Friday’s hearing to determine if jailed YouTuber Lane Myers would receive a second bond hearing for multiple felony and misdemeanor charges had an explosive end as Myers was removed from the courtroom after an altercation with the Judge.
Our courtroom reporter observed that Myers appeared anxious and was fidgeting with his materials before his hearing started on Friday. He briefly talked to prosecuting attorney Rachel Stiles over terms of his possible bond, arguing that a felony conviction in Illinois when he was in his twenties should not count against him in his quest for bond.
Myers had a status conference on Monday where he presented his motion for a new bond hearing to Judge D. Douglas Metcalf. Myers claimed in the motion that a rule of procedure allowed him a mandatory bond hearing as his cases had passed from one court to another.
Prosecutor Stiles countered that Myers already had a bond hearing and had a second “no bond” hearing, where his attorney was allowed to cross examine witnesses and put on evidence.
Furthermore, she has argued that under Arizona rules of procedure and as stated in Arizona’s constitution, someone accused of committing new felony charges while out on bond for previous felony charges is not eligible for bond.
Judge Metcalf denied Myers’ demand for an immediate hearing on bond and set the Friday hearing to discuss the motion. At the end of Monday’s hearing, Myers screamed that he would not show up to the Friday hearing, then later promised that he would cause a “disruption” at that hearing.
That threat was on everyone’s mind as Myers attempted to file a motion to change the Judge using rule 10.1 of Arizona’s rules of criminal procedure after Judge Metcalf began the hearing.
As the Judge went to look up rule 10.1, Myers began to become verbally agitated and pressured Metcalf to take immediate action. Metcalf asked Myers to calm down while he reviewed the rule.
Metcalf read the rule and accepted that Myers had filed the motion in open court and ruled that it could not take effect for this hearing as Myers needed to file it before the hearing started. Myers argued that he had actually filed the motion before the hearing had started, which was disputed by Metcalf.
The two began to bicker and Myers indicated that he did not file the motion via postal mail, as was his ability as a pro se defendant who is incarcerated, because the motion would not have arrived in time for Friday’s hearing. Metcalf reminded Myers that it was his decision to go Pro Se and that he must abide by the rules that all pro se defendants who are incarcerated agree to.
Myers began to talk over Metcalf, accusing him of running a “Kangaroo Court” and making up his own rules of procedure. He then demanded to be taken back to jail as the proceedings were now over.
Metcalf responded by angerly ejecting Myers from the courtroom, which Myers started to ignore before being escorted out of the courtroom by security.
Following Myers’ ejection, Metcalf denied Myers’ motion for a second bond hearing without prejudice and stated that Myers could refile it once the hearing was held for Myers’ 10.1 motion.
Mark Resnick, Myers’ advisory council, expressed concern that he could not represent Myers in the case until a formal hearing was conducted to remove Myers’ pro se status. Judge Metcalf said that he was taking Resnick’s concerns under advisement, and that he was only denying the motion and taking no further action at the hearing.
Prosecutor Rachel Stiles interjected that there was no record of Myers’ motion for the new bond hearing within the Court’s electronic filing system. Metcalf ordered court workers to find the motion and put it on file within the system before ending the hearing.
Myers’ filing was available to download within the Arizona Superior Court’s online records database later that evening.
A hearing with Presiding Judge Danielle Liwski has been scheduled for June 6, 2025, to review Myers’ motion to remove Judge Metcalf from the case.
