WEBVTT 1 00:00:00.080 --> 00:00:03.680 What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. In 2 00:00:03.720 --> 00:00:05.679 this episode, we're going to get right back to the 3 00:00:05.759 --> 00:00:08.720 binding memo that was filed by the State of Utah 4 00:00:08.960 --> 00:00:13.839 in their capital punishment case against Tyler Robinson. The argument. 5 00:00:14.240 --> 00:00:17.719 As magistrate, this court has but one duty left to 6 00:00:17.839 --> 00:00:21.239 determine whether the evidence admitted at the prelim hearing supports 7 00:00:21.280 --> 00:00:24.600 probable cause to believe that the crimes charged in the 8 00:00:24.640 --> 00:00:28.399 information have been committed and that the defendant has committed them. 9 00:00:29.199 --> 00:00:32.200 Utah Rules for a Criminal Procedure p. Dot seven b 10 00:00:32.640 --> 00:00:37.200 Utah Constitution, Article one, Section twelve, stating that the function 11 00:00:37.520 --> 00:00:40.399 of the prelim hearing is limited to determining whether a 12 00:00:40.399 --> 00:00:44.320 probable cause exists. This isn't a close case. The state 13 00:00:44.399 --> 00:00:48.079 presented more than enough evidence to support a probable cause 14 00:00:48.119 --> 00:00:52.679 finding on all seven charges. One. At this stage, the 15 00:00:52.719 --> 00:00:56.719 state must demonstrate only probable cause, a reasonable belief that 16 00:00:56.799 --> 00:01:00.280 a crime was committed and that defendant committed it. In 17 00:01:00.359 --> 00:01:03.439 determining whether the state has surmounted this low bar, the 18 00:01:03.479 --> 00:01:07.120 court must view all the evidence and all reasonable inferences 19 00:01:07.159 --> 00:01:11.120 therefrom in the light most favorable to the state. The 20 00:01:11.159 --> 00:01:13.680 purpose of a prelim hearing is not to determine the 21 00:01:13.719 --> 00:01:17.359 guilt or innocence of the accused. Rather, its purpose is 22 00:01:17.400 --> 00:01:23.000 limited to ferreting out groundless and improvident prosecutions, thereby sparing 23 00:01:23.000 --> 00:01:28.799 defendants in those circumstances from the substantial degradation and expense 24 00:01:28.920 --> 00:01:32.319 incident to a modern criminal trial state versus Anderson, six 25 00:01:32.480 --> 00:01:35.480 twelve p. Dot two d. Seven seventy eight, seven eighty 26 00:01:35.480 --> 00:01:39.200 three and eighty four Utah, nineteen eighty. The prelim hearing 27 00:01:39.439 --> 00:01:44.319 is a constitutional safeguard against unwarranted prosecution where it manifestly 28 00:01:44.359 --> 00:01:48.200 appears either that no such crime was committed or that 29 00:01:48.239 --> 00:01:53.920 the suspicion entertained of the prisoner is wholly groundless. Under 30 00:01:53.920 --> 00:01:57.640 the Utah Constitution, the line separating a valid prosecution from 31 00:01:57.680 --> 00:02:02.480 a groundless prosecution is probable cause Utah Constitution Article one 32 00:02:02.519 --> 00:02:07.120 to twelve, limiting constitutional function of prelim hearing to probable 33 00:02:07.200 --> 00:02:11.759 cause determination. If the evidence supports probable cause to be 34 00:02:11.759 --> 00:02:15.080 believed that the crime charged has been committed and that 35 00:02:15.120 --> 00:02:18.560 the defendant committed it, the magistrate must order that the 36 00:02:18.599 --> 00:02:22.120 defendant be bound over for trial. It does not require 37 00:02:22.240 --> 00:02:25.680 proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as required for criminal conviction. 38 00:02:26.360 --> 00:02:29.439 And it's lower even than a preponderance of the evidence 39 00:02:29.520 --> 00:02:33.800 standard applicable to civil cases State vers. Clark, two thousand 40 00:02:33.840 --> 00:02:38.240 and one, Utah nine eleven, twenty page dot three d 41 00:02:38.439 --> 00:02:42.000 three hundred. Thus, a probable cause showing does not even 42 00:02:42.039 --> 00:02:46.560 require the prosecution to eliminate alternative inferences in favor of 43 00:02:46.599 --> 00:02:51.120 the defense. All that's required is sufficient evidence to support 44 00:02:51.360 --> 00:02:56.039 a reasonable belief that defendant committed the charge crimes. A 45 00:02:56.080 --> 00:02:59.639 criminal prosecution is groundless only if the evidence presented at 46 00:02:59.639 --> 00:03:03.199 the pre hearing fails to establish probable cause. If the 47 00:03:03.240 --> 00:03:07.360 evidence is wholly lacking and incapable of supporting a reasonable 48 00:03:07.360 --> 00:03:11.280 belief that the defendant committed the charge crime state verse 49 00:03:11.360 --> 00:03:15.639 Virgin two thousand and six, Utah twenty nine. Stated another way, 50 00:03:15.919 --> 00:03:19.520 the magistrate may decline bind over only when the facts 51 00:03:19.520 --> 00:03:22.639 presented by the prosecution provide no more than a basis 52 00:03:22.680 --> 00:03:27.439 for speculation. Importantly, the magistrate at a prelim hearing must 53 00:03:27.520 --> 00:03:29.919 view all evidence in the light most favorable to the 54 00:03:29.960 --> 00:03:34.840 prosecution and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution. 55 00:03:35.840 --> 00:03:38.960 The magistrate has only a limited role in judging the 56 00:03:39.000 --> 00:03:43.159 credibility of the evidence at a prelim hearing, a magistrate 57 00:03:43.400 --> 00:03:47.680 may disregard or discount the prosecution's evidence only if it's 58 00:03:47.719 --> 00:03:52.960 so contradictory, inconsistent, or unbelievable that it's unreasonable debase belief 59 00:03:53.280 --> 00:03:57.599 of an element of the charge defense on that evidence. Otherwise, 60 00:03:57.759 --> 00:04:00.680 a magistrate may not accept the defendant version of the 61 00:04:00.719 --> 00:04:04.319 facts over the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from 62 00:04:04.319 --> 00:04:09.319 the prosecution's evidence. People versus Hall, ninety nine, Page dot two, 63 00:04:09.400 --> 00:04:13.639 d two seven to twenty one. According to Virginia two 64 00:04:13.680 --> 00:04:17.399 thousand and six Utah sixty one at twenty five, holding 65 00:04:17.439 --> 00:04:20.879 that the magistrate may not prefer one piece of credible 66 00:04:20.879 --> 00:04:24.639 evidence over a conflicting piece of credible evidence. In making 67 00:04:24.680 --> 00:04:30.040 the bindover determination, Part two, the state introduced ample evidence 68 00:04:30.079 --> 00:04:34.120 to demonstrate probable cause to believe the defendant committed all 69 00:04:34.160 --> 00:04:37.959 seven crimes charged in the information. In this case, the 70 00:04:38.000 --> 00:04:40.879 state presented more than enough evidence so as to sell 71 00:04:40.959 --> 00:04:46.720 safely over the bindover standard on all seven charged defenses. A, 72 00:04:47.199 --> 00:04:51.120 the evidence establishes probable cause that defendant committed count one 73 00:04:51.399 --> 00:04:56.199 aggravated murder. To establish that defendant committed aggravated murder, the 74 00:04:56.240 --> 00:04:59.959 state must prove that one defendant two intentionally or knowing 75 00:05:00.399 --> 00:05:05.199 three caused the death of Charlie Kirk four under circumstances 76 00:05:05.399 --> 00:05:08.680 in which defendant knowingly created a great risk of death 77 00:05:08.720 --> 00:05:12.839 to another individual other than Charlie Kirk and defendant UTAH 78 00:05:12.839 --> 00:05:17.360 Code Section seventy six point five DASH two two two 79 00:05:17.600 --> 00:05:22.639 A three. The evidence readily establishes probable cause to support 80 00:05:22.680 --> 00:05:26.720 each element Element three death. The evidence establishes and no 81 00:05:26.759 --> 00:05:30.160 one disputes that mister Kirk was killed on September tenth, 82 00:05:30.279 --> 00:05:32.959 twenty twenty five, by a gunshot wound to the neck. 83 00:05:33.920 --> 00:05:38.519 Element I identity. The evidence further demonstrates a reasonable belief 84 00:05:38.759 --> 00:05:42.839 that defendant was the shooter. Defendant repeatedly admitted that he 85 00:05:42.879 --> 00:05:47.759 shot mister Kirk using defendant's grandfather's rifle, including I had 86 00:05:47.759 --> 00:05:50.399 the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I took it. 87 00:05:50.920 --> 00:05:53.360 I'm the one who did it. I'm sorry. Why did 88 00:05:53.360 --> 00:05:55.680 I do it? I had enough of his hatred. Some 89 00:05:55.759 --> 00:05:59.360 hate can't be negotiated out. If I'm able to grab 90 00:05:59.360 --> 00:06:02.399 my rifle on un I will have left no evidence 91 00:06:02.600 --> 00:06:05.480 going to attempt to retrieve it again. Hopefully they have 92 00:06:05.560 --> 00:06:08.399 moved on. I haven't seen anything in the news about 93 00:06:08.439 --> 00:06:11.759 them finding it. I've been planning this a bit over 94 00:06:11.800 --> 00:06:14.639 a week. I believe. I'm wishing I had circled back 95 00:06:14.839 --> 00:06:16.639 and grabbed it as soon as I got out of 96 00:06:16.639 --> 00:06:19.519 my vehicle, because it sounds like the police couldn't get 97 00:06:19.560 --> 00:06:23.079 in for a long while because of the traffic. Remember 98 00:06:23.120 --> 00:06:26.319 how I was engraving bullets. The fucking messages are mostly 99 00:06:26.360 --> 00:06:30.839 a big meme. If I see notices bulge Uwu on 100 00:06:30.959 --> 00:06:34.920 Fox News, I might have a stroke. Judging from today, 101 00:06:35.040 --> 00:06:39.519 I'd say Grandpa's gun does just fine. Idkay, I don't know. 102 00:06:39.959 --> 00:06:42.959 I'm going to turn myself in willingly. Hey guys, I 103 00:06:42.959 --> 00:06:45.279 have bad news for you all. It was me at 104 00:06:45.360 --> 00:06:49.279 UVU yesterday. I'm sorry for all of this. I'm surrendering 105 00:06:49.319 --> 00:06:52.680 through the Sheriff's friend in a few minutes. It was me. 106 00:06:53.120 --> 00:06:55.759 Look at the pictures from the surveillance footage. It was me. 107 00:06:56.199 --> 00:06:59.959 I'm serious. Defendant also surrendered to law enforcement in connect 108 00:06:59.959 --> 00:07:06.040 with the shooting. DNA testing supports the conclusion that defendant 109 00:07:06.040 --> 00:07:09.800 contributed to the DNA samples recovered from the fired cartridge, 110 00:07:09.959 --> 00:07:12.879 the trigger, and other parts of the rifle, the towel 111 00:07:13.000 --> 00:07:16.160 used to conceal the rifle, and the screwdriver recovered from 112 00:07:16.199 --> 00:07:19.639 the Low SI building's rooftop. Defendant's car was at the 113 00:07:19.720 --> 00:07:23.319 UVU campus on September tenth and eleventh, twenty twenty five, 114 00:07:24.079 --> 00:07:26.480 and not only did defendant admit that he was the 115 00:07:26.519 --> 00:07:29.560 one depicted in the published screen captures from the UVU 116 00:07:29.639 --> 00:07:34.920 surveillance footage, defendant's roommate and romantic partner confirmed that the 117 00:07:34.959 --> 00:07:38.519 individual in those screen captures, showing the individual's full face 118 00:07:38.839 --> 00:07:44.240 definitely looked like defendant. Element to mental state, the state's 119 00:07:44.240 --> 00:07:48.399 evidence also demonstrates a reasonable belief that the defendant intentionally 120 00:07:48.720 --> 00:07:52.480 or knowingly calls mister Kirk's death. A person acts intentionally 121 00:07:52.680 --> 00:07:57.600 with respect to a result of his conduct when it's 122 00:07:57.639 --> 00:08:01.360 his conscious, objective, or desired to call a result. A 123 00:08:01.399 --> 00:08:04.959 person acts knowingly with respect to a result of his 124 00:08:05.079 --> 00:08:08.600 conduct when he's aware that the conduct is reasonably certain 125 00:08:08.759 --> 00:08:12.079 to cause the result. A criminal defendant's mental state is 126 00:08:12.160 --> 00:08:16.600 rarely susceptible of direct proof, but this case is exceptional because, 127 00:08:16.720 --> 00:08:19.959 as shown above, defendant repeatedly admitted that he intended to 128 00:08:19.959 --> 00:08:22.560 cause mister Kirk's death by shooting him with a high 129 00:08:22.560 --> 00:08:25.560 powered rifle. He wrote to mister Twiggs that he had 130 00:08:25.600 --> 00:08:28.399 the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and he took it. 131 00:08:29.160 --> 00:08:32.440 He also texted mister Twiggs that he'd been planning the 132 00:08:32.519 --> 00:08:35.559 killing for a bit over a week and that he 133 00:08:35.639 --> 00:08:39.519 killed mister Kirk because defendant had had enough of his hatred. 134 00:08:40.200 --> 00:08:43.399 Defendant also engraved the bullets that he loaded into the 135 00:08:43.440 --> 00:08:46.200 thirty odd to six caliber rifle. He also took some 136 00:08:46.279 --> 00:08:49.480 target practice before the shooting and engraved one cartridge found 137 00:08:49.519 --> 00:08:53.919 at his home with the words test shot. The circumstances 138 00:08:53.960 --> 00:08:56.360 of the shooting itself, when properly viewed on a light 139 00:08:56.519 --> 00:09:00.000 most favorable to the state, further demonstrate that the defendant 140 00:09:00.759 --> 00:09:04.360 intended to cause mister Kirk's death by shooting him. Defendant 141 00:09:04.399 --> 00:09:08.799 first surveilled the campus, then he changed his clothes and 142 00:09:08.919 --> 00:09:12.159 returned to campus with the rifle. Defendant used a screwdriver 143 00:09:12.440 --> 00:09:15.360 to assemble the rifle on the lo See building. With 144 00:09:15.480 --> 00:09:19.159 that rifle loaded with four engraved cartridges, Defendant then crawled 145 00:09:19.159 --> 00:09:21.320 to a sniper perch on the edge of that roof, 146 00:09:21.480 --> 00:09:24.159 took aim at mister Kirk, and pulled the trigger. The 147 00:09:24.240 --> 00:09:28.600 evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that defendant acted with the required mental 148 00:09:28.600 --> 00:09:34.080 state element iour aggravating circumstance knowingly creating a great risk 149 00:09:34.120 --> 00:09:38.279 of death to another. The state's evidence, properly viewed, also 150 00:09:38.360 --> 00:09:42.360 demonstrates a reasonable belief that defendant knowingly created a great 151 00:09:42.440 --> 00:09:45.879 risk of death to another other than himself and mister Kirk. 152 00:09:46.399 --> 00:09:49.720 Defendant fired a high powered rifle towards a crowd of thousands. 153 00:09:50.279 --> 00:09:54.120 Defendant created a great risk of death to everyone who 154 00:09:54.159 --> 00:09:56.360 was in his line of fire or who was near 155 00:09:56.399 --> 00:10:00.399 mister Kirk when defendant pulled the trigger. One defendant knowingly 156 00:10:00.440 --> 00:10:03.440 created a great risk of death to everyone in his 157 00:10:03.440 --> 00:10:06.960 line of fire. The Utah Supreme Court analyzed the great 158 00:10:07.039 --> 00:10:11.879 risk of death aggravator and state Sosa Hurtado, twenty nineteen, 159 00:10:12.039 --> 00:10:15.639 Utah sixty five. Reviewing its prior case law, the Court 160 00:10:15.679 --> 00:10:20.000 recognized that this aggravating circumstance is met where another person 161 00:10:20.080 --> 00:10:23.120 is placed within the zone of danger created by the 162 00:10:23.120 --> 00:10:26.919 conduct that caused the victim's death. Some factors to consider 163 00:10:27.200 --> 00:10:31.799 and identifying this zone include one, the temporal relationship between 164 00:10:31.799 --> 00:10:35.159 any actions the defendant may have taken towards the third 165 00:10:35.159 --> 00:10:39.080 party and the acts constituting the murder. Two, the spatial 166 00:10:39.120 --> 00:10:42.759 relationship between the third party, the murder victim and the 167 00:10:42.759 --> 00:10:45.799 defendant at the time of the acts constituting the murder, 168 00:10:46.360 --> 00:10:49.639 and three, whether and to what extent the third party 169 00:10:49.919 --> 00:10:54.000 was actually threatened by the assailant, either by direct threats 170 00:10:54.200 --> 00:10:57.480 or by indirect means, such as the risk of stray 171 00:10:58.159 --> 00:11:02.279 or ricochet bullets. Applying these factors here, the state's evidence 172 00:11:02.360 --> 00:11:06.639 establishes a reasonable belief that defendant knowingly put several people 173 00:11:06.840 --> 00:11:09.519 within the zone of danger he created when he shot 174 00:11:09.559 --> 00:11:13.559 mister Kirk. Most significantly, everyone in defendant's line of fire 175 00:11:13.960 --> 00:11:17.200 was within the zone of danger. The person questioning mister 176 00:11:17.320 --> 00:11:20.399 Kirk when defendant pulled the trigger was within defendant's line 177 00:11:20.440 --> 00:11:23.720 of fire. The questioner was just a few feet in 178 00:11:23.759 --> 00:11:26.759 front of mister Kirk and directly between the sniper's perch 179 00:11:27.039 --> 00:11:30.720 on the Locie Building roof and mister Kirk. Thus, the 180 00:11:30.759 --> 00:11:34.440 spatial relationship between the questioner and mister Kirk put the 181 00:11:34.519 --> 00:11:38.600 questioner within the zone of danger. The questioner's proximity and 182 00:11:38.679 --> 00:11:43.039 placement relative to mister Kirk also created an indirect threat 183 00:11:43.200 --> 00:11:47.440 to the questioner, given the risk of straying or rickosheng bullets. 184 00:11:47.879 --> 00:11:50.799 These san factors apply to several others who are directly 185 00:11:50.840 --> 00:11:54.320 behind the questioner and thus also within the defendant's line 186 00:11:54.320 --> 00:11:58.399 of fire. The defendant also demonstrates that defendant was not 187 00:11:58.519 --> 00:12:02.039 certain to hit only as target get mister Kirk, defendant 188 00:12:02.120 --> 00:12:05.639 loaded his rifle with four cartridges, creating a reasonable inference 189 00:12:06.120 --> 00:12:09.559 that he anticipated that the first shot might miss. Moreover, 190 00:12:09.679 --> 00:12:13.039 evidence a defendant's target practice before the shooting shows that 191 00:12:13.080 --> 00:12:16.360 he did not always hit the bullseye. Indeed, some of 192 00:12:16.399 --> 00:12:19.519 his shots completely missed the paper target. And even if 193 00:12:19.559 --> 00:12:22.879 defendant had previously calibrated his rifle in scope, he had 194 00:12:22.879 --> 00:12:26.240 disassembled the rifle to transport it to the roof undetected, 195 00:12:26.519 --> 00:12:29.279 and then reassembled it on the rooftop using the screwdriver 196 00:12:29.360 --> 00:12:33.080 he left there. One reasonable inference from these facts is 197 00:12:33.080 --> 00:12:36.399 that the reassembled rifle would not be as accurate as 198 00:12:36.399 --> 00:12:40.200 it previously was when it was sighted in. While one piece, 199 00:12:41.519 --> 00:12:44.320 a defendant who shoots another knowingly creates a great risk 200 00:12:44.360 --> 00:12:47.559 of death to anyone within his line of fire, the 201 00:12:47.600 --> 00:12:51.159 Pennsylvania Supreme Court had no trouble finding that the defendant 202 00:12:51.159 --> 00:12:54.159 in Watson knowingly created a grave risk of death to 203 00:12:54.240 --> 00:12:57.919 another person. In addition to the victims of the offense when, 204 00:12:57.960 --> 00:13:01.000 while shooting his ex girlfriend, her child was in a closet, 205 00:13:01.279 --> 00:13:04.080 and the closet and the child were in Watson's line 206 00:13:04.120 --> 00:13:08.759 of fire. See also Silva versus State sixty So third 207 00:13:09.320 --> 00:13:12.279 nine fifty nine, nine seventy one through seventy three, Florida, 208 00:13:12.440 --> 00:13:16.639 twenty eleven, holding that defendant knowingly created a great risk 209 00:13:16.679 --> 00:13:19.000 of death to people who were in his line of fire. 210 00:13:19.879 --> 00:13:23.159 The risk to others was established by evidence that twelve 211 00:13:23.240 --> 00:13:25.799 to fourteen others were in the line of fire when 212 00:13:25.840 --> 00:13:30.559 the victim was killed. Commonwealth Verse Bucks seven h nine 213 00:13:30.639 --> 00:13:33.480 a Dot two d. Eight ninety two, eight ninety four, Pa. 214 00:13:33.639 --> 00:13:37.039 Ninety eight, holding that evidence that defendant fired a single 215 00:13:37.120 --> 00:13:40.360 fatal shot at his victim while another person was in 216 00:13:40.399 --> 00:13:42.840 the line of fire could support a finding that the 217 00:13:42.879 --> 00:13:46.080 defendant knowingly created a grave risk of death to another 218 00:13:47.120 --> 00:13:49.600 State Verse Wood eight eighty one p. Dot two d. 219 00:13:49.919 --> 00:13:54.840 Eleven fifty eight, Arizona, nineteen ninety four, and Bonk, recognizing 220 00:13:55.080 --> 00:13:57.600 that while the grave risk of death to another factor 221 00:13:57.639 --> 00:14:01.480 applies only if the defendants murderous acts itself put other 222 00:14:01.559 --> 00:14:04.919 people in a zone of danger, The Arizona Supreme Court 223 00:14:05.000 --> 00:14:09.039 had never, however, limited this factory to cases in which 224 00:14:09.039 --> 00:14:12.360 another person was directly in the line of fire. The 225 00:14:12.440 --> 00:14:16.240 evidence demonstrates that defendant here knowingly created a great risk 226 00:14:16.279 --> 00:14:19.039 of death to the questioner and all others who were 227 00:14:19.039 --> 00:14:22.600 within his line of fire. The distance from defendant sniper 228 00:14:22.639 --> 00:14:25.320 perch to the tent where mister Kirk was sitting was 229 00:14:25.360 --> 00:14:28.559 approximately four hundred and ten feet with sixty eight foot 230 00:14:28.639 --> 00:14:32.240 vertical drop. Four hundred and ten feet is less than 231 00:14:32.240 --> 00:14:35.120 the four ndred and fifteen foot distance from home plate 232 00:14:35.399 --> 00:14:38.720 to the center field fence at Corsfield in Denver, and 233 00:14:38.759 --> 00:14:41.639 at approximately one hundred and thirty seven yards, is just 234 00:14:41.759 --> 00:14:45.200 longer than an American football field, including its two en zones. 235 00:14:45.600 --> 00:14:48.559 From defendant's perch, he could see the questioner and those 236 00:14:48.559 --> 00:14:52.080 directly behind them, and presumably even hear the questioner. Because 237 00:14:52.080 --> 00:14:55.879 speakers had been set up to amplify the discussion, Defendant 238 00:14:56.279 --> 00:15:00.840 could certainly see these individuals through the sniperscope. Defendant was 239 00:15:00.879 --> 00:15:05.200 therefore aware of the existing circumstances, including all the people 240 00:15:05.240 --> 00:15:07.559 in his line of fire, when he fired the fatal shot. 241 00:15:08.080 --> 00:15:11.799 Utah Code Section seventy six tosh two one oh three 242 00:15:11.759 --> 00:15:15.879 to two. A person acts knowingly with respect the circumstances 243 00:15:15.919 --> 00:15:21.360 surrounding his conduct when he's aware of existing circumstances. All right, folks, 244 00:15:21.360 --> 00:15:23.000 we're going to wrap up right here, and in the 245 00:15:23.039 --> 00:15:25.320 next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick 246 00:15:25.399 --> 00:15:28.320 up where we left off. All the information that goes 247 00:15:28.399 --> 00:15:31.559 with this episode can be found in the description box.