George Zinn Waives Preliminary Hearing in Three Cases, Arraignment Set for January
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Joshua Ritter and Greg Hartley Analyze Lance Twiggs' Body Language in the Tyler Robinson Murder Case
1:07:03
Death Penalty Defense Strategy Breakdown: Bryan Kohberger Case Analysis with Legal Experts Mark Geragos and Ashleigh Merchant
15:40
Tyler Robinson's Attorneys Challenge Utah County Sheriff Over Courtroom Appearance Protocols in Charlie Kirk Case
9:01
George Zinn Waives Preliminary Hearing in Three Cases, Arraignment Set for January
George Zinn appeared in court to address three criminal cases, where he and his attorney decided to waive his right to preliminary hearings in all matters. The proceeding revealed a moment of confusion when Zinn initially misunderstood the legal process, believing he was waiving his right to trial rather than just the probable cause hearing. After a brief recess and clarification with his defense counsel, the matter proceeded forward. The court accepted the waivers, bound all three cases over for trial, and scheduled an arraignment where Zinn will enter his pleas. The hearing demonstrated the sometimes confusing nature of criminal proceedings for defendants navigating multiple cases simultaneously.
December 17, 2025
Court Appearance and Case Overview
George Zinn appeared before the court to address three separate criminal cases numbered 79 through 81. His defense attorney consulted with him regarding his rights to preliminary hearings in all three matters, and they jointly decided to waive those hearings and proceed directly to arraignment.
When the judge confirmed with the defense counsel that Zinn was competent to proceed, the attorney affirmed this assessment. The judge then directly questioned Zinn to ensure he understood the nature of a preliminary hearing and his right to such a hearing in all three cases.
Initial Confusion About Legal Process
When asked if he had questions about his right to preliminary hearings, Zinn responded that he wanted to see the matter move forward. This response created some ambiguity, as it was unclear whether he wanted to proceed with the preliminary hearings or waive them as his attorney had indicated.
The judge sought clarification, explaining that the case could move forward either with a preliminary hearing or by waiving that right. Zinn then clearly stated he wished to waive the hearings. The state consented to the waiver, and the court accepted the waivers in all three cases, binding them over for trial.
Misunderstanding Leads to Brief Recess
As the proceeding continued and the judge asked defense counsel whether to conduct an arraignment immediately or schedule it for another date, a significant misunderstanding came to light. The defense attorney revealed that Zinn had been under the impression that waiving the preliminary hearing meant waiving his right to trial altogether, and that he would proceed directly to entering a plea.
The attorney explained to the court that they had only been discussing waiving the preliminary hearing, which is a probable cause hearing, and had not yet addressed whether there would be a trial. Zinn acknowledged that he thought the probable cause had already been established in the police reports.
Defense counsel requested permission to call Zinn at the jail to clarify the situation. The judge agreed and adjourned the matter temporarily to allow for this communication.
Resolution and Scheduling
After speaking with her client by phone, the defense attorney recalled the case and confirmed with the court that Zinn now understood they were only waiving the preliminary hearing and setting the cases for arraignment. The court accepted this clarification and proceeded accordingly.
The judge accepted the waivers as previously indicated and bound the cases over for trial. The arraignment was scheduled as the next proceeding, which would be the time when Zinn would enter his pleas in all three cases. The judge acknowledged that it appeared Zinn had wanted to enter a plea that day but explained they would set it over for another date.
When offered two possible dates—December 30th or January 7th—defense counsel selected January 7th at 1:30 for the arraignment. The judge confirmed this scheduling with Zinn and concluded the hearing.
