Latest / The Moscow Murders and More / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing (Day 6 Part 16) (11/5/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing (Day 6 Part 16) (11/5/26) · The Moscow Murders and More

• 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 where we left
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: off with the transcript from day number six of the
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: Tyler Robinson prelim hearing. Count one, aggravated murder, capital felony.
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: To buy Mr. Robinson over for trial for count one,
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: aggravated murder, the state must first present sufficient evidence to
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: sustain a reasonable belief that he intentionally or knowingly caused
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: the death of Charlie Kirk. A person engages in conduct
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: intentionally or with intent or willfully with respect to a
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: result of his conduct when it's his conscious objective or
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: desire to cause the result. A person acts knowingly or
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: with knowledge with respect to the result of his conduct
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: when he's aware that the conduct is reasonably certain to
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: cause a result. To bind defendant over for trial on
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: count one, aggravated murder, the state must establish probable cause
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: that one Mr. Robinson is 2. Intentionally or knowingly. 3.
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: Caused the death of Charlie Kirk. 4. Under circumstances in
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: which defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: another individual other than Charlie Kirk and the defendant. The
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: state's evidence of identity is substantial, combining forensic DNA matching
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: with statements attributed to defendant admitting responsibility for the shooting. First,
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: the DNA profiles obtained from the Mauser. 30- 06 caliber bolt-action
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: rifle The suspected murder weapon provide forensic evidence connecting defendant
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: to the firearm. Defendant's DNA was identified as a major
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: contributor on multiple key components of the firearm, including the stock, grips,
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: butt plate, the trigger, and trigger guard. This physical evidence
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: is corroborated by the tool mark analysis, which matches the
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: engraving cutter recovered from defendant's residence to the cartridge casing
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: and live ammunition found within the Mauser rifle. Furthermore, the
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: FBI DNA analysis places defendant's DNA on a screwdriver recovered
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: at the crime scene with a likely ratio exceeding 30 quintillion. Second,
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: the surveillance tracking evidence provides additional corroboration. Agent Hull's review
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: of this campus surveillance footage tracked a suspect matching defendant's
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: physical attributes, clothing, shoes, and distinct gate from the parking
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: structure to the rooftop on the Losey Building. associated with
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: the shooting, and then fleeing the scene immediately following the shooting.
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: The physical tracking is reinforced by Ms. Noble's ring doorbell
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: camera footage, which captured defendant's vehicle, identified by its unique wheels,
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: and custom styling parking near the location shortly after midnight
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: on September 11, 2025. Third, defendant's own statements provide direct
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: evidence of his alleged responsibility for the shooting. In text
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: messages sent to his roommates, Lance Twiggs, shortly after the shooting,
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: defendant allegedly stated, I had the opportunity to take out
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk and I took it. He followed this with
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: a second text message addressing why he acted. Why did
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: I do it? I had enough of his hatred. Some
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: hate can't be negotiated out. These electronic statements are further
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: corroborated by the alleged in-person confirmation to Twiggs the following
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: morning and subsequent message from defendant's Discord account stating, It
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: was me at UVU yesterday. Viewed in the light most
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: favorable to the prosecution, this evidence is sufficient at this
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: stage to support a reasonable belief that defendant is the
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: individual who shot and killed Charlie Kirk. Accordingly, the state
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: has demonstrated probable cause as to the identity and homicide
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: elements of Count One. Turning to the legal framework aggravating
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: circumstances under State Versosa Hurtado, the Central Legal Dispute, concerning
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: the aggravating circumstances alleged under Utah Code 76-5202A3, which requires
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: probable cause that the defendant knowingly created a great risk
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: of death to another individual other than the deceased individual
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: and the defendant. This case provides the controlling Utah Supreme
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: Court analysis. The court explained that the relevant circumstances are
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: not necessarily confined to the precise act causing death. A
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: risk-creating act occurring within a brief span of time may
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: qualify when it forms part of a sufficient connected series
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: of events surrounding the murder. The court identified several non-exclusive
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: considerations bearing on the inquiry, including the temporal relationship between
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: the act and conduct endangering the third party, the spatial
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: relationship among the defendant, victim, and third party, and to
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: what extent the third party was actually threatened. Those considerations
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: guide the statutory inquiry. They don't replace it. The ultimate
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: question remains whether the circumstances support a reasonable belief that
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to another
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: individual within the relevant zone of danger, one involving a
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: likelihood of high probability rather than a mere possibility. Unlike Sosa-Hurtado,
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: the state does not allege here that the defendant fired
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: a separate shot at a third party. immediately before or
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: during the killing. The alleged aggravator therefore depends, principally, on
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: whether the circumstances of a single shot directed at Mr.
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: Kirk placed at least one other individual within a zone
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: of danger, and whether the defendant knew of the circumstances
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: creating that risk. That factual distinction does not make Sosa
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: Hurtado inapplicable, but it requires the application of its governing
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: principles to the evidence presented here, rather than the treatment
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: of its particular facts as dispositive. Defendant emphasizes that Sosa
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: Hurtado involved conduct materially different from conduct alleged here. There,
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: the defendant fired at a third party shortly before firing
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: the shots that killed the murder victim. Here, by contrast,
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: The state alleges a single shot fired from approximately 415
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: feet away that struck the attended victim. Defendant argues that
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: because the shot struck Mr. Kirk and no additional shot
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: was fired, the evidence establishes only a theoretical possibility rather
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: than a high probability of death to another person. The
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: distinction is material but not dispositive. Sosa Hurtado does not
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: require a separate shot directed at a third party in
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: every case. At the same time, the statute requires more
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: than the abstract possibility that any discharge of firearm might
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: injure a bystander. Nor does the court conclude that firing
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: towards a crowded event without more necessarily satisfies 76-5202-2A3. The
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: court therefore considers the actual spatial circumstances surrounding the shot,
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: the proximity of other individuals to Mr. Kirk, and the
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: evidence bearing on defendant's knowledge of those circumstances. First, the
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: record places several individuals in positions around Mr. Kirk and
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: the canopy when the shot was fired. Mr. Kirk was
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: seated beneath the canopy. One member of the security team
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: was sufficiently close that his body was beneath the tent.
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: Another was positioned to the left and in front of Mr. Kirk,
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: and another to the right and in front, although the
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: record does not establish their precise distance from him. A
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: participant stood at the microphone east of and in front
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: of Mr. Kirk, although the precise distance between the participant
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: and Mr. Kirk was likewise not established. The Losi Center
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: was east of the courtyard, and the southwest rooftop area
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: provided a clear line of sight to the canopy where Mr.
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: Kirk was seated. The court relies on those documented positions
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: rather than assuming measurements not established by the record. Second,
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: the physical evidence established the shot was fired from an
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: elevated position indicates approximately 415 feet from the canopy and
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: approximately 68 feet above it, and that the bullet traveled
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: anatomically from front to back and downward after striking Mr. Kirk.
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: The projectile did not exit his body. The court, therefore,
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: does not assign a quantitative probability to ricochet over penetration
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: or a hypothetical deviation in name that the evidence does
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: not itself quantify. Rather, the relevant evidence is is the
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: defendant allegedly discharged a. 30- 06 rifle toward its seated victim,
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: while several other individuals occupied positions in and around the
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: canopy area. Viewed favorably to the state, their documented position
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: in relation to the intended target, considered together with the
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: elevated location and downward direction of the shot, permit a
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: reasonable inference at the prelim hearing stage. that at least
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: the one-third party was within the relevant zone of danger
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: and that the risk was more than an abstract possibility. Third,
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: the state has presented evidence supporting probable cause as to
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: the defendant's knowledge of those circumstances. Defendant was present in
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: and around the event before the shooting. Earlier that morning,
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: he walked through the amphitheater area and interacted with Turning
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: Point representatives. He later approached the low-sea center rooftop area
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: before returning shortly before the shooting. The evidence therefore supports
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: an inference that defendant had opportunities to observe the event area,
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: its configuration, and the gathering attendees. From the southwest roof area,
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: there was a clear line of sight to Mr. Kirk's canopy.
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: The rifle also contained an optical accessory. Without making findings
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: of fact, about the degree of magnification, or precisely, what
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: the defendant saw through the optic. These circumstances support a
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: reasonable inference that defendant was aware that other individuals were
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: positioned near Mr. Kirk when he fired. The court distinguishes
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: between the objective circumstances creating the alleged risk and the
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: defendant's knowledge of those circumstances. The state need not establish
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: at this stage that the defendant calculated a particular ballistic probability.
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: It must, however, present evidence permitting a reasonable inference both
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: that another person was exposed to the statutorily required degree
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: of risk and that the defendant was aware of the
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: circumstances given rise to that risk. The evidence described above
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: is sufficient under the prelim hearing standard as to both inquiries.
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: defendants' contrary argument is substantial. Unlike Sosa-Hurtado, the evidence described
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: here does not include a separate shot directed at the
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: alleged endangered third party. The court therefore does not treat
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: Sosa-Hurtado as factually equivalent to this case. The question at
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: this stage, however, is not whether the state proved the
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: aggravator beyond a reasonable doubt or whether defendants' competing interpretation
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: is ultimately more persuasive. It's whether the Believable evidence and
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: reasonable inferences support probable cause as to each element. Under
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: the limited standard, the state has met its burden. All right, folks,
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up right here. And in the
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: up where we left off. All the information that goes
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.