Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
Speaker 1: this episode, we're going to dive into another court document
Speaker 1: in the matter of the State of Utah versus Tyler
Speaker 1: James Robinson, and this time we're taking a look at
Speaker 1: the notice of objection by Tyler Robinson to the State
Speaker 1: of Utah proposed Exhibit four dot one, Memorandum of Points
Speaker 1: and Authorities, Case number two five one, four zero three,
Speaker 1: five seven six. Defendant Tyler James Robinson, by and through
Speaker 1: his Council of Record, hereby provides this Honorable Court and
Speaker 1: the State of Utah, through its Council of Record, with
Speaker 1: notice of his objection to admission into evidence and publication
Speaker 1: of the states proposed Exhibit four dot one during after
Speaker 1: or in connection with the evidentiary hearing on his motion
Speaker 1: to disqualify the Utah County Attorney's Office from representing the
Speaker 1: State of Utah in this matter. The objection is based
Speaker 1: upon rules four one, four oh two, and four oh
Speaker 1: three and the Utah Rules of Evidence, as well as
Speaker 1: mister robinson right to a fair trial under Article I,
Speaker 1: Section twelve of the Utah Constitution and the sixth Amendment
Speaker 1: of the United States Constitution, as set fourth in the
Speaker 1: attached memorandum of points and authorities introduction. As the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court of Utah explained in State versus James, this is
Speaker 1: a capital case. Not only will a jury be required
Speaker 1: to determine the guilt or innocence of defendant, but if
Speaker 1: guilt is found, the jury will probably be urged by
Speaker 1: the prosecution to impose the death penalty. In deciding whether
Speaker 1: to impose the death penalty, the jury must weigh aggravating
Speaker 1: circumstances against mitigating circumstances. This is the most momentous judgment
Speaker 1: a jury can be asked to make. The judgment should
Speaker 1: be made in an atmosphere as free from any taint,
Speaker 1: a bias, or prejudice as reasonably possible. Here, the impact
Speaker 1: of the alleged crime reached deeply into the community. Residents
Speaker 1: were exposed to media information on almost a daily basis,
Speaker 1: as the highly biased traditional local and national media and
Speaker 1: international social media coverage of this case demonstrates, every in
Speaker 1: court statement by attorneys representing the state, whether under oath
Speaker 1: or not, every statement by counsel from mister Robinson, and
Speaker 1: every observation and ruling by the court are under a
Speaker 1: microscope and subject to microsurgery by journalists, bloggers, media experts
Speaker 1: and others to make matters worse. Those media entities which
Speaker 1: now purport to refer to themselves as litigants in this prosecution,
Speaker 1: in complete disregard of the Court's admonition to the contrary,
Speaker 1: seek to ensure that every single pleading filed in and
Speaker 1: statement to this Court is available for widespread public dissemination,
Speaker 1: long before neutral, untainted and reliably unbiased jury is ever impaneled,
Speaker 1: undoubtedly undermining the ability of the Court and the two
Speaker 1: litigants to do so. As the last two hearings demi
Speaker 1: and straight repeated violations of this Court's decorum order, which
Speaker 1: not coincidentally arise from improper prohibited telescopic views of mister
Speaker 1: Robinson in his council conferring at council table and result
Speaker 1: in absurd but widely published opinions from putative lip readers
Speaker 1: and others who seek fame and future from interpreting facial
Speaker 1: expressions or lack thereof, are brushed off by the medias
Speaker 1: in court representatives as unintentional mistakes that will not be
Speaker 1: repeated again. This is alas the context in which the
Speaker 1: present hearing and the present objection must be viewed pending
Speaker 1: before this Court. Is mister Robinson's wholly proper and timely
Speaker 1: brought motion to disqualify the Utah County's Attorney's Office because
Speaker 1: of a conflict of interest arising from the family member
Speaker 1: of a member of the prosecution team personally witnessing the
Speaker 1: events at Utah Valley University on September tenth, twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: Mister Robinson objects here to the admission into evidence in
Speaker 1: connection with this motion of the state's proposed exhibit fourt one,
Speaker 1: a close up color video with audio of the shooting
Speaker 1: of mister Kirk. This proposed exhibit is clearly inadmissible if admitted,
Speaker 1: which would be in contravention to the Utah Rules of Evidence.
Speaker 1: It should remain sealed until it's admitted into evidence if
Speaker 1: it is at trial. Mister Robinson objects to its admission
Speaker 1: into evidence on the basis that it's not admissible within
Speaker 1: the meaning of Rule four one and four oh two
Speaker 1: of the Utah Rules of Evidence. Rule four oh one
Speaker 1: provides that evidence is relevant if a it has any
Speaker 1: tendency to make effect more or less probable than it
Speaker 1: would be without the evidence, and b the fact of
Speaker 1: the consequence in determining the action. Utah rules for evidence
Speaker 1: four one. Rule four O two provides that irrelevant evidence
Speaker 1: is not admissible. Mister Robinson also objects to its admission
Speaker 1: under rule four oh three if the Court intends to
Speaker 1: permit the State to pu publish this exhibit in open court,
Speaker 1: or if the Court intends to provide the public with
Speaker 1: access to this exhibit before it's admitted into evidence at trial,
Speaker 1: if it ever is. Rule four O three provides that
Speaker 1: the Court may exclude relevant evidence if its probitive value
Speaker 1: is substantially outweighed by the danger of one or more
Speaker 1: of the following unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury,
Speaker 1: undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting extra evidence Utah
Speaker 1: are evidence four three. Here, of course, the deep concern
Speaker 1: is with the leading grounds for excluding evidence that is
Speaker 1: of limited probitive value, unfair prejudice, and confusing the issues.
Speaker 1: Mister Robinson's objection under rule four three is inextricably intertwined
Speaker 1: with and therefore also based upon, his right to a
Speaker 1: fair trial under the Utah and United States constitutions. In
Speaker 1: State versus Archiletta, the Supreme Court of Utah held that
Speaker 1: a trial court is well within its authority to deny
Speaker 1: access to public documents and exhibits received into evidence in
Speaker 1: a prelim hearing or ruling based in part on defendant's
Speaker 1: constitutional right to a fair trial. Providing public access to
Speaker 1: the exhibits requested would not serve the administration of justice, and,
Speaker 1: as the trial court concluded, could very well jeopardize defendant's
Speaker 1: right to a fair trial. Exhibit four dot one. Prior
Speaker 1: to the hearing on January sixteenth, twenty twenty six, the
Speaker 1: state produced Exhibit four dot one to the defense, presumably
Speaker 1: in anticipation of introducing it in support of its opposition
Speaker 1: to mister Robinson's motion to disqualify the Utah County's Attorney's office.
Speaker 1: The defense anticipates that the state intends to attempt to
Speaker 1: move for dot one into evidence at the hearing currently
Speaker 1: scheduled for February third, twenty twenty six. Exhibit four dot
Speaker 1: one is a video clip of the shooting of mister
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk. The video is in color and from a
Speaker 1: distance of only a few feet away from mister Kirk.
Speaker 1: There's audio contained within the video clip capturing sounds including
Speaker 1: unidentified voices immediately before, during, and after the shooting. Exhibit
Speaker 1: four dot one is of no probitive value to any
Speaker 1: material issue surrounding the motion to disqualify. The motion at
Speaker 1: issue here is not focused on the cause of mister
Speaker 1: Kirk's death, but on the propriety of the Utah County
Speaker 1: Attorney's Office representing the state in the prosecution. The two
Speaker 1: questions before the court is whether a legal conflict of
Speaker 1: interest or an appearance of the same exists in the
Speaker 1: case sufficient to disqualify one of the members of the
Speaker 1: prosecution team, and if the conflict of interests likewise disqualifies
Speaker 1: the Utah County Attorney's office. Nothing about the motion or
Speaker 1: the state's opposition necessitates the viewing of the moments just
Speaker 1: before or the moment of mister Kirk's death and the
Speaker 1: captured audio in order to reach a legal conclusion about
Speaker 1: the existence of the actual or apparent and unwaivable conflict
Speaker 1: of interest. The video of mister Kirk's death has no
Speaker 1: tendency to make any fact relating to the motion to
Speaker 1: disqualify more or less probable than it would be without
Speaker 1: the introduction of the video. The state is submitted still
Speaker 1: photos and biagrams, none of which mister Robinson objects to,
Speaker 1: showing mister Kirk's location and proximity to the audience, and
Speaker 1: the believe location of the family member of a member
Speaker 1: of the prosecution team, which are wholly sufficient to impart
Speaker 1: the relevant information that the State belief should be considered
Speaker 1: by this Court pursuing a rule four one and four
Speaker 1: two of the Utah Rules of Evidence, Exhibit four point
Speaker 1: one is not relevant and should not be admitted into
Speaker 1: evidence in connection with this motion. Any alleged probitive value
Speaker 1: is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice and
Speaker 1: negatively impacts mister Robinson's right to a fair trial. While
Speaker 1: mister Robinson had lodged with this Court a separate motion
Speaker 1: to prohibit videography, still camera images, and audio broadcasting of
Speaker 1: the court proceedings in the case, the Court is not
Speaker 1: yet ruled on the motion. Assuming that the hearing schedule
Speaker 1: for February third, twenty twenty six will be televised, any
Speaker 1: video exhibit played at the hearing would be subject to
Speaker 1: immediate publication nationwide and internationally. Apps in a proactive decision
Speaker 1: by the Court to steal the exhibit, which is well
Speaker 1: within its authority, as explained by the Supreme Court of
Speaker 1: Utah in State versus Archiletta A. Fifty seven p Dot
Speaker 1: two d At three twenty nine, providing public access to
Speaker 1: the exhibits requested would not serve the administration of justice, and,
Speaker 1: as the trial court included, could very well jeopardize defendant's
Speaker 1: right to a fair trial IDEA two forty two. Exhibit
Speaker 1: four point one is graphic and likely highly disturbing to
Speaker 1: any person who've views it, negatively impacting mister Robinson's constitutional
Speaker 1: right to a fair trial. Exhibit four point one is
Speaker 1: also needlessly cumulative in light of other stole photos and
Speaker 1: diagrams included in the state's propose exhibits. The prejudice certain
Speaker 1: to follow the public dissemination of Exhibit four point one
Speaker 1: substantially outweighs any possible probitive value the state may assert
Speaker 1: it possesses. Therefore, pursuing to Rule four oh three of
Speaker 1: the Utah Rules of Evidence and mister Robinson's right to
Speaker 1: a fair trial under the Utah Constitution and the US Constitution,
Speaker 1: Exhibit four dot one should not be admitted into evidence
Speaker 1: should not be publicly displayed and if admitted into evidence,
Speaker 1: must remain under seal. Conclusion, Exhibit four point one has
Speaker 1: no proper role in the instant hearing. It should be excluded,
Speaker 1: should not be publicly presented, and should remain under seal
Speaker 1: if the Court concludes otherwise. Respectfully submitted the twenty seventh
Speaker 1: of January twenty twenty six, and this was signed by
Speaker 1: Katherine Nester, Richard Novak, Michael Burt, and Stacy Visser. All
Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
Speaker 1: in the description box