Lane Myers Threatens “Disruption” at Friday Hearing

Jailed YouTuber Lane Myers promised “a disruption” at Friday’s motions hearing that will determine the possibility of second bond hearing after Judge D. Douglas Metcalf refused to immediately grant him an immediate hearing on bond during a hearing on Monday.

According to our court reporter Judy, Myers made the comments outside the presence of the judge but in front of prosecuting attorney Rache Stiles, security and members of the Pima County Sherrif’s department.

Myers had arrived at court on Monday with a stack of motions that he said he was unable to file while in jail. According to our court reporter, he made advisory attorney Mark “The Shark” Resnick make photocopies of his motions and distribute them to both prosecutor Stiles and Judge Metcalf, causing a brief delay before the hearing started.

When asked by Judge Metcalf about his promised motions, Myers said that he was not provided with an envelope to file his motion to force Judge Metcalf to recuse himself from the case until last Friday. He said he still fully intended to follow through with his threat to the judge. Myers would come back to his threat to the judge whenever Metcalf did not take his side during the hearing.

Metcalf then set the trial date for the combined set of charges against Myers for July 22, a day later than the previously established July 21, 2025, trial date as his trials are always scheduled to begin on Tuesday.

Myers inquired if the entire trial and sentencing would be completed within the 150 days he was guaranteed under “speedy trial” rules. Metcalf said that as long as the start of the trial started within the 150-day limit, it was fine. Myers disagreed and said that the trial and sentencing must be completed within the 150-day limit and threatened the Judge with possible sanctions. Judge Metcalf cut Myers off and told him to “file a motion” to express his displeasure.

Judge Metcalf then set a final status conference before trial for July 14, 2025. When asked about a public jury questionnaire, prosecutor Stiles was against the use of the questionnaire, while Myers was for the questionnaire.

Both Judge Metcalf and prosecutor Stiles expressed concern that since the news coverage of Myers’ Trial was through social media and not the normal news media, it would likely tempt potential jurors into seeking out further information on the case by viewing social media.

Myers rejected the argument and said that possible jurors would not be able to escape the case as he was going to be putting up billboards in the Tucson area highlighting the case. When pressed for details about the billboards, Myers said he would not be attacking the victim in the case, “as that would be illegal” and would focus on fundraising efforts to seek donations for his commissary account and for his legal defense.

Judge Metcalf asked prosecutor Stiles if the jail was monitoring Myers’ actions while in jail and if she would be notified if Myers took action that would put him in violation of court procedures.

Stiles admitted that Myers was being lightly monitored, along with the social media pages of supporters on both the pro and anti-Myers camps. However, she made it clear that she was concerned about Myers’ aggressiveness and said that any violations of procedures or attacks on the victim would negatively impact the current settlement talks with Myers.

Myers interjected that the Judge could do nothing about the billboards, with the Judge responding that Myers was incorrect and that he could issue a gag order. When pressed by Myers to issue the gag order, Metcalf refused to do so.

Attorney Resnick interjected and said that he would consult with Myers and if he felt anything Myers had planned would violate the rules of the court, the pair would meet with Judge Metcalf before taking action.

Judge Metcalf then ruled against the use of a jury questionnaire.

After the ruling, Myers demanded that the Judge set an immediate hearing on his demand for a new hearing on bond.

According to Myers, this right to a second bond hearing was established in Arizona Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure 7.4(b), which YouTuber Merb34st points out has been since revised to 7.4(c)(1).

The revised version of the rule reads: Generally. On motion or on its own, a court may reexamine bail eligibility or the conditions of release if the case is transferred to a different court, if a motion alleges the existence of material facts not previously presented to the court or the defendant is unable to post bond due to the defendant’s financial condition. The court may hold oral argument or an evidentiary hearing.

Myers had attempted to argue that because of rule 7.4(c)(1), he had a right to a bond hearing within seven days of filing his motion for the new bond hearing. He then directly ordered Judge Metcalf to give him his hearing as the Judge had no choice under the rule and that the prosecution could not object to the hearing.

The YouTuber talked over the Judge, the prosecutor, his own advisory attorney and even the Court Reporter, who begged him to “slow down” on multiple occasions in making his extended demand of Judge Metcalf. He was firm and clear that the rule he was referring to had put him in control of the courtroom and that the Judge needed to set his trial date with seven days or face repercussions.

Prosecutor Rachel Stiles responded to Myers’ claims by pointing out that Arizona’s Rules of Criminal Procedure rule 7.2(b)(1(B) states:

(b) Before Conviction; Defendants Charged with an Offense Not Eligible for Bail.

(1) Not Eligible Based on Commission of a Specified Felony or Any Felony While on Pretrial Release. A defendant must not be released if the court finds the proof is evident or the presumption great that the defendant committed:

(B) any felony offense while the defendant was on pretrial release for a separate felony charge.

Myers had been out on bond for seven felony charges and seven misdemeanor charges when he was charged with committing another three felonies and three misdemeanors while out on bond.

Compounding the situation before the Court, Myers previous attorney, William Parven, had filed a motion for a second bond hearing before he withdrew from the case. Judge Metcalf was in the process of considering the motion when Parven withdrew from the case and withdrew his motion.

Judge Metcalf ordered a hearing on Friday, May 16, 2025, at 10:30AM, to discuss the possibility of a new bond hearing for Myers. Myers attempted to correct the judge by stating that it was for the bond hearing as he was entitled to a rehearing on bond and the ability to cross-examine witnesses and reexamine the charges against him.

Metcalf explained that he needed to review the motion that Myers had submitted and the opposition by the prosecution. Myers then went into an extended rant, threatening the Judge with recusal from the case as he felt the judge was not following the rules of procedure.

Myers was eventually shut down by Metcalf, when Metcalf stated that the hearing was over. Before the audio stream of the hearing ended, Myers shouted that he would not be attending Friday’s hearing.

Myers would then make the threat outside of the presence of the judge, that he would cause “a disruption” at the hearing on Friday. He screamed that Stiles could forget about a plea deal as he would no longer cooperate with her before being taken out of the courtroom by security.

Despite Myers’ claims that his case was widely covered by the mainstream media, and with three Myers supporters restreaming Monday’s hearing, Myers received no new donations to his GiveSendGo account after the hearing.

Clash with Bao won the crowdsourcing title for the day with a $250.00 take, followed by our own Ongoing Expenses campaign with a $20.00 take.

Myers’ next court hearing is scheduled for Friday.