Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 2 Part 8) (9/23/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 2 Part 8) (9/23/26) · 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 going to get right back to Tyler
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: Robinson's prelim hearing on day number two. And we're going
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: to pick up where we left off. And that's with
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: the defense making their case to Judge Graff about an objection. Defense. OK,
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: so what I'm going to do is I'm going to
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: point out that this proposed exhibit, which is the 1102
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: statement of Mr. Englehart, is basically four paragraphs. The fourth
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: paragraph identifies Mr. Englehart, although I say it in third person,
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: as a pastor and as an attorney who was a
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: friend and counselor to Mr. Kirk and was involved in
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: leadership of Turning Point USA, so that identifies who the
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: author is. Beyond that, it's not really relevant to any
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: of the issues before the court. Paragraph 1, 2, and 3.
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: Paragraph 1 talks about Turning Point USA's status with the
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: Internal Revenue Service, the purpose of Turning Point USA within
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: the context of the Internal Revenue Code, and what I'll
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: just refer to generically as the goals and objectives of
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: Turning Point USA. And it also then talks about, in
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: the second paragraph, about Mr. Kirk's relationship with TPUSA. None
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: of this is unknown information, that he was a founder,
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: and that he was chief executive officer, that he was
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: the president of the board until his death, so I'm
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: still not sure what the relevance is. And I guess actually,
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: what I should say, is I don't believe there is
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: any relevance. Of any of this information, paragraphs 2 and
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: 3 are, and actually, I'm going to preface this, my
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: discussion of this is within the context of the rules
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: of evidence, and there is nothing that I'm going to
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: say here that's meant to derogate, criticize, question Mr. Engelhardt's beliefs.
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: What he says were Mr. Kirk's beliefs. What Mr. Engelhardt
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: says he believes are tenets of Christianity. That's not what
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: we're talking about. What we're talking about is whether this
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: document is admissible in this preceding under the rules of evidence.
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: So paragraph 2 and 3 include not only Mr. Englehart's opinions,
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: and now I'm going from relevance to opinion evidence. It's
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: not clear to me whether it's lay opinion evidence, whether
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: it's expert opinion evidence, but it's Mr. Englehart's opinion about
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: a branch of Christianity, his opinions about a portion of
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: the Bible. He quotes the Bible, and he talks about Mr.
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: Kirk's religious beliefs, and I can go into more detail,
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: but the court has the exhibit in front of itself,
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: so none of this is relevant. If the court looks
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: at the information, that is the document which lays out
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: the allegation against Mr. Robinson, when I use the word information,
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: I'm talking about the court documents, there are, with respect
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: to certain counts, what Utah Code refers to as victim
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: targeting enhancement. This is alleged with respect to count one.
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: It's alleged with respect to count two. It's alleged with
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: respect to count seven. And as the court knows, but
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: I want the record to be clear, when I refer
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: to what the information calls the victim targeting enhancement, that's
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: Utah Code Section 76-3-203.14, which the code calls the victim
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: targeting penalty enhancement. The information alleges, and this is, I'm
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: emphasizing this, that Mr. Robinson intentionally selected Mr. Kirk because
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: of Mr. Robinson's belief or perception regarding Mr. Kirk's political expression.
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: And I'm going to focus, if I may, the court's
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: attention on two things. One is whose state of mind
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: are we talking about? Or whose state of mind is
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: the statute talking about? And what aspect of the victim
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: targeting enhancement is being invoked here? The latter is the
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: state invoking Mr. Kirk's political expression, and now I'm quoting
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: the statute, as the personal attribute that the state alleges
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: is the gateway to the penalty enhancement. And if the
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: court will bear with me because there's a reason why
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: we have these hearings in public, There are various categories
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: for alleging, I should say, there are various categories of
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: personal attributes that the phrase the legislature uses which authorize
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: the pursuit of a penalty enhancement. And those personal attributes
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: are listed in the statute A through R. I'm not
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: going to read all of them because the court knows
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: the law, but political expression is subsection K. That is
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: separate and distinct from the personal attribute that the legislature
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: calls religion, which is subsection M. So what we have
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: is an allegation that the personal attribute, which is one
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: of the elements of this enhancement, the allegation that Mr.
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: Robinson selected Kirk, was based on his political expression. That's
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: actually the exact same word phrase, political expression, as in
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: the statute subsection K. Subsection, I'm sorry, the 1102 statement
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: is predominantly about what Mr. Englehart describes as traditional orthodox
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: Christian values that he believes in, that he believes Mr.
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: Kirk believed in. And I understand in today's world that
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: there's a crossover between religion and politics. I think we
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: can all acknowledge that. But the legislature and the information
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: here are focused on political expression. So I'm concerned that
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: the 1102 statement of Mr. Englehart goes far beyond the
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: scope of what would be admissible if the state has
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: it to prove that Mr. Robinson targeted Mr. Kirk because
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: of Mr. Robinson's belief or perception concerning Mr. Kirk's political expression.
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: The second element of that is that the victim's target
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: enhancement focuses on the allegation of what is in Mr.
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: Robinson's state of mind, not what is in Mr. Kirk's
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: views or deeply held beliefs, sincere religious beliefs. And so
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: the evidence that the state needs to present is not
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: what Mr. Kirk believed or said, or what TPUSA stood for.
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: It's what was in Mr. Robinson's head, if anything, about
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: selecting Mr. Kirk because of Mr. Kirk's political expression. Because
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: that's the information. So why TPUSA exists, what its founding
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: beliefs are, what its leaders' beliefs are, what Mr. Engelhardt
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: believes Christianity is or is not, is not relevant. And
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: that's why we think it should not be received into evidence.
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: There's a second level here, which is Mr. Engelhardt's statement
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: about what's in the Bible, specifically Matthew 9. And so
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: I would just ask this court the hypothetical question. If
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: the state asks the court to take judicial note of
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: a portion of the Bible in order to prove this enhancement,
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: because I can't see where else this fits in the case,
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: I think if I may, the answer would be no,
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: it's not relevant. So instead, what we have is the
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: state trying to use the affidavit of Mr. Englehart, pursuant
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: to 1102, to get the court to essentially receive into
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: evidence the same information. It doesn't really matter here, in
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: this proceeding, what the book of Matthew says. It doesn't
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: matter what Mr. Englehart thinks. And again, I say that
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: with all due respect to Mr. Englehart, who I've never met.
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: The book of Matthew means, for... how one reconciles the
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: book of Matthew as he sees it with other views
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: on the topics that are there. I mean, I want
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: to be careful and not suggest that other views are
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: because I shouldn't be testifying about different perspectives within the
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: sort of the heading of religion. But it doesn't really
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: matter for this proceeding what Mr. Englehart's views are, what Mr.
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: Kirk's religious views were, what religious views TPUSA endorses, seeks
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: to encourage others to adopt. None of that really matters.
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: There are multiple opinions in this 1102 from Mr. Englehart,
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: and it's not clear whether the state has thought about
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: whether it's expert opinion or lay opinion. I happen to
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: think that it's expert opinion that is not helpful to
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: the trier of fact in the proceeding. That's your honor.
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: There's nothing in this that helps the court resolve with
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: respect to the victim targeting enhancement whether Mr. Robinson intentionally
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: selected Mr. Kirk because of Mr. Robinson's belief or perception
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: regarding Mr. Kirk's political expression. If the state comes back
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: up here and says, no, it's lay opinion, we still
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: have the question of whether it's helpful to the court
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: because the court has to decide whether there is evidence
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: of the target enhancement in the way I think I've
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: structured it. So it's not relevant. So not admissible lay opinion,
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: it's not admissible expert opinion. There are two aspects of
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: Rule 403, one of which I'm prepared to talk about
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: publicly and one of which I think is appropriately discussed
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: at sidebar because it does get into undue prejudice. The
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: 403 here is that receiving the document into evidence is
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: going to create confusion. It's going to create chaos, not
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: by trier of fact, but by the future jury pool
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: in the case. For this court to make a ruling
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: that Mr. Englehart's opinions about religion, about TPUSA's views on
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: religious matters, that Mr. Kirk's views on religious matters are
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: in any way what this case is about, is going
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: to create significant confusion. And even if this court doesn't
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: show the 1102 in open court, or the reporters who
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: are here don't get to see it, or if the
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: public doesn't get to see it, receiving it into evidence
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: in light of the victim targeting enhancement that the state
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: drafted and charged is just going to create confusion. There
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: may be outside of this case litigation where TPUSA proposes
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: and its mission and its adherence to its mission are important,
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: and Mr. Englehart's opinions about that may be important in
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: some other context in litigation, in public discussions, It's not
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: important here. And when I say important, I'm saying it's
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: not relevant. So there's a 403 issue with respect to confusion.
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: There's a constitutional concern that this type of evidence being
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: sanctioned by the court is going to suggest to the
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: jury pool that this case is about religion. This is
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: not a case about religion. The state doesn't even allege
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: this case is about religion. The state alleges one enhancement
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: based on Mr. Robinson's perception of Mr. Kirk's political expression.
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: So I'm very concerned that this document, even being sanctioned
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: by the court as admissible for any purpose in this proceeding,
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: is going to interfere with Mr. Robinson's constitutional right to
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: a fair trial, which I think is sort of an
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: umbrella over parts of Rule 403. If there is a trial,
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: if Mr. Robinson is bound over and there's a trial,
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: and if the state wants to proffer Mr. Englehart for
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: some specific evidentiary purpose that I'm missing, then we can
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: engage in that. but it seems to me that it's, again,
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: a mixture of lay and expert opinion, which at this
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: stage is more prejudicial than probative. The other part of
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: the 403 issue we can discuss at sidebar whenever the
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: court's ready. Judge, thank you, Mr. Novak. All right, we're
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: going to wrap up right here, and in the next episode,
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: we're going to pick up with the prosecution making their
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: case to the judge as to why this should be admitted.
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: All the information that goes with this episode can be
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: found in the description box.