Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Tyler Robinson Tells The Court That There Is Not Enough Evidence To Proceed To Trial (Part 3) (8/14/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Tells The Court That There Is Not Enough Evidence To Proceed To Trial (Part 3) (8/14/26) · 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
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: response to the State of Utah and their motion to
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: bind them over for trial d. This court must reject
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: the state's asserted theories as to how it has established
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: facts supporting the KGRD aggravator because it's failed to establish
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: the facts that are constitutionally required. The state offers two
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: interrelated theories of KGRD that fail to conform to the
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: criteria established by the Utah Supreme Court, criteria which, if
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: not met, render application of the KGRD aggravator in violation
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: of the US Constitution Amendment eight fourteen and the Utah Constitution,
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: Article one, section nine. Each is deconstructed here. First, the
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: state has propounded a line of sight theory, which is
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: based upon an out of state authority that has never
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: been adopted in Utah. It's primarily based upon the decision
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: of courts in Pennsylvania before this state enacted a moratorium. However,
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: the state's reliance on this authority fails to support the
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: application of a line of site formulation to the facts
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: that presented at the prelim hearing. The state's line of
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: sight theory, as applied to the questioner to the east
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: and below mister Kirk, fails based upon the facts the
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: State presented to this court, and no further reasonable inferences
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: based upon those facts can support that basis for the aggravator.
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: The second theory is in every one year argument, which
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: relies upon only one of the three factors identified in
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: Shirts Hurtado Too, and ignores the other two factors which
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: are not present here. Moreover, the state asks the court
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: to speculate about the shooter's knowledge. Even assuming that one
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: can infer a knowledge of some risk to the shooter,
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: the state has failed to show that the actual conduct
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: created a high probability that someone other than mister Kirk
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: would be killed, and thus this theory fails as a
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: matter of law. Were there people in some proximity to
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: discharge of a single projectile from a precision firearm with
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: a high powered scope, which the evidence establishes hit its
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: intended target, this single factor of proximity fails to permit
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: an inference of a subjective knowledge of the shooter of
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: a high probability of risk of death to others, where
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: no other person was injured in a manner, creating a
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: great risk of death. No other shots were fired. The
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: allegation of a KGRD aggravator cannot be sustained one line
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: of sight. The state broadly argues that certain individuals were
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: in the shooter's line of fire. There are two fatal
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: flaws in the state's argument. One is factual and the
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: other is legal. Factually, the line of fire assertion as
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: to the questioner defies logic. The evidence established that there
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: was one shooter on the roof of the low c center.
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: Mister Kirk was seated under a pop up ten in
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: the center of a courtyard to the southwest of where
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: the shooter was positioned on the roof. The single shot
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: fired traveled from east to west at a downward slope
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: into the bottom of the bowl where the tent was located.
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: See example eight at thirty five seconds showing crowd at
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: increasing elevation to the east of the pop up tent.
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: State's exhibit seven shows a vantage behind the questioner prior
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: to and at twelve twenty three to twenty eight PM,
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: the questioner is in front of mister Kirk to the east.
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: If the questioner had been in the line of fire
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: from a bullet moving towards mister Kirk. The questioner would
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: have been struck by the bullet as it traveled. In fact,
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: the state's evidence shows exactly why the questioner was not
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: in the line of fire. The single bullet came from above.
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: The video evidence shows that mister Kirk was seated on
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: an elevated platform and separated from the questioner by a
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: security barrier, a grassy area, and then tables that surrounded
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: mister Kirk on three sides. The bullet traveled downward angle
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: and hit mister Kirk on the left side of the neck,
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: where mister kirk head neck area was elevated and an
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: unidentified distance away from the questioner, certainly more than a
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: few feet away. The only evidence presented supports that the
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: bullet traveled above, not through the crowd. The court must
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: also reject the legal theory behind the state's factual argument.
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: The state asked the court to adopt its interpretation of
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: an out of state authority on the line of fire theory. However,
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: a thorough examination of the cases which construct a line
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: of fire theory or not as the State to suggests
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: and support that this Court should not expand Utah's KGRD application.
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: In Commonwealth vers. Watson, five sixty five A Dot two d. Pennsylvania,
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: nineteen eighty nine, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered the application
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: of Pennsylvania's Grave Risk aggravator to a case in which
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: Watson fired three shots into an occupied car, striking an
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: individual twice. Watson then shot the lock off the door
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: of a home, pulled his ex girlfriend from the closet
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: where she was hiding with her two children, and shot
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: her twice. He then reloaded, left the room, returned, then
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: shot her again, then shot himself. One of the shots
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: lodged in the doorframe around the closet where the children
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: were hiding, but did not hit them. Under these facts,
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: the Pennsylvania Court affirmed the jury's finding as to the
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: KGRD aggravating factor because the children in the closet were
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: endangered by his conduct. In Sylvia versus State sixty South, Florida,
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: twenty eleven, the defendant argued that there was not competent
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: substantial evidence to support KGRD because the gunfire was intended
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: only for one person. The Florida Supreme Court disagreed because
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: Sylvia engaged in indiscriminate shooting in the direction of at
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: least four persons other than the intended victim, who were
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: not only put in an immediate present risk of death,
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: but were also in the line of fire. One of
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: the other individuals was shot, and the defendant pumped the
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: shotgun and aimed it at two others. The court explained,
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: we therefore conclude that there was competence substantial evidence that
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: Sylvia's actions created a great risk of death to many persons.
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: He approached the house while pumping shells into his shotgun.
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: Pellets hit one of the cars in the carport, different
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: locations in the carport and door from the carport to
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: the house. Pellets were found inside the house in the kitchen,
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: dining room, and bedroom. There were six unarmed people in
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: the carport and house when Sylvia approached, shooting and pointing
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: the gun at people. In Commonwealth Verse Read six twenty
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: six at two d. Pennsylvania ninety three. Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: found sufficient evidence to uphold the grave risk aggravating circumstance.
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: Reid had fired multiple gunshots had fleeing children after chasing
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: them in his vehicle. One of those shots hit a
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: young man in the back, killing him less than a
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: week later, Read killed another individual with the same weapon.
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: The court noted that twelve to fourteen others were in
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: the line of fire Away and Reed chase the boys
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: while driving his car, and gunfire flash from the windows
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: of Reed's car, killing the first victim. In Commonwealth Verse
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: Buck seven O nine A Dot two d. Pennsylvania, nineteen
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: ninety eight, the court considered whether the Commonwealth's notice to
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: the defendant of the aggravating circumstance was sufficient if the
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: Commonwealth abused its discretion in proceeding on three aggravators, one
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: of them grave risk. In finding the Commonwealth did not
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: abuse its discretion in a legend grave risk, the Buck
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: court found that evidence raised a factual question for the
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: jury because while only one individual was shot and killed,
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: the potentially endangered person stood behind the decedent in a bathroom,
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: and importantly, because the endangered person wrestled with the defendant
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: over the gun after the shot was fired. In State
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: Verse Would eight eighty one p. Dot two D. Eleven
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: fifty eight Arizona, ninety four, would challenge the application of
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: KGRD in a double murder case where he did not
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: shoot any persons other than the victims. And there were
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: no bystanders in the line of fire. The court found
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: that although the defendant's argument had merit, the interpretation of
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: KGRD proposed was too narrow under the unusual facts of
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: the case. The Wood Court found no single factor as
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: dispositive of KGRD, and the inquiry turns on whether during
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: the court of the killing, the defendant knowingly engaged in
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: conduct that created a real and substantial likelihood that a
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: specific person might suffer fatal injury. Thus, the several factors
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: in combination supported KGRD. There was the presence of others.
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: The defendant turned to another and it appeared as if
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: he was going to shoot a third individual. Another employee
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: fought defendant over the gun, and there was evidence the
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: defendant knowingly prepared the gun to fire when he assumed
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: the shooting stance towards one employee and when he grappled
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: with another. None of these cases support the state's position here.
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: Each involves conduct directed at the endangered person, consistent with
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: the Utah Supreme Court's endorsement of the three zones of
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: danger factor and Soso Hurtado II. In determining if KGRD
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: applies as a matter of law, this court must consider
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: if any conduct constituting a great risk of death was
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: directed at any individual other than the victim. Here there
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: is none. Utah has never adopted an interpretation of KGRD
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: that would permit its application where the firing of a
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: single shot at an intended victim that hit only in
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: the intended victim merely because other people were in the vicinity.
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: Nor does the state's reliance on ad of state authorities
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: in which personas other than the decedent or targeted and
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: or injured support this proposition. As a matter of law,
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: the court cannot buy mister Robinson over on this theory
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: of the KGRD aggravator based on the facts presented by
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: the State. Two. The state's anyone near argument similarly fails,
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: both factually and as a matter of law. The state's
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: second argument in support of the KGRD aggravator is that
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: the shooter knowingly created a great risk of death to
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: everyone near mister Kirk when a single shot was fired.
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: The state's argument here also fails because it requires the
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: court to speculate and the absence of evidence that would
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: otherwise permit reasonable inference. Moreover, the state's argument fails again
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: as a matter of law, because the conduct here fails
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: to satisfy any of the three factors, Utah Supreme Court
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: is held must be present in order for the KGRD
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: aggravator to be pursued in a manner which does not
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: violate a defendants constitutional rights under the eighth and fourteenth Amendment.
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: One knowledge, the State asks his court to make finding
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: that the shooter knowingly created a high probability of grave
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: risk of death based upon speculation that is not supported
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: by the evidence. The state speculates and as his court
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: to speculate a the shooter or actually observed security personnel
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: standing an unknown distance from mister Kirk B. The shooter
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: may have known that there were people behind the pop
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: up ten when the single shot was fired, although the
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: state evidence actually shows otherwise. See that the shooter knew
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: that they may strike someone other than the intended target
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: because there were four cartridges found in the rifle. D
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: That the shooter knew that they may strike someone other
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: than the intended target because targets with bullet holes in
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: them were recovered from mister Robinsons shared apartment. E. The
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: shooter knew they may strike someone other than the intended
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: target because the rifle may have been taken apart and
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: put back together. These assertions are not reasonable inferences from
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: the evidence actually presented, and in one instance, are actually
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: inconsistent with how the evidence was presented before the court.
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: The evidence does not support that the shooter acted knowingly,
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: that is, that the shooter was aware that there was
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: a high probability that someone else may die from his
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: single gunshot that hit the intended victim. As to a
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: the state's evidence shows that the presumed shooter was on
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: the low C center roof in a prone position for
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: approximately thirty five to forty four seconds before firing their
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: weapon once. According to the state's evidence, this means that
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: the shooter had approximately forty seconds after coming to rest
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: to ready their rifle, acquire the target, with the scope
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: on the rifle steady their breathing fire the weapon. The
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: state asked of court to speculate about what the shooter
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: saw through the scope during his limited window of time
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: while focusing on the tasks. However, one of the state's
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: case agents, Agent Holl, testified that he cannot testify as
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: to whether or what the shooter saw. Indeed, the only
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: reasonable inference from this limited time window and the fact
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: that mister Kirk was shot was that the shooter observed
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: mister Kirk through his scope. As to b the state's
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: assertion that the shooter would have known there were individuals
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: behind the pop up ten is not a reasonable inference
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: supported by its own evidence. In fact, states Exhibit nine
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: shows no one directly behind where mister Kirk was located
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: when the single shot was fired. There's no one stood
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: in the middle behind the tent. Moreover, the shooter could not,
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: of course see through the tent and again was on
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: the rooftop vantage for only thirty five to forty four
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: seconds before taking a single shot with a high power
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: rifle with the precision scope attached to it, and then
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: immediately fleeing to the back of the rooftop area. The
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: state relies on surveillance footage from earlier in the day
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: on September tenth, twenty twenty five, to suggest that the
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: shooter had knowledge that there would be people behind the
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: pop up tent during the event. The state's evidence is
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: that mister Robinson was on campus at eight thirty am
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: and went to the Amphitheater at that time, three and
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: a half hours before the event began. The state asked
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: the court to speculate that the amphitheater and the people
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: around it looked to the shooter at that time, just
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: as did four hours later when the shot was fired,
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: as depicted in States Exhibits six, seven, eight nine. There's
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: no evidence from which the court can make such an inference,
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: and again, the evidence is that the shooter had an
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: extremely narrow window of time to observe the intended target
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: through the scope of the rifle. The only reasonable inference
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: that can be drawn is that the shooter saw the
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: intended target as to see. The state asked the court
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: to speculate about the shooter's knowledge that he was creating
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: a high probability that someone else could be killed because
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: the recovered Mauser ninety eight had more than one round
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: of ammunition in it. This is a circumstance in which
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: the state cannot prove one inference is more likely than
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: any other, and is thus asking the court to speculate
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: it's just as likely that the shooter did not believe
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: he would miss as it is that the shooter believed,
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: as the State speculates, having a loaded weapon does not
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: mean that the individual believes there's a high probability of
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: missing and killing someone else. It only means that they
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: have the ability to fire more than one round. The
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: facts here, or that the shooter did not miss his
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: intended target and did not chamber another round, leaving the
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: spent cartridge in the rifle. As to D, the State
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: argues that targets taken from mister Robinson's apartment support an
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: inference that mister Robinson used the targets in connection with
• 15:15
  Speaker 1: the shooting at Uvu and therefore knew of a high
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: probability of risk and death to others. However, this Court
• 15:23
  Speaker 1: cannot reasonably infer that mister Robinson's alleged use of the
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: targets at some point in time in the past with
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: some unknown weapon led to such knowledge on his part.
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: The State presented no evidence of when the targets were used,
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: what weapons were used with the targets, the conditions under
• 15:41
  Speaker 1: which the targets were used, or even that mister Robinson
• 15:44
  Speaker 1: was alone in shooting at the targets, i e. That
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: all the target shots were fired by them, without any
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: evidence tying the targets to the Sea's weapon, the relevant
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: time frame, and the conditions under which the targets were used.
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: The targets are not a basis for any reasonable inference
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: about the shooter's state of mind. As to E. The
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: state also asks this court to speculate that after scoping
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: the rifle, it was taken apart and put back together
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: prior to the shooting, and that therefore the shooter knew
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: that a lack of accuracy created a high probability or
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: risk of death to others. The state presented no evidence
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: to support any inference that the rifle was in pieces
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: at any time. The video evidence shows mister Robinson walking
• 16:26
  Speaker 1: up and down the stairs at UVU with the gate
• 16:28
  Speaker 1: impaired by something long in his pants. The reasonable inference
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: from the evidence provides is that it was a fully
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: assembled rifle. The presence of a screwdriver on the roof
• 16:39
  Speaker 1: does not establish that the rifle was taken apart and
• 16:42
  Speaker 1: put back together any more than it establishes that the
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: screwdriver was intended to take the rifle apart after the shooting.
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: The state didn't present any evidence as to how the
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: screwdriver could have been used to disassemble and reassemble this
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: weapon in the period of time at issue. Even if
• 16:58
  Speaker 1: the court draws inference that there's a connection between the
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: rifle and the screwdriver. The court cannot then reasonably infer
• 17:06
  Speaker 1: from that inference that a rifle deconstructed and then reconstructed
• 17:09
  Speaker 1: would be less accurate, let alone that the shooter knew
• 17:12
  Speaker 1: of the risk. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: right here and in the next episode dealing with the topic.
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: We're gonna pick up with two presidents alone is insufficient
• 17:22
  Speaker 1: as a matter of law to show KGRD. All the
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 17:28
  Speaker 1: the description box.