed. And so after I've heard argument, we will invite all parties the public and the media to come back in and the hearing will resume transmission. We will then take up the motion for limited intervention followed by the state's motion to amend or clarify the publicity order. These portions, the last two portions will be open to the public and to the press. After hearing argument on all three matters, I will take a brief recess and then return to issue my ruling today. We will then stand in recess. So at this point, we'll go ahead and excuse the public and the media and it is the court's order that transmission be terminated temporarily. Your Honor, I we have one request with respect to the closed hearing. May I be heard on that? Uh yes, counsel. Thank you. Richard Novak for Mr. Robinson. Um Mr. Robinson has some immediate family members who are present, his father, his mother and his brother and we would ask the court to permit them to remain in the courtroom during the closed portion of the hearing. My only concern with that, your Honor, is that we're going to be talking about court security measures. I don't know that we'll have to go into a lot of detail about that, but I do have concerns about uh those issues being discussed in public. All right. Mr. Novak, do you have authority that supports allowing them to remain in a closed hearing? Uh no, I think it's subject to the court's discretion to decide who is and is not an appropriate member of the public. Um I think they have a unique relationship with Mr. Robinson and they're they um would certainly abide by any orders the court makes concerning um disclosure of what is discussed in closed session, but obviously it's up to the court. Thank you, Mr. Novak. I'm going to rule that they will be excluded as well. It is just given the nature and the sensitivity of it. I believe it is appropriate to treat all parties and all in the public equally, though I do recognize their relationship with Mr. Robinson. Thank you for your request. All right. We will go into the closed accused Cohasset the disappearance [music] of Ana Walshe which today on Court TV. Tonight on closing arguments, will safety concerns [music] Trump public access in the Charlie Kirk assassination case? We'll bring you the latest developments from [music] today's big hearing. Closing arguments tonight at >> Back now to New Hampshire, folks, where convicted killer Dustin Duren is being sentenced today in the Amber Alert murder trial. The 38-year-old father was found guilty earlier this year for fatally shooting his girlfriend, Caitlyn Nofsinger, before kidnapping their two young children. Now, thanks to an Amber Alert, police eventually located Duren driving with his two young daughters, who were unharmed, thankfully. Let's get you back in the court now, where Caitlyn's best friend, who is giving a victim impact statement to the court by My name is Sarah Heilich. Last name H E I L. Never in my life has a statement about what happened to my truth and my life can't believe that with that fact every moment of every day. I felt a lot of death and hardship in my life, but never have I had to learn to cope with an unjustified, violent, intentional murder of my best friend, who I lived with. I had to hear the impossible to put into words what Caitlyn has meant to me. No, her murder has affected me. My life We were indescribable magic and energy and love here, about the extensive love and purpose. Everyone called her my wife, but in truth, she was mine. I don't think I know how to exist without her. Never would I ever choose to live my life Caitlyn wasn't proficient with expressing herself through words, but through long conversations sitting on the couch, dancing, and simply living life together. Caitlyn was my number one person to listen to me, cuz she hadn't been able to breathe in sleep. I am the one person who she shared everything with. I was her confidant, and I did not like to even honor to speak for her, but she There is not enough space on these pages to list the inconsistencies, the rumors and straight-up lies that were told and inferred by Dustin and his attorneys during the trial. I'm just going to list things what I knew to be true. From text messages and phone conversations with Caitlyn, listening to conversations between Dustin and Caitlyn, and my own extensive observations, all focused on their broad scope of public impact, Dustin's actions and attempts to speak on behalf of my best friend Caitlyn was scared of Dustin and felt trapped. There were several instances during their time in Nevada that Dustin and the girls were aggressive with Caitlyn during arguments, and even a toddler got in the way trying to intervene. When Caitlyn and Dustin decided it was time to leave Nevada due to arguments and lack of family and friend support, Caitlyn and the girls were living with me in Minnesota. Caitlyn did not want Dustin's parents to be alone with the girls, and did not want Dustin to know their location for safety and their well-being. Caitlyn shared with several of her closest loved ones in recent recent months before her murder and death that if anything were to happen to her, she wanted the girls to be raised by her brother, Bailey, her cousin, Annie, or me, and in that order, as she said. We were We were all supporting each other to manage our separate households and the children at the time, so it seems as though she knew the danger she was in and what Dustin was capable of. Dustin's behavior of control, delusions and paranoia, threats, and physical violence prior to his choice to kill the mother of his children are worth mentioning. As far as I understand family law, Dustin had no legal rights to the children, as they were only residents of Minnesota and Nevada, in which primary mothers automatically assume full custody, and Dustin never filed for custody with the court. Any claims Caitlyn was holding her own in custody that she was trying to kidnap them. Dustin's delusion that Caitlyn was going to take the kids and not let him see them seems to be the motivating factor in all of these unjust experiences. Caitlyn had no intention and didn't even suggest that she would ever try to keep the girls from Dustin. In reality, Dustin actually physically kept the girls from Caitlyn on countless occasions and became aggressive and violent when she tried to reason with him. Caitlyn reported one of these moments to local Minnesota police where Dustin was staying with his parents, but the police did nothing. Dustin also bruised Caitlyn's back with a physical assault in front of his father when she asked Dustin for financial support. The abusive Dustin's actions continued. During conversations in Nevada, Evelyn would stare in the face of Caitlyn and scream at her dad. Evelyn has since shared with me that she wasn't strong enough to protect her mom. Evelyn's own thoughts and observations of what her dad did to her mom is that he wanted the girls all to himself and wanted mom gone. Dustin ruined his children's [clears throat] lives, and Caitlyn died During the defense trial, Dustin showed no signs of remorse or regret of Dustin's actions for killing the mother of his children. All of Caitlyn's loved ones, including his own children, have been affected by it. Their long-winded defense proves that he still believes he was justified in committing murder. Unfortunately, my best friend's life ending is a perfect example of the importance of the support system for mothers and women living with domestic violence. Sadly, I don't believe her murder of my best friend was an inevitable inevitable fate. Dustin was determined to control the situation, even if that meant she had to die. Dustin has not and will not learn to be a lawful man, human. He was determined to have the children to himself, regardless of things like moral decency or the law. She did not have the right to live in a civilized society or have the rights here in his children's lives, as the It is impossible to state how the murder of my best friend has affected my life, because it has taken control of everything and will continue to take control at any given moment. None of Caitlyn's adult loved ones can even have a chance to focus on ourselves and deal with our own loss and grief or how it has impacted us fully. We are all focusing on the effects of what happened to the girls, trying to ensure they are safe and cared for. The aggressive nature of Dustin's defense and his family's non-compassionate actions and words, even after an entire jury found Dustin [clears throat] guilty on all charges, continues to impact all of our lives. For me, personally, there was the initial and immediate trauma effects of finding out what happened, trying to figure out what to do with myself and how to continue to exist. I learned everyone I lived with was gone and would never be coming back. I could not return to my home for weeks after the murder. My entire My entire daily life was instantly changed, and I'm reminded of this every day with the silence and cold in my home. I immediately started attending weekly trauma-focused therapy sessions. Now, 6 months after speaking with investigators and the initial trauma started wearing off, I began experiencing frequent migraines that caused me to have a temporary blindness. I got to the emergency room at least four times through panic attacks since the murder. And now, I'm forced to diligently work in managing the post-traumatic effects I took on the responsibility for Caitlyn's and the girls' belongings after she was killed, because they lived in my home. Evelyn and the girls weren't able to return to Minnesota for months after Caitlyn was killed, but for 2 months, I was sorting, packing, and distributing her treasured belongings. During these months, I spent long hours seeking information for the criminal case that only I might have. This is all I could do. As soon as the girls returned to Minnesota, I realized the new reality that their life was forced into. I could be there for them and start to help them have some familiarity, comfort, and a sense of their mom. Having her things there helped them process the experience. Dustin's previous and continuing actions have given me a new sense of fear and rage that didn't exist prior to the murder. And I know I have to live with and manage daily, regardless of the results of this sentencing. I have missed countless days of work due to the trauma of the murder. The mental, emotional, and physical impact Caitlyn's murder has had on myself has also affected all of my other relationships, Dustin's actions have absolutely impacted me financially as well, but money is least important in the way of When Dustin chose to end Caitlyn's life, he became not only a murderer, but also a thief. He stole dreams, futures, hope, joy, and love from everyone who loved Caitlyn. Caitlyn and I had a dream of a future shared home, a life that I now have to live without. Our girls stole a loving attachment and healthy development from his children. We replaced trust and love with fear and despair. Dustin not only ended Caitlyn's life, he ended my life, his children's lives, and Caitlyn's friends and family's lives. Anyone who loved Caitlyn had a bright future with her. Dustin killed her when he pulled that trigger. We are now forced to live lives and plan for futures that we did not choose. Our free will was murdered along with our dearly loved Caitlyn. There is no justice in any of this. Regardless of the sentence, we all have to live a life we didn't choose. Caitlyn was my best friend through thick He decided that we would be each other's for the rest of our lives, partners. I now have to live without that. I ask that the court sentence Dustin to the maximum possible for each individual charge. Caitlyn's maximum sentence will not bring her back. He will be punished justly in prison. Our love will whether charged or not charged after. No one will give us our lives and the love of Caitlyn back. Again, help us to find new sentence of hope for moral and just humanity in the future during the Thank you. All right, so the victim's best friend laying out the myriad ways that this type of crime affects folks and different effects it can have on your life. Just really compelling stuff. All right, we're going to take a break. Coming up, we're going to bring you more from that sentencing hearing for convicted killer Dustin Duren. [music] And again, we're keeping Keep it here on Welcome back to Court TV Live. I'm Michael Ayala. Let's head back now to New Hampshire for more of today's sentencing hearing for Dustin Duren. Duren was convicted back in October of murdering the mother of his children, Caitlyn Nossiger. Investigators say that Duren then took off with the couple's two children prompting an Amber Alert. Let's head back into that courtroom now. Caitlyn's sister-in-law, Heather Nossiger, she's giving a victim impact statement. Again, this is via WebEx, so that's why we're not seeing them. Let's go back into court. Attorney, the next impact statement is also remote and it is from Heather Nossiger on behalf of herself, Caitlyn's Hello. Heather, H E A T H E R. Nossiger, N A S S I G E My name is Heather and I'm reading this statement jointly with my husband, Bailey. Caitlyn Nossiger was our sister and sister-in-law. We, along with many others, called her Goose. Goose was our light. She became the sister I never had and have always wanted. We enjoyed cooking together. And it was when I would come over to her house with the kids when I was by herself. Our home was her home. When she lived in Las Vegas, we would FaceTime with her and the kids often. We have always been a part of her and her girls' lives. I was there for the birth of Arlowyn and helped her often when she wasn't living out of state. Her dream was to live on a commune or within a co-housing system with her closest family and friends. She had so much love to give. All she Please say that his death has tied him with the pain or at least the initial shock. But the amount of pain Even though we have been two weeks since she has been gone, we remain devastated. We will never forget getting that call. When we got that call, I broke down and Bailey answered the phone and I will never forget the gut-wrenching feeling I had. Though I couldn't hear anything except for Bailey's mom's hysterics. The phone call was short. He hung up and aggressively threw his We were both panicked and embraced on his face. The pain and the mind was like Nothing made sense. She was just at our house for dinner a few days before telling us she was going to visit Arlowyn with Bailey. And then we got that horrific phone call. We called all of our family members to come over and be with us. For weeks, we had every person in our lives come to our house to mourn. That day will haunt us for the rest of our lives while we raise the girls. Dustin, we can't say our goodbyes when we say a big part of us all died that day. Since Dustin so remarkably murdered our sister, we have needed these children weekly, individual therapy, and We found one of the top trauma therapists to see her and almost immediately after the event. Since day one she's talked about the events of that day. She would literally rage I'm just in space. And she would sometimes have hour-long episodes of uncontrollable rage and panic because she wasn't strong enough to She would pace the therapy office sounding like a haunted and dying animal. She even said to her best friend Sarah that her dad just wanted them all to himself and wanted mom gone. There were and still are days when the panic and shock consumes us all. I had panic attacks often. I would walk alone and cry in the I could see myself wondering when this It got so bad that I needed depression medication. There are no words to describe what Bailey feels every day. I just like this always there to find solace solace in music and can't help but draw parallels to the song Growing Sideways by Noah Kahan. Bailey continues to move forward though she has been running on empty ever since she was taken from us. In the time leading up to the trial and during the trial we felt deep uncertainty about both the present and the future. In addition to our grief we had new fears about personal safety and for the safety of the girls. The public nature of the trial put us in a constant state of hyper-vigilance. Nothing could make me feel protected. Crime will never heal our broken hearts. Our broken hearts along with the broken hearts of our son Emmett and Caitlyn's daughters Avalon and Daylon will always be clinging to the memory. All right, we'll pause it right there. I want to bring back in our guest still with us, trial and family law attorney Michelle Thomas. And Michelle, first and foremost I want to discuss what we're hearing so far from some of these victims. And the thing I want to point out is I'm always amazed when we have victim impact statements and people will talk about things that you never think about unless you've been in that position. For instance, the best friend talking about how it affected them emotionally, monetarily and also, you know, this idea of what their future would be. They had plans and ideas of their future with this victim. All these things are devastating and I think I really have a really going to have an impact on this judge. I think you're absolutely right, Michael. I mean, we heard from beyond with a very sort of heart-wrenching narrative earlier when she said she will never create another memory with this victim ever again. And so it really does remind you of the humanity of the situation and how he has altered this defendant and has altered the lives of so many people and for what? So senselessly. I think that's what the victim impact statements are conveying that this was so unnecessary. And they really want him to feel the impact forever of what he has done and what he has taken from them. So I do think that they're making it very realistic and impactful for this judge and that that will be taken into consideration when he issues the sentence. Now you mentioned the for what, right? The for what was because there were issues between the two particularly regarding perhaps payments in terms of child support, also custody of the children. You're a family law attorney. Time and time again in these cases we see people that we know, people that seem to have decent reputations become different people when they're involved in this type of situation. Talk to me a little bit about your experience and and what happens to folks when they get involved in these family type disputes? You know, Michael, I tell clients all the time that the same person you married is not the same person you're divorcing. A lot of times you don't even recognize the person at the end of the the day when you're in the midst of these whether they're custody battles or divorces. People lose all sense of sensibilities, their ability to reason and rationalize seems to be substantially compromised and their emotions are just raging and in control instead of that person controlling their emotions and focusing on the best interest of the children. Yeah, fair enough. Again, I don't think that's a mitigating factor, however. All right, Michelle, stand by. We're going to take a break. Coming up we're going to bring you more from that sentencing hearing for convicted killer Dustin Duren. Also ahead folks we're still waiting. We'll take you back to Utah right [music] now. The closed session is underway for that motion hearing for Tyler Robinson. As soon as that's over the judge allows cameras back into that hearing we're going to take you there live. So keep it here on Court TV, the Disappearance [music] of Ana Walsh. Her husband now charged with her murder. All eyes on this accused killer. The disappearance [music] of Ana Walsh murder trial. Live coverage today on Court TV. Tonight on closing arguments will safety concerns [music] trump public access in the Charlie Kirk assassination case. We'll bring you the latest developments from today's big hearing. Closing arguments tonight at 8:00 7:00 Central >> [music] >> All right, folks, welcome back to Court TV Live. I'm Michael Ayala. Let's head back to New Hampshire now where a sentencing hearing is underway this afternoon for Dustin Duren. Now back in October a jury found Duren guilty of murder in the shooting death of the mother of his children, Caitlyn Nofsinger. Now after the fatal shooting Duren set off on an set off an Amber Alert when he drove off with his two children. Thankfully everyone was found unharmed. Let's head back into the courtroom now where continuing to hear victim impact statement from Caitlyn's sister-in-law Heather. And again, she's speaking via WebEx so you won't see her on camera but we can hear what she has to say. Caitlyn She loved fiercely. And her presence was always felt by those lucky enough to know her. She would come over to our house weekly Who did the dancing but always bring a smile to our faces? And then would burst into happiness [clears throat] when he hurt her and Not even 2 weeks after she was murdered, we found out we were pregnant with our second child. In fact, we found out when they flew us to New Hampshire to be with the girls. Though our son Grayson has never met Bruce, he will always know of his aunt and he will see her in the girls as they all Our family members always said theory was Bruce's favorite and her hero. We did everything because we couldn't just support her. At times, she would ask for money as she was working at at least three jobs and barely scraping by to provide for the girls But she had said that if anything were to happen to us, she would want Bailey It was mentioned on several occasions to her closest loved ones that should anything happen to her, she would want three people to raise her girls in this order. Her brother Bailey, cousin Annie, her Those of us she shared this with immediately took action after Dustin decided to take her life and started discussing options for the Being her first choice, Bailey and I honored his sister's wishes and we are raising the girls on her behalf. We will cherish and take care of her girls as they were our own. This all became exponentially impactful as now our entire focus was on making sure the girls were okay. And they are just that our only beside A big part of us died with Kaylin that day, but that has only strengthened our commitment to grant her wish for us to raise her girls. We love Bruce. And now we will take that love and compassion and pass it with Dustin to parent your girls Whatever Dustin is sentenced to will never compare to the loss we all feel or bring Bruce back to us. Here are the believers. He should serve the maximum potential time. He showed no remorse or capability of it. Allowing him any leniency would only give him another opportunity to harm Alwyn, Bailey, and our family. Additionally, Alwyn's therapist has requested that the child endangerment charges not be served concurrently with his other charges. As a 4-year-old, there is nothing Alwyn could do to stop the terrifying situation she was forced into. Perhaps when she is an adult and understands her family had to grieve Alwyn fairly, her therapist told she may feel that some justice was served for what was done to her personally. We ask that you please give special Thank you. >> [clears throat] >> All right, so that wraps up that victim impact statement and just about every victim who has spoken in this case wants the maximum. And here's what's at stake. The defense is asking for 25 to life, which would be the minimum he could get. The state is asking for 45 to life, which would not necessarily be the maximum, but that's what they think is appropriate under the circumstances. The judge will ultimately uh make that decision. All right. Thanks to Michelle Thomas for joining me this past hour. We're going to take a break here. Coming up, we're going to bring you more from that sentencing hearing for convicted killer Dustin Durrant. And also [music] still we're keeping a close watch on Utah for that motion hearing for Tyler Robinson. As soon as they come back from that closed session, we will take you there to live court. [music] You be here on Court TV. We'll follow the seat of justice. Welcome back to Court TV Live. I'm Michael Ayala. Any moment now, that hearing for the suspect in the Charlie Kirk killing, Tyler Robinson, will resume. Right now, the hearing is happening behind closed doors. They are discussing the October audio recording and the transcript of that hearing. And remember, the shooting happened on the campus of Utah Valley University back in September of this year. Police launched a 33-hour manhunt for the shooter, Tyler Robinson, at least that's what they allege. That is until Robinson's family convinced him to turn himself in. And again, during that conversation, at least according to prosecutors and to law enforcement, uh he basically confessed to his family that he was the one responsible. I'm sure that will be a big deal in court. Let's bring in our guest. I would like to welcome back criminal defense attorney Joanna Nieves. Joanna, great to see you. Thank you so much for joining me here on the program. We have an important hearing, really the first time Tyler Rob- Tyler Robinson has appeared in court personally, has appeared via um WebEx or whatever they want to call it in that particular courtroom. But this time he's appearing in court and per the judge's ruling, he's allowed to appear in street clothing. It seems this judge is inclined to really try as much as he can to protect his right to a fair trial because that's what that ruling would definitely be about. And that's part of what this is about in terms of should we open up these particular hearings and in fact the whole case to the public. Your It's that the judge is going to be weighing two very clear interests. The public's right to access and of course the First Amendment and promotion of transparency and accountability against the defendant's, the accused right to a fair trial. This is a highly publicized, high-profile case that has, you know, gained the interest of like national political um speakers and representatives. And right now the uh the defense is wanting to ensure that uh Mr. Robinson is not prejudiced by the high publicity that this is already garnered. They On the other hand, this was a murder that took place in a very public space. And so of course the state and media are going to be arguing that this was already a so public, the community and public maintains an interest in what happens with the prosecution going forward. Yeah, I agree. And and and ultimately this is such a big story. Um and and and this is not because I'm biased, because I'm in the media. But one of the things argued by the defense in terms of arguing for this thing not to be open to the media in terms of that affecting his right to a fair trial is that there's been a lot of misinformation. I think one of the best ways to avoid that type of thing or counteract that type of thing is to open this up, shine a light on what's going on in that courtroom because then anyone who has a misinformation, there's a record of what's actually going on. I actually agree with you. I think that when you limit access um to the public, then who is there to account for what actually took place? And I think the judge can find ways that are narrowly tai- tailored that allow reporters to be in the courtroom. Maybe there's no live feed and live streaming of what's going on, but they the reporters and media have access and are able to take notes and take um you know, maybe even have delayed broadcasting about what's happening. But there is a measure measure of accountability and transparency that will be happening um rather than a complete closure. Yeah, fair enough. And what we've seen often in these Utah cases is there'll be sort of one camera that's a pool camera, provides information to everyone, provides video to everyone, and then one reporter who acts in the same way, which I think sort of uh balances both of those issues well. All right, Joanna, stand by. I want to take this back now to New Hampshire, folks, where convicted killer Dustin Duren he's being sentenced today in the Amber Alert murder trial. The 38-year-old father was found guilty earlier this year for fatally shooting his girlfriend Katelyn Nofziger before kidnapping their two young children. Now thanks to an Amber Alert, police eventually located Duren driving with his two young daughters who were unharmed. But Duren took the stand during the trial where he claimed that he shot in self-defense after Nofziger threatened to kidnap the kids unless he agreed to pay her money which he didn't have. All right, let's get back into court now where Katelyn's stepfather Tim Smith is about to give his impact statement to Honorable Judge Jonathan Frizzell, Judge Frizzell, Katelyn is my stepdaughter. She was taken from us, her family, by the defendant Dustin Duren on February 29th, 2024, leap day. I echo all of the sentiments already voiced by family and friends and thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. When I think of Katelyn, the first thoughts cross through my mind is where would she be today, now? Katelyn was just starting to get her life figured out and set her course. She would have no doubt impressed us all with all her unique her unique journey in her life which was cut short and ended by the defendant Dustin Duren executing her. I'm going to be respectful of your time, Judge Frizzell, and let's get right to the matter at hand, the sentencing of Dustin Duren who has been found guilty by a majority of his peers of the crime of murder and other aggravating, despicable crimes. Due to the due to the heinous nature of the crime of murder that Dustin Duren has been convicted of committing, I'm imploring you, sir, to impose the maximum possible sentence and that you make an upward departure in the sentence due to the following factors. Dustin has shown no remorse and lacks any sense of empathy for anybody impacted by his actions other than himself, including his children, Dustin stole the innocence of childhood from the very people he professed to love and cherish, he and Katelyn's children, Elwyn and Vaylin. He murdered their mother in their presence. Dustin made a conscious and deliberate >> [snorts] >> choice to execute Katelyn while she held their daughter Elwyn. Elwyn will never forget what she witnessed, the murder of her mother at the age the tender age of 4 years old. Dustin adamantly believes that he he is justified to murder when he doesn't get The murder of Katelyn culminated years of classic, textbook domestic violence. Isolate from family and established established uh support systems. Moved to Las Vegas in New Hampshire. Dominate, intimidate, control. When the control that Dustin imposed on Katelyn, which was facilitated by the using [snorts] their children as pawns, was lost, he knew he had lost control because Katelyn told him so. Like so many abusers, Dustin resorted to murder in a vicious attempt to maintain that control at all cost. I don't give my opinion on this matter, sir. I speak from 30-plus years of law enforcement expe- experience in which I have and continue to serve in a maximum security facility and deal with all varieties of offenders on a daily basis. It's a violent, hostile environment and I have witnessed numerous suicides. It In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the jury for their service and all the good people of New Hampshire. Numerous citizens of this fine state have shown love, support, and compassion to my wife, my grandchildren, and our entire family. And we are forever grateful and appreciative for the support. And may God bless them all, including you, Your Honor, and all the [snorts] law enforcement personnel that spiritual laws. I had to do the hardest thing in my life when I find out found out that you had executed my stepdaughter Katelyn, I immediately forgave you, had to. Hardest thing I ever did. For selfish reasons because the Lord says if you don't forgive, you will not be forgiven. But I do, sir, truly forgive you. Criminal law, you committed murder. You must pay a severe penalty. And in doing so, I hope you do that with honor, serve your sentence, whatever is handed down today. Do it with honor because it's shown through any of your therapists can tell you, if a parent would commit suicide, their children are apt to do the same. Don't put that on your children. Restore your honor. Serve your sentence. May justice be served and I will thank you in advance, Judge Friz- Frizzell, for ensuring that justice is in fact served. Thank you, sir, and thank the people of New Hampshire. May God bless you. All right, we'll step aside here, folks. Take a break. We'll have more on the sentencing hearing for Dustin Duren coming up. Plus, we have an update out of Massachusetts where the trial against Brian Walshe is coming to an end. Stay with us here on your front row seat to justice. The disappearance [music] of mother Ana Walshe. >> Her husband now charged with her murder. All eyes on this accused killer. Mr. Walshe was suspecting his wife of having an affair. The massive trail of evidence. This incredible timeline of Google searches. It shows everything that was in his [music] mind. >> He searched how long before a body starts to smell. The disappearance of Ana Walshe murder trial, live coverage >> [music] >> All right, before we get you back in the court, folks, let's turn quickly to Massachusetts where the murder trial against Brian Walshe is coming to a close. Attorneys are expected to give their closing arguments tomorrow beginning in the morning. Now, Walshe stands accused of killing and dismembering his wife, Anna, back on New Year's Eve day in 2023. Now, he told the court just earlier today that he will not be testifying in his own defense. Have you made a decision about whether you wish to testify at this trial? Yes, I have. And what is your decision? I will not testify. Now, no other defense witnesses were called, so the judge sent the jury home for the day, and the attorneys, they worked to finalize jury instructions. Again, we will bring you closing arguments in the Brian Walshe murder trial tomorrow morning right here, of course, on Court TV. All right, we're going to head back now to what New Hampshire, excuse me, where convicted killer Dustin Duren is being sentenced today in the Amber Alert murder trial. The 38-year-old father was found guilty earlier this year for fatally shooting his girlfriend, Kaitlin Nofsinger, before kidnapping their two young children. Now, we just heard several impact statements from friends and family of Dustin Duren. I want to get back into court now where the defense is This is a tragic case. [clears throat] And no sentence that the court can impose will undo this tragic situation or make Ms. Nofsinger's family whole. The court has a difficult task in imposing sentence and in balancing the aims of sentencing. As the court undertakes that difficult task, we ask the court to consider Mr. Duren's history and background, his service to our country, and how that service forever changed him. And we also ask that the court consider the particular circumstances and context of this case. Mr. Duren is respectfully requesting that the court impose a sentence of 25 years to life at the New Hampshire State Prison on one count of second-degree murder with additional suspended time on the reckless conduct and endangering counts. We ask that the court authorize that Mr. [clears throat] Duren can receive earned time reductions for completion of programming at the prison. And we further ask that Mr. Dor- Duren be ordered to comply with any Minnesota family court orders regarding contact As we discuss why the court should adopt our proposed sentence, I'm going to try not to rehash what's in our sentencing mem- memorandum. We'll start by first talking about the aims of sentencing. We'll then talk a little bit about Mr. Duren as a person. I'll address some of the points made in the state's sentencing memo and in his argument today. Several of Mr. Duren's friends and family will address the court, and attorney Kenny will read statements from some friends and family who are not here. We'll conclude by talking a little bit about the United States Supreme Court Starting first with the aims of sentencing. The defense's proposal balances the aims [clears throat] of sentencing, punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. 25 years in prison is punishment. It is decades of incarceration, decades without freedom or autonomy. It is a serious punishment for a serious crime. If the court imposes Mr. Duren's requested sentence, he will first be eligible for parole right around his 62nd birthday. He will miss his daughters' entire childhoods. He will miss their high school graduations, their college graduations, and their first jobs. He will not be present for many of the major milestones of their lives. He will not have the opportunity to spend time with his parents in their retirement, and he will miss the 25 years in prison will punish Mr. Duren for the crime for which he has been convicted. And it will forever change his life, but it will allow for a possibility of redemption, If the court imposed the state's recommended sentence, Mr. Duren would not be eligible for parole until he was about 82 years old. This is a de facto life sentence. The Social Security Administration publishes actuarial life tables, which provide statistical analysis of the average remaining number of years expected prior to death for a person. According to the Social Security's actuarial life tables, if the state's recommended sentence is imposed, we should expect that Mr. Duren will die in prison. The state's proposal is a de facto life sentence. And if the legislature was of the opinion that all of murder cases should result in life imprisonment, it would dictate mandatory life sentences for second-degree murder like it has for first-degree murder. The legislature has not imposed such a sentencing structure for second-degree murder cases, and there is no requirement that the court this court impose a sentence that functions as a life sentence, and this court should not impose a sentence that functions as a life sentence. I understand that the state attempted to do some different calculations related to parole dates, but I think that those dates that the state provided obfuscate the reality. The reality is that Mr. Duren will not be able He will not be eligible to earn the maximum amount of time off at the prison because many of the ways that you earn time off at the prison are for completing getting a GED, getting an associate's degree, getting certain certificates and education. And Mr. Duren already has those certificates. He's graduated from high school. He's a decorated military veteran. He has an associate's degree and other certificates in his field. And so he won't be eligible to earn that amount of time off. I also think the state's reliance on 651.20 uh to argue about the length of sentence the sentence that Mr. Duran would serve is not reliable. 651.20 is extraordinarily unlikely, extraordinarily rare, especially in a case of this type. And the state is not offering uh to not object to any such reduction in sentence. We have advised Mr. Duran, and Mr. Duran can expect and this court can expect that these numbers mean what they say. That 25 years is 25 years. That 45 years is dying in prison. And 25 years, Judge, as the sentencing comparison show, allow the aim of sentencing Turning next to deterrence, by ensuring that Mr. [clears throat] Duran has an additional suspended prison sentence hanging over his head, and that if he is paroled, he will be on parole for the rest of his life, this sentence will deter Mr. Duran from committing crimes in the future. He will know that if he commits a crime, he will be in prison longer or go back to prison. And this sentence will also act as a general deterrent for society at large. The message that Mr. Duran's proposed sentence sends is that if you are convicted of murder, you will spend decades in prison. In terms of rehabilitation, as I've said, the state's sentence calls for Mr. Duran to die in prison. That is not a sentence that allows for or supports rehabilitation. It is not a sentence that allows Mr. Duran to engage meaningfully with the rehabilitative programming that the prison has to offer with the aim of In contrast, the defense's proposed sentence furthers the goals of First, it allows him to earn some small amount of time off of his sentence by engaging in programming at the prison and by working to rehabilitate himself at the prison. And second, it furthers the aims of rehabilitation by allowing him hope. Hope that he will have some period of his life outside of the prison. Hope that he will be able to be reunited with his family outside the prison walls. Hope that if he works hard to rehabilitate himself, that hard work and that rehabilitation will pay off. And that he ought to take the time at the prison seriously because there's a chance The defense's proposed sentence meets the aims of sentencing in this Turning now to Mr. Duran himself, the court heard from Mr. Duran at trial and had the opportunity to review our sentencing memo and its attachments, including statements from some of Mr. Duran's loved ones. And what I hope those materials made clear is that Mr. Duran loves his children more than anything. His friends and family all reference, and I think both his initial statements to police and his testimony at trial both demonstrate that he is an incredibly loving father. That his children mean everything to him. And that his life forever changed and he gained purpose I'm going to play for the court a piece of music that Mr. Duran composed that reflects his unyielding love for his children. Mr. Duran is a musician, a composer, and an audio engineer. But for most of his life, Mr. Duran has felt that words have failed him, and he's preferred to express himself through music. He feels that music is the language of the soul. And he wrote a piece of orchestral music in 2021 about his feelings during Ms. Nasticos' pregnancy, the birth of their first child, and the first year of Elwen's life. This piece of music, which is entitled First Morning, is a tribute to the love that he feels for his family. It's exhibit A in case Attorney Excuse me, Attorney Kettles, before you begin, my understanding All right. As I get that to play that, let's bring in our guest uh with us, criminal defense attorney Joanna Nease. Joanna, you hear uh sort of the gist of the argument there. The one I want to discuss is this idea that um if he follows if the judge follows the state's recommendation of 45 years to life, we're talking about basically a life sentence for a second-degree murder conviction, which is not something that obviously the legislature would have considered or that wasn't the idea behind um that aspect of it. They say 25 to life is better, gives him a chance it it it establishes the punishment, the deterrence, and then rehab and an opportunity to rehab, but also gives him a chance for a life afterwards. What do I think that what they're trying to do is set this up so that the judge probably falls someplace in the middle. I mean, there are some very significant aggravating factors that the state has already raised in terms of like the fact that this happened in front of the children and um you know, the violent nature of the act. And you know, we are going to hear about his military service and you know, any mental health impairments or conditions he may have, but that might also be offset by the way he used his military service and training to carry out the crime and how he relied on the fact that his training as a marksman is kind of this instinctual act that um he he followed um in in killing Caitlyn. So, I think that what we're going to see is probably something a little higher than 25. I don't know that the court's going to go with the what the state has requested though. This is an interesting situation for the judge because there's also this charge of child endangerment, which under the circumstances can be added on to any sentence. When I think about this crime, the fact that they had the as far as I'm concerned, the audacity to argue that he loves his children, you don't love your children when you shoot their mother and you shoot her in front of a child. That doesn't That's not about the children, that's about you uh as far as I'm concerned. But at the end of the day, he can add on that child endangerment to whatever sentence he imposes. I think this is the kind of case that Yes, he can add it on. It can be consecutive to the second-degree murder conviction, and I do think that the defense is just trying to uh re play out and for for the judge the considerations that were going through her client's mind at the time, right? Like I love my kids, I want to be with my kids, I've got to protect my kids, and that's what they postured during the trial. And so you see that kind of re-manifesting here at sentencing. But I don't disagree that this is traumatizing for a child to you know, have seen this, remember it, even reenacted according to one of the victim impact statements, the child has talked about what happened in front of her, and I think that that is really going to be impactful for the court when considering what to do. Yeah, again, all those other mitigating factors taken into account, the way he did it still creates real real serious considerations for this judge. All right, Joanna, stand by. We're going to take a break here. When we come back, we'll have more sentencing uh more of that sentencing hearing for Dustin Duran. So, keep it here on Court >> Welcome back to Court TV Live. I'm Michael Ayala. Let's head back now to the Hampshire for more of today's sentencing hearing for Dustin Duren. Duren was convicted back in October of murdering the mother of his children, Kaitlyn Nofziger. And investigators say that Duren then took off with the couple's two children prompting prompting an Amber Alert. Let's head back into the courtroom now. The defense attorney is addressing the court and asking the judge for leniency. mitigation report that details Mr. Duren's military service and why it calls [clears throat] for leniency in sentencing. We also submitted a report from Dr. Pittman that offers an opinion on the way that Mr. Duren's service-connected PTSD impacted his actions and his decision-making on February 29th of 2024. When the court imposes sentence, we ask the court to keep in mind that Mr. Duren at a very young age stood up and volunteered to serve his country. That he served his country with honor and distinction, including service in Iraq. And that he will forever bear the psychological scars that his military service caused. The Veterans Administration has found that Mr. Duren has an 80% disability rating, meaning that he was 80% disabled as a result of his military service, and 70% total of which is from his service-connected PTSD. And I won't uh go into too much more detail about his military service because it is covered in the military The next slide that I'm showing to the court shows photographs of Mr. Duren at various stages in his life with a number of friends and colleagues. Several of these photos show Mr. Duren at the Hollywood American Legion where he worked as an events technician and an audio engineer. While employed there, Mr. Duren hosted a charity event for Battle Buddies, one of just numerous ways in which he was connected with veteran service organizations after his honorable discharge from the Marines. Other photos on this slide show Mr. Duren performing. And the group photo at the bottom left is from Merging Vets and Players, a nonprofit veteran support organization with which Mr. Duren was extensively involved. The next couple of slides, Judge, show Mr. Duren in the role that he loves most, And this exhibit ends with a photo of We are all more than the worst thing that we have ever done. We are all more than one day and one action. In imposing a sentence, we ask the court to consider Mr. Duren as a whole person, a person who is capable of redemption Turning to the state's sentencing The state attempted to characterize the events in this case in a certain way in its sentencing memorandum. To insist that Mr. Duren acted out of anger control. We don't agree with the state's interpretation of why this happened. The court heard Mr. Duren's testimony that Mr. Duren reacted when he heard his child scream. And the court should credit that testimony. We acknowledge that the jury found that Mr. Duren's actions were not justified under the law, but that does not mean that the state's assertions about Mr. Duren's motives or mental state are true. They are not. We ask that the court consider the context of this case, the context that led to the court instructing the jury on defense of others We also ask that the court consider the connection between Mr. Duren's PTSD and the events of this case. The state said in its memo that there is no connection between Mr. Duren's PTSD and this case. And I think they said in their argument that he didn't say rely on PTSD at trial, and so the court can't rely on it now. But that statement is incorrect and it's wrong, and I think again it it it [clears throat] doesn't cover the reality of why and how we ended up presenting the evidence that we did at trial. There was extensive pretrial litigation that the state initiated focused on the admissibility of Dr. Pittman's testimony And the rulings that the court made have an impact in how someone chooses to go forward. I think the state's argument that because we didn't rely on or explain the connection between PTSD and the events of this case at trial is legally incorrect. It's burden shifting. It's punishing Mr. Duren for exercising his constitutional rights, and the state fought hard to prevent us from presenting Dr. Pittman's testimony. And so it cannot and should not use the fact that we were unable to present Dr. Pittman's full testimony against Mr. Duren now. The court can and should consider Dr. Pittman's testimony and I'm I I apologize, his expert report when determining what sentence to impose. That report has been submitted with our sentencing memorandum. There's an opinion from an expert, a highly trained and qualified doctor, himself a veteran, who works at Harvard Medical Center and Mass General, that outlines the links between Mr. Duren's PTSD and this case. And the court can and should consider this as extensive mitigation information All right, let's bring back in our guest uh with us, criminal defense attorney Joanna Nieves. Joanna, interesting dilemma there for the judge. As you mentioned earlier, part of his when he testified in front of the jury and the judge, he used his military service as part of a justification that it sort of again, as you said, moved him into this extinguishable space. We also did hear about a little bit about PTSD, although you just heard the argument and this in fact happened. They were precluded from bringing in an expert to talk about what role PTSD might have played in this crime. So, the question for you is they're asking the judge to consider it now. The judge heard his testimony. His testimony was rejected by the jury. Does Yes, absolutely. The you know, any mental health impairment that he might have or any diagnosis come in for the judge's consideration. You know, it's not testimony that the jury got to hear, but we can't shy away from or pretend that the fact that he is diagnosed with PTSD and has an 80% disability that that doesn't exist. And so, the judge will be able to see that. How much credence and you know, reliance he puts on that is up to his discretion. I think what we're really going to you know, in my opinion what the judge will really be focused in on is remorse. Where is that in the arguments that the defense is making right now? Are we going to hear more about that? Because we've we've heard about the military experience and the PTSD in layers and he's going to read the reports. But one thing we haven't heard about yet is where does Duran stand on his remorse? And where does that remorse come from, right? Because one of the things that was argued by a number of the victims was that his aggressive defense claiming that he uh the children were going to be kidnapped by the victim and that's what spurred him to act really affected them negatively. The fact that he hasn't taken, at least in their eyes, full responsibility for this. Does he in fact now need to get up and say something to that effect? I think there's a space where he could make a statement um and be remorseful without backtracking on whatever his defense was cuz I guess appeals are still a concern for him as well. Of course. And I really think it boils down on self-reflection. You know, there there is a space where these victims, you know, the victim impact statements, although they don't determine sentencing, it talks about and the harm that people have experienced and the impact that it's had on the community and the community interest in what happens. And a defendant can take that into consideration and say, you know what? Now I understand how my actions have impacted others and impacted my children. And this happened in front of my child. And even though I love my children, here is the the long-lasting impacts that can occur because of it and that's not what I intended. I had a different intent. This was my understanding, my my perspective and perception of the situation and how I acted, but I'm sorry for all the people that I've hurt. Um and I think it would really humanize him if we heard something like that come from him. All right. We'll continue to watch and see if we do hear from Dustin Duran. All right. You want to stand by. We're going to take a break. When we come back, we're going to bring you more from that sentencing hearing for that convicted [music] killer Dustin Duran. And also, folks, do not forget we're also keeping a close watch on Utah in that motion hearing for Tyler Robinson. As soon as they come back from that [music] closed portion of that hearing, we're going to take you back into court. The disappearance [music] of Ana Walsh. Her husband now charged with her murder. All eyes on this accused killer. The disappearance of Ana Walsh murder trial, live coverage today on Court TV. Tonight on closing arguments, will safety concerns Trump public access in the Charlie Kirk [music] assassination case. We'll bring you the latest developments from today's big hearing. Closing arguments, tonight at 8:00 7:00 >> [music] >> Back to court in just a minute, but first an update out of Ohio in the drowned wife murder trial. Defendant Paul Hicks is accused of rendering his wife Regina Hicks unconscious before putting her into a car and drowning her nearly 25 years ago. Earlier today, the jury heard from Roger Whitestone who recalled the day he and his father discovered the victim's car in a nearby pond. But you knew whose car was pulled up to the back, is that correct? No, I was in the truck. It was I was driving. You know, it was over the bank. Dad was, you know, my strap was 30 ft plus my chains. I was almost up by the road you know, or the driveway when I was pulling. So, I I couldn't see. And my dad started having a heart attack and I went back there and Yeah. Okay. But when you joined him by the did you realize Oh, yeah. It was obvious. Okay. Trunk lid was open and it was obviously a car. Okay. Did anything come out of Um Yeah. There was some I don't know, clothes. Like you know, there was a bunch of stuff floating in the pond, you know. Obviously clothes. It looked like somebody went shopping. We'll continue to bring you updates on that trial throughout the day. All right. We're going to head back to New Hampshire now, folks, where a sentencing hearing is underway this afternoon for Dustin Duran. Now, back in October, a jury found Duran guilty of murder in the shooting death of the mother of his children, Katelyn Naugler. After the fatal shooting, Duran set off on an set off an Amber Alert when he drove off with their two kids. So, let's head back into the courtroom now where Duran's Duran's defense attorney is making a case for leniency. Finally, the state claims that Mr. Duran has shown no remorse and has not demonstrated responsibility for his actions. And we would contest that claim as well. A decision to exercise one's constitutional right to go to trial is not a lack of remorse or responsibility. And a person should not be punished for exercising their constitutional rights. Including the right to go to trial and to hold the state to its burden of proof. And contrary to the state's assertions, Mr. Duren is deeply remorseful that He testified about how horrible he felt at trial. And you will hear from witnesses who discuss Mr. Duren's devastation Mr. Duren has never denied that he killed Ms. Nascarella. He called his parents and told them, knowing that they would call the police. He waived his Miranda rights and told the police what had happened. He testified at trial about what had happened. He has never denied what has happened. Turning to sentence comparisons, as both sides have acknowledged, every case is different, every person is different. Both sides can point to cases where the sentences imposed were similar to the sentences that they were requesting in this case, or try to distinguish this case from sentencing comparisons that were provided. With those caveats, I'm not going to go through the state's sentencing comparisons one by one and explain how they're different. I think you can see that in the state sentencing memorandum. But I do just want to note for the court that there are some reasons that the sentence that Jesse Sullivan received is not an appropriate sentence for the court to consider. And attorney at Kinney and I have ethical obligations that prevent us from saying more, but attorney Duren represented the state on the case and is aware of the irregularity in that case and how that particular sentence was reached. I'd also like to highlight two of the cases in our memo, Tyrese Harris and Both are cases in which the jury was instructed on both self-defense and manslaughter, but ultimately the defendant was convicted of second-degree murder. Neither of those defendants was a veteran with service-connected PTSD, service-connected PTSD that an expert has opined played a role in the events Mr. Sleeper had a prior criminal record, unlike Mr. Duren, who has no criminal record. And both the Harris and Sleeper cases are cases in which the defendant was sentenced to 25 years to life after trial. The sentences that those defendants received are the same as the sentence we asked the court to impose, and they demonstrate that the sentence the defense is requesting is a proportionate Judge, we'd like to give the opportunity for some of Dustin's friends and family the opportunity to speak. We submitted multiple letters along with our sentencing memo, and there are additional letters we've received since submitting our sentencing memo that have been uploaded to Case Lines. Attorney Kinney will read those letters, but I'd also ask that the court accept as exhibits all of the documents and materials that have been filed in Case Lines for this hearing, just for the purposes of making sure we have a a complete and accurate record. Attorney, may we approach? Certainly. >> [clears throat] >> All right. So now it looks like they're going to read on to the record some letters that they want the judge to hear. Let's bring in criminal defense attorney Joanna Nieves. Joanna, we're at the point now where the judge is ultimately going to have to make a decision. I do want to point out one thing. One of the arguments made by the state regarding that 25-year-to-life recommendation by the defense is that he would be eligible for parole under the rules in 11 years. What the defense argued was the things that would make him eligible in that short amount of period of time are not really available to him. Things like getting a GED, things that, you know, he's already got those things. So it does it the time that they're talking about doesn't really apply here. Is that something the judge is going to consider? I don't necessarily think that it'll hold much weight in terms of, you know, the totality of what the judge is considering. I think it is a factor that, you know, there is this misalignment in the sentencing credits that could be applied and how soon he may be able to be eligible for parole, but I think in the grand scheme of things, we're talking um big numbers, and I think that the judge is going to in in impose a sentence that is above the 25-to-life range that they're asking for. One of the things that she touched on was like these other cases that where the sentence imposed was 25 to life and they had far more, you know, egregious criminal histories or far more egregious circumstances. Um uh my question would be whether or not there were children involved who were actually witnesses and endangered by the crime. Exactly. Whether that circumstance is more egregious, I think these were pretty egregious to and of themselves. All right, Joanna Nieves, thank you so much for joining me this hour. Truly appreciate it. Folks, stick around because coming up next, Judge Ashley Willcott will be joining me for more of that sentencing hearing for Dustin Duren. >> [music] >> So stay with us. We'll be right back Welcome back to Court TV Live. I'm Ashley Willcott. >> And I'm Michael Ayala. We're both here today giving you your front-row seat to justice, and we are in New Hampshire, where convicted [music] killer Dustin Duren is being sentenced today in the Amber Alert murder trial. >> The 38-year-old father was found [music] guilty just earlier this year for fatally shooting his girlfriend, Kaitlin Nofsiger, before kidnapping their two young children. [music] Thanks to an Amber Alert, police eventually located Duren driving with his two young daughters, who were unharmed. >> But Duren took the stand during the trial, where he claimed he shot in self-defense after Nofsiger threatened to kidnap the kids [music] unless he agreed to pay her money that he didn't have. >> Now, earlier today, we heard from family and friends of Kaitlin, the victim in this case. Now, we're going to hear from Duren's relatives. I want to get you back into court, where his cousin, Susan Chin, is speaking to the court. Chin, and I am Dustin Duren's cousin. I have known Dustin my entire life, that being 37 years. I would consider Dustin to be one of my closest cousins. Dustin and I grew up camping together with our families, attending holiday events together, and as adults, meeting up whenever I was in Las Vegas, so our children could play together, and we could catch up. I am aware of the crime that Dustin has committed. Dustin was raised to be a very well-rounded and respectful person. Dustin is extremely intelligent, a very kind and loving person, a hard worker who followed his dreams, and over everything is an amazing, loving, and caring father. Dustin followed his dreams out to Las Vegas. Once Dustin became a father, being a father was absolutely everything he wanted and needed in his life. Dustin was someone you could call whenever you needed advice, to be picked up, cheered up, or just a little motivation. Dustin did everything in his life to provide the absolute best life for his daughters. Dustin's sentencing would greatly impact his relationship with his daughters, and also our family dynamic. We cannot fathom living the rest of our lives not being able to see him be the amazing father that he has been to those girls. It would also devastate our family to not be able to spend holidays with him or vacations with him ever again. It would be detrimental to our family if he was sentenced harshly. We pray that you can sympathize with Dustin and his family during this extremely difficult time. We are asking for leniency, so someday Dustin and his beautiful daughters will be reunited, and he will be granted another chance to be their everything. To be able to give Dustin the opportunity to see his girls graduate high school, go to prom, graduate college, get married, and hopefully one day be a grandfather to their babies would be the ultimate blessing for not only Dustin, but our entire family. We all want nothing more than to see that happen. I appreciate your time reading this, and I am willing to give you more information about my relationship with Dustin or his character. Please feel free to reach out to me at any time with any questions. Thank you so much. Dear Honorable Judge Frizell, I am writing this letter for leniency regarding Dustin Duren. My name is Devon Gomez, and I served with Dustin in the United States Marine Corps from 2005 to 2009. Upon hearing what a heinous crime he had committed, I could scarcely believe the charges. Second-degree murder of his significant other, Kaitlin Nofsiger. What a horrible shame, I thought. This hardly seems becoming of the honorable, humble, humorous, and happy Marine Iraqi War veteran that I knew and so proudly served with. To my dismay and disbelief, through watching the trial, I sunk to find that the unfath- unfathomable news was in fact confirmed. This troubles me deeply because Duren was an exemplary figure to look up to and work with while serving. Always great with mentoring, first to lend a hand and lead by example, talented with a gift for music that he would often demonstrate at gatherings that would uplift his comrades. He continued living an honorable life, clean record, loving family, till he was nearly 40. Then one inexcusable and dreadful moment will lead to the ruin of an otherwise distinguished and well-to-do man. I believe if this dreadful occurrence could happen to Dustin, then it could happen to anybody. It pains me that this one moment of darkness and mental deterioration will lead to a long, if not life, imprisonment for my good friend and otherwise good man. Yeah, I know that to take a life is truly the most evil and justifiably punishable crimes, even though in the Marines, command encouraged us to be ready killers should the need to defend our country and those we love should arise. Punishment should should be handed to anyone who recklessly takes the life of another. But is justice an eye for an eye? Does it require to take his life through imprisonment to justify the life he took? This takes somebody of high regard and honorable motives, such as yourself, to decide upon sentencing. I personally believe that to rot in prison is a far worse punishment than death. I also believe that given the chance and hope that there will be time to reconcile after punishment, Dustin would be able to spend much of his remaining time helping and inspiring those around him, as he did in his first 38 years of life. I hope that there is a small chance of a lighter sentence for Dustin Duren. Writing this letter is the least I could do for my brother in arms. I certainly wish I could do more, because I know he would do all in his power for me. One irrevocable moment in life should not condemn us to the worst punishment. Dustin is not a violent man with a murderous intent. He was a shining example of patriotism, voluntarily standing proud to protect Americans' freedom in a time of war, until one disastrous moment, fueled by his confirmed wartime-related PTSD, caused him to do the unthinkable and lose his freedom. Thank you very much for your time, Your Honor. I wish you the best in life and decisions that weigh heavily on your shoulders. Respectfully, Devon R. Gomez. >> [clears throat] Dear Judge Frizell, thank you for taking the time to read this letter. My name is Timothy Duren, and I am the uncle of Dustin Duren, who is before you for sentencing. I write with full respect for this court and full awareness of the gravity of the offense. I am not attempting to diminish the seriousness of what occurred. Instead, I hope to to provide insight into Dustin as a person beyond this tragic situation, and to respectfully ask this the court to consider some measure of leniency. I have known Duren I have known Dustin his entire life. Despite the circumstances that bring him before you, I have always known him to be someone capable of kindness, loyalty, and responsibility. What has stood out most throughout his difficult time is the deep remorse he has expressed. From every conversation, it it is clear that he carries profound regret for his actions and the impact impact they have had on everyone involved. Since his arrest, Dustin has taken meaningful steps to address his behavior and rebuild himself in a healthier direction. He has engaged in counseling and has shown a genuine desire to understand the root of his actions and to take accountability for them. I believe these efforts reflect a sincere commitment to change. One of the most important parts of Dustin's life has always been his children. He loves them deeply and has remained dedicated to them even through this difficult period. I know that being separated from them has weighed heavily on him and has motivated him to better himself so that he can one day be the father they deserve. His children are young and still need their father's presence, guidance, and support in whatever capacity the court ultimately allows. Your Honor, I respectfully ask that you consider a sentence that recognizes Dustin's ability and his desire to continue the hard work of rehabilitation. I am not asking the court to overlook the seriousness of the offense, only to take into account his remorse, his efforts towards self-improvement, and the important role he still hopes to play in his children's lives. Thank you again for your time, your consideration, and your service to justice. Respectfully, Timothy Duren. We're now going to ask a few of Dustin's friends >> Let's welcome in our guest for this hour, joining us former prosecutor and constitutional attorney, Chris Anne Hall. Chris Anne, great to see you. Thank you so much for joining us here on the program, and I want to get your overall thoughts on the arguments being made here by the defense, but in particular, one of the things they're asking is to consider the children, right? Now, he made them basically orphans at this point by committing this crime, but they're saying, "Look, give them the opportunity to have a father in their life in some meaningful way." Is that something under these circumstances the judge should consider? Well, this is a very difficult case. Let us remember that there were no adult witnesses when this happened, and there's really no way for us to really know what happened in that room that day. And we know that the defendant had some serious problems, and this may be the most difficult burden that any judge has to carry. And this is why due process always includes this part, the testimony on behalf of the defendant and even on behalf of the victims. And we have to have judges that have wisdom and knowledge, but also a compassion. A compassion that gives justice to the victims, but also understands the brokenness that brought everybody into this courtroom. And these are decisions that take long-term consequences, right? What do we do about this? I I have to tell you, as a former prosecutor, I was always someone who wanted to really encourage the opportunity for um recovery, for recidivism, and uh for the someone to come into knowledge and love of their families. This is something that the whole family has to recover through. So, the question about the children is very, very important. And the judge will have to consider what will these children want in the future and how can we know? And I think this is a very distinct case because we do have evidence that the defendant had PTSD and had his own brokenness problems that have to be taken into consideration. But I have to say this. So, as [clears throat] letters of leniency, number one, I would argue the kids when they're older, they could make a choice if they want to develop the relationship with the father. Just because [clears throat] he's in jail doesn't mean or in prison, doesn't mean they couldn't choose to see him. So, they could still see him. But number two, you know, for instance, Devon Gomez, his friend who was in the Marine Corps with him for 4 years, I believe, was shocked. He couldn't believe that he had done this. I'm not sure some of this shock and can't believe he did this. And one of the others said, "He's an amazing father." Maybe he was at one time, but I don't know that the shock and what he used to be necessarily mean that he should get get a lenient sentence. >> [snorts] >> I don't know that I I think there's a degree of leniency that that can be struck that still serves justice for the victims and takes into consideration the broken nature of the defendant. We talk all the time about how many defendants are often victims of drug abuse and victims of of life circumstances that they don't have control over. In this case, PTSD, we still know very little about it. And because he is diagnosed and because this is a situation that involved a trigger point, a possible trigger point for this PTSD, I think that that's something the judge really has to take into consideration. He needs rehabilitation. Now, I'm not arguing that he should serve a lesser sentence, but I do believe that there should be some type of leniency that should be offered to him in his own condition. Yeah, that's fair because again, you talk about, you know, him having a certain type of character. Um you would think character involves self-control. But again, if it's the PTSD though that's pulling him out of that character, I think you have to consider that. >> I agree with you and I think the judge is going to balance all of these things as we're kind of picking apart each side. The judge has a pretty big decision in this case. I think it a tough one. Coming up next, we will bring you more from the sentencing hearing for convicted killer Dustin Duren. Also ahead, folks, we're going to go back to Utah. Right now, the closed session is still underway in that motion hearing for Taylor Robinson. As soon as that's over and the judge allows cameras back [music] in for other arguments, we're going to take you there live. Keep it The disappearance of Ana Walsh. Her husband now charged with her murder. >> All eyes on this accused killer. The disappearance of Ana Walsh murder trial, live coverage today on Court TV. Tonight on Closing Arguments, will safety concerns Trump public access in the Charlie Kirk assassination case. We'll bring you the latest developments from today's big hearing. Closing Arguments, tonight at 8:00 7:00 Central, Before we get you back into court, let's quickly turn to Massachusetts where the murder trial against Brian Walsh is coming to a close. Attorneys are expected to give their closing arguments tomorrow beginning at 9:00 a.m. Now, Walsh stands accused of killing and dismembering his wife, Ana, back on New Year's Eve on 2023. Now, he told the court just earlier today that he will not be testifying in his own defense. Have you made a decision about whether you wish to testify at this trial? Yes, I have. And what is your decision? I will not testify. No other defense witnesses were called, so the judge sent the jury home for the day as the attorneys finalized jury instructions. Of course, Court TV will bring you closing arguments in the Brian Walsh murder trial tomorrow morning right here on Court TV. All right, back now to New Hampshire, folks, where convicted killer Dustin Duren is being sentenced today in the Amber Alert murder trial. The 38-year-old father was found guilty earlier this year for fatally shooting his girlfriend, Kaitlin Nofsiger, before kidnapping their two young children. >> Let's get you back into court now where Duren's pastor has taken the stand for a leniency letter in the defense of this convicted killer. Let's go in. Yes, sir. My name is Justin Weeberg, w e b e r g. I'm on 20th year of pastoring Community Baptist Church in Colebrook, New Hampshire, and for about 15 of those years I've had the privilege of volunteering at the Coos County Jail holding Bible studies and offering biblical counseling to inmates as requested. I first met Dustin on May 30th of 2024. Due to the nature of his physical and emotional state, the jail contacted me and requested a visit on his behalf. The jail has allowed me to visit Dustin twice a week and has permitted about 2 hours per visit. Over the 200 plus hours that I have spent with Dustin, he has been respectful, honest, and teachable in every area that we have discussed. As I listened to his story and what he chose to share with me, I sought to engage him where he was at while bringing a perspective based on and oriented to God's word. He has been most open and transparent with me and has demonstrated himself to be forthright even when the truth or his thoughts would cast him in a negative light. He has not been afraid to disagree with me or to push back when his views differed from mine, but has always done so in a respectful manner. He is quick to listen and slow to speak. He is consistently pensive and thoughtful in his communication and is not in his not one to respond with haste or void of due consideration. Dustin [clears throat] consistently listens without interruption, receives instruction well, and accepts correction with grace and humility. In our very first meeting, Dustin shared with me the tragic details that occurred on the evening of February 29th, 2024. What he shared in private was consistent with what he testified on on the stand in this courtroom. Because the trial was conducted to determine whether or not his actions met the criteria for murder in the second degree, it would be easy to presume that Dustin was seeking to avoid taking responsibility for his actions and attempting to escape any consequences that would follow if convicted. Such is not the case. I have spoken at great length with Dustin about his actions and responses and have witnessed him wrestle through the process of dealing with guilt and repentance. I have observed his grief and heard him articulate his regret and desire to relive those tragic moments. I have heard him express his concern for Caitlyn's family and accept with understanding why they would feel profound anger toward him. I have listened as he empathized indirectly with them and was pleased when he stated that he prays for Caitlyn's family. This leads me to the heart of who Dustin is and has become. Contrary to what many may think or feel about Dustin, he is not a monster. He is a broken and sinful human being who needs God's saving grace, unconditional love, undeserved forgiveness, and compassionate healing just like the rest of us. Dustin has found each of these things and more in the person of Jesus Christ. When we met, he was an agnostic, one who it does not know if God exists or if he does is not sure that God can be known. He was not a quick convert and did not turn to Christ lightly. His pursuit of God was not a selfish or desperate attempt to bargain, bribe, or manipulate God to act favorably towards him in order to get him out of this crisis. While Dustin has maintained that he did not shoot Caitlyn out of anger, rage, control, or other selfish reasons, he has articulated that he feels guilty nonetheless for taking her life. His brain told him that there was a threat to Eloin's well-being and safety, yet he has consistently acknowledged that it was an exaggerated response and honestly believes that it was generated by his unhealthy emotional interdependence upon Eloin and carried out in automatic reflex fashion due to his military training. Dustin regrets this. He feels guilty for not recognizing and handling the situation differently. This guilt and his inability to care for his daughters is what overwhelmed Dustin causing the staff at the jail to contact me. After over a year of meeting with Dustin twice a week, I can confidently say that he has not turned to Christ to escape his guilt and to avoid any consequences for his choices or responses. In reality, the opposite is true. Dustin came to Christ to face his guilt. He has dealt with it before God and desires to do right by his savior, his girls, his family, and yes, even Caitlyn's family. Dustin's greatest desire is to raise his girls to know and fear God. He longs to help guide and shape their character and to be able to help them avoid some of the mistakes he's made and experienced. He desires to equip them to think biblically and to conduct themselves wisely, to love and serve without regret. He has surrendered to God and is committed to serve him in whatever way he believes God wants him to serve. My final thought is this. God is a God of righteousness and justice. He commands kings, rulers, judges, and even the common man to act justly. Yet he is a God of mercy and multiple chances. In fact, Jesus stated that God loves mercy rather than sacrifice. While God desires that justice be served, he desires that it be meted out with mercy and compassion. His heart is always towards reconciliation and restoration. Is this not the theme and story of the Bible? Jesus went to the cross to offer mankind mercy instead of God's justice that we all deserve. We see God himself rendering justice >> [snorts] >> Mhm. >> We're going back on the record in case 251403576, State of Utah versus Tyler James Robinson. I note the presence of counsel that previously entered their appearances. Uh we have come out of the closed session and uh concluded that business. However, uh the court became aware of And my understanding was during the open uh portion of this hearing earlier that there was a violation of the standing decorum order as it relates to transmission of these proceedings. I I want to hear from counsel and and then I will make a ruling of concerning that uh shortly thereafter. Ms. Visser. Thank you, Your Honor. Um I'm referring specifically to rule of Um this gives the court discretion to terminate or suspend electronic media coverage at any time without prior notice if the judge makes particular findings and that the specific circumstances warrant it. Um it is our position, the defense position, that there has been a violation of the decorum order. It is our understanding that those livestreaming this uh signed and declared that they would follow the decorum order and they violated it. So, we are requesting a sanction. We believe these court's orders are binding and they need to be respected. Um we also believe that it threatens my client's right to a fair trial. It's the whole reason we filed a motion in the first place to remove his shackles. It's our understanding that his shackles are visible. It is also our understanding that potentially some audio from counsel table was heard. Um we are definitely taking more measures on our own to ensure that that does not happen again, but there has also been some filming of computers and materials at counsel's desk. That's entirely inappropriate and I think everybody in this room will agree that's entirely inappropriate. So, we are asking for some remedial measures here. We're asking for it to terminate for today. Um and we can proceed after that. Thank you, Ms. Visser. To the state. Your Honor, uh the state, as stated earlier, we uh believe that the court's order was very clear and uh if there's been a violation of that order, then we agree that there needs to be some measure taken. Um we'll leave it to the court to decide the appropriate response to that violation, but we agree that any violation of the court's order needs to be addressed. Thank you, Mr. Ballard. Your Honor, Jeff Hunt for the media interveners. This is the first time that we've heard about the violation. We've not had an opportunity to look at the video or investigate the audio or look at the the capture of the computers, but filming of the uh the inadvertent filming of the shackles, I did talk to the pool photographer. My understanding is that there was a zoom out shot that did inadvertently uh show the shackles. That was improper. Uh that was inadvertent. Um we apologize for that. Um they've taken measures to make sure that the pool video that is disseminated to the rest of the pool does not contain any capture of the defendant in the shackles. Um we can't do anything about the livestream, of course, but we can control what the rest of the video is that we capture and disseminate. So, that is being done. The audio for counsel, my understanding is the only audio that they picked up was from counsel's microphones. I don't have any further information about that and whether that's a violation. Filming of the computers is not a violation of the decorum order if you if the if the capture can show the document that counsel is looking at, then that is a potential violation. So, I just don't know how much detail the shot is that that is the of concern to the court, but I'll just I'll just say that we reiterated as soon as I heard this from Mr. Ballard with the pool representatives that this is very important to follow to the letter the court's EMC order. They understand their obligations. They take that very seriously. They're not perfect. Mistakes happen. We're trying to correct as much as we can on that, but we think termination is not an appropriate remedy. An admonishment from this court a reminder that they need to follow to the letter the court's EMC order is appropriate. That's the message that counsel has delivered to the media representatives and and the pool operatives, and we think that is the appropriate remedy. Thank you. Thank you. I just want to make it clear. We're still receiving messages that shackles can be seen on the live stream as we restarted it. So, it's still a problem. Thank you. I appreciate all parties weighing in on this important matter. And I I find that there was a violation of the standing decorum order that was in effect as of October 30th, 2025 based off what's been proffered as well as the EMC order signed by the court. As previously stated by Ms. Visser, the court does have discretion in determining whether to terminate the broadcast of these proceedings. And again, if there are specific circumstances warrant such action that the court would need to make findings in order to do so. I find that excluding the court the cameras from the courtroom would be disproportionate for this hearing. I find that giving uh making it very clear first that the transmission cannot begin until court is in session and must end before as the court ends the session and cannot be filmed before or after. The filming of as previously stated in the decorum order, the EMC must be followed to the letter. The sanction for today is that this quick camera will be relocated away from defense table to uh to where the bailiff is Mr. Jeff where Jeff is standing over here. I want to immediately address any possible transmission of shackles as previously stated by counsel and uh remove the possibility of capture of screens of the computers at defense counsel's table as well. In addition, if there is further violations of the standing decorum order, this court does have the right and will exercise termination of broadcast of these proceedings. And and I I simply want to put all parties on notice to the press, to all parties that this court takes this very seriously. While the court believes in openness and transparency, it needs to be balanced with the constitutional rights of all parties in this case. As such, we will take a brief recess to allow the relocation of the camera and to the place indicated by the bailiff, and then we will resume these court proceedings. I am anticipating this take perhaps 5 minutes. Probably less. All right. And then we'll come back on the record and handle the remaining of this hearing. I appreciate the patience of parties as we move forward. We are >> [snorts] >> Please be seated. Court is now in session. All right. And of course I'm looking for my notes and they've disappeared, but that's okay. >> [laughter] All right. Let's go ahead and address the state's motion to amend or clarify the publicity order. And I'll hear from all parties and I've know that I know that it has been briefed but in responses, but I'll hear brief argument and then we can go from there. Thank you, Your Honor. Uh with respect to this motion I guess we've expressed in the past we all everyone in this room shares the same goal and that is to ensure that there's a fair trial that happens in this case. And we recognize that the court's uh pre-trial publicity order was is intended to further that goal. And again as I've stated before, the state plans to try this case once. Um the state is also committed to complying with its ethic ethical duties with respect to pre-trial publicity. We have complied with those duties. We will continue to comply with those duties. Um the the issue we bring before the court here is that there's one portion of the pre-trial publicity order that can be interpreted to reach beyond those ethical requirements and um what and have the effect of being what would be an unlawful order, an unlawful prior restraint on speech. And our goal therefore is to get an order that's clear that's lawful and that the state has the ability to comply with. And the issue with the order that the state has is the use of the term witnesses in the order. Um we believe that term's vague and ambiguous. Does it mean anyone with relevant information about this case? Does it just mean uh those people that are going to be subpoenaed to testify in this case? Or is it limited to just the prosecution team? And I think as we've expressed in our um filings we believe that the court intended that that term just be limited to the prosecution team because that is the way that rule 3.8 reads. Rule 3.8 uh of the rules of professional conduct that deals specifically with requirements for prosecutors um talks about investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees, or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor. It So in other words, the prosecution team. And there's no rule or case law or statute that expands the prosecution's duties beyond um that group, the prosecution team. So um with respect to clarity we're seeking clarity as to what exactly does the court mean by witnesses? And we think the court just means the prosecution team because if the that term stretches beyond just the prosecution team, then the order as written uh we don't believe is a a valid and lawful order because it would result in a prior restraint on certain speech and at the very least would have a chilling effect on that speech. Um if the the prosecution agrees that we have an ethical duty to take reasonable measures to make sure that those who are identified with the prosecution team are alerted to the requirements of the court's order and to make sure that they do not make a statement that the prosecutors themselves would not be able to make a public statement. Um but if the order extends beyond that, then we have concerns because a prior restraint is an order that forbids certain communications in advance of the time that they are to occur. And uh as the court of appeals has recognized, the Utah Court of Appeals has recognized in State versus L.M. And widespread publicity in a case does not itself justify a prior restraint. The as um the United States Supreme Court has recognized in Nebraska Press Association there there's no justification for a prior restraint unless it's clear that the the further further publicity unchecked would so distort the views of potential jurors that you couldn't find 12 jurors who could be fair and impartial. That's the high standard that applies in this case. And so in order to apply a prior restraint to persons beyond the prosecution team, the court would need would need to engage in a very detailed and demanding analysis. The court would have to make a factual finding of necessity that the speech that would be restrained poses a risk of material prejudice to the ongoing judicial proceedings. The court would need to make findings that there are no less restrictive measures and that the prohibitions are likely to prevent the uh potential prejudice and that whatever prohibitions this court decides on are very narrowly tailored. And uh as the state has explained, the Spencer versus State case from the Arkansas Supreme Court that just issued earlier this year is very helpful I think on this issue in explaining um the analysis that applies to various different people that might be associated with a criminal case. You have attorneys. Uh that category uh of partic trial participants certainly the court has uh the highest degree of um ability to be able to restrain that the speech of attorneys and in fact as I've expressed, the um ethical rules require that. But when it comes to trial participants like witnesses, uh the standards are more demanding as far as restricting the speech of trial participants. And as um spent the Spencer case pointed out, non-attorney trial participants the court can impose a restraint on their speech only to the extent that the the court first finds that any speech by those non-attorney trial participants poses a serious and imminent threat of material prejudice to the ongoing proceeding. And I think the court also needs to note that uh there are there are several people associated with this case who have um very significant interests in exercising their First Amendment rights in talking about how this case has affected them. And of course um can't say that someone's one person's First Amendment right is more important than another person's, but there are certainly some people here who have a larger uh some people involved who have a larger um or a greater interest in in speaking than others. And so I think the court needs to take that into consideration if this order is meant to apply beyond just the prosecution team. And then finally um as far as making the order so we need a a clear order, we need a lawful order, and then we need an order that the state can actually comply with. And the state recognizes that there are serious sanctions that this court can impose for violations of a court order as we've just seen. And so we want to avoid these. We want to avoid the litigation over whether there's been a a violation of the order. And as it stands right now, we don't believe that there will be any issues if the court limits the term witnesses to just the prosecution team. We can comply with that order. Um it gets more difficult for the state if that if the term witnesses then applies even broader um at this stage of the litigation for the state to be able to comply with that order depending on how the court clarifies what witnesses mean. Um Does the court have any questions for the state? No, thank you. Okay, Mr. Ballard. Mr. Novak. I'm going to try to be brief because our views on the propriety of the court's order um were set forth in a publicly filed document um which um of course the court has reviewed and the first the order that the court issued is not a prior restraint on any member of the public uh and it's certainly not um I think as the state's motion suggested some sort of a prior restraint on the the press. This has nothing to do with the press. Um The order as we noted in our papers is directed at the conduct of and the court's expectations for counsel. So, even if under that order that the court issued somebody who we could all agree is a witness within the court's definition of that um made public statements which implicated Mr. Robinson's fair trial rights. The potential sanction is on the party who had a duty to make a reasonable effort to notify witnesses that they should not be doing so. Um, if I represented a witness um, who was accused of saying too much publicly the first thing that I would tell this court is the order isn't directed at the witness. The order is directed at the counsel for the parties. There may in the future be some theoretical situation where the court issues orders that um control the statements or conduct of specific people but this or other than counsel but this order is directed at counsel and we have no meaning Mr. Robinson's defense counsel have no problem complying with the order and we also think that we understand um what a witness is when when the court is not overbroad it's not vague doesn't put um, the state's um, the state or the state's attorneys in some untenable position it's a little too simple to say witnesses are either everybody under the sun or people who are under subpoena at the last second because counsel have not only the training but a duty to figure out along the way who the potential witnesses are and to notify those people. And yes, down the road maybe there's going to be an issue and maybe um, an attorney on either side of litigation is going to have to explain to the court when a particular person did or did not become a potential witness in the eye of in the eyes of that party. Um, that doesn't make it impossible for the state to comply with the order. It just means that the state needs to be thinking along the way about who its witnesses may be and that's why in our papers we referred to it as a um potential lay witness because we believe that the court intended it to go beyond members of the prosecution team which are law enforcement officers, retained experts, retained consultants um and um and we don't believe that that creates an enforcement problem. We don't think it creates a compliance problem. Um we noted in our papers and I'll emphasize here again that the court's order actually places responsibilities on defense counsel that the rules don't. The rules have special um um, guidelines for the prosecution and the court has expanded that to include the defense and and we don't have a problem with that. I also think that the standard that the state is suggesting for when a potential lay witness as as we've defined that in our papers um, may make public statements that violate the court's order um, the best standard is actually the one that we believe um, the court should look to which is the standard set by the 10th Circuit because as the state points out it may be that there isn't any Utah law on this issue. So, it seems to me that the closest um source of authority on on this um, constitutional question um, is going to be the 10th Circuit and that's the case United States versus Tijerina and I'll spell it. It's t i j e r i n a 412 Fed Second 661 10th Circuit 1969 where the court says that um the constitutional balance between the First Amendment rights of a non-attorney participant and the defendant's right to a fair trial are properly balanced where extrajudicial statements present a reasonable likelihood of prejudicing a fair trial. That is a more protective standard than that which appears in Rule 3.6 and we think it's the appropriate standard which should be applied here. Um and um that's part of as we've told the court before the um, emotion that we will bring because we actually think that while the court's order is wholly appropriate, it's not vague, it's not overbroad, it's not a prior restraint and it doesn't create um, a lack of clarity for the state um we would like it to be a little bit broader in in other areas. Um, especially concerning the standard to be applied and the definition of what is um, the prosecution team but that's that's not germane to here. So, we think that um while we understand the state's concern, we think that their motion should be denied. I think at the last hearing the court actually clarified verbally from the bench what it meant by a witness and I think that's pretty close to what we described in our papers as a potential lay witness. Um so, I don't I I feel like if I say anything more I'm going to be reiterating again what's already in our papers. If I've muddled it, I'm sure the court will tell me and I'll clarify it. I I hope I haven't. Thank you, Mr. Novak. Okay, thank you, Your All right. Uh, and we'll turn to the last matter. Anything further, counsel? Yes, thank you, Your Honor. I just I do want to point out that the the court's order as it's written does impose limitations on speech. And the issue here is whose speech? Is it just the prosecution team members or does it extend beyond that? Um, and limitations on speech are a prior restraint. The court's order says um that if you look at page two of the order, it specifically talks about lawyers that lawyers cannot make a statement that would um, violate Rule 3.6 and need to inform witnesses uh, that they cannot make similar statements and then requires uh, the parties to inform um lawyers excuse me, I'll just read it. Lawyers participating in the investigation or litigation of this case shall inform all witnesses and then the list that I read about the prohibitions contained in this order. So, the order is prohibiting speech and because if it extends beyond the prosecution team, it needs to have the findings that are required for that kind of prohibition on speech. That's what we're asking the court to do. Thank you, Mr. Baliff. Let's turn to the final matter before this court, the motion for limited intervention and request for notice of motions to close, seal, or reclassify. >> [snorts] >> Thank you, Your Honor. Uh, David Reymann representing the news media. Mr. Judd and I represent different groups of clients so I'm going to invite him if I miss anything to to weigh in after I'm done but my intent the issues are basically the same so my intent is to address them for all of the the um, interveners at once and I'll be very brief. Um we have only ever sought in this case uh, limited party status. That is what we um, do in every high profile case that involves these type of closure issues. Uh, we are not seeking to be parties for all purposes. We are just seeking to be parties for the purpose of showing up um, and being heard which we unquestionably have a right to do. We unquestionably have standing. That is settled law in Utah. And um the filing the last filing at least that we got from Mr. Robinson's team that just came in, I don't know if it was a couple days ago basically gets there at the end where it says, "Look, if you're going to if you're going to grant them intervener status, um, it should just be limited." That's all we've ever sought. And so the the question that was raised in the in the only case that they cite, this FL case from the Utah Supreme Court um, that addressed whether we wanted to allow full party status under Rule 24 of the civil procedure rules in a criminal case, they said we don't need to do that. Um, the the woman in that case just needed limited party status. And so in a way we're not really the state really hasn't disagreed with this either but we're not really disagreeing with um, with Mr. Robinson's team. Um, we have explained in our papers um, the uh, we've cited the court to extensive authority saying that this is the procedure uh, to use. It's the most efficient procedure to use. Otherwise, I don't know what exactly the suggestion is for Mr. Robinson's team that we were that we're supposed to do from here on out, but it kind of sounds like just this sort of ad hoc show up anytime you happen to see something on the public docket that might affect the public's rights, and that's just not the orderly way that this this typically happens. Um the other thing, as I've mentioned in our papers that it does, um is it allows for the media to be able to take an appeal of a closure issue um without having to rely on the court's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. And um that was what they had to do in um in either Kern's Tribune or Bullock, where the media was not granted um uh party status. And it is the situation that happened in FL um where they had to review her claim regarding records under extraordinary writ jurisdiction rather than um invoking appellate jurisdiction because she was improperly denied limited party status. So, all of that authority supports the process that we are requesting um in this case. Uh we think it's the most orderly way to do it, and and I'll end just by saying, you know, there's been some discussion, and especially from Mr. Robinson's attorneys, about what rule it is that you need to do this under, whether rule 24 applies. They seem to suggest that it doesn't. I will just point the court to two different rules um that uh give you the authority to um to to do what we're requesting aside from rule 24. Rule 24 is in the civil procedure rules, but rule 81, and particularly subsection F of that rule, says that the rules of civil procedure govern in criminal proceedings where they don't conflict with a rule of criminal procedure. That's the case with rule 24. That's why um courts in criminal cases um have relied on that rule. The other one is rule 31, and that's in the criminal procedure rules, and that gives this court um the discretion, if it's not inconsistent with the rules, to fashion uh remedies, um and to deal with civil procedure not civil procedure, but rather just procedural matters. And so, that is essentially what um happened in the FL case, um which is that you know, whether you do it under rule 24 or whether you do it as a judicially created, you know, remedy, it doesn't matter. It's the same it gets to the same place, which is just that we are um interveners for the very limited purposes that we've uh set forth in our order. Um we're not going to be here at every hearing arguing, you know, we didn't take a position on the the gag order motion that you just heard. We are only um planning to appear and argue um so that the court has the benefit of someone who's representing the interests um against closure. Because, as you know, when this is sort of why we're here today, a lot of time this just happens by stipulation, because these, you know, the state and and Mr. Robinson's lawyers, they might may not want to fight over a particular issue. And so, it really is a situation where no one really represents that interest. And um the purpose of this whole process is to give the court the benefit of the briefing that we've submitted and the benefit of arguments um to represent the public's right to attend these proceedings. So, um unless the court has any questions, that's all I have. Your Honor, as as uh the state briefed in uh briefing on a prior motion, I think it's clear that um parties have the or excuse me, outside entities have the ability to intervene in a case as a limited purpose party when there's a statute, a rule, or case law that authorizes them to take specific action in a proceeding. And there's well-established case law that allows the media to intervene to be able to be to appear and be heard on uh matters of public access to court proceedings and to court documents. And of the rules of judicial administration also make it clear that the media can appear and do just exactly what they've done in the closed session that we held earlier. Uh so, it doesn't make them a capital P party to the case, it makes them a limited purpose party, and they certainly have the right to be able to do that. Thank you, Your Honor. Um so, I just want to clarify the issue, really, um if we boil it down, is if these 23 media entities have met their burden to be a limited purpose party in this case. And I think another part of that is what that means. Um and really, that is what we are primarily concerned with. What does that mean? What does that enable them to do? What um jurisdiction is this court exercising over them as a result of them being a limited purpose party? Because I do believe that is another aspect of asking to intervene in a case. Um I do think that rule 24 does not apply here. I think that's what we learned from the Supreme Court. They don't want individuals using rule 24 of the rules of civil procedure because it's too expansive. It's about broad entry into a case for many purposes. In the instances where our courts have allowed intervention into civil cases, and I want to be very clear here, the case law is a is in the civil arena. There are very few instances where we're dealing with this in a criminal case on appeal. Um so, we're a little bit in the dark, and we're asking this court to kind of wade through and make a decision that potentially hasn't been made before. But I would ask the court to be very clear, no matter what it does, on what the media can and can't do in this case. And it sounds to me like the media has somewhat conceded that their role in this case is under rule 4-202.04, and their role is to have a voice regarding closure, which has already happened today, and will surely happen again. We have no objection to that. And to be clear, we're not objecting to the court's order about notice. We will provide notice. We will follow the court's order. We have no problem with it. But we do want this court to make the procedure very crystal clear. We want time frames. We want orders saying this is when you need to respond, so that we don't end up with filings like we did this week, very shortly before the hearing, that we have to rush to respond to. We're all attorneys. We all know that these things happen from time to time, um and we're not unreasonable folks. If they reach out to us, we will grant reasonable requests for extension, just so everyone is aware. But there was no communication. So, I want it very, very clear what they they can and can't do. It's less about semantics. This isn't about semantics. It's about substance. What are they allowed to do? If this court wants to call them a limited purpose party, that has to be well, it's so you can exercise your rights under 4-202.04. And in doing so, this is what you need to do. That's what we're asking the court to do. Um And I also have some practical concerns that maybe need to be addressed with the court's clerk. Uh for example, are we adding all 23 media entities to the court docket? Um will they have access to all of the filings? I have had instances in the past where, unfortunately, parties have been added to a case and still receive um documents that are intended to be private or non-public. I'm very concerned about that. Um so, I think it would be appropriate if they are going to be added to the docket that it be um reasonable, perhaps just the two entities that are requesting, the two conglomerate entities that are requesting, and that there be a an order from the court saying if they receive something that they shouldn't have, they notify us and the court immediately, and they delete it. They don't review it. Um at a minimum, I think that's necessary. But I also think it would be reasonable for this court to not to put them on the docket for that very same reason. So, we don't think that they should have permanent status in this case. We don't dispute that they are going to be here. They're already here, as we well know. But we do think how that happens is important, and that this court should exercise its authority to make very clear what everyone's roles are here. And as I believe they put in their briefing, that they are neutral observers. Neutral observers. We don't want the chaos that is out in the media in this courtroom. So, whatever this court can do to prevent that is what we're asking. Does the court have any Thank you, Your Honor. Just very briefly, I'm not sure what neutral observer is supposed to mean. We have interests in the case. We are here to advocate for openness um and against closure. And so, I'm not uh I'm not I don't think that's what counsel um meant to imply, but that's the whole reason we're here is that no one else represents our interests. That is straight down the middle of what the intervention rule requires. Just a couple clarifications, counsel said we haven't cited any criminal cases where this has been allowed. That's not true. We cited the court to eight different cases, all criminal cases in the state of Utah, where this is the procedure that judges routinely follow, including judges in this building. Um uh counsel said that our role is strictly limited to advocating for what is under rule 4-202.04. I don't think she meant this, but um as the court probably knows, that just deals with court records. Um we are also entitled under uh governing constitutional case law to advocate against the closure of proceedings. And uh that rule does not uh technically apply to proceedings, it just applies to records. So, just to be clear, um but I think we have been clear and this is all I mean, there wasn't a whole lot of daylight between what counsel was just suggesting our role should be and what we've asked for, you know, which is just if if they file a motion that seeks to prevent that wants to classify something as non-public, like they did um last night with uh the motion to disqualify. Um they were able to to at least provide that to us. Um it's not very hard to send an email. That's all that we've asked for in terms of the notice. And then we have the right to be heard on those issues. And so, I didn't really hear from counsel any reason why we should not be granted limited party status in this case other than just some sort of, you know, um uh confusion on on their part as to what that would actually look like. I don't know how the clerk deals with parties on the docket. I assume you guys can sort that out. Typically, when we intervene on behalf of the news media in cases, they are listed because they are limited purpose parties. But if the court can, you know, um if it doesn't want to hear from us on a particular issue, it can certainly say that. I mean, we don't have any interest in weighing in on on aspects of the case that don't have anything to do with the public's right to know. And so, I didn't really hear an argument against what it is that we um that we are um asking to do. Just one last point on Well, two things. One is that uh counsel's chastising us for filing something late. I mean, this was a stipulated motion that got us here today. We weren't asked to weigh in on it. It was submitted to Your Honor with an order, you know, which they just assumed you would sign because it was stipulated. It was only because this court said, "No, I'm not going to do that. I want to actually hear from the parties." that we weighed in. So, um this was not your typical like uh a deadline where we were invited to weigh in and just didn't. Last thing is um in terms of docket access, you know, Mr. Hunt and Mr. Judd and I are all officers of the court. Um if the court says, "You can have access to things that are that are the parties are seeking to classify as uh non-public, but you can't share them with your clients until further notice from the court, that's fine." Some judges do handle it that way. Sometimes, we just, you know, if if they don't concern closure, um sometimes we don't um weigh in at all. But, you know, when they file things that they say, "We need to file this under under seal and we're not allowed to see it," then the briefing for you is not super helpful, you know? And so, typically, the way this happens is we are allowed attorneys eyes only access to, you know, documents just like the state and and the defendants would be. Their counsel can see things that are non-public and we don't share them with our clients un- unless the court orders otherwise. And typically, if the court decides, "No, this really doesn't need to be filed under seal," then we can provide it to our clients at that time. But, this idea that our clients are somehow going to get access to things that are non-public, that's just not the way this typically works. If they're if they're not public on the docket, if they're public on the docket, anyone can get them. And if they're not public on the docket, then our clients can't get them. And if there's a procedure where we can see them so that we can give the court the benefit of briefing substantively as to what it is, um then we keep them attorneys eyes only until the court orders otherwise. So, that's just typically the way this works. So. Thank you. Your Honor, I'm not going to belabor what's already in the briefing. Um I do think it's concerning to just cite to a bunch of trial court cases without providing any pleadings or context for what occurred in those cases. I can't argue against what happened in other cases. This is our case. Our case is different. This court has already acknowledged it. There are many interests. We have concerns about leaks, information getting out that shouldn't be out. I think those are valid. And our concern is access. I'm not imputing the integrity of these gentlemen. I'm sure they would act as officers of the court. But, the more this court controls the information that ultimately it determines to be private, the more able we are to identify if there are leaks, if there's information that's getting out that shouldn't be and who did it. Um so, we are objecting to providing the media our pleadings in advance, even just to their counsel. We don't think that's appropriate. I don't see any authority for that. We're asking the court not to consider that. Um and we we're concerned about opening the door to multiple other entities just filing in on this case, getting involved in the proceedings. Um we don't know exactly what media means, either. So, our position is and remains, they can file what this court has authorized to file in the manner they this court authorizes to file it and be heard in the manner this court indicates. We understand they're entitled to closure hearings and I did make a mistake. We're We agree that they have standing to object to closure as well. So, they should be able to file those things, but we do not agree that that requires status in our case. So, does the court have any questions? >> [cough and clears throat] >> No, thank you. Thank you. All right. I appreciate the argument from all parties throughout this day. Uh I wish to commend the preparation and the quality of the arguments, as well as the civility uh that is sometimes overlooked, but I wish to recognize that and appreciate uh counsel's uh demeanor and their arguments today. I previously uh stated when we began that I would be issuing rulings on the first issue. Uh and and when I began, I initially said October 14th. It's actually the October 24th audio recording of the closed hearing, as well as the October 24th transcript of that hearing. And so, I wanted to create uh just make that small correction. But, given the arguments made in the closed hearing, I I wish to take the time to issue a ruling that that will say what will be disclosed and what will be kept private because this court has a duty to do so. And I would rather do it right and take more time than to be rash and and miss the mark. I I need to be narrow in my approach and it is an important issue. And so, I I plan to do that. Uh in regards to the motion for limited intervention and request for notice of motions to close seal or reclassify, I also wish to craft my order uh in in such a way that is concise and addresses all the issues, the important issues brought up by all parties. And and so, I will be uh issuing that ruling at the same time. And so, I will be issuing the ruling uh in regards to the state's motion to clarify court's pre-trial and trial publicity order. And and I am prepared to do so. Before I do that, what I want to do is and and counsel is is being caught off guard because they were anticipating ruling today. But, what the court is intending to do is and proposing to the parties is uh issuing an an oral ruling on WebEx that all parties can attend to. Uh the reason why is I I want I don't want to take a lot of time. These are important issues. I don't want to wait until January 16th. And and I want to uh talk about potential dates. I don't imagine it will take longer than 20 20 minutes uh for this court to issue ruling. And and I want to get the parties input in regards to their thoughts of the court issuing an oral ruling on WebEx. And so, I'll open it up We don't have any objection to that, Your Honor. Thank you. We have no objection to that, Your Honor. Yeah, same. All right. Well, next comes the trickier part when you have a room full of attorneys trying to find a date that we're all available. To our staff, uh what dates do we have available for a 30-minute block before the end of the year? Um Judge, we do have December 29th at 10:00. How does that appear How does that day work for counsel? That was 10:00 a.m. on the 29th? >> Yes. Your Honor, that works for Mr. Robinson. Thank you. Same for us. All right. And to defense, uh in regards to Mr. Robinson, uh what is your position on if it is on WebEx? He would He would be appearing by WebEx or is it there Your Honor, if we could just have audio only for Mr. uh Robinson to appear um since we will not be present. I would rather not have him in the courtroom without counsel present. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. So, we will set uh the court's ruling on those two issues for December 29th at 10:00 a.m. and note that it will be all audio only for Mr. Robinson per defense's request. And to the last issue is well, before I issue my ruling, uh I I anticipate and counsel, are we still on the same page in regards to our January 16th hearing? Are we planning for that? Your Honor, we we are. Um we believe that most likely what we would anticipate doing is on January 16th arguing our um motion to disqualify the County Attorney's Office, which was just filed. That should give them enough time to respond to that. Um and also possibly we anticipate filing our own motion about the pretrial publicity order that has a little bit different take on it. That should be filed in plenty of time for us to argue that on the 16th as well. Um I think we have set aside the 30th um and that might be the one we want to save to argue our uh anticipated motion that's coming about uh keeping cameras uh out of the courtroom. Um and we will um I imagine the media will depending on the court's ruling today, will want to weigh in on that one as well. And that would give them enough time as well. So, that would be January 30th. All right. And before I go to the other parties, uh the January 30th date, there was some complications. And so, we have to find another date. Okay. And we're Okay. And so, I just wanted to let all parties know before we we we lock in our schedules, uh when what dates do we have available It's okay. And counsel, I appreciate you giving me that road map. That helps plan. So, it allows the other parties to take into consideration dates and So, as staff is doing that, they are looking for uh hearing dates. One of the complications is as a judge, I have 1,409 cases as of last Friday. And so, trying to find a spot is tricky. And I'm grateful for my staff who works so hard to manage that calendar. So, that is part of the reason for the delay. And we're trying to to find a date because this is an important case as is all those cases. They matter to me. Your Honor, while while we're waiting, can I if I might just make uh one point that might make things smoother as we go Mr. Just to to Ms. Nester's point, Mr. Novak earlier mentioned something about a redacted motion to disqualify. And I don't know if that is something that they're planning to file, but I was just going to say sometimes, you know, what we heard earlier about that particular incident is probably not something that we care that much about in terms of what they would redact. And so, instead of opposing the motion to classify, if if Your Honor um I don't know if this is the plan already in this in this case or whether that's what they were planning to do, but if they file a redacted version that, you know, just takes out the stuff they care about rather than closing the whole thing, then we don't have to say anything and probably avoids, you know, fighting over unsealing that document. So, I just wanted to I just wanted to say that. And when I'm happy to confer with counsel if you'd rather us do that if you don't want to do it by way of a court order, but >> No, I appreciate that input. I'll hear from both parties and then we'll get to the date. Your Honor, um I do anticipate going through and seeing what we can redact and working with the state on that as well and with media counsel. So. All right. And we agree that filing a redacted version uh is a good way to go. We can work together on that. As far as the January 16th hearing, the state will do everything it can to respond to these motions as timely as we can, as expeditiously as we can. Um I just want to note that that January 16th hearing um was set with the expectation uh the previous expectation was the defense counsel was going to get us these motions before Thanksgiving. And we just got the motion to disqualify last night. So, we'll do everything we can to respond to those as expeditiously as we can and hopefully keep that date, but I'm not guaranteeing that we'll make that date. All right. I appreciate the heads-up. Going to staff, what dates do we have available for in lieu of the 30th? I'm looking at February 3rd. We have that one day available. Is that morning or afternoon? February 3rd. Morning or afternoon setting? I actually That works for Mr. Robinson, Your Honor. All right. Thank you. Either works for us, Your Honor. All right. As well as for the state, we're available on the 3rd. The afternoon would be better because it may be travel time. All right. Well, it is always nice when all parties agree. So, we have February 3rd at 1:00 p.m. Uh it is anticipated to be in person. And Ms. Nester is Mr. Robinson planning on appearing? Yes, Your Honor. All right. Thank you. All right. Uh that concludes that particular issue about future dates. And I appreciate counsel working with me on that. We have December 29th at 10:00 a.m. for the court ruling on these two issues. And that will be via WebEx. And then February 3rd, January 16th, I believe that is at 1:00. Is that correct? All right. That's in person as well with I believe um defense has indicated Mr. Robinson will be present as well. And finally, February 3rd at 1:00 p.m. and also indicating that Mr. Robinson will be present. And in regards to the final issue, uh the ruling on um the state's motion to clarify court's pretrial and trial publicity order. This is the order of the court. The court issued a protection order regarding pretrial and trial publicity in this case. The order prohibits attorneys who are associated with the prosecution and defense of this case from intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly permitting a witness, investigator, consultant, staff member, or other member of the prosecution or defense team to make extrajudicial statements, which if made by the lawyer, would violate Rule 3.6. To that end, lawyers participating in an investigation or litigation of this case shall inform all witnesses, investigators, consultants, staff members, or other members of the prosecution or defense teams about the prohibitions contained in this order. The state moves to amend or clarify the court's use of the word witness as used in the publicity order because it is vague, ambiguous, or overbroad. The state asserts that there are there are over 3,000 lay witnesses of the alleged homicide. The state does not know if it must inform each potential witness or each potential and possible witness of the prohibitions in order or whether the order applies only to witnesses who are members of the attorney's teams, such as investigators or experts. Due to the potential confusion, this court grants the state's motion and offers the following clarification. The word witness as used in this order, applies to all witnesses who are part of the prosecution and defense teams. This includes any witness, including lay witnesses whom the prosecution or defense has a good faith belief will be called to testify at a hearing or trial. The court also clarifies that the publicity order as written regulates the behavior of attorneys who are associated with the defense team or the Utah County Attorney's Office. It requires the attorneys to abide by rule 3.6 and in order to deter non-attorneys from making prejudicial statements, requires the attorneys to inform witnesses about the prohibitions in the publicity order. Informing witnesses about the prohibitions in the publicity order is a One moment as I regain my place as I read. Informing witnesses about the prohibitions in the publicity order is a necessary step toward not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly permitting witnesses from making prejudicial statements. The publicity order does not regulate the behavior of any person who is not an attorney associated with this case. And this order will be signed today by myself and made public. Counsel, is there anything further that we need to address today? Thanks, Your Honor. Yes, just the matter of uh having Mrs. Erica Kirk designated as the victim representative in this case. Uh she has filed through her counsel a request to be designated as the the victim representative. And uh we'd like the court to formally formally acknowledge that request. And formally designate her as the victim representative. And I guess along those lines, I wanted to make clear as well. I think this court um stated earlier that there was an alleged victim in this case. And I know that there is case law talking about being careful [snorts] about how we refer to victims and alleged victims. But in this case, uh that case law makes clear that those uh those cautions don't apply with the same degree where it's clear that we have a victim who was killed in this case. We don't have an alleged victim. We have an alleged perpetrator. But we do know that we have a victim in this case. Thank you, Mr. Ballard. I'll hear from the parties. Um Your Honor, on behalf of Mr. Robinson, we certainly think it's appropriate for um uh Mrs. Kirk to be designated as the victim representative if that is the desire of the state. Um just so there can be no doubt that she's afforded all of the rights um assured to her under our our state statutes. And we have no objection to that. Thank you. Thank you to all parties. This court will recognize Ms. Erica Kirk as the designated victim representative in this case. Thank you. Counsel, I believe that concludes our matters for the day. One more thing. >> not. I can take the podium, Judge. Yes, Mr. Grenander. Um the purpose I wanted to just give the court an update with respect to discovery. We've done that at previous hearings. >> Um the state has received approximately 13,900 files um from law enforcement in this case. Um approximately 300 of those we believe are duplicates. We have since provided to counsel um as of I believe this morning 7,951 of those files. Um for the court's information, we had reached close to 100% had been disseminated um as of last week, but we received uh quite a large batch within the last few days. So we are working on that. We still have a full-time paralegal that's dedicated to uh reviewing that, organizing it, Bates stamping it, and sending it out to counsel. Of course, there are necessary redactions that are being made along the way. Um our next real hearing in this case second matter our next real hearing in this case is not till scheduled till January 16th. Uh we understand the court's case load. We understand the difficulty of finding dates for a preliminary hearing. And we would like to make a request that the court calendar a preliminary hearing in this case. All right. In regards to a And I appreciate the heads up and and acknowledging the the busy calendar of not only the court, but all of you. What's um first of all, how many days does the state anticipate, which helps us in our calendaring efforts? Judge, given that it's a probable cause standard um uh and all the inferences go in favor of the state um the state is asking for 3 days. We believe that we can present the evidence required to meet that standard and that that would also allow the defense to cross-examine witnesses um and um and argue that standard. Thank you, Mr. Grenander. Turning to defense, what are your thoughts? Um Your Honor, we we were not aware that he was going to make that request today. We do have one more member of our team that's not present that we would need to consult with. Um I um I don't know when he's talking about, but I don't see how we can set it until all the discovery has been received. Um and also we do need to deal with the disqualification motion just in case. So it doesn't seem like a good idea to set it before we have the disqualification hearing. I mean, we're only talking about a month from now. Um I think that should probably be resolved before we set any any dates. Um but I am concerned about setting a date when we still don't have all the discovery materials. We have significant discovery materials that have not been received yet that we know are out there and coming and important. And we have to, you know, have time to review it all and absorb it all. Um and I am going to be involved in another trial that is not over until the end of March. So that's going to take away my ability to work and process through discovery and communicate with our team. Um so it seems to me that with the understanding of what Mr. Grenander is trying to accomplish, that maybe we come to the hearing on the 16th with an idea about uh we can have some conversations with their um with their with Mr. McBride and also with the paralegal that's dealing with all the discovery and see realistically when we think we're actually going to have the vast majority of the discovery materials to us and how long it's going to take us to to review it all. Um so maybe we could just come prepared in about a month to try to accomplish that. Mr. Grenander. Uh just two points, Judge. Um sometimes I feel like we as practitioners sometimes lose sight of the purpose of a preliminary hearing. It is a probable cause determination. Uh the primary purpose according to case law is to ferret out improvident um prosecutions. So again, it's a probable cause standard. Um we are working as hard as we can um being very diligent with respect to collecting and disseminating discovery. Um rule 16 um subsection two speaks to the timing of mandatory disclosures. Um and it is our duty it's a continuing duty. So as far as complete discovery being provided in a case like this, complete discovery is going to be ongoing until probably trial. There are times when things uh become available during trial that are discovered uh to opposing counsel, but it says here it says the prosecutor's disclosures must be made as soon as practicable following the filing of an following the filing of an information except that a prosecutor must disclose all evidence that the prosecutor relied upon to file the information within 5 days after the day on which the prosecutor receives a request for discovery from the defendant. That's been accomplished. It then says in every case all material or information listed under paragraph A1 that is presently and reasonably available to the prosecutor must be disclosed before the preliminary hearing. So we are in the process of that, collecting it as quickly as possible making any necessary redactions and moving it to the defense as quickly as possible. But complete discovery is not required before a preliminary hearing. Uh we have to provide it as quickly as possible. We have that duty and we continue to do that. So we think we can schedule a preliminary hearing and work towards that. I'm aware of Ms. Nester's schedule. I know she's going to be in trial I think in February and March. Um our our and I'm probably overestimating the availability of the court's calendar. But the hope would be sometime in April to schedule a preliminary hearing. All right. I'll submit it, Judge. >> Thank you. >> Your Honor, can I just clarify one thing? I mean the county attorney has made a decision very public decision to announce their intent to seek death the day that there was an arrest, which means that that obligation to provide us with the probable cause for everything they relied upon to charge applies now to their intent to seek death. And we're nowhere near getting that material. So that was their decision to release that. Normally that decision is not made until 30 days after a preliminary hearing. They made it in advance and now they've got an obligation to tell me their aggravation and what they've relied on to make this a death penalty case. And we have not received that. So I'm waiting. Um but I'm just laying that out there for now. Thank you. I appreciate the arguments from all sides sides. I do not find there is any prejudice in setting a date for a preliminary hearing. It is not set in stone and it certainly can be moved. I recognize that the parties have a lot of obligations, but I also recognize the importance of this case moving forward and if nothing more than this is a goal for the preliminary hearing. If it needs to be changed, the court understands that. That is what happens a lot in the criminal calendars and criminal dockets. What is, uh, a date that we may have available for a 3-day setting for a And Judge, the first week that we would We also have a week and some days in June that could probably accommodate. We do not have any in July. We have some in August sometime. All right. Let's take a look. So, Counsel, well, what dates in June? Um, All right. Counsel, I'll turn to you. Again, this is a goal. This is not a date that, uh, if if we can't meet, there's there's any prejudice that will be attached to a party. Uh, in regards to May 18th, how does that tentatively look for Counsel? May or June? Uh, May 18th is the first date, I believe. Oh. The 19th and 21st. So, 18th, 19th, and 21st, just to give you the full range. The state can make those days work, Your Honor. Your Honor, we have we have availability the May 18th with the understanding and the appreciation that if it's not feasible for us to get done what we need to get done prior to that, we would ask to push it back, but we I mean, we we don't have conflicts at this time. All right, thank you. So, May 18th, May 19th, and May 21st. And, uh, this will be in person and are do we anticipate if that date moves forward, uh, Mr. Robinson being in attendance? Absolutely. All right, thank you. I just want to put that on the record as well. All right, I don't want to be presumptive, but is there anything else? All right. Counsel, thank you again for your hard work today, uh, and I wish you all, Mr. Robinson, a good afternoon. Court is in recess. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank