Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Utah's Response To Tyler Robinson In Support Of Bind Over (Part 1) (8/19/26)

Transcript

Utah's Response To Tyler Robinson In Support Of Bind Over (Part 1) (8/19/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. A
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: few days ago, Tyler Robinson filed his memorandum that detailed
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: why the state didn't have enough evidence to proceed to trial.
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: According to him, well now the State of Utah has replied,
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: So in this episode we're going to start taking a
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: look at that State of Utah. Plaintiff First, Tyler James Robinson,
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: the defendant case number two five one, four zero, three,
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: five seven six reply memorandum in support of prelim hearing
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: bindover introduction. The defendant does not challenge the substance of
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: the evidence demonstrating that he was the person who crawled
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: to the sniper's perch on the low See building rooftop,
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: fired the fatal shot that killed mister Charlie Kirk, hit
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: the rifle in a wooded area, got rid of some
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: of the clothing he was wearing, and told his roommate
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: to delete the texts about the shooting. Rather, he merely
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: asserts the repeatedly rejected claim that the overwhelming evidence establishing
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: some of the facts cannot be introduced as reliable hearsay
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: at this prelim hearing. Defendant therefore raises no valid challenge
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: to the evidence supporting count one as at least murder,
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: count two, felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury,
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: counts three to four, obstruction of justice, or count five
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: tampering with a witness. Defendant's challenge to the aggravating circumstances
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: for count one that he knowingly created a great risk
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: of death to another is based on his misrepresentation of
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: both the evidentiary standard at a prelim hearing and the
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: test for establishing the aggravating circumstance. As for the evidentiary standard,
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: defendant erroneously asserts that a magistrate engages in speculation when
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: he chooses between a reasonable inference that supports guilt and
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: a competing innocence inference. The Utah Supreme Court has rejected
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: that logic of fact. The Utah Court of Appeals has
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: repeatedly recognized defendants counsel ignored this controlling case law and
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: have therefore violated their ethical duty of candor to the court.
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: Contrary to defendant's argument, these cases established that when a
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: fact finder chooses between reasonable inferences at a trial, it's
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: properly fulfilling its fact finding role, not speculating. Thus, even
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: out of trial, a fact finder is free to choose
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: between reasonable inferences. This is a prelim hearing where the
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: court does not sit as a fact finder. Instead, this
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: court is duty bound to draw all reasonable inferences in
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: the state's favor. It's therefore even more apparent that this
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: preceding there is nothing speculative about viewing all reasonable inferences
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: in the state's favor. As for the great risk of
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: death aggravating factor, defendant erroneously maintains that the test for
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: establishing this factor depends on the presence of some minimum
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: number of factors or circumstances. In fact, the Utah Supreme
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: Court has expressly disavowed such an analysis. Instead, the governing
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: test is the one that statue provides whether it deface
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: knowingly created a great risk of death to another. The
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: evidence here easily establishes at least probable cause to believe
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: the defendant did so when he intentionally fired his grandfather's
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: high powered rifle towards a crowd of thousands, several of
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: whom were in the line of fire between him and
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: mister Kirk, while others were in close proximity to mister Kirk. Indeed,
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: the evidence is more than sufficient to support a finding
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendants challenges to count six witness
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: tampering for directing mister Twiggs not to talk to police
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: and seven violent offenses in a child's presence likewise and
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: properly draw inferences in defendants favor not the States, while
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: also ignoring relevant evidence. Defendant challenge the victim targeting enhancement
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: on count seven similarly ignores the evidence. Finally, the defendant
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: also misrepresents the holding in a prin die versus New
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: Jersey five point thirty US for sixty six two thousand
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: in arguing that the sentencing enhancements for committing a violent
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: offense in a child's presence and targeting his victim must
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: be proven Now. Neither enhancement implicates apprendai because neither increases
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: the maximum statutorily mandated punishment. Argument one, Defendant misrepresents the
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: governing evidentary standard because he relies on an erroneous distinction
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: between inferences in speculation that the Utah Supreme Court has rejected.
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: Defendant misrepresents the evidentary standard that governs this prelim hearing
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: because he relies on an erroneous distinction between inferences and
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: speculation from the State versus Crystaball Utah two twenty eight,
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: twenty ten, and the Utah Supreme Court soundly rejected over
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: a decade ago. In State versus Ashcroft, Utah twenty fifteen,
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court explained to Ashcroft that when a jury
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: chooses between reasonable inferences to reach its verdict, it does
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: not engage in speculation. This is even more true at
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: a prelim hearing, where the magistrate must draw all reasonable
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: inferences in the state's favor. Because he ignores the case
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: law that rejects the logic on which his argument depends.
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: Defendant erroneously labels his speculation many of the State's arguments
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: about the evidence and the reasonable inferences this Court must
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: draw from that evidence. Defense Memorandum at. Eleven sixteen nineteen
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: through twenty two, twenty nine through thirty thirty two through
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: thirty three, for example, although the evidence demonstrates one that
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: a clear line of sight existed between defendant sniper Perch
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: and mister Kirk's seat, and two that others were near
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: mister Kirk when defendant fired the fatal shot, defendant asserts
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: that this court would be engaging in speculation to infer
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: from this evidence that Defendant actually observed security personnel or
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: others standing near or directly between him and mister Kirk. Similarly,
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: although the evidence shows that defendant voted his rifle with
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: four cartridges and had previously done some target practice where
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: he seldom hit the bullseye and sometimes sames missed the
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: target completely, defendant asserts that it would be speculative to
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: infer that he knew he could miss his target. Defendant
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: relies on state verse crystal Ball twenty ten to justify
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: his argument at eleven. Quoting crystal Ball, defendant asserts that
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: when evidence supports more than one possible conclusion, none more
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: likely than the other, the choice of one possibility over
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: another can be more than speculation. Excuse me, can be
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: no more than speculation, quoting crystal Ball, twenty ten, Utah
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: Appendix two, twenty eight. But the Utah Supreme Court rejected
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: crystal Ball's logic in Ashcroft twenty fifteen. A fact that
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: the Utah Court of Appeals has expressly and repeatedly recognized
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: these cases may clear that choosing between competing reasonable inferences
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: is not speculation, but rather exactly what a jury must do.
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: The defendant in Ashcroft argue that the existence of innocent
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: inferences for his presence in a known drug area late
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: out at night with a large amount of cash rendered
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: the evidence insufficient to support a jury verdict that he
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: constructively possessed drugs, consistent with the Court of Appeals reasoning
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: in Crystal Ball, Ashcroft asserted that his jury engaged in
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: speculation when it accredited the inculpatory inferences from the evidence
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: over the exculpatory ones. The Supreme Court rejected Ashcroft's argument,
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: explaining that the fact that a court could identify an
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: equally plausible alternative inference is not nearly enough to set
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: a verdict aside. This is because the law is well
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: established that the existence of one or more alternative reasonable
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: hypothesis does not necessarily prevent the jury from concluding that
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt state versus
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: Cardona Wayton twenty twelve, Utah three thirty six. Rather, the
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: jury's exclusive province is to weigh the computing theories in
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: case in light of the evidence presented and the reasonable
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: inferences drawn therefrom and to canclude which one they believe
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Courts holding in Ashcroft therefore necessarily overruled the
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: very logic from the Crystal Ball upon which defendant now relies.
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: The Court of Appeals has so recognized as our Supreme
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: Court in Ashcroft has since clarified the fact that we
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: can identify an equally plausible alternative inference is not nearly
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: enough to set aside the verdict state verse Wall, twenty twenty,
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: Utah thirty six, and citing Wall, the Court of Appeals
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: has repeatedly recognized that Ashcroft is a complete repudiation of
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: crystal Ball. If the existence of an alternative inference is
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: not enough to justify setting aside a jury verdict of
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: guilt see Ashcroft twenty fifteen, Utah five, then it certainly
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: is not enough to justify denying bind over. At a
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: prelim hearing, a jury is free to pick and choose
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: reasonable inference in reaching the verdict. A prelim hearing magistrate
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: is not. The magistrate must view all evidence in light
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: of most favorable to the prosecution and draw all reasonable
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: inferences in favor of the prosecution state verse Schmidt, Utah
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: twenty fifteen. At a prelim hearing, the prosecution is not
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: required to eliminate alternative inferences that could be drawn from
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: the evidence in favor of the defense state Verse Ramirez,
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: twenty twelve, Utah. Thus, viewing all reasonable inferences in the
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: state's favor at a prelim hearing is not speculation. It's
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: precisely what the law requires this court to do. Defendant's
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: argument otherwise is based on overruled case law that he
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: refuses to acknowledge and bring to this court's attention. See
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: Defense Memorandum at eleven, twenty to twenty one, quoting Crystaball
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: twenty ten, Utah Appeals to twenty eight. This blatant omission
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: violates counsel's duty of candor to the court. See Utah
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: Rules Professional Conduct, Section three three a two. A lawyer
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: must not knowingly or recklessly fail to disclose the tribunal
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction directly adverse to the
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: position of the client and not disclosed by the opposing council. Moreover,
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: an inference is reasonable as opposed to speculative when it's
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: based on evidence. As the Utah Supreme Court is acknowledged,
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: there is no black line between inference and speculation, but
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: a reasonable inference exists when there is at least a
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: foundation in the evidence upon which the ultimate conclusion is based,
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: while in the case of speculation, there is no underlying
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: evidence to support the conclusion state verse tran quoting Heslop
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: vers Bear River, twenty seventeen, Utah. Thus, a reasonable inference
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: not amounting to speculation is a conclusion reached by considering
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: other facts in deducing a logical consequence from them, quoting
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: Salt Lake City first Carrera, twenty fifteen, Utah. As the
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: state's opening memorandum demonstrated, and as further detailed below, all
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: inferences the state has identified or grounded in the evidence
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: they are not speculative, and the support bind over on
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: all accounts. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up right here,
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: and in the next episode, we're gonna pick up with
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: part two. All the information that goes with this episode
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: can be found in the description box.