Mr. Bautista is here. Mr. Ascar is present in the courtroom. Is Mr. Jane there available? >> I have to jump over to Judge. Never mind. He's back. >> I'm available. >> Yeah, I see there. >> All right. Thank you. Mr. Nish is here as well. I didn't see you there. This is uh three cases. We're calling 241401620, 25142923, and 2514476. I see that we have a court reporter here at least for the uh capital case. Can I just confirm, Miss Harmon, that you are there and that you're transcribing or recording, however you're working there. You guys seem to go back. >> Sorry, Miss Harman. I couldn't hear you. You are there. >> I am here. I'm sorry. I don't know why my mic's not working. >> Okay. You're just faint. But now I can hear you. But you can hear us just fine. Correct. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. And now your mic is better. And we have Mr. Grunetti here for the state. All right. How would you like to Oh, Mr. Brown, are you here on this case as well? >> Yes, Miss Madson and I are appearing on this. >> Oh, okay. Thank you. Um, you'd be on the other two matters. Is that correct? >> Uh, well, so far I think just on the misdemeanor case, >> just 4476. >> Yeah, we're I think we're waiting to hear about the the other matter. All right. Thank you. We can start with the case ending in 1620. Um, how would you like to proceed, Mr. Buck East? I see that your mic is off and or on, I mean, so maybe you are ready to speak first. We have uh there are two motions that are before the court one right now. One of them has to do with um civilian clothing for Mr. Jane and the presence of the media. Um the other one is regarding funding. At this time, we would ask to strike the motion for funding. Uh we do not wish to address that with the court. >> All right. Thank you. I also saw there's a motion to withdraw from Mr. Ascar. Should we allow him to leave first so he doesn't need to continue? >> That that would that would be great if the court would. >> All right. Mr. Ascar, you're here present in the courtroom. You filed the motion withdrawal. I think that has to be made in open court, but you're here and that's your motion, correct? >> Yes, your honor. >> All right. And you can represent to the court that your withdrawal comports with the rules of professional ethics. Correct. Yes, your honor. >> Is there any objection from anybody either at defense or the state to the withdrawal? >> Not from the state, your honor. >> Okay. >> No, your honor. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Ascar for your assistance. And you're free to go if you'd like. >> Thank you. >> All right. Back to you then. Who's going to be arguing the clothing issue? Mr. Visa, did you want to? >> Yes, your honor. Um, we did brief the issue. We our goal in in is to ensure that Mr. Jane has a fair um trial and to assure that there's no prejudice associated to him while he's being in custody. The US Supreme Court has recognized that uh it is prejuditial for a jury to see uh Mr. Jane in shackles in our jail suit and we wanted to ensure that since this is a high-profile case with lots of media, we want to ensure that we don't taint the f future jury pool in this case. And so that's why we've requested that he be allowed to be in civilian clothing when he makes appearances in court. Um the state has indicated their concerns for for safety. We understand that uh and we're not asking the court to order the sheriff's department not to have their safety protocols, but we believe there are mechanisms in place that he can be um with protected for the security of the court and the personnel um while still being in civilian clothing. Your motion addressed possibly a closed hearing. The state objected to that and felt like enough evidence was submitted as exhibits. Um, do you agree that an evidentiary hearing is not required? >> That's correct, your honor. >> All right. Thank you. Mr. Grunander, did you want to make your response? >> Um, yes, Judge. I'll be brief, but there are a few points that I would like to cover. Um, first off, Mr. Bautista does recognize that the rights I think that they're looking for um apply to juries, judge. Um the right to be free from visible restraints and to appear in civilian clothing only appear at a jury trial. Um apply at a jury trial. Um the Supreme Court cases referred to by by the defense involve jury trials and sentencings before a jury. Um I'm not aware of any Utah case law um rules or statute that support uh the defendant's arguments. Um and the pre-trial restraint cases relied on by the defense were decided by foreign jurisdictions and not controlling on Utah. Um the court security is a joint obligation of of both the court and law enforcement. And here, law enforcement uh believes that the typical inmate attire and typical restraints should apply. We submitted an affidavit from Chris Palmer, the Utah's court security director, who supports the sheriff's office determination on what level of restraint they believe is appropriate. Uh he also supports typical inmate attire. Uh Matt Higgley, a chief deputy for the county sheriff's office who is over the jail, believes the defendant should be subject to physical restraints at all inerson hearings. And finally, Lieutenant Elden Packer um of this court's uh security for this courthouse believes that non-visible restraints here are not enough uh that he needs to be fully restrained um and appear also in typical jail attire. And that's based upon Lieutenant Packer's risk assessment as he speaks to um in his affidavit. Without getting into specifics with respect to the defendant's conduct at the jail, uh suffice this suffice it to say, I think he is a real risk. Law enforcement is very concerned about his conduct and behavior. Um my final point is this, judge. Um, and it's it's a rhetorical question. But my final point is, does does anyone really believe um honestly and reasonably reasonably believe that a juror is going to vote in favor of guilt because he or she previously viewed a photograph or a recording of the defendant in jail clothes and shackles and uh not because of the evidence presented in court. Um I understand the argument. I understand the risk. I suppose of prejudice, but it's a big leap to think that he's going to be found guilty because of that. My faith in the system, my faith in jurors is greater than that. Um, and it hasn't been my experience. My experience is that jurors take their their role very seriously. So, I think that any potential prejudice can be mitigated um through jury selection. Again, Utah law does not support the defense's arguments. Um, and law enforcement overwhelmingly wants to see him uh fully restrained as appropriate and in jail attire. And I'll submit it with that, judge. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. BEstein. Any reply? >> Your honor, this is a capital case. This the state of Utah, Utah County has elected to seek death at an early stage in this case, even before the preliminary hearing. This is a case that will be scrutinized for many years to come. if an unfavorable verdict comes Mr. Jane's way. With that in mind, because of the nature of the offense and the high publicity it it has gotten and will continue to get, we do believe that when we vire the qu the potential jury, we will be asking them and if any of them have indicated that they've seen photos with him in jail tire, we would be moving to strike them for costs. to ensure that we don't have a jury or that we're able to sit a jury to prevent that in the future. It's imperative that we paint him in in a in a picture that is is appropriate. When people see people in jail and shackles, they believe that they are dangerous to themselves and they put fear in the in the minds of potential jurors and we want to assure that that doesn't happen. Utah County as well as other counties, third district court for example, have recognized this issue and are now dressing people in civilian clothes during all pre-trial hearings on cap and similar capital cases. It's again, we're not asking for him to be unrestrained. We understand the security concerns, but clearly when he's at trial, he will be in civilian clothes or at least we would be arguing such and and any restraint systems would be not visible to the potential jury. We're just trying to enfor ensure a fair trial and ensure that we have a jury that is unbiased. With that in mind, we we believe that there are mechanisms in place and we want to protect his constitutional rights. >> Thank you. The court will take the motion under advisement and issue a written ruling most likely within a week and the record the minutes will reflect that the funding motion has been withdrawn. Uh thank you for your arguments on that. The court also did see uh something that's represented um to be a persel motion, but it was just want to address that here on the record that in the court's view having reviewed it that motion is not really seeking persel type relief. It really goes to funding. So, uh, the the mo the court will recognize that while it's labeled as such, it's not really a personel motion. We'll deny it. It's related to the funding motion and allow council to work with Mr. Jane to understand what funding is available and what has been done there. Okay. Is there anything else the court can accomplish today? >> None on that case, your honor. We do have a preliminary hearing set and we believe we're on track for that. All right. Wanted to confirm that and obviously you'll have a ruling from the court well in advance of that. So you'll know how to prepare and the the jail will also know how to prepare. >> Thank you. >> Okay. On the other matter uh 20 was there something I >> Thank you your honor. >> Okay. Thank you. On 25140 2923. This is the aalt case. Um what's proposed on that? That's a third waiver today. So your honor, I know there's motions pending that were filed again by Mr. Ascar. We ask that his uh withdrawal be recognized in that case as well and that the funding related motions in that case also be withdrawn. I know that there is an issue raised by the county attorney regarding uh the proper appointment of council in this case. I have had an opportunity to speak with council for the state as well as uh the public defenders office, Miss Madson, and I I believe there's a collective agreement that it would be appropriate that that matter be assigned uh to the county attorney's office mostly for the the funding and appropriate reasons. However, uh with the permission which I have already gained from my client and the firm and hopefully from all other parties, I will remain as counsel on that case essentially working proono. >> All right. You said county attorneys. Did you mean public defender's office? >> I spoken with both. I spoke with Mr. Pomeroy earlier and I spoken with Miss Madson today as well. >> Right. Right. I was just saying that you recommend that this case be assigned to the public defenders office. >> Yes. But I I will also remain as counsel on the case. >> Understood. Thank you. Miss Madson, can you speak to that? Is your office ready to take over defense of this one? >> Brown speak to that. Um I I I do support what Mr. Nisha said that if if that case comes to our office, I believe that I'll be appointed to it and I'm happy to work with all other council. Um but as far as funding and uh whether we can or or want to take that case, I'll defer to Mr. Brown. Thank you. >> Hey, Mr. Brown. >> Thank you, Judge. Yes, just just as a housekeeping matter, we will accept the appointment and we'll work with council to see how we go forward. >> All right, sounds good. In that case, we'll uh allow Mr. Ascar's withdrawal. I guess that was intended for this case as well, Mr. Ascar. Is that correct? >> Yes, your honor. >> All right, Mr. Ascar is deemed withdrawn from 2923. We'll appoint the public defenders office and sounds like Mr. Nish is willing to stand by and assist as well. Uh, that being the case, you may not have discovery yet. You'll probably need another waiver hearing. Is that right, Miss Manson? >> That's correct, your honor. >> Do you have a date in mind? >> I do not. Uh, I know that the the uh other case that preliminary hearing is set sometime in January. Is that correct? >> Yes, I believe it's January 6th. >> Um, I mean, Mr. Gish has the most background on this. So, Jonathan, if you have some sort of preference for timing, please let me know. Um, otherwise, I'll just ask for sometime in probably February. >> That'd be appropriate. There's there's three days presently set for the preliminary hearing. January 6, January 30, and trying to find the third date. Believe there were three. >> We only days right now. >> Oh, we only have two days right now. That's right. I apologize. I thought there was three. Um, I I I agree that I think the potentially the second week of February would be an appropriate time to have that waiver hearing so that they've had time to up get up to speed and we will have conducted the preliminary hearing in the second case to know how that might affect uh the direction of the second case. >> Any objection from the state to going out to February? >> Your honor, uh, Mr. Pomeroy is pretty much packed the entire month of February with the with trials. He was hoping to come back on February se I mean, excuse me, January 7th to at least being able to check in and and um get a scheduling conference at that time to see when we can schedule the preliminary hearing. >> Thank you, Miss Nes. I wasn't aware you were appearing on this case. Appreciate your making your voice heard. >> Thank you. >> Any objection to going to January 7th, even if it's no more than to set um another date? >> Fine with me. Yeah, I think it's fine. I don't think the issue will be ripe. We may not be able to accomplish much, but it it'd be good to have a check-in, so that's fine. >> Okay. January 7th at 1:30 on that case for continued waiver. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, your honor. >> And um >> is that WebEx? >> WebEx. Okay. Thank you. >> The last one is 251404476. On that one, you've been council for a little while, Miss Madson. What did you want to do on that one? >> Your honor, if we could get another waiver. Uh I don't mind setting that to the 7th as well. >> Mr. Farre, are you appearing on this one? >> Thank you. I need to be more cognizant of which prosecutors on which case. Thank you. Um any objection to January 7th? >> No, your honor. >> All right, Mr. Jane. Um also I meant to say on 2923 there's a persel motion there as well. same observation. It's not really a person of fail motion. It's more a funding issue. So, the court denies it. And then on all three cases, Mr. Jane, we will see you um first on January 6th for the preliminary hearing. That will be here in person in the courtroom. And then on January 7th at 1:30 remotely from the jail and those will be essentially status hearings on the two waivers. Hey, your honor, I have a a quick question. I filed a habius corpus. Um, and it's been filed. I think it's on the docket. I was requesting appointment of council. I'm wondering if I can get the public defenders office on that. The >> court's been made aware of that. That's a civil case and it's uh we're working through that as well. So, yes, there's you'll be receiving notice of a response from the court here shortly on that one. Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. Have a good day everyone. Thank you for your help. >> Thank you, your honor.