YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Watch Live: Robert Durst Hearing over Defense’s Demand for Mistrial

Watch Live: Robert Durst Hearing over Defense’s Demand for Mistrial — Transcript

by Law&Crime Network · 5,472 words · 797 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:09[Applause]
0:39[Applause]
0:44very aligned condition - under no
0:51circumstances should remain they would
1:17so what how does so mister Gagarin
1:21explained to me you you're just writing
1:23to me having underlying conditions the
1:26difficulty of traveling and now you
1:30there are witnesses who have the same
1:32circumstances therefore therefore how
1:39does that relate to whether or not I
1:40ought to allow remote testimony
1:46[Music]
1:53we have the same breakfast of witnesses
1:56and then you excuse the witnesses and
2:00allows the trigger remotely that means
2:03users excuse the walkers but we can't
2:05try a case without the physical presence
2:09it just is not a substitute for the
2:13light confrontation of the right of
2:15counsel there is a danger so I suppose
2:29what you're saying is that I'm going to
2:32reframe your argument I guess your
2:34argument as to is that when so mister
3:27mister you're just saying that he's
3:35echoing these earlier points and the
3:37points that you made and I
3:39appreciate all of that so we're more
3:43concerned about the zoom in line with Mr
3:46Justice Scalia's opinion employee your
3:48honor which talks about the Installer
3:50believe or real face-to-face
3:52confrontation and the cases that have
3:55dealt with exceptions have been very
3:58limited and important to the authority
4:01quartered by the state they dealt with
4:03that nice try to send earlier on with
4:05chopping witnesses there has been and I
4:09think the court is very correct that not
4:12only do you have to examine the
4:14mechanics of this but you also have to
4:17examine the whether the reason why they
4:19want to do it rises to the same level as
4:23the state's concerned for the welfare of
4:25the children in this case is not
4:28necessarily clear that the Reavers they
4:31want all these people to be on zoom' is
4:33concerned with anything other than the
4:36very health issues which are not
4:38precipitating what mr. big Aaron's not
4:41about as it applies to counsel so on the
4:44one hand the people argue that these
4:47people need to be on zoom because
4:49they're scared to come but that means
4:51that mr. Gerst gives up this
4:53confrontation right that you read Mr
4:56Justice Scalia's opinion it is really in
4:59stone and when for example Sandra Day
5:01O'Connor expanded only a little bit in
5:05the context of child witnesses it was
5:07not intended to apply to adults and just
5:11because your honor we're in this unique
5:13situation doesn't mean
5:16the right of confrontation again your
5:19honor based on expediency okay to take
5:30you out of the way to move forward and
5:34we respect them we know that's your
5:36obligation but obligation cannot be at
5:40the expense of mischief there's
5:42confrontation and due process rights all
5:45right and anything else on the issue
5:46okay or on the side and again I think
5:49that I think as to specific ways I do
5:52think there must be a justification as
5:54to each witness we can't just take with
5:57broad strokes and say we've got a
5:59pandemic known and come I think it
6:01really does depend on their
6:02circumstances and as far as your
6:04attendance your circumstances so I think
6:07both sides are are are urging that I
6:11consider the impact of coded 19 and
6:15making decisions here today and so you
6:17you seem to agree there's some overlap
6:20on the arguments but a difference as to
6:24how I actually apply the implications of
6:29for free for counsel and the
6:32implications for witnesses you're
6:35telling me that it is saying
6:36[Music]
7:17[Music]
7:23[Music]
7:41[Applause]
8:15so let me ask you a question mr. de
8:18Karen so you would agree that the
8:20conditional examinations under some
8:22circumstances are admissible and they
8:25are they are video recordings of a
8:29directed cross-examination those
8:33concerns yes there's a specific
8:35procedure for that we can read
8:50[Applause]
9:03or anything that can be read in the
9:06black this elite league different
9:10situation we have so mister be daring so
9:13mister you do guaran or mr. chestnut
9:15tell me so dude does that mean you have
9:19a trial that's important to the rest of
9:48us so we represent understand delay
9:59would be in his best interest and the
10:01best interest of this council all right
10:03but again I'm really talking about
10:05confrontation I'm just so so by your
10:08theory you couldn't really there be
10:11circumstances where you could not
10:14possibly confront a witness and
10:16therefore a person couldn't be
10:18prosecuted
10:25see rulings by courts and otherwise
10:30about the impact of the pandemic on
10:34confrontation but when I read to you
10:37this morning of the quote from the chief
10:39Junction percent Southern District of
10:41New York which has the busiest in the
10:44country so mr. ray we should be able
12:01where's the mystic carriage the rain I
12:04talked to they do what we do okay well
12:07thank you want to be the HP right all
12:10right thank you I mean NACDL I respect
12:13them also I don't know that it's a four
12:16nor is an interview with a district
12:18judge in a newspaper I'm not not sure
12:21that's really of the authority I'm I'm
12:23looking for but I think what that's
12:31what's a dissenting concurrence that was
12:38that cited in in the motion I didn't
12:40know I think inside cases do it again
12:49anyway but here's the thing we're
12:52talking about and I will I will look at
13:00it but we're confusing our arguments I
13:03want to be precise you're talking you're
13:07you're talking about whether or not the
13:10trial can go forward safely but the
13:14issue we're discussing right now is can
13:18there be remote testimony by persons who
13:22the Court finds would be in a vulnerable
13:29and an in mortal danger should they come
13:33here Your Honor we're still back it's a
13:42it's a clever they lost the mistrial
13:45motion they hijacked emotion were on
13:48that's the mystery had nothing to do
13:50with the the mistrial item you see
13:52that's a problem here is with this
13:54discussion and that's the cement
13:58emotional argument that's what we're
13:59concerned about which was under the
14:01Health and Safety AMA you can assert
14:03that you the conditions aren't safe
14:06enough that there isn't
14:07assurance either generally or for
14:09oneself and I hear both arguments and
14:13they and then say plus we move for a
14:17mistrial
14:18the second doesn't follow this is
14:32[Music]
14:43[Music]
14:48[Applause]
14:48[Music]
15:23[Music]
15:34[Music]
15:45alright I'll keep that in mind when we
15:49decide when decide about well keep it in
15:54mind if you know
15:56motion to adjourn all hearing but you
15:58haven't made that motion and it probably
16:00in writing your honor ain't it on on
16:02this issue this very briefly you have
16:03two things it's very important and the
16:06court knows the bill you cannot cite
16:09cannot cite Authority that is not a
16:13demotion and argue it because the other
16:15side doesn't have the opportunity so
16:17what so so the issue is begin if they're
16:31going to cite something I just want to
16:32be able to respond to it I don't see
16:34this we know that Maryland versus Craig
16:37controls that's Maryland versus Craig
16:40but the people must satisfy this for I
16:42will allow a witness to testify remotely
16:45apparently Justice Scalia put it in a
16:49way that mr. Chas not believes is very
16:52persuasive and he liked me to read those
16:54words so I am going I took as a
16:57rhetorical plea so I will and perhaps
17:02there's a different rationale but I will
17:04look at it as he said he said he's
17:06imploring me to do that why shouldn't I
17:07then did the second the second point
17:10that counsel made is that they are
17:13equating and we're going to be clear we
17:17are not saying that every witness now
17:19it's not safe and then the company
17:21that they should testify by soon so by
17:23definition mr. Baran's point is
17:25nonsensical because we've already agreed
17:27that we're only talking about
17:29out-of-state witnesses who have to fly
17:31here on planes now mr. de Guerin and mr.
17:35Chas now mr. Lewis have more than a
17:38month right now to get themselves out
17:40here they have a lot of different
17:42alternatives to how they want to do that
17:44that is not going to be true with our
17:46witnesses so the idea that mr. Darren
17:49says well if if you're going to allow
17:52any accommodation for witnesses then
17:54that means that we don't have to be out
17:57of your reader that means you got to
17:58stop trial it doesn't make sense
18:01it's not the rationale of an either
18:02thorry that's been cited you're playing
18:04on all right you about anything I'm
18:07starting going this point no right okay
18:23let's see I'm not gonna read your case
18:27when you pull it out now right here you
18:29have a page sight
18:32mr. run tests on the page cite the page
18:51sight
19:04twenty seven twenty eight twenty eight
19:21oh three so you're talking about black
19:24men and Stevens concurring opinion about
19:34Julia's opinion stars he won't be
19:38digging for the court she only wrote the
19:40opinion girl oh I got the wrong wrong
19:42case oh yeah you told me it was 108 X
19:45escort 2798 87 us 1012 that's better
20:07here on a distant City Billy I'm just
20:11pulling up now really the first page on
20:16the holding that we demonstrate the big
20:20debate provocation was violated since
20:23the green at issue then it was the
20:25complaining witness to avoid viewing
20:27account as they either fence among that
20:31was the concern of the court I thought
20:44we were done with the mr. L motion no no
20:45he's just saying that's where it's cited
20:47and now he's reviving it on this motion
20:49so again all right
20:53another case this is one with the screen
20:58blocking blocking witness that's
21:02different great right it's a it's a
21:06privacy screen three of the
21:09confrontation Clause and face to face
21:11what face that this means is what the
21:14Justice Scalia talked about all right I
21:16will find on television doesn't read
21:22everything shows that these ooh do
21:26people do not pay attention the facial
21:29expressions are lost so it's just like
21:37all of your honor do you think that soon
21:41mr. MP is composing rises to the level
21:44of satisfying the confrontation Clause
21:46video think it does I'm reading those
21:55I'm reading Justice Scalia's opinion now
22:12[Music]
22:26going into the witness from where we
22:29viewed from the the table listing at
22:32upper all right I don't want the
22:34back-and-forth dialogue please
22:36[Music]
22:59[Applause]
23:09he quotes richard ii he is one colorful
23:13writer right from richard ii to be
23:22precise alright it is always more
23:32difficult to tell a lie about a person
23:35to his face than behind his back in the
23:39former context even if the lies told it
23:42will often be told less convincing Lee
23:49versus Craig governs the case so as a
23:54general principle I think that the the
23:57essence of confrontation is likely
24:01preserved in and I would only resort to
24:06this if it's justified so the
24:08justification must be presented as a
24:09witness and also I do think that the
24:14reference to Penal Code section 1348
24:17suitable it's designed by the
24:19legislature it was not designed by a
24:21court it's a it's a withstood scrutiny
24:26this this long I think it's a good model
24:28but again we must protect the right to
24:31confrontation if if its essence is
24:36denied by the particular technology or
24:38by a lack of justification I won't allow
24:40that testimony it is where the specific
24:59this person is not councilman so
25:01attorney for a third party witness has
25:04lodged a document here telling all of
25:10his lawyer then a golfer he's
25:18volunteering to the 1340 procedure he
25:21isn't and he fits the process fits the
25:23requirements of courts given he's well
25:25over 65 at the time of presentation are
25:32reasonable time for presentation you
25:35need to demonstrate to the court that
25:37the death of procedures justified next
25:42we have stipulations counsel did all the
25:47bringing on stipulations number 52
25:50through 56 the court receives and
25:52appreciates and accepts those
25:53stipulations
26:04I want to talk about our next hearing
26:06day any other issues we need to decide
26:08first yes your honor we are concerned
26:12council first brought this up during the
26:14May 21st 2020 conference call where for
26:19the first time they mentioned that mr.
26:21jurors may not be testifying they now
26:25brought it up again today saying that in
26:27essence they have been put in the
26:30position where he cannot testify now if
26:33they choose to make that tactical
26:35decision that's their decision however I
26:38want to be clear that we are more than
26:41willing first of all we're going to have
26:43your honor
26:44that the defense demonstrate to the
26:46court it can be ex parte the efforts
26:49that things have made to attempt to prep
26:52quote mr. Durst or his testimony we
26:55would add that again since the amitié
26:57stipulation in December 22nd of 2019 our
27:01concern is that this is going to be used
27:03as some either attempt to force a a
27:07mistrial later or two on appeal argue
27:10how their rights are infringed we are
27:13saying right now Your Honor I think the
27:15court mentioned this in the call if the
27:17defense needs to have we're off on
27:19Fridays if they need Friday's to prep
27:21the court mentioned again we're off the
27:23record killing the conversation but the
27:26court said repeating with courts out of
27:28time defense if you need to adjourn
27:31early on some days to prep mr. Gerst
27:34will do that the court even said that if
27:36you need to have a brief recess before
27:40ministers testify to prepare him that
27:43you'll accommodate that we will also
27:45certainly your honor agreed to any
27:48reasonable efforts by the defense but
27:50again it cannot be hollow and it cannot
27:53be gamesmanship they need to actually
27:55demonstrate that they've made effort to
27:58resolve this problem that then brings up
28:00your honor mr. Milius is email which
28:03relates to the technology that the
28:06prosecution
28:07wants to use in the case now we sent
28:10that to the defense end of the court
28:12because it does involve the court
28:13agreeing to let us use it but it also
28:16provides the defense with if they are
28:19interested on some very easy ways that
28:24they can mitigate the issues that are
28:26going to be out there so our first
28:27question is your honor does the court
28:29have any objection I would turn this
28:30over to mr. Milius with what we are
28:33requesting to do for our people sigh so
28:36you did send that email to me you notify
28:39the defense they were in the email also
28:41we often have an email so that we could
28:45talk about procedures and it made sense
28:50to me and the policy of this Court is to
28:53facilitate communication any way we can
28:56through electronic means the example
28:58today is allowing counsel to appear by
29:00phone whatever we can do to make us work
29:04I don't think it would be too obtrusive
29:06if it were then we read that we talked
29:08about it and perhaps the defense would
29:10like to utilize that procedure as well
29:12or they can reject it out of hand if it
29:14for some reason that doesn't work but I
29:17think there are other means for
29:19communication we can we can talk about
29:22them but that's simply your question is
29:24is that permitted yes
29:25well remember the defense response your
29:27honor was not only do they not want to
29:29use it themselves mr. chestnut requested
29:31that we be denied the opportunity to
29:34utilize as well I see I didn't realize
29:36there was an objection I thought that
29:38part of the problem was that it was it
29:41was by way of an email and if anybody
29:44objects to communicate privately off the
29:47record that's fine this you've chosen
29:49after you do you have an objection to
29:51the people utilizing those procedures to
29:54communicate silently with each other
29:55during the travel even though they're 6
29:57feet apart
30:01[Music]
30:07[Applause]
30:08[Music]
30:11as a team that's not my place but if it
30:15creates some kind of an issue impacting
30:18the way that the case is presented on
30:21mr. 30 as it affects mr. Durst and I'm I
30:24would raise it but until I actually see
30:26the operation it would be difficult for
30:28me to to give an opinion but like I say
30:31I'm not looking to be an obstructing and
30:34just telling you the real we don't think
30:37we have a different role in this the
30:41people do in terms of what we believe is
30:44appropriate communication with our
30:46clients we all want to be able to talk
30:48to this leaders when we want to we want
30:51to be able to be close to him for a lot
30:54of reasons most importantly the fact is
30:56already hearing it's easier to
30:59communicate that way but on its face
31:02Your Honor we would have no objection to
31:04the people who employ some methodology
31:08of communication that they choose that
31:10we see something objectionable that you
31:11know but we don't want it to apply to us
31:13also I can I can meet with you on a
31:18pretty client matters ex parte so I
31:21could in the Inglewood courthouse meet
31:24with you and you we could work out a way
31:26for you to communicate with your client
31:30I don't know what will work but we
31:33couldn't at least a test possibilities
31:37I'm just a making that invitation I I
31:40don't I realize the rest of our miss
31:47camellias any problem with that
31:48no primer I would actually volunteer my
31:51time
31:52or even defense they'd like to see how
31:55we plan on implementing it I have all
31:58the time in the world to help them and
31:59would love to all right mr. Miller yes
32:01so is willing to cooperate so that same
32:04spirit of cooperation you've shown
32:05reaching in reaching the stipulations
32:09that perhaps they will extend to
32:11accomplishing the trial tomorrow is the
32:14court with the comments that I made
32:16regarding the recitation of what we have
32:19discussed regarding the defendants
32:21testimony etc and regarding is the court
32:26still making the same offers to the
32:29defense that it made during our
32:31conference call in other words that the
32:33court I don't work with them if on
32:36fridays they'll have access absolutely
32:38et cetera
32:38absolutely and whatever I can do to
32:40facilitate the visits it's a difficult
32:43at the jail understandably so there may
32:46be problems in the courthouse also but
32:48we can we can address those four
32:50problems one other issue that relates to
32:53this and I brought up in my argument I
32:55don't think the defense has done this
32:56but something I certainly would have
32:58done if I were mr. Curtiss attorney is I
33:00would be talking to the Sheriff's
33:02Department to find out and he get his
33:05own transport so that there's no one
33:07else on that it's already on a small bus
33:10I'm not sure if you can not but I don't
33:13think they're gonna be a whole lot of
33:15trials go online might be by himself
33:16anyway by that time I don't know but yes
33:20we look into that appreciate that drunk
33:31obviously the the defense has the
33:35defense counsel three defense counsel
33:38have submitted medical information
33:42showing that they could be vulnerable
33:48and that they are 65 years of age or
33:52older
33:53three of the four defense lawyers but
33:56that information was as June 10th
34:01so the aides and the underlying
34:03conditions are not going to change but
34:06Center for Disease Control and
34:08California Public Health recommendations
34:11probably will change they do change
34:15rapidly sometimes I I'm going to order
34:23counsel to be present in this court July
34:2620 or document why they are not present
34:32and at that point the burden will be on
34:35the defense to prove why the trial
34:37should not proceed on July 27th the
34:41defense has supplied an expert analysis
34:46of the circumstances of trial it's some
34:52very interesting material that and
34:56persuasive material I'm not sure that
34:59the North Korean I'm sorry the South
35:01Korean call center was was comfortable
35:04because of the it didn't seem there was
35:06any social distancing but of course I
35:09want to avoid creating a super spreader
35:11event I don't
35:12and we will do that we're here for you
35:14say for you that's policy of this court
35:17so I'm open for you to hear more and to
35:21for you to incorporate material from
35:24your mistrial motion so I can consider
35:27that but the burden is on the defense to
35:30to show why we shouldn't proceed none of
35:32the people if it's update sufficient for
35:36the people if for example if I were to
35:41be satisfied that I ought to delay
35:43longer I don't know if that would cause
35:46a problem for you though I'm setting
35:47this on July 20 let me just said this
35:56your honor yeah I'll just presented
35:57deserve two ways to look at it obviously
35:59the closer we are the better the
36:02assessment of course you may and we may
36:04have a window of opportunity let me just
36:06interject there may be a window of
36:07opportunity and the safest time may be
36:09sooner rather than later i but I do feel
36:14that my my obligation of the community
36:18not just to the people in the defense is
36:20to maintain public health and I maintain
36:23a an environment that is a safe
36:26environment so saying that I am hoping
36:30to hear what evidence you may have about
36:32safety or lack thereof the problem going
36:35eliris I'm not a world that plans is
36:39fine that's fine Your Honor can we ask
36:41the court this because the last
36:42information we had is several weeks old
36:44can the court indicate what the status
36:47is with the jurors at this point in time
36:50so we have I have intentionally not had
36:54dialogue with jurors we very well we
36:56know that they are essentially unlimited
36:59in time we know that some of them are
37:03older we know that some of them have
37:06child care issues potentially I want to
37:10choose a time when our jurors feel safe
37:13when we
37:14our number of jurors and that they feel
37:17safe and that they are safe so that is
37:20that is also again I I do not want to
37:27have to go through another jury
37:28selection process I think it's very very
37:31important that we should Shepherd this
37:33so sooner may or may not be better
37:35so let's and if we need to wait we'll
37:38wait they will be put when they come in
37:51that they won't tell us if they have
37:52problems we will in a sense will inquire
38:01who might have problems I expect we
38:04might spend a couple of days parking the
38:05jurors about the problems and if they
38:07can be reconciled I don't know it
38:10depends on the circumstances but to get
38:12back to my earlier point we I've
38:17purposely I don't want to engage in
38:19dialogue with jurors when you are not
38:22present so we have simply sent them the
38:26message from this Court which you'll
38:28read in the minutes it's the Cal Grimm
38:30admonitions about avoiding media and not
38:34talking about the case so we don't know
38:37the status of of the jurors you know my
38:41correct of the court said yeah when we
39:08attorney gearing your feelings I care
39:11about your feelings but I really am
39:12going to respond to evidence okay so
39:15present
39:18we're gonna have to be there on the 20th
39:21personally even if our doctors of thing
39:24know mr. ray good morning good to hear
39:27your voice no I just say my you justify
39:31why you're not here and you've given me
39:33the reason why you're not here today I
39:35accept that I need you to renew that for
39:38our next our next meeting
39:42[Music]
39:46that's mr. Rainey they just say if
39:48you'll speak before I give your name
39:49before you speak because they're working
39:55on the 27th unless we can be here on the
40:47well let's see that's interesting we
40:51can't we don't have room for all of you
40:53here but we do not ruining
40:56I'll get back to you on that attentively
40:58I will come here but here's the thing
41:01it's not just your doctor's assessment
41:04of your condition it is also what are
41:07the public health advisements current
41:11for that time well not from governor
41:29Newsom though I admire him know from
41:32from whatever his source or was I think
41:35that was justification for the mask
41:37order and that's why we do enforce masks
41:40at all times in our court but yes of
41:44course and I do I don't mean to discount
41:46the material though I didn't I have one
41:48concern about the South Korean example
41:51otherwise I do think it was the useful
41:54information and you can incorporate it
41:56by reference
41:56your honor to things then at this point
41:59in time the last time the court advised
42:02us there was only one juror who had
42:04responded they had any issue is that
42:06still the same there's no update on that
42:08is that correct that's all I heard okay
42:12and then and the second issue is that
42:16counsel seems to be in there questioning
42:19they seem to be out of the impression as
42:22I listened to it that well the court
42:25might just grab their mistrial motion on
42:27the 20th son of mr. on motion if they
42:30the defense moves to adjourn that I will
42:33if you don't then I guess I go forward
42:36and if you feel it's not safe and that
42:40people are willing to go forward it
42:41would be your motion to adjourn and then
42:43at that point we continue the internal
42:45ordering now right but the court isn't
42:47saying there's want to be something to
42:48get this question from on my side the
42:51court isn't saying that if you get some
42:53notes from the defense that the court is
42:55automatically going to accept that and
42:57say okay we're not starting in other
43:00words we'll have it hearing on the 20th
43:01yes and will our
43:03both ways and then finally the last
43:04thing you may accept what they're
43:06supplying sure yes all right yeah when I
43:11with the last issue your honor is that
43:14obviously there have been a lot of
43:16statements made by the defense regarding
43:18the status of Kovan etcetera I assume
43:22what the court is also going to be
43:23looking at it's not just who's getting
43:26it but what is the situation with the
43:28hospitals what do they reckon what are
43:30they recommending are people getting
43:31what's the level of sickness in other
43:33words the courts can look at all of the
43:36information and then finally your honor
43:37and I would assume that this is the case
43:40is that if we have the Chief Justice of
43:44the calabrian Coria the presiding judge
43:46in Los Angeles County and they are
43:48saying you know what courts are opening
43:51then it's going to end up being I would
43:54expect an uphill battle for the defense
43:57to simply say well I know it's been
44:00judged that everybody can come in but in
44:02our particular circumstances because
44:04we're over 65 whatever might be we can't
44:08come in and I can you know I can hear
44:09that are going yes because because just
44:12because the courts are open doesn't mean
44:13that they're open it's safe for people
44:16to come so mr. Jones not this make an
44:24interesting point and then as both sides
44:26have got relied on the safety of persons
44:2865 and older so that's it's all very
44:31interesting but I will save it for July
44:3320 because there's no motion on the
44:35table to adjourn a motion to adjourn is
44:38the only way I would postpone the case
44:40and then and then upon a showing such as
44:45I have described but but the court put
44:48the courts position where it sits today
44:49is is in essence we're restarting trial
44:52it's a question of not if but when
44:55that's your room right enough there's no
44:57basis round for a mistrial if you had
45:00you know there
45:02there are scenarios that require mr. L
45:04this is not one of them
45:05the justification has not been shown for
45:07a mistrial and the court is not
45:09suggesting that if on July 20th we're
45:12not ready to start then that means a
45:14mistrial other words your honor
45:15right it's not weed in this truck that
45:17does not mean in this trial either the
45:19question on the 20 of them to take the
45:21file motion for a mistrial if they want
45:22but it's it's it's a the issue really is
45:26going to be a journeyman I think going
45:27to be probably if you talk but I won't
45:30say never but I think they've exhausted
45:32the arguments it's quite quite a good
45:34argument but it's it's not enough for
45:36it's the best argument you can make
45:37under the facts for a mistrial but it's
45:41not supported absolutely our final thing
45:45is the court had previously ruled on
45:47Weston sure was on the record or not but
45:50the court had agreed that we could
45:51videotape our witnesses so we will have
45:54a camera in here when we end up we start
45:57not in here but in Englewood we're going
45:59to need it we're going to need a camera
46:00because the whole courtroom will be
46:03occupied by jurors and there are very
46:06few seats for the public so I think I do
46:08have to allow a camera okay
46:10thank you kind of that counsel with the
46:23hair used to be in Inglewood point your
46:26honor we oh is that going to be nine of
46:28ten we can do either but I thought he
46:30was tended to actually missed the court
46:31the court responded nine and but for mr.
46:34Abramson I wouldn't be here at 10:00
46:35Thank You mr. Abramson so what time are
46:38we on the 20th run
46:42I expect we should we should do it at
46:44nine o'clock okay thank you your honor
46:48if your client your clients
46:54nine seven seven a waiver was specific
46:57as to this hearing so if for some reason
47:02feel the odd not be present or he wants
47:04to waive his presence I believe I will
47:06new need a new 97 7b waiver or I'll
47:09leave it in your discretion to use the
47:1197 7e waiver in the form described in
47:16the Penal Code that would that would be
47:21more flexible for you I'm a
47:26pencil okay up to you alright done then
47:45it's a practical matter I believe that
47:48when jurors come in their domain there
47:50are certainly going to be some people
47:51who there may be some people who have
47:53purchased and I want to hear them out
47:56they might take a day or two so I didn't
47:58expect that this is on that first day oh
48:00also it's occurred to me that that after
48:04because of the delay I ought to allow I
48:09ought to allow a an opening statement by
48:14each side without any audio-visual just
48:19because I want to minimize it but I
48:21would allow a brief brief opening
48:23remarks from the t-bolt and and from the
48:26defense or you can reserve it defense
48:28can reserve and how long your honor than
48:30from what an hour first have an
48:42obligation to tell me if they did seumas
48:50sponte
49:11thank you
49:17Thanks
49:22no I've been given a human a good reason
49:26why we ought to we ought to be here
49:29unless I tell you otherwise Department
49:32any one of us to tell you otherwise just
49:33because of a small logistical issue
49:58[Music]
49:59[Applause]
50:05[Music]
50:08yes no no please
50:30about the 17th instead of the 2017
50:34instead of it
50:35we do anything we believe you can do
50:38anything with on the 17th
50:42like the proconsul Friday July 17th
50:52our position is need to be the 20th
50:56perhaps we can do that before the 17th
50:59that that's understandable in the
51:01circumstances in other words is we get
51:04them and then secondly we would probably
51:08have to have somebody as an observer for
51:11for us I think where the heck are
51:19everything yeah everything in the
51:21seventh move everything than the 17th in
51:22the Train is a problem so I'll get on
51:28the 17th and enable wood yes you would
51:35one
51:42got into the dollar right now but we're
51:45still filing it and you say you want
51:47correct yes we're here we're here until
51:49that day will be bigger and shine over
51:52here and I think that's all thank you
51:59your honor
52:01all right we're adjourned until twice
52:04everything that bill did not survive
52:07I'll should I ring the bell come on oh
52:08come on Herman eighty one is adjourned

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Watch Live: Robert Durst Hearing over Defense’s Demand for Mistrial by Law&Crime Network, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 5,472 words across 797 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.