A judge ruled Monday that prosecutors will be allowed to present hearsay evidence during Tyler Robinson’s preliminary hearing next month, handing the state a significant victory as the high-profile murder case moves forward.
Judge Tony Graf rejected a defense request to block the evidence, ruling
that the limited purpose of a preliminary hearing allows broader evidentiary standards than would be permitted during a criminal trial.
The ruling clears the way for prosecutors to present several categories of evidence that Robinson’s attorneys had sought to exclude.
The disputed evidence could include prerecorded testimony from Robinson’s former roommate and one-time romantic partner, Lance Twiggs.
It could also include findings from the medical examiner as well as federal DNA and ballistics reports.
Graf emphasized that the July hearing is not intended to determine Robinson’s guilt or innocence.
Instead, he said the proceeding is designed to determine whether prosecutors have established probable cause to continue the case.
“The court does not understand this principle to mean that constant constitutional protections are categorically inapplicable at a preliminary hearing,” Graf wrote.
He added that because a preliminary hearing serves the limited purpose of determining probable cause, constitutional protections must be evaluated within that context.
The decision represents an important procedural victory for prosecutors.
Allowing hearsay evidence can streamline preliminary hearings by permitting investigators and prosecutors to summarize evidence that may later be presented through direct testimony at trial.
Defense attorneys had argued that such evidence should be excluded.
They maintained that allowing hearsay testimony would undermine Robinson’s ability to challenge the state’s case and confront witnesses against him.
Graf ultimately disagreed.
His ruling means prosecutors will be able to rely on evidence and reports that may not require every witness to appear personally during the preliminary hearing.
The hearing is scheduled for July.
The court is expected to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to bind Robinson over for trial.
Monday’s ruling was not the only issue before the court.
Graf also postponed a decision on allegations that prosecutors violated a court-imposed
gag order governing public discussion of the case.
The defense has accused prosecutors of improperly commenting on the proceedings outside the courtroom.
Robinson’s attorneys are seeking significant sanctions if the court determines that violations occurred.
Among the remedies requested is the removal of the death penalty as a possible punishment.
The defense argues that prosecutors should face consequences if they violated court orders regulating public statements.
“The only way that this Court can demonstrate that its orders, and the ethical rules that counsel must obey, are not optional when it comes to the State’s attorneys, even in this case, is to impose the sanction undersigned counsel have urged upon this Court: striking the State’s death notice,” defense attorneys wrote in a filing.
The motion was signed by attorneys Kathryn Nester, Richard Novak, Michael Burt and Staci Visser.
A separate hearing on the alleged gag-order violations is scheduled for Friday at 8:30 a.m. local time.
That proceeding could determine whether prosecutors face sanctions and whether the death penalty remains an option if Robinson is ultimately convicted.
The death penalty dispute has become one of the most closely watched aspects of the case.
Prosecutors have sought capital punishment, while defense attorneys have aggressively challenged both the decision and the conduct of the prosecution team.
The court has not yet indicated how it will rule on the sanctions request.
For now, the immediate focus shifts to the upcoming preliminary hearing.
Monday’s decision gives prosecutors greater flexibility in presenting evidence as they seek to establish probable cause.
At the same time, the defense is preparing for another courtroom battle later this week over allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.
The outcome of Friday’s hearing could have major implications for the future of the case, Fox News reported.
If the court finds no violation occurred, prosecutors will likely move forward with their pursuit of the death penalty.
