Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing (Day 6 Part 7) (10/30/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing (Day 6 Part 7) (10/30/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. In
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: this episode, we're going to pick up where we left
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: off with day number six of the transcript from the
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: Tyler Robinson prelim hearing. The rifle was found hidden under
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: a bush and the defendant admitted to his boyfriend that
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: he had to leave it in a bush. Count four
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: deals with disposing of the clothing. In exhibit 14, which
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: is the unwritten statement of Mike Mitchell, Mike Mitchell recounts
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: his conversation with the defendant where the defendant stated he
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: had disposed of his clothing. Count five, witness tampering. This
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: deals with the defendant telling Lance Twiggs to delete the
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: text messages after the defendant had admitted to killing Charlie Kirk.
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: Count six, witness tampering. This is telling Twiggs to stay silent.
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: Now defense counsel in their pleading states that, no, this
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: is altruistic. This is not witness tampering because it's not
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: telling Lance Twiggs to avoid giving information or testimony to
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: the defendant's benefits It's telling him his rights in essence. Well,
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: that requires you draw the inference in the defendant's favor,
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: which is improper at this stage. Moreover, it requires you
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: to ignore the circumstances here. You have to remember the
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: defendant had just shot and killed someone. He'd just hidden
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: the rifle. He'd just gotten rid of the clothing. He
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: just asked Lance Twiggs to delete the text messages and
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: incriminating messages. And of course, so he told Lance Twiggs,
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: also to avoid giving him up. Don't talk to police
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: when they come to ask you questions. Furthermore, as it
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: relates to the Fifth Amendment, Lance Twiggs did not have
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: a Fifth Amendment right against incriminating the defendant. The Fifth
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: Amendment right only applies to incriminating himself, and there's no
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: evidence that Lance Twiggs would have incriminated himself by speaking
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: with the police. Finally, Your Honor, we get to count seven. Now,
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: at this juncture, I want to talk a little bit
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: about the aggravating and enhancers, right? So counts 1 and
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: 2 have an aggravating factor of committing homicide in the
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: presence of a child and a victim targeting enhancement for
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: the motive. With regard to counts 1 and 2, the
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: court does not need to enter any order binding over
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: those allegations. Apparendi states that any fact that increases the
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: penalty of a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum, the
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: prescribed statutory maximum, what appears in the law, that must
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: Defense counsel misstates the law here and says anything that
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: increases the punishment. That's not what the Apprentice says. It
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: says what I've quoted here on the screen. Anything that
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: enhances the penalty beyond the prescribed statutory maximum. And so,
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: let's look. Do these aggravating factors do so? 76.3203.9 says this.
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: The sentencing judge, or the Board of Pardons and Parole,
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: should consider as an aggravating factor in their deliberations that
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: the defendant committed the violent offense in the presence of
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: a child as an aggravating factor, right? That does not
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: increase the statutory maximum penalty, so you don't have to
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: bind it over. Victim targeting, now victim targeting, can, under
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: certain circumstances, enhance the statutory maximum. And it does with
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: count 7, by the way. But with regard to count
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: 1 and 2, it does not. Under 203.14 sub 3b,
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: It states the sentencing judge or the barter pardons and
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: parole should consider defendant selection of the victim as an
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: aggravating factor. An aggravating factor does not increase the statutory maximum.
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: It's considered just like the aggravating circumstance on the PSI
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: that we're so used to dealing with. Now, with regard
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: to Count 7, it does, right? Going back to the statute,
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: a Class B is enhanced to a Class A if
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: there is victim targeting. Count 7 is violence in the
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: presence of a child it's a Class B misdemeanor. It's
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: increased to a Class A because of the victim targeting enhancement. Now,
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: regardless if you agree with me on any of these things,
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: as far as the aggravator and enhancing circumstances go, the
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: facts still satisfy both of these elements. And I have
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: to address them both anyway, because the evidence that supports
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: Count 7 is the same evidence that supports the enhancing circumstance.
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: That is, that the defendant knew children were present, right?
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: That's count seven. And also the aggravating circumstance. How do
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: we know the defendant knew that children were present? Defense
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: counsel is right. We don't have any direct evidence of
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: what the defendant saw, but we do know several other things.
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: One thing we do know is that Orem County's city
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: motto is Family City USA. You can't go anywhere in
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: Orem and you can't go anywhere in Utah County without
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: seeing kids all over the place. And UVU on September
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: 10th that morning was no different. There were children around,
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: and no one was hiding the children. It's a reasonable
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: inference to believe that the defendant would have seen these
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: children in one or two of the scouting missions or
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: when he was on the roof. In looking at the evidence,
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: I stopped the video exhibit, ate at one spot where
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: the panning video slows down enough to have a clear view,
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: and in one frame I'm able to find three babies
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: in arms, right? They're circled there on count eight. In
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: addition to that, we know that there were other children
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: who were present. Through Exhibit 6, we know that there
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: were two children present with their mother there. Your Honor,
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: the inference is the defendant would have known that children
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: were present when he shot and killed Charlie Kirk. Was
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: he focusing on them? No, of course not. He was
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: focusing on his target. But he would have known that
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: he didn't care and he committed the offense in their
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: presence anyway. Finally, to enhance Count 7 to a Class
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: A misdemeanor, You also have to find probable cause that
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: the defendant targeted Charlie Kirk because of his political views.
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk was famous. He was a famous political activist.
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: And in Exhibit 5.1, we learn a little bit about
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: what he stood for and what his organization stood for.
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk would engage attendees, most often students, in civil
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: debates and discussion on traditional family values, Orthodox Christian views
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: on sexuality, marriage and gender, and sex. as well as
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: other political doctrines. Charlie Kirk and TPUSA speakers often specifically
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: attempted to persuade attendees to follow a mindset rooted in
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: orthodox Christian and politically conservative values. We know that Charlie
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: Kirk stood for, and those ideas were repugnant to the defendant,
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: who was in a homosexual relationship with a man who
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: was considering transitioning genders. It doesn't take a lot to
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: connect the dots. We know what the defendant's mental state
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: was and why he did what he did, because of
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: what he said, right? Remember the note to his boyfriend Luna,
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: where he says, let me make sure I get this right?
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: I went on a mission to take out Charlie Kirk.
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: I wish we could live in a place where this
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: was not necessary. I wish I could have stayed for
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: you and lived our lives together. We've got to think
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: about the context there. When he asked it by his boyfriend, why?
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: Why did I do it? Yeah, I had enough of
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out. And then
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: even more clearly, we have the etchings on the rounds
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: found in the gun. Exhibit 19, twigs. Explain what this means.
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: Notices bulge, O-W-O, surprise face. What's this? This is a
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: furry meme of the surprise someone has at discovering that
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: another individual unexpectedly has male genitalia. Exhibit 20 is probably
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: the most clear political statement here. Hey, fascist, catch. We
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: know what that means. from just knowledge of current events.
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: Fascist is a common derogatory label for those on the
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: left to give those on the right to try and
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: categorize them and group them with the famous evil dictators
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: and fascists of the 20th century. And then Exhibit 2022,
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: if you read this, you are gay, LMAO. So these
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: etchings show a clear political and sexual motivation connected with
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: a political stance that Charlie Kirk took. Your Honor, in summary,
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: On September 10th, 2025, the defendant, Tyler James Robinson, shot
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: and killed Charlie Kirk because he disagreed with him. And
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: he did it by firing a high-powered rifle into a
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: group of thousands who surrounded Charlie Kirk literally on all sides.
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: And he, like any rational person, knew that he would
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: create a great risk of death to all those around
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk in the event any one of a number
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: of likely possibilities that he created a great risk of death,
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: that he could miss, a ricochet, a pass-through, or any
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: number of things could have happened and kill any of
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: the other people around Charlie Kirk. We'd ask the court
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: to bind over the defendant on all charges. Judge Graff,
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: all right. So, defense, do you want to take a break,
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: move forward, and then take a break in the middle,
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: or what's your preference? Defense, let's do it. Judge Graff,
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: all right. We move forward. Defense, thank you, Your Honor.
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: As I stated before, we're going to split this up
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: a little bit. The defense presentation... and kind of focus
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: on three potential areas depending on the court's questions. So
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: if the court does have questions about the aggravator specifically,
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: I would be the one to ask those questions too.
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: As I stated before, Mr. Burt is available to answer
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: questions about the forensic evidence should the court have questions
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: about that. And then Mr. Novak will comment upon Count
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: 6-7 and the enhancement issues near the end. I want
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: to start out by stating, Your Honor, that my focus
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: is primarily on the legal framework and the constitutional issue
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: that's been presented. I will at times discuss state's evidence,
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: of course. These are not concessions of facts. This is
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: the evidence that's before the court. We do understand we're
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: in a probable cause hearing. We understand what that standard is.
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: We understand the law. We're all on the same page
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: about that there, and I do want to address briefly
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: the error that I made in the briefing about Cristobal
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: and not citing the additional law that came after it.
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: I do want to provide a that is cited by
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: other cases. It's really just that one sentence that was
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: overruled and absolutely should have been put into the brief,
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: and I apologize to the court for that mistake. These
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: cases deal with the standard of review and reviewing a
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: jury verdict for sufficiency of the evidence on the direct appeal.
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: It's a different scenario, and then the discussion of speculation
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: in Cristobal is still endorsed by the Supreme Court, and
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: State v. Brisby in particular is They do not cite
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: to that specific sentence, to be very clear, but the
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: rest of it is still good law and is still
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: cited by Prisby. So with that clarification, I'm going to
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: address one more issue before I get into this too much,
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: and that is the state's effort in the briefing and
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: here now in oral argument to add to the evidence.
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: In the reply brief, for example, the state cites to
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: standards like safety standards of a Provo shooting range. That
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: wasn't evidence at the prelim. The state had five days
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: to present evidence. The state had an ample opportunity to
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: present evidence about guns, gun safety, specifics about physics, about probabilities,
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: about whatever it wanted to admit. It did not. It
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: cannot now add to that both an argument and in
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: its briefing. So we would ask the court to stick
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: to the evidence in making the determination. All right, folks,
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up right there. And in the
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: next episode, we're going to pick back up with the
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: defense making their point. All the information that goes with
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box.