Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Utah's Response To Tyler Robinson In Support Of Bind Over (Part 2) (8/19/26)

Transcript

Utah's Response To Tyler Robinson In Support Of Bind Over (Part 2) (8/19/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: this episode, we're getting right back to the State of
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: Utah's response to Tyler Robinson's memorandum in regards to his
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: bind over Part two. When properly construed, the evidence demonstrates
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: a reasonable belief that the defendant knowingly created a great
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: risk of death to another when he fired a high
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: powered rifle toward a crowd of thousands, including several who
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: were in the line of fire were otherwise in close
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: proximity to mister Kirk. Just as he misrepresents the legal
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: standard governing this prelim hearing, defendant also misrepresents the standard
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: for establishing the great risk of death aggravator. The existence
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: of that aggravator does not require a minimum set of
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: factual circumstances which must be present, as defendant claims defense
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: Memorandum at five, nor is the test a multi factor analysis,
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: as defendant also claims. When the evidence is properly viewed
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: under the test the Utah the Supreme Court has actually endorsed,
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: the evidence demonstrates a reasonable belief that the aggravating circumstance
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: is satisfied. Here, a defendant misrepresents the applicable test for
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: determining whether he knowingly created a great risk of death
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: to another. In explaining and applying the great risk of
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: death aggravator State vers. Sosa Hurtado twenty nineteen, the Utah
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court expressly stated that it was not establishing multi
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: factor balancing tests. Rather, the ultimate test is the statutory test,
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: and that test requires that the defendant knowingly created the
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: great risk of death. Quoting Utah Code Section seventy six
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: five two two to one c. The three factors that
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: the Sosa Hurtado Court identified to guide the application of
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: the statutory test or simply a range of factors of
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: possible relevance to the statutory inquiry has elaborated in our
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: case law. In fact, the Court repeated, we are not
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: here establishing the multi factor test. The considerations in Sosa
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: Hurtado are non exhaustive and they are not the test.
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: Defendant ignores these portions of Sosa Hurtado. Defendant also erroneously
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: urges the Court to construe the aggravating circumstance narrowly Defense
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: Memorandum at three through five. The legislature has already narrowed
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: the aggravator by requiring that the defendant knowingly create a
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: great risk of death to another Utah Code Section seventy
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: six two two two two A and three, the court
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: cannot apply its own narrowing gloss of that standard. Again,
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: the ultimate test is the statutory test Sosa Hurtado, twenty nineteen,
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: UTAH sixty five. Nor does defendant emphasis on language from
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: other cases that a defendant must create a high probability
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: of death modify the statutory standard defense Memorandum at two.
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: A high probability of death is just another way to
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: say a great risk of death. Other courts use the
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: term high probability. Therefore, does not modify the statutory test
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: that Soda Sosa Hurtado endorsed UTAH twenty nineteen. The ultimate
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: test is the statutory test. It also makes no difference
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: that the facts of other cases do not precisely fit
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: the facts here. Defendant spills much ink detailing the facts
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: of other cases where courts have analyzed the great risk
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: of death aggravator, But the fact that other defendants did
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: more to endanger others, like firing multiple shots, than defendant
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: did here is not persuasive. The issue is not whether
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: another court has applied the aggravator in a case with
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: identical or at least highly similar facts. Rather, the issue
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: is whether the evidence, together with the reasonable inferences therefrom,
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: when properly viewed in the light of most favorable to
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: the state, supports a reasonable belief that defendant knowingly created
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: a great risk of death to at least one other
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: person see Sosa Hurtado, twenty nineteen, Utah. The ultimate test
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: is a statutory test. The state is comfortably surmounted at
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: low bar. The court must also recognize that while Hurtado
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: analyzed and applied the great risk of death aggravator, it
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: did so in different context and therefore had a different focus.
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: So Hurtado fired three shots at two different people. He
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: fired the third and fatal shot at his victim at
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: close range and with his back to the other smoke
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: shop employee. The issue in that case therefore concerned the
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: scope of the relevant circumstances that a jury could consider
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: in determining whether the aggravator was satisfied. As the court explained,
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: the issue was whether the relevant circumstances extend beyond the
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: precise act that caused the death of the victim, or
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: whether the aggravator applied only where the murderous act itself
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: creates a great risk of death to a third party.
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: Citing UTAH Code Section seventy six TOASH five to A
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: one point one c, the court ultimately held that the
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: relevant circumstance include more than just the murderous act itself.
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: A person may be guilty of knowingly creating a great
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: risk of death to another person if he did so
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: within a brief span of time of the act causing
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: the murder, and the acts together formed a series of events.
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: Unlike Hurtado, this case involves only the murderous act itself,
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: be the evidence supports a reasonable belief that the statutory
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: test for the great risk of death aggravator is satisfied here.
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: Although Sosa Hurtado was focused on the scope of the
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: relevant circumstances that can support the aggravator, its analysis is
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: nevertheless helpful here because the Supreme Court recognized that firing
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: a rifle at a murder victim while another is close
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: by creates a great risk of death to that surviving person.
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: As explained in State's opening memo, the Soa Hurtado Court
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: recognized that there were two separate acts that created a
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: great risk of death to the surviving smoke shop employee.
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: The first act was the shot fire towards the surviving
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: employee that missed. The other was a shot that hit
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: the murder victim in the hand while the surviving employee
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: was only a few feet away. Thus, contrary to defendant's contention,
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: UTAH has in fact adopted an interpretation of the aggravating
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: factor that would permit its application, where the firing of
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: a single shot at an intended victim hit only the
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: intended victim. Here, there were several people close to mister
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: Kirk when defendant shot him dead. Most significantly, the questioner
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: was directly between defendant and mister Kirk and within a
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: few feet of mister Kirk stead example number eight. There
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: were also several people who were near the questioner. There
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: were also those with mister Kirk who were under or
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: near his tent. All these people were visible in the
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: clear line of sight between Defendant's perch and mister Kirk's seat. Indeed,
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: from a distance of four hundred and ten feet from
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: mister Kirk, basic mathematics dictates that an angular shift of
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: even one eighth of an inch would result in a
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: substantial miss of the intended target either above below, or
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: to the right or left, depending on the direction of
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: the shift, placing many others in danger. Given these facts,
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: two of the three Sosa Hertato factors support the conclusion
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: that the great risk of death aggravator applies. As explained,
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: the spatial relationship between those in the line of fire
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: and those close to mister Kirk supports application of the aggravator.
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: Defendant also threatened these people by indirect means through the
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: risk of stray or ricochet bullets. The other Hertata factor,
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: the time between the murderous act and any other acts
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: the defendant may have taken towards third parties, is simply
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: inapplicable here. Considerations of Soa Hertato factors therefore supports a
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: reasonable belief that defendant knowingly created a great risk of
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: death to those who were in defendant's line of fire
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: and to those who were close to mister Kirk but
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: outside the line of fire. When defendant pulled the trigger,
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: one defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: those who were within his line of fire. Defendant's attacks
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: the state's line of fire argument, which he repeatedly mislabels
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: as a line of sight argument Defense Memorandum at fifteen
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: and sixteen. On the basis that mister Kirk was seated
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: in an elevated position, Defendant asserts that the bullet traveled above,
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: not through the crowd, but in states exhibit eight, the
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: questioner's head is visible above mister Kirk's head State example
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: number eight. Others standing in the front rows of the
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: crowd are positioned at approximately the same level as the questioner,
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: but slightly farther back from mister Kirk. And regardless of
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: the precise elevation of the questioner's head and the heads
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: of the others in the crowd in relation to mister
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: Kirk's head, any difference is so negligible that it does
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: not place the others outside the line of fire see
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: State's example seven and eight. The evidence therefore supports a
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: reasonable belief that all these people were in the line
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: of fire and therefore within the zone of danger that
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: defendant created when he fired his rifle. See Sylvia, verse
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: State sixty, Florida, twenty eleven. Defendant knowingly created a great
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: risk of death to people who were in his line
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: of fire. Commonwealth verst Buck seven h nine, Pennsylvania nineteen
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: ninety eight single fatal shot at murder victim placed another
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: individual who was in the line of fire at grave
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: risk of death. Two. Defendant knowingly created a great risk
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: of death to those nearer mister Kirk when defendant pulled
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: the trigger. Defendant also knowingly created a great risk of
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: death to those near mister Kirk, although not within the
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: line of fire. Two security personnel were directly in front
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: and on either side of mister Kirk, but still within
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: the span of his tent. A third security person was
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: under the tent and just to mister Kirk's right state
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: example seven. This person had to take only a small
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: step to reach mister Kirk as he fell. Another person
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: was operating a camera just under the tent front edge
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: to mister Kirk's left state example eight. Defendant had a
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: clear line of sight to view all these people from
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: just four hundred and ten feet away. The evidence also
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: supports a reasonable inference that defendant knew that the people
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: there in the area behind mister Kirk's tent. Defendant visited
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: the amphitheater area at least twice before the shooting. This
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: evidence supports a reasonable inference that he saw the staging
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: area behind mister Kirk's tent. The fact that defendant had
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: a clear line of sight to mister Kirk's tent at
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: the time of the shooting also supports a reasonable inference
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: that defendant new people were in that staging area when
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: he fired the shot. Defendant argues that given the speed
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: with which he had to acquire his target and fire
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: once he got into position in the sniper's nest, the
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: evidence does not support a reasonable inference that he knew
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: that any of these people were present. Defense Memorandum at
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: twenty and twenty one. But this argument again ignores the
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: controlling evidence entry standard because it asked the court to
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: view the inferences in defendant favor rather than the states
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: defendant had a clear line of sight to mister Kirk,
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: the crowd, those nearest mister Kirk, and those in the
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: staging area behind the tent. The evidence therefore supports a
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: reasonable inference that defendant knew all the above mentioned people
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: were near mister Kirk when defendant fired his rifle, and
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: defendant had longer than just the approximate thirty five to
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: forty four seconds in the prone position to observe these people.
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: He would also have seen the people as he ran
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: and then crawled towards his rooftop position. Regardless of emphasizing
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: how hastily defendant had to act to acquire his target
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: and fire his rifle does not help him. It only
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: highlights and increases the likelihood that he would miss his
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: intended target. The speed with which defendant had to act,
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: coupled with evidence showing that he had to reassemble his rifle,
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: that he loaded four cartridges in his rifle, and that
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: in his earlier target practice he sometimes missed the target entirely,
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: all supports the reasonable inference that defendant knew that he
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: could miss. That inference supports a reasonable belief that he
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: knowingly created a great risk of death to both those
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: in his line of fire and others near mister Kirk. Again,
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: a jury can infer that an individual is knowingly endangering
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: a person when that individual uses a gun in any
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: area where he knows that others could be Commonwealth versus Watson, Pennsylvania,
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: nineteen eighty nine. Common sense also dictates that firing a gun,
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: especially a high power rifle, towards others puts them at
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: great risk of death. That is precisely why gun ranges
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: prohibit shooters from even handling a firearm when others are
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: downranged beyond the firing line. Defendant highlights cases where other
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: courts did not find that the facts satisfied the great
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: risk of death aggravator. But again, the issue is not
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: how closely the facts here resemble those in other cases.
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: The issue is whether the facts here, together with reasonable
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: inferences therefrom demonstrate a reasonable belief the defendant satisfied the
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: statutory aggravator. Moreover, some of these cases support application of
• 13:12
  Speaker 1: the aggravating circumstance. In the case, for example, although defendant
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: in Little John vers. State fired only one shot in
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: a convenience store that hit his intended victim, the court
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: recognized that the aggravator applies when the defendant's acts create
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: a risk of death to another which are in close
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: proximity in terms of time, location, and intent to that
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: act of the killing itself. There was no mention in
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: Little John of how close others in the store were
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: to the person who was shot and killed. Similarly, although
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: the court in Johnson verse State found that the defendant
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: did not create a great risk of death to another
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: when he fired out a store manager at point blank range,
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: The court also noted no other person was within the
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: immediate vicinity or within the line of fire. Finally, the
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: court statement in United States first bin laden about a
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: defendant who might carefully target his victim does not help
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: defend in here the core positive that a jury may
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: find there to be qualitative differences between a defendant who
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: carefully targets an intended victim or victims without endangering others,
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: and one who acts with indifference to additional persons. But
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: defendant here acted with indifference to those in his line
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: of fire and close to mister Kirk because his shot
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: endangered them, even though it ended up hitting its intended target.
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up right here, and
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: in the next episode we're going to pick up with c.
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: Many of defendant's arguments depend on ignoring some evidence and
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: improperly viewing the evidentiary inferences in his favor. All the
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: the description box.