Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing (Day 6 Part 12) (11/2/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing (Day 6 Part 12) (11/2/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 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 the transcript
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: from day number six of the Tyler Robinson prelim hearing.
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: The defense has talked about, well, a likelihood or a
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: high probability. First of all, that is not the test.
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: The test and the statute in question, but here we
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: have a likelihood. We have a high probability that others
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: would be injured if just one little thing goes wrong. Again,
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: we're talking about risk, judge. This is a public policy determination.
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: It doesn't require that the third party or a third
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: party actually be injured. It's one of the risks. And again,
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: to the extent there's questions, it's for a jury to
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: resolve the fact finder at trial. Defense counsel is cited
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: to a number of cases and argued those facts and
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: compared those facts to our facts here. Most of those
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: cases involve firing more than one shot. But whether the
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: facts of those cases where a defendant has been found
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: to created a great risk of death to another when
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: he commits murder precisely fits the facts of ours, it
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: doesn't matter. The question is whether the evidence together with
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: reasonable inferences viewed in the light most favorable to the
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: state supports a reasonable belief that the defendant here knowingly
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: created a great risk of death to at least one
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: other person beyond Mr. Kirk and himself. And of course,
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: We have the case law from other jurisdictions where one
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: shot did create a great risk to others, and it's
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: very important to look carefully at the language of Sosa
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: Hurtado and look at what the court found there. Because
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: the Utah Supreme Court, the controlling court here, found that
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: the defendant there perpetrated two separate acts that created a
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: great risk of death to Isabel, who was the survivor.
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: The first shot was actually directed at Isabel, but missed,
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: him shattering some glass. throwing some glass and wood into
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: his leg. And the second shot when the defendant fired
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: a shot at Stephen, which hit Stephen's hand when Isabel
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: was only a few feet away. The court found that
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: a reasonable jury could conclude that both of these acts
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: created a great risk of death to Isabel. So in
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: other words, our high court here in the state of
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: Utah has held that even one shot can create that
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: one shot that kills someone, that injures someone intended for
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: a target can create a great risk of death to
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: a third party. And that's exactly what we have here.
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: And we talk about the zone of danger that's reiterated
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: in Sosa Hurtado. The Johnson case talks about this zone
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: of danger. The Cristobal case. Ms. Visser spoke a little
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: bit about Cristobal and the state appreciates her candor. But
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: what's important is that the part that the defense relied
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: on in Cristobal is bad law, judge. The fact that
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: other parts of that opinion may be fine, it's irrelevant
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: for our purposes in this case, because of the Ashcroft case,
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: because state versus wall. The defense has accused the state
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: of speculating, judge. Speculation is a mere guess or theory
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: formed without firm evidence or supporting facts, whereas reasonable inference
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: is a logical conclusion based on known evidence or facts.
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: Speculation skips the evidence and jumps to possibility. A reasonable
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: inference bridges the gap between what is seen and what
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: is known and what is logically true. The state is
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: not stretching in this case. Our arguments are based on
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: reasonable inferences, Judge, and as Mr. McBride argued, he categorized
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: the evidence in four different parts. Even one satisfies probable
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: cause and in all likelihood can satisfy proof beyond a
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: reasonable doubt as well when it's taken to a jury. Apprendi,
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: the United States Supreme Court, held that any fact that
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: a reasonable doubt. So it actually has to increase the
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: penalty for Apprendi to apply when we're talking about the
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: enhancements here. One point with respect to Sosa Hurtado, I
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: want to circle back on that. I just noticed that
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: I forgot. Judge, we're at a prelim hearing. Where, and
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: I've indicated this twice now, the reasonable inferences go in
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: favor of the state. Sosa-Hurtado was reviewing a conviction where proof,
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: beyond a reasonable doubt, is required. Where those same inferences
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: are not required to fall in favor of the state.
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: I want to talk a little bit about Judge, some
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: of the other counts, and then also the enhancements here.
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: Once again, reminding the court that we're at a preliminary hearing.
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: This victim targeting aggravator that's based upon Mr. Robinson's motive
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: for taking out Charlie Kirk for assassinating him because of
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: his political expression. First of all, the state takes great
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: exception with Mr. Novak attributing all of this hate to Mr.
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: Kirk during his argument today. None of that was presented
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: during the prelim hearing. That is the hateful towards this
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: group or hateful towards that group. He had an opinion
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: that he would express on politics and religion. That doesn't
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: make it hate. But the fact that Mr. Novak even
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: considered it as hate makes the case for the state.
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: In his own client's words, he hated what Mr. Kirk
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: stood for. On the shell casing that was found in
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: the 30-odd-6, the defendant's gun, grandpa's gun, the murder weapon, hey, fascist, catch.
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: He's calling him a fascist. And of course, in the text,
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: which has been talked about twice already today, State Exhibit 16.1,
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: when the defendant texted Mr. Twiggs, I had enough of
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out. He hated
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk. He hated what he stood for and he
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: took him out because of it. And we presented evidence
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: in State Exhibit 5.1 about who Charlie Kirk was, what
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: he did as a leader for TPUSA. Tyler Robinson, the
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: reasonable inference clearly from these facts, given his own words,
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: was that he hated him because of his political expression.
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: I want to talk a little bit about How the
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: defendant knew, Judge, the reasonable inference is that he knew
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: that he was creating a great risk of death to
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: at least one other person. Mr. McBride talked about common sense.
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: Common sense is incredibly important. Like he said, we ask
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: our juries to not check their common sense at the
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: door when they come into trial and ultimately when they deliberate.
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: The record clearly establishes, establishes for probable cause, purposes, that
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: Tyler Robinson... knew that his actions were creating a great
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: risk of death to others. First, when Mr. Robinson was
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: crawling towards and settling into the shooter's perch that day,
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: on top of the Losey building, and then set his
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: sights on Charlie Kirk, he was looking down into a
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: crowd of people, thousands of people. He not only could
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: see the crowd, but also the people standing within a
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: short distance to Mr. Kirk. He wasn't looking at Mr.
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: Kirk through the scope that magnified the area, He could
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: see Mr. Kirk and he could see those standing right
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: next to him. That's the reasonable inference. It's more than
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: fair to infer that Robinson knew and that he knew
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: that he was shooting into a crowd and that his
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: margin of error that I've talked about was very tight,
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: very tight. And this was a very purposeful act on
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: his part. He knew what he was walking into. He
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: had scoped the place out that day. He knew that
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk was going to be speaking to a group
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: of people that were going to be assembling right around him.
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: And that's exactly what he saw when he got up
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: onto that shooter's perch. He nonetheless, purposefully, pulled out that
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: weapon and fired it, killing Mr. Kirk and putting others
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: at great risk of death. Third, as I stated before
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: his target, Mr. Kirk, as well as those around him
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: were fluid. They were moving targets. They were shifting. They
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: were leaning. And the defendant knew that because he saw
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: it happening as he was looking through his scope, zeroing in,
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: on Mr. Kirk. That's the reasonable inference, Judge. Fourth, as
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: we've talked about, Tyler Robinson was no expert marksman, and
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: he knew it. And we know it because, as Mr.
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: McBride talked about earlier today, his target practice, law enforcement
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: served a search warrant on his place a day or
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: so after his arrest and seized those targets. And very
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: few hit the bullseye, Judge, very few. and presumably judge
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: when those shots, when he was taking target practice, were
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: not under the same stress that he was likely feeling
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: when he was about to take the life of an
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: innocent man and shoot into a crowd of people. That's
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: a reasonable inference. And I've already talked about what a
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: flinch of maybe a quarter of an inch would have
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: amounted to, or maybe half of an inch. It could
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: have been a much, much different story had that happened.
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: When they searched his residences, Law enforcement, when they searched Mr.
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: Robinson's residence, they found the test shot casing where he
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: had inscribed test shot and then there were unspent rounds.
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: And we can't minimize the significance of those unspent rounds, Judge,
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: that all had inscriptions on them. He was prepared for
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: and planning on taking more than one shot. And just
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: because he didn't eject the first shell that remained there
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: to take the second shot, he would have had to
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: eject it The inference is that he didn't need to.
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: He watched as he took the life. Watching through the
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: scope as he took the life of Charlie Kirk, he
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: knew he hit him in the neck. He knew he
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: had taken out his target. He didn't need to shoot anymore,
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: so he didn't need to eject the one and shoot
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: the others. But he was prepared to do it. Why?
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: Because he knew he wasn't an expert marksman. And we
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: know that from the target practice and the test shot
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: that he left behind. Your Honor, it's reasonable to infer
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: that Tyler knew he was putting others at great risk
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: of death when he killed Charlie Kirk. The obstruction of justice,
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: I think. There was some brief discussion about that today.
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: But he concealed the rifle and the towel and hid
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: both of those in the woods. He admitted to concealing
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: it to his boyfriend Twigs in texts. He admitted to
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: changing his clothes in the wooded area. And he likely
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: knew that there was going to be incriminating evidence all
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: over that towel and that rifle, which there was. And
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: he hid it. And he went back to try and
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: retrieve it and was unsuccessful. He admitted to Mike Mitchell,
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: the deputy sheriff friend that helped Mr. Robinson turn himself in,
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: that he had discarded the clothing that he wore during
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: the incident. He admitted to Twigs that he was hoping
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: his crimes would be kept secret if he were able
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: to retrieve his rifle. In sum, he concealed and or
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: removed evidence for the purpose of hindering or delaying a
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: criminal investigation. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: right here. And in the next episode, we'll pick up
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: where we left off. All the information that goes with
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box.