Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Judge Graf And The Order To Bind Tyler Robinson Over For Trial On All Counts Charged (Part 3) (9/6/26)

Transcript

Judge Graf And The Order To Bind Tyler Robinson Over For Trial On All Counts Charged (Part 3) (9/6/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: this episode, we're going to get right back to the
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: bind over order filed by Judge Graff in the matter
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: of Tyler Robinson and the murder of Charlie Kirk. Analysis
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: of charges and probable cause determinations. Having resolved defendants threshold
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: constitutional objections, the court now turns to a count by
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: count review of the evidence admitted at the prelim hearing
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: to determine whether the state has met its burden or not.
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: of establishing probable cause. Count one, aggravated murder, capital felony. A,
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: probable cause for count one, aggravated murder. To bind over Mr.
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: Robinson for trial for count one, aggravated murder, the state
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: must first present sufficient evidence to sustain reasonable belief that
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: he intentionally or knowingly caused the death of Charlie Kirk.
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: See Utah Code section 76-5-202-2a. A person engages in conduct
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: intentionally or or with the intent or willfully, with respect
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: to a result of his conduct, when it is his
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: conscious objective or desire to cause the result. Utah Code,
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: Section 76-2-1031. A person acts knowingly or with knowledge, with
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: respect to a result of his conduct, when he's aware
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: Utah Code, Section 76-2-1032. To bind defendant over for trial
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: on count one aggravated murder, the state must establish probable
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: cause that 1. Defendant, 2. Intentionally or knowingly, 3. Caused
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: the death of Charlie Kirk, 4. Under circumstances in which
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to another
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: individual other than Charlie Kirk and the defendant. Utah Code
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: Section 76-5-202-2A3 The state's evidence of identity is substantial, combining
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: forensic DNA matching with statements attributed to defendant admitting responsibility
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: for the shooting. First, the DNA profile obtained from the Mauser.
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: 30- 06 caliber bolt-action rifle, state example 30, the suspected murder weapon,
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: provided forensic evidence connecting defendant to the firearm. Defendant's DNA
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: was identified as the major contributor on multiple key components
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: of the firearm, including the stock, grips, butt plate, the trigger,
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: and trigger guard. This physical evidence is corroborated by the
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: toolmark analysis, state example 32. which matches the engraving cutter
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: recovered from the defendant's residence to the cartridge casing and
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: live ammunition found within the Mauser rifle. Furthermore, the FBI
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: DNA analysis, State Exhibit 31, places defendant's DNA on a
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: screwdriver recovered at the scene, with a likelihood ratio exceeding
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: 30 quintillion. Second, the surveillance tracking evidence provides additional corroboration.
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: Agent Hull's review of campus surveillance footage tracked the suspect,
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: matching defendant's physical attributes, clothing, shoes, and distinctive gait from
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: the parking structure to the rooftop area on the low-sea
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: building associated with the shooting, and then fleeing the scene
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: immediately following the shooting. This physical tracking is reinforced by Ms.
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: Noble's ring doorbell camera footage, which captured defendant's vehicle identified
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: by its unique wheels and custom styling, parking near the
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: location shortly after midnight on September 11, 2025. Third, defendants'
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: own statements provide direct evidence of his alleged responsibility for
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: the shooting. In text messages sent to his roommate Lance
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: Twiggs shortly after the shooting, defendant allegedly stated, I had
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I took it.
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: He followed with his second text addressing why he acted.
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: Why did I do it? I had enough of his hatred.
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: Some hate can't be negotiated out. Those electronic statements are
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: further corroborated by the alleged in-person confirmation that to Twiggs
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: the following morning, and the subsequent message from defendant's Discord
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: account stating, it was me at UVU yesterday. Viewed in
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: the light most favorable to the prosecution, this evidence is
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: sufficient at this stage to support a reasonable belief that
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: the defendant is the individual who shot and killed Charlie Kirk. Accordingly,
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: the state has demonstrated probable cause as to the identity
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: and homicide elements of count one. B, legal framework of
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: the great risk of death, aggravating circumstance under State v. Sosa-Hurtado.
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: The central legal dispute concerns the aggravating circumstances alleged under
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: Utah Code Section 76-5-2022-A3, which requires probable cause that defendant
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: knowingly created a risk of death to another individual other
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: than the deceased individual and defendant. State v. Sosa-Hurtado 2019
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: Utah provides the Controlling Utah Supreme Court Analysis. The court
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: explained that the relevant circumstances are not necessarily confined to
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: the precise act causing death. A risk-creating act occurring within
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: a brief span of time may qualify when it forms
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: part of a sufficiently connected series of events surrounding the murder.
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: The court identified several non-exclusive considerations bearing on that inquiry,
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: including the temporal relationship between the murderous act and conduct
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: endangering a third party, the spatial relationship among the defendant, victim,
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: and third party, and whether and to what extent the
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: third party was actually threatened. Those considerations guide the statutory inquiry.
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: They do not replace it. The ultimate question remains whether
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: the circumstances support reasonable belief that defendant knowingly created a
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: great risk of death to another individual within the relevant
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: zone of danger, one involving a likelihood or high probability
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: rather than merely a possibility. Unlike Sosa Hurtado, the state
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: does not allege here that the defendant fired a separate
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: shot at a third party immediately before or during the killing.
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: The alleged aggravator therefore depends principally on whether the circumstances
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: of the single shot directed at Mr. Kirk placed at
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: least one other individual within a zone of danger and
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: whether defendant knew of the circumstances creating that risk. That
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: factual distinction does not make Sosa Hurtado inapplicable but it
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: requires application of its governing principles to the evidence presented here,
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: rather than treatment of its particular facts as dispositive. C.
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: Application of the Sosa-Hurtado factors and the statutory standard. Defendant
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: emphasizes that Sosa-Hurtado involved conduct materially different from the alleged
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: conduct here. There, the defendant fired at a third party
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: shortly before firing the shots that killed the murder victim. Here,
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: by contrast, The state alleges a single shot fired from
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: approximately 415 feet away that struck the intended victim. Defendant
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: argues that because the shot struck Mr. Kirk and no
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: additional shot was fired, the evidence establishes only a theoretical
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: possibility rather than a high probability of death to another person.
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: The distinction is material but not dispositive. Sosa-Hurtado does not
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: require a separate shot directed at a third party in
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: every case. At the same time, The statute requires more
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: than the abstract possibility that any discharge of a firearm
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: might injure a bystander, nor does the court conclude that
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: firing toward a crowded event without more necessarily satisfies Section 76-52022A3.
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: The court therefore considers the actual spatial circumstances surrounding the shot,
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: the proximity of other individuals to Mr. Kirk, and the
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: evidence bearing on defendant's knowledge of those circumstances. First, the
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: record places several individuals in positions around Mr. Kirk and
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: the canopy when the shot was fired. Mr. Kirk was
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: seated beneath the canopy. One member of his security personnel
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: was sufficiently close that his body was beneath the tent.
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: Another was positioned to the left and front of Mr. Kirk,
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: and another to the right and in front, although the
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: record does not establish their precise distances from him. A
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: participant stood at the microphone east of and in front
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: of Mr. Kirk, although the precise distance between the participant
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: and Mr. Kirk was likewise not established, though Losey Center
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: was east of the courtyard and southwest rooftop area provided
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: a clear line of sight to the canopy where Mr.
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: Kirk was seated. The court relies on those documented positions
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: rather than assuming measurements not established by the record. Second,
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: the physical evidence establishes that the shot was fired from
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: an elevated position approximately 415 feet from the canopy above,
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: and 68 feet from above it, and that the bullet
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: traveled anatomically from front and back and downward after striking Mr. Kirk.
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: The projectile did not exit his body. The court therefore
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: does not assign a quantitative probability to ricochet, overpenetration, or
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: hypothetical deviation in aim that the evidence does not itself quantify. Rather,
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: the relevant evidence is that defendant allegedly discharged a. 30- 06
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: rifle toward a seated victim while several other individuals occupied
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: positions in and around the canopy area. Viewed favorably to
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: the state, their documented position in relation to the intended
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: target considered together with the elevated location and downward direction
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: of the shot permit a reasonable inference at the prelim
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: hearing stage that at least one third party was within
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: the relevant zone of danger and that the risk was
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: more than an abstract possibility. Third, the state has presented
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: evidence supporting probable cause as to the defendant's knowledge of
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: those circumstances. Defendant was present in and around the event
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: area before the shooting. Earlier that morning, he walked through
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: the amphitheater area and interacted with Turning Point USA representatives.
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: He later approached the Losey Center rooftop area before returning
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: shortly before the shooting. The evidence therefore supports an inference
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: that defendant had opportunities to observe the event area, its configuration,
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: and the gathering attendees. From the southwest roof area, there
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: was a clear line of sight to Mr. Kirk's canopy.
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: The rifle also contained an optical accessory. without making findings
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: about the degree of magnification or precisely what defendant saw
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: through the optic, these circumstances support a reasonable inference that
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: defendant was aware that other individuals were positioned near Mr.
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: Kirk when he fired. The court distinguishes between the objective
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: circumstances creating the alleged risk and defendant's knowledge of those circumstances.
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: The state need not establish at this stage that the
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: defendant calculated a particular ballistic probability It must, however, present
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: evidence permitting or reasonable inference, both, that another person was
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: exposed to the statutorily required degree of risk and that
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: defendant was aware of the circumstances giving rise to that risk.
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: The evidence described above is sufficient under the prelim hearing
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: standard as to both inquiries. Defendant's contrary argument is substantial.
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: Unlike Sosa-Hertado, the evidence described here does not include a
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: separate shot directed at the allegedly endangered third party. The court, therefore,
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: does not treat Sosa Hurtado as factually equivalent to this case.
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: The question at this stage, however, is not whether the
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: state has proved the aggravator beyond a reasonable doubt or
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: whether defendant's competing interpretation is ultimately more persuasive. It's whether
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: believable evidence and reasonable inferences support probable cause as to
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: each element. Under that limited standard, the state has met
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: its burden. The court's determination does not rest on crowd
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: size alone or on assumed probability of wind, ricochet, overpenetration,
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: or bullet deflection. It rests on the evidence concerning the
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: location and manner of the shot, the documented positions of
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: several individuals in and around the canopy area, defendant's opportunity
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: to observe those circumstances, and the prelim hearing requirement that
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: reasonable inferences be drawn in the state's favor. Whether the
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: state can prove The aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: remains for trial. Count one is bound over for trial.
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: This conclusion is limited to the circumstances reflected in the
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: record and does not establish a categorical rule that a
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: shooting committed in a populated location necessarily satisfies section 76-5-202-2A3.
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here.
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: And in the next episode, we're going to pick up
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: with D. probable cause supporting the victim targeting enhancement. All
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: in the description box.