interveners. >> Good morning, your honor. Michael Jud on behalf of the Salt Lake Tribune and other media interveners. >> Thank you. And good morning to you. Mr. Robinson, are you with us? >> Yes, your honor. >> And Mr. Robinson, good morning to you as well. All right. The court appreciates the patience of the parties while it considered issues raised by the media interveners. An appropriate classification of the transcript and audio recording from the October 24th hearing. The court has taken the necessary time to conduct a careful independent review of the written submissions, oral arguments, and applicable legal authorities, and to thoughtfully evaluate the matters presented. In doing so, the court has remained mindful of its duty to balance competing constitutional interests. Openness and transparency are foundational to our judicial system and essential to maintaining public confidence. At the same time, the public's right to access is qualified, not absolute, and may be limited when a legal legally sufficient justification exists. The court recognizes the substantial public interest in these proceedings and has approached its review with that interest firmly in mind. The court has independently reviewed the October 24th transcript and audio recording in its entirety. In determining whether any restrictions on public access is warranted, the court considered whether such limitations are necessary to protect specific constitutional interests. and whether less restrictive alternatives could adequately address those concerns. The carefully limited redactions ordered are narrowly tailored and designed to protect those interests while preserving the public's ability to understand the substance, context, and significance of the proceedings. By way of context, the transcript of the October 24th hearing consists of 83 pages, 80 of which contain verbatim record of the proceedings. Each page includes 25 lines of text and the transcript reflects just over two hours of the courtroom proceedings. The duration of the hearings was of that hearing was 2 hours and 19 minutes. The closed hearing held on December 11th included detailed arguments from defense, prosecution, and council for the news media regarding what portions of the record should remain private and what should be made public. That hearing likewise lasted nearly two hours during which time council addressed these issues carefully, line by line and word by word. The court acknowledges and appreciates the diligence, professionalism, and preparation demonstrated by all parties during both hearings. After full consideration of these arguments, the court determined that 246 words, approximately one page of the 80page transcript, should be redacted. No other portions of the transcript were found to warrant restriction. The court further notes that the matters addressed during the October 24th hearing, including issues related to civilian clothing and shackling, are best un best understood when considering in their full when considered in their full context. The limited scope of the redactions reflect the court's effort to preserve that context to the greatest extent possible. The redacted transcript will be promptly filed on the docket by the end of today. The corresponding audio recording will require additional time to ensure that it precisely reflects the approved redactions and that no protected material is inadvertently disclosed. The court anticipates the audio recording will be available within approximately two weeks. This court notes the importance of the audio in addition to the transcript because hearing what was said and how it was said is equally as important as just the transcript itself. The court's sole objective in this process has been to ensure a fair, orderly, and lawful proceeding that reflects the constitutional rights of the parties while honoring the public's qualified right of access. The court notes the standing decor decorum order has also been updated and directs all parties to review the order in advance of future hearings. Accordingly, the court now issues the following order regarding the classification of the transcript and audio recording of the October 24th hearing. And turning to the order itself, the state of Utah and defendant Tyler James Robinson filed a motion to classify the transcript and audio of the sealed October 24th, 2025 hearing as private. Because the press requested notice of all such motions, the court held a closure hearing on December 11th, 2025 to address the classification of the transcript and audio recording of the October 24th, 2025 hearing. Prior to that closure hearing, the parties filed a joint statement joint status report identifying some 20 provisions of the transcript for redaction and stating that the balance of the transcript may be classified as public. Having reviewed the relevant pleadings from the parties and representatives of the press and heard oral arguments during the December 11th closure hearing, the court now rules in orders as follows. The public has a presumptive right to access court records. See judicial Utah judicial see Utah rules judicial administration 202.02 sub1. Uh that right however is not absolute. To support and achieve certain interests and objectives a court may close portions or entire court records. uh court record. A court may consider any relevant factor, interest, or policy both in favor of and opposed to closure and determining whether to redact portions of or close all or part of a court record. In deciding whether to redact or close a court record, a court must balance the interests favoring open opening and closing the record. And if it determines to close the record, determine there are no reasonable alternatives to closure. The parties have argued and the court has considered the following policy interests in determining the motion. One, protecting safety interests, two, protecting privacy interests and non-party participants, and three, protecting the defendant's right to a fair trial. Approximately half the portions of the transcript the parties seek to redact address courtroom and court house security measures. Safety concerns are well recognized as justification for closure of court records. This undoubtedly includes references in the court record to specific safety measures undertaken as part of the court security plan and practices in highly publicized cases. This case generates extraordinary ongoing national and international attention, some of which is threatening in nature to the parties, the representatives and non-party participants. The safety and well-being of all involved in this matter outweighs the interests of the public that are served by open court records. Nevertheless, and as the parties recognize, the court need not seal the entire transcript and audio of the October 24th, 2025 hearing to protect the safety interests of all those involved. Redacting selected port selective portions of the transcript and the audio that reference security measures will serve safety interests while allowing for as much public access to the remainder of the record as possible. The court hereby orders the redaction of the portions of the transcript corresponding audio referencing security measures identified in the party's joint status report and further paired down during the closure hearing. These include the following portions of the October 24th, 2025 hearing transcript. Page four, line four, I'm sorry, page four, line 19 through 22, following the word unshackling, until the sentence begins with the word and. Page four, line 25 until page five, line one, including the first sentence of the last paragraph. Page five, line nine through line 10, following the word preceding and ending before the word but. Page five, line 18 and 19, including the entirety of the bailless comment. Page 33, lines 17- 18, following the word courtroom until the end of the sentence. Page 34, lines 5 through 7, following the word arrested until the end of that sentence. Page 35, lines 24- 25, including the last sentence of that page. Page 36, line one, including the first word on the page until the sentence begins with the word that. Page 40, line 12 through line 16, following the word outside until the word maybe. Page 41, lines 17 through line 21, following the word on until the end of the paragraph. Page 43, line 11 through line 13, following the word jail, and ending before the sentence begins with the word and. Page 55, lines 12 through 13, following the word people and ending before the sentence beginning with the word so. page 64, line 18 through 19, following the word Ben until the end of that paragraph. And finally, page 70, lines 1 through three, following the word clothing until the sentence begins with the word I'm. Protecting priv personal privacy is a recognizable justification for closure of a court record. To justify the closure of a court record, a privacy interest must be more than a desire to avoid annoyance, criticism, or embarrassment, and must serve to protect information of a highly personal nature. The parties initially identified six portions of the transcript to be redacted based off privacy interests. During the closure hearing, the parties withdrew. Defendants requested numbers 1, 2, and 11. The remaining three requests were significantly paired down. The court has already ordered the redaction of request three for security reasons, including lines 34, I'm sorry, page 34, lines 5 through 7 as ordered above. The court also finds that privacy interests support this redaction. The court has considered the interest favoring closure of the remaining two requests for redaction and concludes that the information is not of a highly personal or sensitive nature. Privacy interests do not outweigh the public's interest in this case. Therefore, the court denies redactions of the following portions of the transcript. page 35 lines 16-1 17 and page 80 lines 22 through 25. The right to a fair trial seeks to ensure that the one accused of a crime will have his guilt or innocence determined solely on the basis of the ent evidence introduced at trial. Thus, if disclosure of information poses significant risk of endangering a defendant's right to a fair trial, then closing or sealing a court record to protect that information is justified. Nevertheless, when such information has already been introduced to the public arena, there is a suggestion that no additional damage can be done and the issue of sealing or closing the record becomes moot. Here the joint status report identified four portions of the transcript for redaction based on the argument that redaction is necessary to preserve defendants's right to a fair trial. The court is unconvinced that the disclosure of the selected portions jeopardizes that right. The information in question is contained in the charging instrument whether directly or indirectly as part of the factual allegations made against defendant and already part of the public arena. If this information poses a risk of violating defendants's right to a fair trial, defendants's first line of defense is found in the rules of evidence in criminal procedure. Closing or redacting these portions of the transcript and audio is outweighed by the interests and the objectives served by open court records and mooded by prior disclosures and the information. Therefore, the court denies the request to redact the following portions of the transcript and audio. Page 55, lines 2 through 7, page 60, lines 24 and 25. Page 61, lines 1-6 and 13- 14. Page 64, lines 11- 17. These portions also refer to a potential non-party witness. The court has considered redaction to protect the non-party participant from risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm. However, the references made to that nonparty participant during the October 24th, 2025 hearing offers the same but no additional information that can be found in the charging instrument and shared by law enforcement during a press conference. As a result, redacting those portions at this point is a moot issue. For the above reasons, the court orders the following. A transcript of the October 24th, 2025 hearing shall be redacted in accordance with this order and entered into the record. And the audio recording of the October 24th, 2025 hearing shall be unsealed for the purposes of the court clerk identifying the timestamps corresponding to the redacted portions of the transcript which selected portions once identified shall be recealed. No copy of the unsealed audio shall be provided until the identified portions have been recealed. The court will sign this order today and it will go into the record. Now turning to the second issue and the court now issues the following order regarding the media's request to intervene. Two groups of media outlets seek to intervene in this matter. Only the state and the defendant, however, are actual parties to a criminal action. The press need not be a party to a criminal action to pursue the public's presumptive right to access public court records. The press has already been provided with a mechanism through rule 4-202.04 04 to protect that right and has already utilized it in this matter. For this reason, the court denies both requests to intervene. The court now reiterates and clarifies its order requiring parties to serve all closure or reclassification motions on the media dated November 10th, 2025 as follows. Again, the parties are ordered to serve all closure motions on members of the press who have requested notice. The parties must file proof of service with the court. A closure motion is any motion to classify or reclassify presumptively public court record under rule 4-202.02. as any other classification. The parties need not serve notice on members of the press court records that are presumptively not public. A court record means a record that is prepared, owned, received, or retained by this court. This includes hearings. Therefore, the parties are ordered to serve all motions to closure hearings on members of the press who have requested notice. The parties must likewise file proof of service with the court. Nonetheless, the parties are not required to serve notice on members of the press of motions to limit electronic media coverage. If members of the media intend to object to a closure motion and request a closure hearing, subject such objections and requests must be filed within 7 days of receiving notice. To promote judicial economy and to eliminate unnecessary hearings, the court may decline to hold a closure hearing if no hearing is requested. The foregoing should be treated by the parties as a standing order for the duration of this case. And that concludes the second order of this case. The court wishes to wishes all parties a peaceful holiday season and hopes that each of you is able to the extent possible to spend time with your loved ones. The next hearing is set for January 16th at 1 p.m. and Mr. Robinson, I will see you there at that time. Court is now in recess.