Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Judge Graf And The Order To Bind Tyler Robinson Over For Trial On All Counts Charged (Part 2) (9/5/26)

Transcript

Judge Graf And The Order To Bind Tyler Robinson Over For Trial On All Counts Charged (Part 2) (9/5/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 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 pick up where we left
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: off with Judge Graff's order to bind Tyler Robinson over
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: for trial. At approximately 1230 a.m. on September 11th, 2025, Mr.
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: Robinson had an interaction with Officer Goforth while his vehicle
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: was stopped on Campus Drive. Nest video obtained from a
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: home located on 925 South Orem shows a car matching Mr.
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: Robinson's Dodge Charger parked out front at approximately 12.38 a.m.
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: on September 11th, day one. On the morning of September 11th, 2025, Mr.
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: Twiggs asked Mr. Robinson in person if what he said
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: the night before was true. State example number 16. Mr.
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: Robinson responded that it was, and that he wished he
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: had not done it. Just before 8 p.m. on September 11th,
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: a message was sent from Mr. Robinson's account to the
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: Discord group stating, Hey guys, I have bad news for
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: you all. It was me at UVU yesterday. I'm sorry
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: for all of this. I'm surrendering through a sheriff friend
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: in a few minutes. At approximately 8.30 p.m., a family
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: friend went to pick up Mr. Robinson and take him
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: to the sheriff's office. He asked Mr. Robinson if he
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: had any property or clothes that he used during the incident. Mr.
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: Robinson responded that he discarded those items. At approximately 9 p.m., Mr.
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: Robinson arrived at the Washington County Sheriff's Office. He was
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: wearing a maroon shirt and jeans. Investigators searched Mr. Robinson's home.
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: They collected a Dremel, tool, its bit container, two boxes of.
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: 30- 06 ammunition, some. 30- 06 cartridge casings, and a burned paper
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: that had markings consistent with the note Mr. Robinson left
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: behind for Mr. Twiggs. Investigators also found shooting targets in
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: a closet with Perforations in them consistent with bullet holes.
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: The FBI performed DNA testing on the screwdriver, towel, rifle,
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: spend casing, and three unfired cartridges found near the scene.
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: The testing provided support for inclusion of Mr. Robinson's DNA
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: on each item. Evidentiary standard at the prelim hearing stage.
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: The primary purpose of the preliminary hearing is the ferreting
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: out of groundless and improvident prosecutions. before a defendant may
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: be bound over for a trial in district court, the
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: magistrate must find probable cause to believe that the crime
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: charged has been committed and that the defendant has committed it.
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: The prosecution's burden is light and merely requires the state
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: to produce believable evidence of all elements of the crime charged.
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: That's the same standard that applies on review of an
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: arrest warrant. The court must view all evidence in the
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: light most favorable to the prosecution's and must draw all
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution. Magistrates may disregard
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: evidence as incredible only when it's so contradictory, inconsistent, or
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: unbelievable that it's unreasonable to base belief of an element
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: of the prosecutor's claims on the evidence. It's not appropriate
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: for a magistrate to weigh credible but conflicting evidence at
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: a prelim hearing, because such a hearing is not on
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: trial on the merits. Rather, magistrates must leave all the
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: weighing of credible but conflicting evidence to the trier of fact. Nevertheless,
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: magistrates are free to decline, bind over where the facts
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: presented by the prosecution provide no more than a basis
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: for speculation, as opposed to providing a basis for reasonable belief.
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: To be sure, the line separating speculation from reasonable inference
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: can at times be faint. State vs. Prisby, an inference
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: is a conclusion reached by a considering other facts, and
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: deducing a logical consequence from them. On the other hand,
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: speculation is the act or practice of theorizing about matters
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: over which there is no certain knowledge at hand. In short,
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: the difference between an inference and speculation depends on whether
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: the underlying facts support the conclusion. Constitutional and Statutory Validity
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: of Hearsay Evidence under Rule 1102 A. Governing Constitutional and
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: Rule Provisions Throughout the prelim hearing, defendant Tyler James Robinson
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: raised and maintained a continuing objection to the state's reliance
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: on out-of-court hearsay statements. Specifically, defendant challenges the constitutional and
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: statutory validity of admitting out-of-court witness statements, medical examiner autopsies,
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: and digital communications under Utah Rule of Evidence 1102. Opposition
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: to Defense Motion Act II, defendant asserts that the state's
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: reliance on such hearsay evidence, one, violates his rights under
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: States Constitution, 2. deprives him of the effective assistance of
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: counsel under the Sixth Amendment, violates the Fourteenth Amendment due
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: process rights, and 4. infringes upon the separation of power
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: under the Utah Constitution by delegating judicial authority to define
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: admissible evidence to legislative or rule-based bodies. Opposition to Defense
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: Motion at 2 and 3. the court addresses each objection
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: in turn. The admission of reliable hearsay at a criminal
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: prelim examination is governed by the plain text of the
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: Utah Constitution and Rule 1102 of the Utah Rules of Evidence.
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: State v. Timmerman, 2009. Nothing in his Constitution shall preclude
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: the use of reliable hearsay evidence as defined by statute
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: or rule in whole or in part at a prelim
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: examination to determine whether probable cause or at any pretrial
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: proceeding with respect to release of the defendant if appropriate
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: discovery is allowed as defined by statute or rule. Pursuant
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: to this explicit constitutional authorization, Utah Rule of Evidence 1102-A
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: codifies the reliable hearsay as admissible at criminal prelim examinations.
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: Utah Rules of Evidence 1102 under Rule 1102-B, the law
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: defines specific structured categories of of out-of-court assertions that constitute
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: reliable hearsay, including evidence establishing the foundation for or the
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: authenticity of any exhibit under subsection B3, medical and autopsy
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: reports and records under subsection B5, and a declarant statement
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: that is written, recorded, or transcribed verbatim and is made
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: under oath or affirmation, or after notification that a false
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: statement is punishable Under subsection B and 8, B, Confrontation Clause,
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: defendant argues that the state's reliance on testimonial hearsay without
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: an opportunity for cross-examination violates the Sixth Amendment. The court
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: recognizes the significance of that protection at trial. Under State v. Timmerman, 2009, however,
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: the Federal Confrontation Clause does not apply to a Utah
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: prelim hearing in the same manner because the proceeding determines
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: probable cause rather than guilt. Accordingly, defendant's confrontation clause objection
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: does not provide a basis at this stage to exclude
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: hearsay that otherwise satisfies Rule 1102, nor does Crawford v.
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: Washington 541-2004 require a different result. Timmerman explains that Crawford
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: addresses testimonial hearsay at trial and does not extend the
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: trial-level confrontation right to Utah preliminary examinations. C. Assistance to
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: counsel and due process. Defendant also argues that admitting out-of-court
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: statements without an opportunity to cross-examine the declarants renders his
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: right to counsel ineffective. Opposition to defense motion at 19.
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: The court is not persuaded with that right to counsel
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: provides a broader right to cross-examine an out-of-court declarant when
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: the confrontation clause itself does not apply at a prelim hearing.
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: Defendant was represented by counsel. who challenged the state's probable cause,
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: showing the cross-examined the witness who testified. On the record,
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: the court finds no independent violation of defendant's right to counsel,
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: arising from consideration of hearsay, and otherwise satisfies Rule 1102.
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: Defendant's due process argument likewise does not establish a constitutional violation.
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: The admission of reliable hearsay, at this stage, does not
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: violate the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause. Gerstein v. Pugh
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: holds that a full adversarial proceeding, including cross-examination of adverse witnesses,
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: is not constitutionally required for a pretrial probable cause determination.
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: A Utah prelim hearing likewise determines whether the state has
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: established probable cause. It does not adjudicate guilt because defendant
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: retains the full trial-level protection applicable to the education of guilt,
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: consideration of reliable hearsay at this preliminary stage, does not
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: independently violate due process. D. Separation of power and application
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: to the evidence. Finally, the court considers defendant's separation of
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: power argument and concludes it does not establish a constitutional violation.
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: Article 1, Section 12. It expressly permits reliable hearsay at
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: a prelim examination when that hearsay is defined by statute
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: or rule. Utah Constitution, Article 1, Section 12, Rule 1102.
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: implements that constitutional authorization. The rule does not displace the
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: magistrate's judicial function. The court remains responsible for determining whether
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: the evidence satisfies the governing evidentiary rule and whether the
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: state has established probable cause under Rule 7b. The court
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: therefore concludes that application of Rule 1102 in this proceeding
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: does not violate the separation of powers. Rule 1102 does
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: not render all hearsay admissible. Agents Davis and Hull, Examiner
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: Baker and Examiner Karner testified at the prelim hearings and
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: satisfy the witness requirement of Rule 1102E and Rule 7BD2.
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: The medical examiner's report falls within Rule 1102B5. and the
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: evidence establishing foundation or authenticity falls within subsection B3. The
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: tweak statement may be considered under subsection B8, only to
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: the extent the record establishes that subsection required predicate. Any
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: other hearsay on which the court relies must independently satisfy
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: subsection B9, including its reliability requirement. The court relies only
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: on hearsay satisfying these requirements. All right, folks, we're going
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: to wrap up right here. And in the next episode,
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: we're going to pick up with the analysis of charges
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: and probable cause determinations. All the information that goes with
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box.