Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Tyler Robinson Tells The Court That There Is Not Enough Evidence To Proceed To Trial (Part 1) (8/12/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Tells The Court That There Is Not Enough Evidence To Proceed To Trial (Part 1) (8/12/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. I
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: know that we've been going through the transcripts of the
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: Tyler Robinson preliminary hearing, but his legal team has just
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: filed a new motion with the court arguing why Tyler
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: Robinson shouldn't have to stand trial. So we're going to
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: dive into this and see what his legal team has
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: to say. Introduction. On September sixteenth, twenty twenty five, the
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: State charged Tyler Robinson with the capital offense of aggravated
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: murder and other lesser offenses. The state has had over
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: ten months to investigate the shooting death of Charlie Kirk
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: and to develop legally sufficient evidence that mister Robinson knowingly
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: created a great risk of death to another other than
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk and the defendant the sole aggravator alleged in
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: the information, which in theory, exposes mister Robinson to the
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: potential punishment of death Utah Code Section seventy six, Dash
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: five Dash two two two three. The State's presentation of
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: its evidence as to this alleged circumstance and aggravation at
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: the prelim hearing in July of twenty twenty six wholly
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: fails to carry its burden of proof. The state's failure
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: cannot in any manner be attributed to any order by
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: this Court limiting its presentation, nor does it fall within
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: Rule eleven zero two c one, because the state's presentation
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: and support of this aggravating factor was not based upon
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: hearsay evidence, nor did the Court exclude any proffered expert testimony.
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: In fact, the Court did not exclude any evidence on
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: the subject and did not limit the amount of time
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: available to the state to present its case. Yet the
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: state has failed to establish probable cause that the shooter
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: knowingly created a great risk of death to another other
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: than Charlie Kirk and himself. The state is required, as
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: a matter of law to show that more than a
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: possibility that someone else may be killed by defendant's conduct,
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: rather than there was a high probability of that result,
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: and that the defendant knew of that high probability. And
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: where the state is overwhelmingly felled to make this showing,
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: it asks the Court to expand Utah's narrow construction of
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: the great risk of death aggravator, using decades old cases
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: from another state, jurisdiction, binding constitutional precedent. Both under Utah
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: law and the United States Constitution demonstrate the state's failure
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: here and why this Court may not inpermissibly broaden the
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: scope of knowingly created a great risk of death. The
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: facts in the law require the Court to strike the
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: sole aggravating factor argument. The state has not met its
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: burden to show probable cause by relying on hearsay deemed
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: reliable by rule and violation of mister Robinson's constitutional rights
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: and separation of power principles, as briefed and argued extensively
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: prior to the pre lim hearing, and is raised as
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: a continuing objection throughout the prelim hearing itself. The State's
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: extensive use of hearsay deem reliable by rule of Criminal
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: Procedure eleven O two violates mister Robinson's constitutional rights and
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: separation of power principle. This Court may not bind over
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: mister Robinson based upon the State's evidence consisting primarily of
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: hearsay that has not been assessed for reliability. This is
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: particularly true as it relates to the evidence cited by
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: the State to establish identity for all of the charge counts.
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: This evidence consists largely of alleged communication between mister Robinson
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: and mister Twiggs, alleged communication between mister Robinson and other
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: individuals on the application discord, and an identification of mister
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: Robinson from UVU surveillance footage. This evidence came from or
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: become presumptively admissible through a recorded interview between the Utah
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: County Attorney's Office and witness Lands Twigs, a witness of
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: the court. Will not allow mister Robinson to seek a
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: subpoena from another state to testify at the prelim hearing.
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: The state is failed to prove probable cause by reliable
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: evidence that satisfies each element of each of the charged evidence,
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: this Court must decline to bind over on all charges one.
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: As a matter of law, the state is not established
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: and cannot establish probable cause to support the aggravator that
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: the shooting knowingly created a high probability of death to
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: another individual from the single shot from a high powered
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: scolle rifle from a rooftop vantage that hit the intended target. YO.
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: That's significant. They're admitting that this shot was fired from
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: a rooftop and it hit Charlie Kirk, basically telling Candace
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: Owens and her people to get stuffed and when I
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: tell you to listen to what's in the court documents.
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: This is why mister Robinson is charged with aggravated murder
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: pursuing the Utah Code Section seventy six Toash five two
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: two to two A three, which requires the state to
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: prove that the actor intentionally or knowingly caused the death
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: of another individual under circumstances where the actor knowingly created
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: a great risk of death to another individual other than
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: the deceased individual and the actor. The state is not
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: shown and cannot show probable cause to support this single
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: alleged aggravator. A defendant may only be bound over for
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: trial if the prosecution produces evidence sufficient to demonstrate probable
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: cause that the charge crimes were committed and the defendant
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: committed them state versus Murphy, quoting State versus Ramirez. This
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: threshold requirement is intended to ferret out groundless and in
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: provident prosecution, relieving the accused from substantial degradation and expense
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: incident to a modern criminal trial when the charges against
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: them are unwarranted or the evidence insufficient. As discussed further
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: herein the state's burden requires them to provide evidence to
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: support a reasonable belief, and when the evidence considered under
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: the totality of the circumstances is wholly lacking and incapable
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: of reasonable inference to prove some issue which supports the
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: prosecutor's claim, this court must decline bind over. The court
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: is empowered to make reasonable inferences from the evidence presented. However,
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: the court may not engage in speculation sub Section A.
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: The United States Constitution and the Utah Constitution both require
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: courts to construe alleged aggravators narrowly. The eighth and fourteenth
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: Amendment to the United States Constitution do not permit imposition
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: of the death penalty in an arbitrary or a capricious manner.
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: The objective of the law is to require that the
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: discretion of a sentencing body in a capital case be
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: carefully channeled by standards designed and applied to ensure that
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: there is reasonable distinction between those murder cases in which
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: the death penalty is imposed and those in which it's not.
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: In order to bring meaning to this long standing principle,
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: the United States Supreme Court has exped explained that the
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: Constitution requires courts to narrowly construe aggravating factors in order
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: to avoid overly broad interpretations that violate the eighth and
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: fourteenth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court twice examined the
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: KGRD aggravator at issue here and greg the Court upheld
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: the inclusion of KGRD as a statutory aggravating circumstance. While
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: such a phrase might be susceptible of an overly broad interpretation,
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court of Georgia has not so construed it.
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: The only case in which the Court upheld a conviction
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: in reliance on this aggravating circumstance involved a man who
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: stood up in church and fired a gun indiscriminately into
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: an audience. On the other hand, the court expressly reversed
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: a finding of great risk when the victim was simply
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: kidnapped in a parking lot the same year. In Profit
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: versus Florida, the Court upheld the use of KGRD as
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: an aggravator based upon the Florida's Supreme Court's decision in
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: Alvord versus State, which also construed that KGRD narrowly. In
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: Alvord verse KGRD was obvious because the defendant murder two
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: of the victims in order to avoid a surviving witness
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: to the first murder. In each of these cases, the
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: court considered whether the statutory aggravating circumstance was too vague
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: and overbroad to pass eighth and fourteenth Amendment muster, and
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: in each of the Court upheld the aggravator because the
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: state's highest courts had narrowly construed them. The principle that
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: the death penalty may not be wantonly and fregiously imposed
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: requires a state to channel the sentences discretion by clear
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: and objective standards that provide specific and detailed guidance. As
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: a result a state's definition of its aggravating circumstances, those
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: circumstances that make a criminal defendant eligible for the death
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: penalty therefore play a significant role in channeling the sentencer's discretion. Thus,
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: this Court must narrowly construe KGRD consistent with the Utah
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court's guidance and strike the aggravator. B Utah Supreme
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: Court decisions narrowly construing the KGRD aggravator require this Court
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: to strike it here. Over the course of the past
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: fifty years, the Utah Supreme Court has had at least
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: three opportunities to carefully consider the KGRD aggravator. In doing so,
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: it's identified a minimum set of factual circumstance which must
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: be present in order for the aggravator to be applied
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: in a constitutionally valid manner. Mister Robinson addresses here the
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: three decisions by the state's highest court, which, when applied
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: to the facts presented here, compelled the court to strike
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: the alleged aggravator because those constitutionally required factors are not present.
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: The Utah State Court cases are the decisions in State
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: versus Soso Hurtado and two long standing decisions in State
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: versus Johnson and State versus Pierre. Just below in chronological order,
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: so that this Court can see how the doctrine which
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: this Court must apply in this case has evolved to
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: require as a factual matter, that where one or more
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: firearm is used in a homicide, the defendant actually discharges
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: multiple rounds, hitting and or killing individuals other than the
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: murder victim in a series of events. These actions are
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: the concentrating series of events which the Utah Supreme Court
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: first referred to in its ninety seven decision in State
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: versus Pierre, and then reaffirmed in its decision and so
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: so versus Hurtado II that may lead the court to
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: conclude that the conduct allege created a high probability that
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: someone other than the victim and defendant would be killed.
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: One year after the United States Supreme Court decision in
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: greg and Prophet, the Utah Supreme Court considered the application
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: of KGRD in State versus Pierre. In Pierre, the defendant
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: was convicted of three accounts of capital murder. Pierre and
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: two co defendants tied up five individuals in a business
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: establishment and forced them to drink liquid d reno. Pierre
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: eventually shot each of the five victims in the head.
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: Two of the victims survived, three did not. In upholding
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: the application of Utah's KGr D aggravator, the Utah Supreme
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: Court found that the evidence fully sustains that the killing
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: of the three victims had the creation of a setting
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: of great risk of death to the two surviving victims,
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: occurred within a brief span of time in which were
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: formed in a series of events. A decade later, in
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: State versus Johnson, the Utah Supreme Court held that KGr
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: D aggravator did not apply to the circumstance where the
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: defendant attacked a husband and a wife with a shovel,
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: killing the man. When the defendant delivered the injuries to
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: the man, he was on the other side of the
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: warehouse from his wife, and there were not and there
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: were shelves between them. The court noted that kg RD
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: properly applies to situations in which the defendant kills his
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: victim in a manner in which he knows he is
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: gravely endangering others. The Johnson Court also held that the
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: state produced no evidence indicating that the wife was placed
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: at grave risk of death by the defendant's battery of husband,
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: nor did it produce evidence indicating that defendant knew that
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: his conduct towards husband placed wife at great risk. A
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: closer look at the cases referenced by the Utah Supreme
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: Court and Johnson demonstrates that the fact pattern which it
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: views as authorizing the KGRD aggravator does not exist here.
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up right here, and
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're going
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: to pick up where we left off. All the information
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: that goes with this episode can be found in the
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: description box