Latest / The Moscow Murders and More / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing (Day 6 Part 6) (10/30/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing (Day 6 Part 6) (10/30/26) · 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 dive right back into that
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: Tyler Robinson transcript from the prelim hearing. Once again, it's
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: the prosecution making their case. We know that the defendant
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: is a shooter first because of all the video evidence. Second,
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: we know that the defendant is a shooter because of
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: the DNA evidence. The defendant's DNA was found all over
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: the gun. It was on the scope, the grips, the stock,
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: and even the trigger. It was on the cartridge cases
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: found within the gun, and make no mistake, Your Honor,
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: this was the murder weapon. This was the rifle that
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: killed Charlie Kirk. We know that because it was later
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: found in the woods, right to the area where the
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: shooter ran after taking the shot and dropping off of
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: the low-sea center. We know it because that rifle contained
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: four rounds in it. Only one had been spent. Only
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: one had been fired consistent with what we know happened
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: at the amphitheater. a single shot was fired. In addition,
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: we know from the ballistics testimony from Samantha Karner from
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: the ATF that the weapon or that round that was
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: recovered from Charlie Kirk was consistent with having been fired
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: from that gun. Our report shows that Exhibit 6, the
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: recovered jacket fragment from autopsy, consists of a. 30 caliber
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: class round consistent with having been fired from a. 30- 06.
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: We know it had the same rifling pattern of. 30,
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: 6 right as the rifle had as she compared the
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: damage fragment with the test fire that was conducted. And
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: she also walked us through many of the consistencies that
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: she saw. We were able to see those photographs of
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: the comparison between the damage fragment that was recovered from
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk and the test fire that she conducted. And
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: she showed us many of those consistencies. In addition, we
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: know that this was the firearm because the defendant admitted it.
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: Exhibit 16.1, he texted his lover, Judging from today, I'd
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: say Grandpa's gun does just fine, IDK. And that leads
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: me to the third reason why we know the defendant
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: is the shooter. The first reason we know the defendant
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: is the shooter is because of video evidence. The second
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: reason we know is because of the DNA on the firearm.
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: And make no mistake, Your Honor, this is the firearm
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: that killed Charlie Kirk. And we know that because of
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: the evidence I've gone through including the single round that
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: was fired from that firearm, the ballistic testing that was
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: consistent with being fired from that firearm, as well as
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: the defendant's admission that he fired that firearm to kill
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk. In addition, we know that the defendant, the
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: third reason we know that the defendant is the shooter,
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: is because he admitted to it. That morning before he left,
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: he left a note for his boyfriend stating that he
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: left on a mission. He had the opportunity to take
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: out Charlie Kirk and then After he had shot and
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: killed Charlie Kirk, the defendant texted that same boyfriend in
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: Exhibit 16.3 and admitted to doing so. You weren't the
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: one who did it, right? I am, sorry. And then,
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: after that, he also claimed credit to all of his
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: friends on the Discord app, Exhibit 16.2. You have seen this.
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: It was me at UVU yesterday. When his friends were incredulous,
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: no it wasn't. The defendant did the same thing that
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: I have asked you to do, Your Honor. as he
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: pointed his friends to the surveillance evidence and said, look
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: at it, it was me. Fourth, we know that the
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: defendant is a shooter again, because of the video evidence. Second,
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: because the DNA. Third, because of his admissions. And fourth,
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: because of circumstantial evidence. We have in this case the
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: classic circumstantial evidence of motive, means, and opportunity, and then some.
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: First motive, and then I'll talk about this later, when
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: we talk about the victim targeting enhancement. but Charlie Kirk
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: was an outspoken critic of homosexuality and transgenderism, and was
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: an outspoken advocate of traditional conservative values, including traditional families
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: and marriage. The defendant was living in a homosexual relationship
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: with a man who was considering transgender or transitioning his gender,
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: and who went by the name of Luna. It's not
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: difficult to understand the motive here. The defendant's views were
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: repugnant to the positions that Charlie Kirk famously took, Motive
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: means an opportunity. I've talked about motive means. We know
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: that the defendant had his grandfather's hunting rifle in Exhibit 16-1.
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: The defendant and his boyfriend, to a great extent, went
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: over the defendant's worries about that hunting rifle not being
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: able to return that to his father or his grandfather.
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: Motive means an opportunity. We know that defendant left his
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: home in St. George early the morning of September 10th,
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: early enough to arrive on the campus in at Utah
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: Valley University by 8.30, and then he didn't return until
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: the next morning, September 11th. In addition to the classic
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: circumstantial evidence of motive means and opportunity, there is significant
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: other evidence. For example, the rifle had four rounds in it.
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: Those rounds had some very weird etchings. Those etchings were
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: consistent with another round that was found in the defendant's apartment,
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: and that round, the evidence, had an etching in it
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: that said test shot. Police also found the very Dremel
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: tool that they were able to determine through tool marks
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: analysis that etched those rounds found in the gun. And finally,
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: when it comes to circumstantial evidence, after the images of
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: the shooter had been published, the defendant turned himself in.
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: Your Honor, as to identify, there is a mountain of
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: evidence here. The evidence is overwhelming. Any one of these
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: four categories that I've talked about is adequate, certainly for
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: probable cause. and likely for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: There can be no doubt that the defendant is the
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: man who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, and the evidence
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: clearly surpasses the hurdle of probable cause at this stage
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: in the proceeding. I now want to turn to the
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: aggravating circumstance, great risk of death. Before I get into
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: evidence here though, Your Honor, it's worth taking a moment
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: and talking about the standard. The standard first I want
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: to talk about is common sense. We tell juries before
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: they go into deliberation Don't check your common sense at
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: the door. It's the greatest asset any of us have
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: is our minds, our common sense, our common human experience,
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: bringing the knowledge and experience we have into our judgments.
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: And certainly that's true here. For your honor, for this court,
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: common sense is the first standard. When we talk about
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: mental state, the jury instruction and the case law makes
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: clear we don't read each other's minds. We don't know
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: what someone's thinking. As a result, we have to rely
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: on things like what a person says, what a person does,
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: and other circumstantial evidence to determine what someone's mental state is.
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: And finally, I want to talk about the legal standards
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: that apply to this hearing. The standard is probable cause.
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: That means a reasonable belief that the defendant committed the crime.
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: In this circumstance, that he knowingly created a great risk
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: of death to another besides himself or Charlie Kirk. And
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: when determining probable cause, the law is very clear on this.
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: There are very few standards in the law that are
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: more clear, frankly. You're required as a magistrate to view
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: all evidence in the light most favorable to the state.
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: The court's required to draw all inferences in the state's favor.
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: I know you know that, Judge. I know that you
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: handle multiple prelim hearings every single week. None of these
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: standards is new to you. But I emphasize those because
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: defense counsel is cited to an antiquated standard that has
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: been explicitly overruled in the case law, which is that
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: drawing inferences is no more than speculation. They take this
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: position by citing the 2010 court appeal case, State v. Cristobal.
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: The Supreme Court of Utah in Ashcroft overturned that logic,
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: that drawing one inference over another is speculation, and the
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: Utah Court of Appeals has explicitly stated, we no longer
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: view Cristobal's statement regarding equally plausible inferences as valid. The
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: State v. Law 2020 U.S. Appellate Utah Court decision. I
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: know you know the standard, but it's important that you
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: apply the correct standard here and not the standard that
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: has been repudiated explicitly and which the defense asks you
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: to use. In addition to misrepresenting the standard, the defense
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: also misrepresents the law on great risk of death. He
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: states that there's a requirement of a minimum set of
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: factual circumstances and also states as A factual matter, the
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: defendant must actually discharge multiple rounds hitting or killing individuals
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: other than the murder victim. And that's from the defendant's
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: motion at page 5. Your Honor, that is not what
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: the statute says. In fact, killing a second victim is
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: a separate aggravating factor under the statute. And Sosa-Hurtado footnote
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: 9 makes clear that the court's not establishing a multi-factor
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: balancing test. And I'm quoting... We are simply identifying a
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: range of factors of possible relevance to the statutory inquiry
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: as elaborated in our case law. The ultimate test is
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: the statutory test, right? That's why we're looking at this
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: as the statutory elements mean. As you synthesize the case
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: law out there, you can do it in one statement.
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: It is that when a person other than the target
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: is in the zone of danger, which includes the line
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: of fire, as well as within the reach of ricochet,
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: errant shots and pass-through shots, it's sufficient to establish a
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: great risk of death. That's the takeaway of all those cases. Now,
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: Your Honor, I want to turn to the fact that
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: the case, and starting with the first, and I think
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: the most obvious and most important standard in the law,
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: which is common sense. You can't shoot a rifle into
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: a crowd of 3,000 people without knowing that you create
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: a great risk of death to all those around your target.
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: You just can't do it. It's a common sense. Shooting
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: ranges have a line of fire. You can't go in
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: front of that line of fire. And there's a reason
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: for that. And we all understand the reason for that
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: because you create... A great risk of death to anyone
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: who crosses in front of you when you're shooting a
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: rifle or any gun, for that matter. Remember the testimony
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: was that Charlie, Kirk was approximately 400 feet away from
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: the defendant. At that distance, a variance of simply one degree,
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: if the defendant is one degree off, and that's a
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: matter of millimeters for the barrel of his gun, that
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: bullet would have struck seven feet away from the target.
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: Your Honor, going to what the defendant actually saw, looking
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: here at Exhibit 3.2, The defendant was only a football
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: field away. He wasn't miles away. He could clearly see,
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: as he approached the edge of the low-sea center, he
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: clearly could see the mass of people. He could clearly
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: see Charlie Kirk. He could clearly see, not only Charlie Kirk,
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: but the people behind his tent. And of course, all
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: the people in front of him. He would have seen
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: all these people. Following exhibit is the courtroom publication only,
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: we know what the event looked like. We know what
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: the venue looked like on that day. There were people everywhere.
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: People on the railings, people in that amphitheater, people in
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: front of Charlie Kirk, and people behind Charlie Kirk. As
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: he laid down, and as he approached that rooftop on
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: the Losey Center rooftop, as he approached the edge of
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: that rooftop, he would have seen this mass of thousands
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: of people. As he laid down and took up aim,
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: he would have seen all those people. As he looked
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: through that scope, his scope likely passed over the faces
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: and heads and bodies of multiple people before it rested
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: on Charlie Kirk. Notwithstanding all the people around Charlie Kirk,
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: the defendant chose to fire. He knew, as anybody would know,
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: that it creates a great risk of death, not only
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: to Charlie Kirk, but to the people around him. And
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: this is what the scene looked like. There were people everywhere.
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: There were people moving around behind Charlie Kirk. You see
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: in the minutes leading up to the shooting, there were
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: people moving behind Charlie Kirk, moving in front of the
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: pop-up tent. There from behind, from in front, moving around freely.
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: Just five seconds before the shot, there was a woman
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: directly behind Charlie Kirk in the line of fire. And
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: we know the defendant would have seen all these people,
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: and of course the people in front of Charlie Kirk,
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: and especially that questioner, who was only feet away, as
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: well as the security detail, immediately to Charlie Kirk's right.
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: Looking at the image, probably two feet away, but the
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: defendant chose to take the shot anyway. What do we
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: know about the defendant's mental state? We all know people
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: can miss, right? Michael Jordan didn't hit every single three-pointer
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: he took, right? Major League pitchers don't throw strikes every time,
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: and the defendant knew he could miss too. Exhibit 25,
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: I count 28 rounds that are fired through these targets,
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: and only 1, 2, 3, 4 of those 28 rounds
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: hit the red. The defendant knew that he could miss.
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: Not only did he know that he could miss, he
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: planned for it. He planned for it because he came
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: loaded with 4 rounds in that magazine, not just the
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: round he shot. He knew he could miss, and the
• 13:12
  Speaker 1: only reason he took other rounds is because he knew
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: he could miss and he came prepared to shoot again. Now,
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: your honor, in all case law, we don't see appellate
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: cases anywhere, frankly, throughout the country of assassinations like this,
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: public assassinations. And so the cases are only a handful
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: as the applicability of the facts that they deal with.
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: But we do have factual precedent. In addition to common sense,
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: you know that if you shoot into a crowd, if
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: you miss, you're going to hit someone. And that's not
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: just a possibility. That's a great risk of death to
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: someone when they're talking about firing a high-powered rifle. We
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: remember Butler, Pennsylvania, when President Trump was shot. His life
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: was saved because he turned his head and the bullet
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: went through his ear. And what happened in that miss
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: and other misses? Well, three of those errant shots hit people,
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: one of which fatally. Not only is there common sense,
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: but there's recent precedent. You shoot at someone in a
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: public assassination attempt, you have a great risk of killing someone.
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here.
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: And in the next episode, we're going to pick up
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: where we left off. All the information that goes with
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box.