Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Tyler Robinson Tells The Court That There Is Not Enough Evidence To Proceed To Trial (Part 4) (8/15/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Tells The Court That There Is Not Enough Evidence To Proceed To Trial (Part 4) (8/15/26) · 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 diving right back in to Tyler Robinson's
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: response to the state attempting to bind them over two
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: presence alone is insufficient as a matter of law to
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: show KGRD. Even assuming arguendo that the shooter had knowledge
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: that there were other individuals near mister Kirk, this fact
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: alone does not satisfy that there was great risk of
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: death to another. The state relies on cases from Pennsylvania
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: for the assertion that his own a danger encompasses everyone
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: near a shooting victim. As noted above, Utah has never
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: adopted a formulation of KGRD under which a single gunshot
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: fired at a specifically identified target who is near others
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: is sufficient to establish KGRD. Moreover, the case is cided
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: by the state from Pennsylvania again do not support its position,
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: as explained below. In Commonwealth vers. Rios, Pennsylvania, nineteen ninety six,
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: three assailants entered a home to commit a robbery. The
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: residence was occupied by four individuals. Two of the individuals
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: were beaten and multiple firearms were involved. All four of
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: the individuals were forced to lay down either on a
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: bed or on a floor in a single bedroom, and
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: one of them was shot and killed. The court found
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: that the facts presented at trial supported the KGRD finding
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: because the fatal bullet was fired while the victim lay
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: on the floor of an enclosed bedroom, with one individual
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: on the floor close to the victim and the others
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: on the bed nearby. In Commonwealth versus Lie Pennsylvania ninety one,
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: the court upheld the finding of grave risk when three
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: assailants with multiple firearms shot one individual in the head
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: inside the kitchen of a restaurant while the murder victim's
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: sister was standing directly next to her. In Commonwealth for Smith,
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: a Commonwealth presented medical and forensic evidence to demonstrate grave
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: risk of death to another person. The evidence demonstrated that
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: four shots were fired by the defendant. The first shot
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: fired hit the victim, who fell but then tried to
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: get up. Thereafter, the defendant fired three more shots at
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: the victim. Three of the rounds lodged in the victim,
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: while a fourth passed through. One of the bullets fired
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: at the victim ricocheted off a solid surface before hitting
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: the victim. There were several people on the porch in
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: very close proximity to the murder victim. The Pennsylvania Supreme
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: Court affirmed the finding by the jerry on these facts
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: in Commonwealth Verse Right, Pennsylvania, two thousand and eight. The
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: evidence supporting grave risk was that Right broke into a
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: small bedroom while swinging his loaded gun in all directions,
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: then put his gun to the victim's wife's head. Once
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: finding the victim, Right fired five shots at him, three
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: of which went through him and one of which was
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: never located. The victim was only a few feet from
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: the bed on which the child was laying, and shellcasings
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: were found all over the bedroom. The Pennsylvania Court determined
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: that under these circumstances, it was proper to leave the
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: grave risk of danger determination to the jury. The significant
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: factual differences between these cases and the case before this
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: court are played. The bullet that struck and kill mister
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: Kirk was not fired in an enclosed bedroom or space,
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: but rather an open air arena with what the state's
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: witnesses termed a clear line of sight. There were no
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: threats to others in the course of conduct. There was
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: no one directly next to mister Kirk when he was shot,
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: and there was no one under the tent on the
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: side that mister Kirk was struck or behind him in
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: the breezeway. Multiple shots were not fired, there were no
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: ricocheting bullets. These cases from a state with a moratorium
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: on its own death penalty are not Utah law and
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: do not support the state's call for this Court to
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: adopt out of state authority that vastly expands Utah's KGRD
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: aggravator beyond its constitutionally narrow application. As explained in Sosa Hurtado, Too,
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: Johnson and Pierre, Utah law require viires this Court to
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: look at more than mere presence and to determine there
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: is a high probability, not a mere possibility, that another
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: would be killed by the shooter's conduct, and that the
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: shooter knew of that high probability. A plenary of jurisdiction
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: support Utah's narrow construction of KGRD. Many other jurisdictions have
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: interpreted KGRD as The Utah Supreme Court has a multi
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: factor analysis that examines the course of conduct of the
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: defendant and actions towards another in determining both the defendant's
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: knowledge and the probability of risk. For example, Oklahoma has
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: determined that evidence is sufficient to support KGRD where the
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: defendant created a great risk of death in close proximity
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: in terms of time, location, and intent to killing or
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: threaten the life of another, and had a parentability and
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: means of taking that person's life. In the rare instance
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: where a person's at risk was not actually injured, the
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: defendant in those cases serious considered killing people other than
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: the actual victim. Baldezv. State, Oklahoma, nineteen ninety five. In
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: the Oklahoma case of Little John vers. State, the court
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: considered the sufficiency of the evidence supporting KGRD. The court
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: found the evidence was insufficient to support KGRD. Aggravating factor
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: where the prosecution presented no evidence that defendant considered injuring
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: anyone other than the actual victim. Although defendant pointed a
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: gun at the clerk when he asked for the store's money,
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: this act was driven by defendant's intent to rob. Additionally,
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: only a single shot was fired and it hit its
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: intended victim rather than endangering anyone else present in the store.
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: As summarized, this is not a case where the defendant
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: shot wildly into a store or a crowd. Only one
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: shot was fired. This shot hit its intended victim. The
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: single shot did not endanger anyone else present in the store. Consequently,
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: under the specific circumstances of this case, we find the
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: evidence was insufficient to prove Little John knowingly created a
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: great risk of death to more than one person. See
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: also breaching first Reynolds ten Circuit nineteen ninety four rejecting
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: Eighth Amendment vagueness challenges to KGRD. Because reviewing Oklahoma case law,
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: Oklahoma courts provided consistent guidance to the jury so as
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: to limit its discretion. The Wyoming Supreme Court upheld KGRD
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: and Enberg versus State nineteen eighty four, concluding, in shooting
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: arrantly at persons in park vehicles in the lot, Engberg
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: manifested and uttered disregard for lives of innocent persons. This
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: evidence demonstrated beyond the reasonable doubt that Angberg knowingly created
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: a great risk of death to two or more persons. Later,
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: olsenverse State, two thousand and three, Wyoming addressed another bystander case.
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: The Olsen Court noted the state failed to produce evidence
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: or suggest that there were other bystand involved who were
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: threatened with grave harm. As Olsen shot his intended victims,
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: thus strictly construing the Wyoming Statute. The Olsen Court found
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: the use of the terms risk and person was given
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: its proper application in Engberg's factual situation of placing bystanders
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: in a parking lot at great risk of death by
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: aaron shooting. In the Alabama case of White verse State
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: nineteen ninety, the appellate court upheld the finding of KGRD,
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: where the defendant indiscriminately fired a shotgun into an occupied
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: dwelling containing not only the victim but to other people,
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: and the defendant fired the pistol out in the front
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: yard in a residential neighborhood where many other people were present.
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: The court found the defendant's conduct and the indiscriminate firing
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: of these weapons did, in fact create a great risk
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: of death to many other people. Finally, there is an
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: almost identical federal statutory aggravator ce US Code eighteen, Section
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: thirty five ninety Z two C five defendant, in the
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: commission of the offense or an escaping apprehension for the
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: violation of the offense, knowingly created a grave risk of
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: death to one or more persons. In addition, to the
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: victim of the offense. United States versus McVeigh, Colorado, nineteen
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: ninety six, the Oklahoma City bombing case, the District Court
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: found the inclusion of KGRD in the indictment was proper
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: where the government intended to prove that the truck bomb
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: was such a force as to create a risk to
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: persons who are not physically affected by the explosion. Similarly,
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: in US versus bin Laden Stny two thousand and one,
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: another bombing case, the District Court sanctioned the inclusion of
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: KGRD as an aggravator, noting that KGRD relates to defendants
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: mental state with respect to persons who were not the
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: intended victim of the bombings. The Binladen Court noted there
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: may be a qualitative difference between a defendant who carefully
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: targets an intended victim or victims without endangering others, and
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: one who acts with indifference to additional persons. These examples
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: are non exhaustive, but illustrate how other jurisdictions have interpreted
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: KGRD consistently with the Utah Supreme Court. These jurisdictions all
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: require a close examination of the defendant's course of conduct
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: and the mental state of the defendant relative to the
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: other individuals Part two. Count six must be stricken because
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: the evidence is not established that mister Robinson's statement to
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: mister Twiggs to ask for a lawyer and stay silent
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: was intended to obstruct an investigation. Count six charges mister
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: Robinson with the tampering with witness in violation of Utah
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: Code Section seventy six Dash eight Dash five O eight.
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: The information alleges that mister Robinson committed this offense by
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: directing his roommate to stay silent if police question the
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: roommate information at three. The state alleges that by telling
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: mister Twiggs to exercise his right under the Fifth Amendment
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: to the United States Constitution to ask for counsel and
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: remain silent, mister Robinson attempted to induce or otherwise causes
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: roommate to withhold testimony or information with the intent to
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: prevent an official proceeding or investigation. Count six must be
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: stricken because mister Robinson's advice to mister Twiggs is consistent
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: with the long standing constitutional principle that every person in
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: the country has the right to remain silent in the
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: face of government interrogation, and because the context in which
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: the allegedly improper statement was made demonstrates that it's purely
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: altruistic and for mister twigs benefit rather than for the
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: purpose of obstructing the investigation. Where the inducer's motive in
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: advising another to remain silent is to impede the investigation
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: against him rather than to give purely altruistic advice, he
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: is obstructing justice United States versus Peterson second circuit to
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: the four The inverse is therefore true. Where the advice
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: is purely altruistic, one is not obstructing justice. Mister Robinson's
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: advice to mister Twiggs was as follows, if any police
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: ask you questions, ask for a lawyer and stay silent.
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: My lawyer should be Doug Terry. I'll see if he
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: can reach out to you and make sure that the
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: police follow the right procedures, proper warrants and stuff, but
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: be polite and respectful. Of course, whether an individual who
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: is under investigation is obstructing that investigation or providing truly
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: altruistic advice to another requires a context specific analysis. Here,
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: the conversation between mister Twiggs and mister Robinson demonstrates that
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: mister Robinson's focus was on protecting mister Twiggs from any
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: fallout from the events which I transpired, and not on
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: inducing him to obstruct an investigation. He says to mister Twiggs,
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: I'm going to turn myself in willingly. One of the
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: neighbors here is a deputy for the sheriff. We hope
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: to keep things sort of quiet here. I only hope
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: they let you visit. I'm gonna miss you too. Please
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: be good for me. If you need anything at all,
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: Both of my parents are willing to help you. Please
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: go to them. Leave the room alone. The Feds will
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: search it top to bottom for certain then work with
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: my family to sort it out. That goes where and such.
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: In response to mister Twiggs question, is there any way
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: you don't go to prison, mister Robinson responded, I highly
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: doubt it. I'll update you as much as I can.
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: If you need a place to stay, I'm sure my
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: family would have you in my old room. You are
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: all I worry about. Love. Don't talk to any media.
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: Please don't take any interviews or make any comments. I
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: will always love you too. I will write to you
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: as often as possible. If any police ask you questions,
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: ask for a lawyer, and stay silent. Make sure the
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: police follow the right procedures, proper warrants and stuff. Be
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: polite and respectful. Of course, these statements by mister Robinson
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: contextualize his altruistic advice to mister Twiggs to exercise his
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: under the Fifth Amendment to ask for a lawyer and
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: stay silent. The facts do not support the state's allegation
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: that this statement by mister Robinson was made with an
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: intent to prevent an official proceeding or investigation. Count six
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: must be stricken. All right, folks, We're going to wrap
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: up right here and to the next episode dealing with
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: the topic. We're going to pick up where we left off.
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: All the information that goes with this episode can be
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: found in the description box.