The defense said it was renewing its request for no electronic media coverage in the courtroom in response to the letter being shown.
The start of the final day of the preliminary hearing of Tyler Robinson began with arguments over the accidental showing of a handwritten note left by Robinson for Lance Twiggs following the killing of Charlie Kirk. The letter was shown on camera in the courtroom the day prior, but it was not supposed to be shown to those beyond the physical court.
Judge Tony Graf found that his order prohibiting the publication or broadcast of the exhibit was violated, but denied the defense’s request to ban cameras going forward. He ruled that as a sanction, no exhibits displayed in Friday’s hearing could be captured by cameras. He said he would later consider such actions in regards to a forthcoming hearing on September 1.
Defense attorney Richard Novak brought up the note being shown at the start of Friday’s hearing, said that the media and state prosecutors "failed to comply with this court’s orders after all of the effort that we made and the court made to make sure that the court balanced everybody’s rights, including the rights that we are concerned about, which are Mr. Robinson’s."
"No doubt, the counsel for the media and counsel for the state will say that it was a very, very brief mistake, that it was corrected as soon as they realized the error, but it’s done. It’s out there. It’s photographed. I’m informed secondhand that if I want to buy this image and maybe even have it framed and put behind museum-quality glass, I can do so and put it up in my office."
Novak said, when questioned by Graf, that the defense would like to think about potential sanctions for the accidental showing, noting the team’s repeated attempts to block camera access within the courtroom, and suggest a remedy in advance of the next hearing. Judge Tony Graf said he would like to address the issue immediately.
The state said, "I think at the outset, it’s important to recognize that everyone’s doing their best here. The court is, I know the clerks are, I think the media is, we certainly are, and the defense is."
He said the note was captured for around two seconds before the camera operator, "acting in diligence and appropriateness, immediately panned as soon as she relaized that there was a new exhibit on the screen. The court took it down as soon as they realized that an exhibit was on the screen. I immediately instructed my paralegal to take it down, and it was."
He said, "I think everyone here made quick and appropriate efforts as soon as they realized a mistake had been made to remedy and mitigate that issue." He said the defense did not object as the issue occurred, "and the reason I bring that up is because the requirement for timely objections." He noted that the exhibit was allowed to be read into the record, and that it was also part of an earlier document.
An attorney representing the media said the camera operator panned to the screen as examination on a different exhibit began. "Then, because the examination seemed to call for that juxtaposition, without much warning for anyone involved, the previous exhibit that was intended to be juxtaposed" was placed on the screen."
"From I think a observer’s view who didn’t know where the testimony was going without warning, the camera operator I think quite astutely, within seconds, recognized this is a different exhibit, and recalling the court’s prior order, recognized I should pan off, and did within seconds."
He said that the full text of the handwritten note is "already in the public sphere, has been reported on, and is out there." He acknowledged that while the accident occurred, the camera operator did not violate the court’s standing decorum order.
After a brief recess to review the video, Judge Graf said he witnessed the image being shown for just over three seconds, with the camera operator turning away before any party brought attention to the matter. It was around 16 seconds later that the judge brought attention to the image, with the state saying that it needs to be taken down.
Regarding what they request as a remedy, the defense said it was renewing its request for no electronic media coverage in the courtroom. Novak used a baseball analogy, saying that three strikes were not needed, two were enough, referencing an earlier violation of the standing decorum order. He said a less adequate alternative would be for the court to reverse its authorization of electronic media coverage for Friday’s hearing.
Novak said he understood there hadn’t been a request for electronic media coverage for an upcoming September 1 hearing, but he said there would more likely than not be. He said that any request for that September hearing should be denied.
The state requested that the media look into the possibility of a 30-second delay on the live feed as a remedy for hearings going forward.
The media attorney said that further adjustments to current operations are not necessary, "much less a revisitation of something that says let’s keep every photographer, every camera out of this courtroom for every proceeding."
Libby’s Desk
Commentary and must-reads from Libby’s desk, straight to your inbox.
TPM Newsletter
The Post Millennial’s top stories, delivered to your inbox.
