Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Tyler Robinson Tells The Court That There Is Not Enough Evidence To Proceed To Trial (Part 5) (8/16/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Tells The Court That There Is Not Enough Evidence To Proceed To Trial (Part 5) (8/16/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: this episode, we're again right back too. The tyler Robinson
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: responds to the State of Utah and their attempt to
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: bind them over for trial. Three. Count seven must be
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: stricken because the evidence does not establish that mister Robinson
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: had knowledge that a child under the age of fourteen
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: was present and would see or hear the commission of
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: the charge thomicide. The information charges mister Robinson in count
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: seven with the substantative offense of knowingly exposing a child
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: under the age of fourteen to the charged thomicide, in
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: violation of Utah Code Section seven six Dash three Dash
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: two oh three Dash ten two. This section of Utah
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: law requires a state to prove what a violent offense
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: occurred in the physical presence of a child younger than
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: fourteen years old, with the defendant having knowledge that the
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: child is present and mayor see or hear the commission
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: of a violent criminal offense Utah Code Section seventy six
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: Dash three Dash tow three Dash ten two. The state
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: is failed to present sufficient evidence to establish probable cause
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: that mister Robinson did in fact have the requisite knowledge.
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: While the state presented a video which shows two children
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: in fact present at the TPUSA rally at UVU on
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: September tenth, twenty twenty five. The state presented no evidence
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: that the shooter was aware of this child's presence, nor
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: that he was aware of the presence of any other
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: child under the age of fourteen. Without any evidentiary support,
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: the state invites the court to speculate that mister Robinson,
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: from approximately four hundred feet away and during a thirty
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: five to forty four second period, came to be aware
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: of the presence of children under the age of fourteen,
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: relying upon mister Robinson's alleged walking tour of the campus
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: several hours before the TPUSA rally began. There was no
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: evidence that mister Robinson was anywhere near the crowd that
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: formed prior to the rally, or that he observed children
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: or families with children making their way to the space
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: where the rally occurred. Indeed, the path mister Robinson traveled,
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: as visible in State Exhibit twelve Dot one and twelve
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: Dot four, suggests mister Robinson did not even pass anyone
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: that could be identified as under fourteen years old. The
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: reasonable inference might differ in the location of the incident
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: where not a college campus. If a defendant were to
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: engage in crimes of violence at an obviously occupied elementary
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: school or a day care facility, it might be reasonable
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: to infer the knowledge required under count seven. With the
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: evidence as it is, this is not a reasonable inference. A.
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: The violent offense committed in the presence of a child.
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: Aggravating factor must be stricken for the same reason, there's
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: no evidence that mister Robinson had the requisite knowledge. Separate
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: and apart from count seven, the state is alleged the
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: identical aggravating factor in connection with counts one and two
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: purs Utah Code Section seventy six Dash three two three
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: dot nine, the analysis is no different. There's no evidence
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: that mister Robinson had the requisite knowledge, and the state
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: and properly invites the court to speculate ce Murphy twenty
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: twenty six, Utah at thirty eight. An inference is a
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: conclusion reached by considering other facts and deducing a logical
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: consequence from them, and speculation intels the act or practice
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: of theorizing about matters over which there is no certain
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: knowledge at hand. B. The state's backup position that sentencing
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: enhancements are not subject to proof that prelim hearing is
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: inconsistent with well established constitutional law. The state asserts that
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: the enhancements alleged in the information are not subject to
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: this Court's review in a prelim hearing. The state is
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: incorrect about this important matter and relies on invalidated distinction
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: between elements and sentencing factors. While the Uti Ta Supreme
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: Court did hold in cases in the seventies and eighties,
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: in the year two thousand, the United States Supreme Court
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: squarely held that any fact which increases the potential punishment
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: in a case other than criminal history facts are elements
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: of the offense which must be proven to a jury
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: beyond a reasonable doubt Apprendy verse New Jersey, nineteen eighty.
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: In fact, the Court wrote, it's unconstitutional for a legislature
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: to remove from the jury the assessment of facts that
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: increase the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: defendant is exposed. It's equally clear that such facts must
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, the
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: state is charged mister Robinson in an information subject to
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: probable cause determination with two separate sentencing enhancements, each of
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: which carries the possibility of increasing mister Robinson's punishment. Utah
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: Code Section seventy six Dash three Dash two oh three
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: dot nine requires that this sentencing Court or the Board
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: of Pardons and Parole to consider whether the knowing presence
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: of a child enhancement has been proven in the course
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: of exercising their authority over sentencing and release decisions. Utah
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: Code Section six Dash three Dash two three fourteen is
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: a victim targeting enhancement which makes one classification higher the
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: offense for which the defendant was convicted. Therefore, it's too
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: subject to apprend die where the state has elected not
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: to proceed by way of grand jerry, but instead elects
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: to present the evidence in support of its information to
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: a magistrate. The defendant's constitutional right not to be tried
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: on any of the charge defenses absent in an initial
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: finding a probable cause, extends to enhancements that increase the
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: potential punishment. This is a logical consequence of apprende, which
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: eliminated with exceptions not applicable here. The distinction between elements
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: of an offense and sentencing factors which increase the maximum punishment.
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: The state must prove each of the enhancements to the
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: court sitting as a magistrate by a probable cause as
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: to the violent offense committed in the presence of a child.
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: Mister Robinson has explained above why the state has failed
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: to meet its burden of proof. Mister Robinson now turns
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: to the second enhancement alleged in the information, the allegation
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: that mister Robinson selected mister Kirk based upon mister Robinson's
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: views of mister Kirk's political expression Part four. The state
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: has failed to produce reliable evidence that the victim targeting
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: enhancement applies here. The victim targeting enhancement, set fourth in
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: Utah Code section seventy six Dash three DASH two three
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: fourteen is focused on the defendant's perception concerning a personal
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: attribute of the victim. The single personal attribute alleged in
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: the information is mister Kirk's political expression section seventy six
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: three two oh three fourteen one K without any further
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: specificity in the charging document. In support of this enhancement,
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: the state profers two disconnected sets of facts which fail
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: to establish probable cause. One set is Exhibit five Dot
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: one A Rule eleven oh two witness statement of David Engelhardt,
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: a pastor. Pastor Engelhardt's statement contains no information concerning mister
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: Robinson's state of mind as to mister Kirk's political expression.
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: While it purports to present this court with information as
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: to what Charlie Kirk believed as all theologically orthodox Christians
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: believe about gender identity and sexuality, it does not identify
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: any specific statement made by mister Kirk on these topics
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: prior to September tenth, twenty twenty five. It also identifies
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: subject matters that mister Kirk would debate and discuss at
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: various events, but it does not identify a specific political
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: expression of mister Kirk on such topics, let alone statements
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: of mister Kirk that were both known to and motivated
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: by mister Robinson. Therefore, mister Inglehart's written sermon as to
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: what all theologically orthodox Christians, including mister Kirk, believe, does
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: not establish that mister Robinson intentionally selected the victim of
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: the criminal offense because of the defendant's belief or perception
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: regarding the victim's personal attribute or a personal attribute of
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: another individual or group of individuals with whom the victim
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: has a relationship. The only other fact is mister Robinson's
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: statement to mister Twiggs, I've had enough of his hatred.
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: Mister Robinson does not tell mister Twiggs in the text,
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: nor was there, according to mister Twiggs, any prior communication
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: between them concerning mister Kirk, nor that mister Robinson targeted
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: mister Kirk because of his religious beliefs, or his political beliefs,
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: or any other category of beliefs. He refers to hatred
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: and nothing more. Ironically, it's the state that argues that
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: because mister Robinson and mister Twiggs are two men who
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: love each other, and or it speculates because mister Twigs
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: and not mister Robinson was at least intermittently identifying as
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: a female to his close friends, it's mister Kirk's views
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: on these topics which are the hatred mister Robinson was
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: referring to. These circumstances are not sufficient to establish, even
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: by probable cause, which if any political expression of mister
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: Kirk motivated mister Robinson to select mister Kirk for an
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: act of violence. There is no evidence a specific political
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: expression of mister Kirk, which, if any, mister Robinson may
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: have been aware of or focused on There are no
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: writings attributed to mister Robinson on the topic. There are
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: no other statements by mister Robinson to third parties which
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: address mister Kirk or his political viewpoints and mister Robinson's
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: perception of them. After searching his residence, his parents' residence,
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: his computers, his telephone, mister twigs telephone, and hundreds of
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: law enforcement interviews, there is nothing to base his sentencing
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: enhancement upon other than that's criticism of mister Kirk's hatred.
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: In the face of absence of evidence, the state focuses
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: on Robinson's sexuality and mister Twigg's gender identity, if only
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: because those are two topics on which mister Kirk was
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: in fact widely viewed as expressing hatred and intolerance. However,
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: that is not evidentiary substitute for proof that mister Robinson
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: targeted mister Kirk because of those expressions. It's the state
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: speculation that he did, so the victim targeting enhancement must
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: be stricken conclusion. In relying largely on hearsay deemed reliable
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: by rule, the state has failed to prove probable cause
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: by reliable evidence that satisfies each element of each of
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: the charged evidence. For this reason alone, the Court must
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: decline bind over. In addition, the state has not provided
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: the Court with sufficient evidence as a matter of law
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: to satisfy the sole alleged aggravator in the information. Under
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: controlling constitutional law and Utah Supreme Court interpretation, the Core
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: cannot find, based on the state's evidence, that the circumstances
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: presented a great risk of death to another other than
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk and himself, and that the shooter knew of
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: this high probability of death of another. Finally, the Court
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: had declined to bind over on the state's alleged aggravators
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: and count six and seven, where the state requires the
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: Court to speculate an absence of evidence to establish essential elements, respectfully,
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: submitted this eleventh day of August twenty twenty six. It
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: was signed by Kathy Nester, Michael Burt, Richard Novak, and
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: Stacy Visser. All the information that goes with this episode
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: can be found in the description box.