Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
Speaker 1: this episode, we're going to get right back to the
Speaker 1: binding memo that was filed by the State of Utah
Speaker 1: in their capital punishment case against Tyler Robinson. The argument.
Speaker 1: As magistrate, this court has but one duty left to
Speaker 1: determine whether the evidence admitted at the prelim hearing supports
Speaker 1: probable cause to believe that the crimes charged in the
Speaker 1: information have been committed and that the defendant has committed them.
Speaker 1: Utah Rules for a Criminal Procedure p. Dot seven b
Speaker 1: Utah Constitution, Article one, Section twelve, stating that the function
Speaker 1: of the prelim hearing is limited to determining whether a
Speaker 1: probable cause exists. This isn't a close case. The state
Speaker 1: presented more than enough evidence to support a probable cause
Speaker 1: finding on all seven charges. One. At this stage, the
Speaker 1: state must demonstrate only probable cause, a reasonable belief that
Speaker 1: a crime was committed and that defendant committed it. In
Speaker 1: determining whether the state has surmounted this low bar, the
Speaker 1: court must view all the evidence and all reasonable inferences
Speaker 1: therefrom in the light most favorable to the state. The
Speaker 1: purpose of a prelim hearing is not to determine the
Speaker 1: guilt or innocence of the accused. Rather, its purpose is
Speaker 1: limited to ferreting out groundless and improvident prosecutions, thereby sparing
Speaker 1: defendants in those circumstances from the substantial degradation and expense
Speaker 1: incident to a modern criminal trial state versus Anderson, six
Speaker 1: twelve p. Dot two d. Seven seventy eight, seven eighty
Speaker 1: three and eighty four Utah, nineteen eighty. The prelim hearing
Speaker 1: is a constitutional safeguard against unwarranted prosecution where it manifestly
Speaker 1: appears either that no such crime was committed or that
Speaker 1: the suspicion entertained of the prisoner is wholly groundless. Under
Speaker 1: the Utah Constitution, the line separating a valid prosecution from
Speaker 1: a groundless prosecution is probable cause Utah Constitution Article one
Speaker 1: to twelve, limiting constitutional function of prelim hearing to probable
Speaker 1: cause determination. If the evidence supports probable cause to be
Speaker 1: believed that the crime charged has been committed and that
Speaker 1: the defendant committed it, the magistrate must order that the
Speaker 1: defendant be bound over for trial. It does not require
Speaker 1: proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as required for criminal conviction.
Speaker 1: And it's lower even than a preponderance of the evidence
Speaker 1: standard applicable to civil cases State vers. Clark, two thousand
Speaker 1: and one, Utah nine eleven, twenty page dot three d
Speaker 1: three hundred. Thus, a probable cause showing does not even
Speaker 1: require the prosecution to eliminate alternative inferences in favor of
Speaker 1: the defense. All that's required is sufficient evidence to support
Speaker 1: a reasonable belief that defendant committed the charge crimes. A
Speaker 1: criminal prosecution is groundless only if the evidence presented at
Speaker 1: the pre hearing fails to establish probable cause. If the
Speaker 1: evidence is wholly lacking and incapable of supporting a reasonable
Speaker 1: belief that the defendant committed the charge crime state verse
Speaker 1: Virgin two thousand and six, Utah twenty nine. Stated another way,
Speaker 1: the magistrate may decline bind over only when the facts
Speaker 1: presented by the prosecution provide no more than a basis
Speaker 1: for speculation. Importantly, the magistrate at a prelim hearing must
Speaker 1: view all evidence in the light most favorable to the
Speaker 1: prosecution and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution.
Speaker 1: The magistrate has only a limited role in judging the
Speaker 1: credibility of the evidence at a prelim hearing, a magistrate
Speaker 1: may disregard or discount the prosecution's evidence only if it's
Speaker 1: so contradictory, inconsistent, or unbelievable that it's unreasonable debase belief
Speaker 1: of an element of the charge defense on that evidence. Otherwise,
Speaker 1: a magistrate may not accept the defendant version of the
Speaker 1: facts over the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from
Speaker 1: the prosecution's evidence. People versus Hall, ninety nine, Page dot two,
Speaker 1: d two seven to twenty one. According to Virginia two
Speaker 1: thousand and six Utah sixty one at twenty five, holding
Speaker 1: that the magistrate may not prefer one piece of credible
Speaker 1: evidence over a conflicting piece of credible evidence. In making
Speaker 1: the bindover determination, Part two, the state introduced ample evidence
Speaker 1: to demonstrate probable cause to believe the defendant committed all
Speaker 1: seven crimes charged in the information. In this case, the
Speaker 1: state presented more than enough evidence so as to sell
Speaker 1: safely over the bindover standard on all seven charged defenses. A,
Speaker 1: the evidence establishes probable cause that defendant committed count one
Speaker 1: aggravated murder. To establish that defendant committed aggravated murder, the
Speaker 1: state must prove that one defendant two intentionally or knowing
Speaker 1: three caused the death of Charlie Kirk four under circumstances
Speaker 1: in which defendant knowingly created a great risk of death
Speaker 1: to another individual other than Charlie Kirk and defendant UTAH
Speaker 1: Code Section seventy six point five DASH two two two
Speaker 1: A three. The evidence readily establishes probable cause to support
Speaker 1: each element Element three death. The evidence establishes and no
Speaker 1: one disputes that mister Kirk was killed on September tenth,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five, by a gunshot wound to the neck.
Speaker 1: Element I identity. The evidence further demonstrates a reasonable belief
Speaker 1: that defendant was the shooter. Defendant repeatedly admitted that he
Speaker 1: shot mister Kirk using defendant's grandfather's rifle, including I had
Speaker 1: the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I took it.
Speaker 1: I'm the one who did it. I'm sorry. Why did
Speaker 1: I do it? I had enough of his hatred. Some
Speaker 1: hate can't be negotiated out. If I'm able to grab
Speaker 1: my rifle on un I will have left no evidence
Speaker 1: going to attempt to retrieve it again. Hopefully they have
Speaker 1: moved on. I haven't seen anything in the news about
Speaker 1: them finding it. I've been planning this a bit over
Speaker 1: a week. I believe. I'm wishing I had circled back
Speaker 1: and grabbed it as soon as I got out of
Speaker 1: my vehicle, because it sounds like the police couldn't get
Speaker 1: in for a long while because of the traffic. Remember
Speaker 1: how I was engraving bullets. The fucking messages are mostly
Speaker 1: a big meme. If I see notices bulge Uwu on
Speaker 1: Fox News, I might have a stroke. Judging from today,
Speaker 1: I'd say Grandpa's gun does just fine. Idkay, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm going to turn myself in willingly. Hey guys, I
Speaker 1: have bad news for you all. It was me at
Speaker 1: UVU yesterday. I'm sorry for all of this. I'm surrendering
Speaker 1: through the Sheriff's friend in a few minutes. It was me.
Speaker 1: Look at the pictures from the surveillance footage. It was me.
Speaker 1: I'm serious. Defendant also surrendered to law enforcement in connect
Speaker 1: with the shooting. DNA testing supports the conclusion that defendant
Speaker 1: contributed to the DNA samples recovered from the fired cartridge,
Speaker 1: the trigger, and other parts of the rifle, the towel
Speaker 1: used to conceal the rifle, and the screwdriver recovered from
Speaker 1: the Low SI building's rooftop. Defendant's car was at the
Speaker 1: UVU campus on September tenth and eleventh, twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: and not only did defendant admit that he was the
Speaker 1: one depicted in the published screen captures from the UVU
Speaker 1: surveillance footage, defendant's roommate and romantic partner confirmed that the
Speaker 1: individual in those screen captures, showing the individual's full face
Speaker 1: definitely looked like defendant. Element to mental state, the state's
Speaker 1: evidence also demonstrates a reasonable belief that the defendant intentionally
Speaker 1: or knowingly calls mister Kirk's death. A person acts intentionally
Speaker 1: with respect to a result of his conduct when it's
Speaker 1: his conscious, objective, or desired to call a result. A
Speaker 1: person acts knowingly with respect to a result of his
Speaker 1: conduct when he's aware that the conduct is reasonably certain
Speaker 1: to cause the result. A criminal defendant's mental state is
Speaker 1: rarely susceptible of direct proof, but this case is exceptional because,
Speaker 1: as shown above, defendant repeatedly admitted that he intended to
Speaker 1: cause mister Kirk's death by shooting him with a high
Speaker 1: powered rifle. He wrote to mister Twiggs that he had
Speaker 1: the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and he took it.
Speaker 1: He also texted mister Twiggs that he'd been planning the
Speaker 1: killing for a bit over a week and that he
Speaker 1: killed mister Kirk because defendant had had enough of his hatred.
Speaker 1: Defendant also engraved the bullets that he loaded into the
Speaker 1: thirty odd to six caliber rifle. He also took some
Speaker 1: target practice before the shooting and engraved one cartridge found
Speaker 1: at his home with the words test shot. The circumstances
Speaker 1: of the shooting itself, when properly viewed on a light
Speaker 1: most favorable to the state, further demonstrate that the defendant
Speaker 1: intended to cause mister Kirk's death by shooting him. Defendant
Speaker 1: first surveilled the campus, then he changed his clothes and
Speaker 1: returned to campus with the rifle. Defendant used a screwdriver
Speaker 1: to assemble the rifle on the lo See building. With
Speaker 1: that rifle loaded with four engraved cartridges, Defendant then crawled
Speaker 1: to a sniper perch on the edge of that roof,
Speaker 1: took aim at mister Kirk, and pulled the trigger. The
Speaker 1: evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that defendant acted with the required mental
Speaker 1: state element iour aggravating circumstance knowingly creating a great risk
Speaker 1: of death to another. The state's evidence, properly viewed, also
Speaker 1: demonstrates a reasonable belief that defendant knowingly created a great
Speaker 1: risk of death to another other than himself and mister Kirk.
Speaker 1: Defendant fired a high powered rifle towards a crowd of thousands.
Speaker 1: Defendant created a great risk of death to everyone who
Speaker 1: was in his line of fire or who was near
Speaker 1: mister Kirk when defendant pulled the trigger. One defendant knowingly
Speaker 1: created a great risk of death to everyone in his
Speaker 1: line of fire. The Utah Supreme Court analyzed the great
Speaker 1: risk of death aggravator and state Sosa Hurtado, twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: Utah sixty five. Reviewing its prior case law, the Court
Speaker 1: recognized that this aggravating circumstance is met where another person
Speaker 1: is placed within the zone of danger created by the
Speaker 1: conduct that caused the victim's death. Some factors to consider
Speaker 1: and identifying this zone include one, the temporal relationship between
Speaker 1: any actions the defendant may have taken towards the third
Speaker 1: party and the acts constituting the murder. Two, the spatial
Speaker 1: relationship between the third party, the murder victim and the
Speaker 1: defendant at the time of the acts constituting the murder,
Speaker 1: and three, whether and to what extent the third party
Speaker 1: was actually threatened by the assailant, either by direct threats
Speaker 1: or by indirect means, such as the risk of stray
Speaker 1: or ricochet bullets. Applying these factors here, the state's evidence
Speaker 1: establishes a reasonable belief that defendant knowingly put several people
Speaker 1: within the zone of danger he created when he shot
Speaker 1: mister Kirk. Most significantly, everyone in defendant's line of fire
Speaker 1: was within the zone of danger. The person questioning mister
Speaker 1: Kirk when defendant pulled the trigger was within defendant's line
Speaker 1: of fire. The questioner was just a few feet in
Speaker 1: front of mister Kirk and directly between the sniper's perch
Speaker 1: on the Locie Building roof and mister Kirk. Thus, the
Speaker 1: spatial relationship between the questioner and mister Kirk put the
Speaker 1: questioner within the zone of danger. The questioner's proximity and
Speaker 1: placement relative to mister Kirk also created an indirect threat
Speaker 1: to the questioner, given the risk of straying or rickosheng bullets.
Speaker 1: These san factors apply to several others who are directly
Speaker 1: behind the questioner and thus also within the defendant's line
Speaker 1: of fire. The defendant also demonstrates that defendant was not
Speaker 1: certain to hit only as target get mister Kirk, defendant
Speaker 1: loaded his rifle with four cartridges, creating a reasonable inference
Speaker 1: that he anticipated that the first shot might miss. Moreover,
Speaker 1: evidence a defendant's target practice before the shooting shows that
Speaker 1: he did not always hit the bullseye. Indeed, some of
Speaker 1: his shots completely missed the paper target. And even if
Speaker 1: defendant had previously calibrated his rifle in scope, he had
Speaker 1: disassembled the rifle to transport it to the roof undetected,
Speaker 1: and then reassembled it on the rooftop using the screwdriver
Speaker 1: he left there. One reasonable inference from these facts is
Speaker 1: that the reassembled rifle would not be as accurate as
Speaker 1: it previously was when it was sighted in. While one piece,
Speaker 1: a defendant who shoots another knowingly creates a great risk
Speaker 1: of death to anyone within his line of fire, the
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania Supreme Court had no trouble finding that the defendant
Speaker 1: in Watson knowingly created a grave risk of death to
Speaker 1: another person. In addition to the victims of the offense when,
Speaker 1: while shooting his ex girlfriend, her child was in a closet,
Speaker 1: and the closet and the child were in Watson's line
Speaker 1: of fire. See also Silva versus State sixty So third
Speaker 1: nine fifty nine, nine seventy one through seventy three, Florida,
Speaker 1: twenty eleven, holding that defendant knowingly created a great risk
Speaker 1: of death to people who were in his line of fire.
Speaker 1: The risk to others was established by evidence that twelve
Speaker 1: to fourteen others were in the line of fire when
Speaker 1: the victim was killed. Commonwealth Verse Bucks seven h nine
Speaker 1: a Dot two d. Eight ninety two, eight ninety four, Pa.
Speaker 1: Ninety eight, holding that evidence that defendant fired a single
Speaker 1: fatal shot at his victim while another person was in
Speaker 1: the line of fire could support a finding that the
Speaker 1: defendant knowingly created a grave risk of death to another
Speaker 1: State Verse Wood eight eighty one p. Dot two d.
Speaker 1: Eleven fifty eight, Arizona, nineteen ninety four, and Bonk, recognizing
Speaker 1: that while the grave risk of death to another factor
Speaker 1: applies only if the defendants murderous acts itself put other
Speaker 1: people in a zone of danger, The Arizona Supreme Court
Speaker 1: had never, however, limited this factory to cases in which
Speaker 1: another person was directly in the line of fire. The
Speaker 1: evidence demonstrates that defendant here knowingly created a great risk
Speaker 1: of death to the questioner and all others who were
Speaker 1: within his line of fire. The distance from defendant sniper
Speaker 1: perch to the tent where mister Kirk was sitting was
Speaker 1: approximately four hundred and ten feet with sixty eight foot
Speaker 1: vertical drop. Four hundred and ten feet is less than
Speaker 1: the four ndred and fifteen foot distance from home plate
Speaker 1: to the center field fence at Corsfield in Denver, and
Speaker 1: at approximately one hundred and thirty seven yards, is just
Speaker 1: longer than an American football field, including its two en zones.
Speaker 1: From defendant's perch, he could see the questioner and those
Speaker 1: directly behind them, and presumably even hear the questioner. Because
Speaker 1: speakers had been set up to amplify the discussion, Defendant
Speaker 1: could certainly see these individuals through the sniperscope. Defendant was
Speaker 1: therefore aware of the existing circumstances, including all the people
Speaker 1: in his line of fire, when he fired the fatal shot.
Speaker 1: Utah Code Section seventy six tosh two one oh three
Speaker 1: to two. A person acts knowingly with respect the circumstances
Speaker 1: surrounding his conduct when he's aware of existing circumstances. All right, folks,
Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up right here, and in the
Speaker 1: next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick
Speaker 1: up where we left off. All the information that goes
Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.