Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Utah’s Memorandum for Binding Tyler Robinson Over for Trial (Part 4) (8/5/26)

Transcript

Utah’s Memorandum for Binding Tyler Robinson Over for Trial (Part 4) (8/5/26) · 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 pick up be where he
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: left off with the Tyler Robinson memo to bind d.
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: The evidence establishes probable cause that defending committed count five
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: and six tampering with a witness by directing mister Twiggs
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: to delete incriminating text messages and not talk to police.
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: To establish that defendant committed tampering with a witness, the
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: state must prove that one defendant either two believe that
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: an official proceeding or investigation was pending or about to
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: be instituted, or to b intended to prevent an official
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: proceeding or investigation, and three attempted to induce or otherwise
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: cause another individual to withhold testimony, information, a document, or
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: an item Utah Code Section seventy six DASH eight DASH
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: five eight two A and two B two. The evidence
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: establishes probable cause to support each element. After defendant made
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: several incriminating admissions during a text message with mister Twiggs,
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: some of which are described above. Defendant directed mister Twiggs
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: to delete the exchange state example sixteen point one at nine,
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: and not to speak to police. Idea seventeen, defendant demanded
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: that mister Twiggs delete the messages, establishes probable cause for
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: the first and third elements of count five. Defendants demand
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: that mister Twiggs not speak to police establishes probable cause
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: for those same elements of count six. The evidence also
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: establishes probable cause for the second element of both counts
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: that defendant either believed an investigation was pending or intended
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: to prevent an investigation. As explained in the note defendant
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: left for mister Twiggs before driving to UVU, defendant predicted
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: that by the time mister Twiggs read the note, defendant
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: would be likely dead or facing a lengthy prison sentence.
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: Example at sixteen three. As also explained, defendant texted mister
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: Twiggs that he had hoped to keep the secret till
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: he died of old age, and that if he is
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: able to grab his rifle unseen, he'll have left no evidence.
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: Idea three. When mister Twiggs stated that he thought police
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: had caught the person, defendant clarified that police had grabbed
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: some old crazy dude and interrogated someone in similar clothing.
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: Idea too. Defendant also explained that police activity, including an
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: officer with the K nine was preventing him from retrieving
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: his rifle ID at two, three and four and five.
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: It was after these additional admissions that defendant directed mister
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: Twiggs to delete their texts and not speak to police
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: idea at nine to seventeen. The evidence therefore establishes probable
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: cause that defendant knew that an investigation was under way
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: when he gave those directions to mister Twigs. The evidence
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: therefore establishes probable cause that defendant committed both counts of
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: tampering with a witness e. The evidence establishes probable cause
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: that defendant committed Count seven violent offense committed in the
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: presence of a child. To establish that defendant committed a
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: violent offense in the presence of a child as a
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: Class A misdemeanor, the state must prove that one defendant
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: two committed criminal homicide as defined in Section seventy six
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: five two one against the third party, three in the
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: physical presence of a child younger than fourteen years old.
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: Four defendant had knowledge that the child was present and
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: may have seen or heard the offense, and five that
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: defendant targeted mister Kirk because of defendant's perception of mister
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: Kirk's political expression Utah Code Section seventy six dash three
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: dash two oh three dot ten seventy six dash three
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: two three dot fourteen one K and two A. The
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: evidence establishes probable cause to support each other. As explained,
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: the evidence establishes probable cause to support the first two
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: elements that defendant committed criminal homicide. The evidence also establishes
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: probable cause that a child younger than fourteen was physically
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: present when defendant killed mister Kirk. A video from a
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: mother in the crowd shows that she was there with
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: her children, at least one of which was under fourteen
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: states example number six. Another video shot from behind mister
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: Kirk shows two women in the crowd holding infants. The
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: two women were standing next to each other and can
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: be seen just to the right south of the speaker
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: poll and visible in the right center of the frame.
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: The evidence thus establishes probable cause for the third element.
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: The evidence also establishes probable cause for the fourth element
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: that defendant knew that a child younger than fourteen was present.
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: Defendant could see the entire crowd from his rooftop perch.
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: Defendant also made at least two visits to campus before
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: the shooting, where he walked around the Amphitheater and treated
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: himself to lunch at the Sorenson Center, which borders the
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: Amphitheater on the northeast. One reasonable inference from the evidence
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: is that while walking around the area, defendant would have
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: seen many of the attendees who were gathering for the event,
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: including children who were present. The evidence therefore demonstrates probable
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: cause for each element of count seven violent offenses committed
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: in the presence of a child. The evidence also establishes
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: probable cause to support the state's charging Count seven as
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: an enhanced Class A misdemeanor because defendant targeted mister Kirk
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: based on defendant's perception of mister Kirk's political expression. The
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: victim targeting penalty enhancement enhances the crime of committing a
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: violent offense in the presence of a child from a
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: Class B misdemeanor to a Class A misdemeanor ce Utah
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: Code Section seventy six Dash three DASH two OZHO three
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: Dash fourteen three A two. To establish the enhancement, the
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: state must prove the defendant one intentionally selected his victim
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: two because of the defendant's belief or perception regarding the
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: victim's personal attribute c Section seventy six three two oh
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: three dot fourteen two A. A victim's personal attribute includes
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: the victim's political expression idea at seventy six dash three
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: dash two O three dot fourteen one K. The evidence
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: establishes probable cause to support each element of the enhancement.
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: As explained, Defendant admitted to mister Twigs that he targeted
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: mister Kirk because defendant had had enough of mister Kirk's hatred.
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: Some hate can't be negotiated out state example sixteen to one,
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: at three. He also wrote to mister Twigs that he
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: wished they could have lived in a world where this
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: did not feel necessary state example sixteen three. Defendant, in
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: his message did not identify what he believed to be
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: the specific hatred from mister Kirk that he needed to
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: stop by Cat Willingham, but that is not necessary to
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt, much less establish probable cause.
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: Specific intent may be proved by circumstantial as well as
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: direct evidence. State versus Jennings, twenty twenty five Utah one
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: thirty nine five sixty five p dot two D five
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: twenty three, quoting State versus Minnesouse two twenty eight, p.
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: Dot five seventy four, five seventy six, nineteen twenty four.
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: And the circumstantial evidence that defendant targeted mister Kirk because
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: of Defendant's belief or perception of mister Kirk's political beliefs
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: is overwhelming. The defense would have the court believe that
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: mister Kirk was only a religious evangelist. He was much more.
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: He was a founder, chief executive officer, and bore president
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: of TPUSA, whose express purpose is to empower inform civic
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: and cultural engagement grounded in American exceptionalism and positive spirit
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: of action. State's example five dot one at one at TPUSA,
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: leader and mister Kirk helps citizens develop the knowledge, skills, values,
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: and motivation so they can meaningfully engage in their community
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: to restore traditional American values like patriotism, respect for life, liberty, family,
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: and fiscal responsibility. To that end, mister Kirk would hold
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: events like the one at UVU on September tenth, twenty
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: twenty five, to engage in civil debate and discussion on
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: traditional family values, America's founding principles and political doctrines, and
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: to persuade attendees to follow a mindset rooted in politically
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: conservative values. Those traditional American values, in mister Kirk's view,
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: are synonymous with the classical Orthodox Christian position on marriage, family, gender,
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: and sexual being. Mister Kirk believed that God determines whether
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: a person is male or female, and that the experimentation
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: with sexual gender identity is sinful and therefore should not
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: be engaged in, accepted in culture, were allowed under the law,
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: and that heterosexuality inside the confines of a marriage is
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: the only virtuous pattern for sexuality. The evidence thus establishes
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: that mister Kirk represented not only a religious movement, but
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: also a political movement against gay marriage and the accommodation
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: and acceptance of transgenderism, homosexuality, and sexual experimentation. Defendant's lifestyle,
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: on the other hand, stood in sharp contrast to mister
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: Kirk's religious and political views. The evidence establishes that defendant
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: was in a homosexual relationship with Lands Twigs state example sixteen.
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: The evidence also establishes that at or near the time
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: of mister Kirk's assassination, mister Twiggs was exploring transitioning from
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: man to a woman, and Defendant's text to mister Twiggs
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: demonstrate that he loved and cared deeply for mister Twigs.
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: In other words, defendants beliefs and practices pertaining to gender
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: and second rusuality were directly contrary to mister Kirk's political
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: and religious beliefs and practices. Against that backdrop, the evidence
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: establishes that defendant engrave the cartridges in his rifle with
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: several political messages. The spent thirty odd six cartridge was
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: inscribed with the words notices bulge owo of furry meme
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: and reference to mel Genitulia. One of the unspent cartridges
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: found in defendant's grandfather's rifle contain an inscription referencing homosexuality
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: if you read this, You're gay, and another unspent cartridge
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: contain the overt political reference hey fascist catch. The evidence
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: supports a strong and eminently reasonable inference that defendant targeted
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: mister Kirk because of Defendant's belief or perception regarding mister
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: Kirk's political expression see UTAH Code Section seventy six three
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: two three dot fourteen one K and two A. The
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: evidence therefore establishes probably cause to support count seven as
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: an enhanced Class A misdemeanor three. The court does not
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: need to bind over on the sentencing enhancements that do
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: not increase the level of offense. But even if the
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: court did, the evidence demonstrates probable cause to support those enhancements.
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: As explained in the charging information, the state notified defendant
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: that sentencing enhancements for one committing a violent offense in
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: the presence of a child and two targeting the victim
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: because of his political expression could apply to both counts
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: one and two. Dock at one at two. The court
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: need not bind over on the sentencing enhancements because, unlike
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: the victim targeting enhancement for count seven, they do not
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: increase the level of offense and therefore or not elements
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: of the underlying offense. Rather, they affect only the potential
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: sentence defendant can receive if convicted of the underlying offense.
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: At a prelim hearing, the state need only establish probable
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: cause to support each element of the charge offenses, not
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: sentencing enhancements. But even if the state were required to
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: demonstrate probable cause to support the sentencing enhancements, it did
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: so as it already demonstrated a sentencing enhancements that do
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: not affect the level of offense, are not elements of
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: a crime, and are therefore irrelevant at a prelim hearing.
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: Prelim hearings are concerned only with the elements of charge crimes,
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: not sentencing enhancements. To prevail at prelim hearing, the prosecution
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: must produce believable evidence of all the elements of the
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: crime charged State Verse Ramirez, twenty twelve, Utah nine two
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: eighty nine, POT three d four forty four. All that's
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: required at a prelim hearing is reasonably believable evidence, as
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: opposed to speculation sufficient to sustain each element of a crime.
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: Sentencing enhancements do not increase the level of an offense
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: that are not elements of a crime. The Utah Supreme
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: Court has largely recognized that sentencing enhancements need not be
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: formally charged in information see state verse Shrewder seven to
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: twelve p Dot two d two sixty four, Utah nineteen
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: eighty five, superseded by statute on other grounds as statuted
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: or stated in State Verse Smith Utah twenty fourteen, at
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: thirty three. In his murder prosecution for shooting his grandfather,
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: Schreider argued that the state was required to allege in
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: the charging portion of the information the sentencing enhancement for
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: his use of firearm at two seventy three, but the
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: Utah Supreme Court rejected that assertion. The court explained that
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: while such a technical requirement might be appropriate with respect
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: to the elements of a crime of which the state
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: seeks to convict a defendant, we see no purpose to
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: be served in applying it to an element of punishment.
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: The punishment for a crime is not, and has never
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: been considered, a part of the pleading. Charging of a
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: crime after conviction, the penalty is to be imposed is
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: an entirely separate opposition to be determined by the court
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: as a matter of law on the basis of the
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: penalty prescribed by the statutes. An information need only notify
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: a defendant of a sentencing enhancement that the state intends
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: to rely on. If the defendant is convicted, the prosecution
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: is not required to charge a sentencing enhancement. Accordingly, the
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: Angus Court explained, an information that charged a crime that
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: could involve a firearm enhancement would be sufficient if it
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: alleges either one that the defendant is being charged under
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: the enhancement statute or two that a firearm was used
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: in the commission of an offense charged in the information.
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: The Utah Court of Appeals subsequently recognized in State versus Martinez,
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: the angus explicitly rejected any argument that a sentencing enhancement
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: must be specifically proven at the prelm hearing. Rather, to
• 14:52
  Speaker 1: satisfy due process, the charging information need only provide a
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: defendant with notice that the state intends to rely on
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: an enhancement at las sentencing. As Martinez Court held, because
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: the enhancement is a punishment, its most reasonable to view
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: these requirements is coming into play at the sentencing phase
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: of the prosecution. Accordingly, the state was not required to prove,
• 15:15
  Speaker 1: nor is the court required to buying defending over on
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: the two sentencing enhancements as they relate to Counts one
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: and two B. Regardless, the evidence demonstrates probable cause to
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: support both enhancements. Even if the state were required to
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: demonstrate probable cause as to both sentencing enhancements, it did so.
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: As demonstrated above, the evidence established probable cause to satisfy
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: both the victim targeting and violent offense in the presence
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: of a child enhancement CE point two e conclusion. For
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: these reasons, the Court should bind defend and over for
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: trial on all counts as charged in the information. This
• 15:52
  Speaker 1: document was signed by Jeffrey S. Gray, Utah County Attorney
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: and it was dated July twenty eighth, twenty six. All
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
• 16:04
  Speaker 1: in the description box