WEBVTT 1 00:00:00.080 --> 00:00:03.359 What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. A 2 00:00:03.399 --> 00:00:07.599 few days ago, Tyler Robinson filed his memorandum that detailed 3 00:00:07.599 --> 00:00:10.759 why the state didn't have enough evidence to proceed to trial. 4 00:00:11.000 --> 00:00:14.759 According to him, well now the State of Utah has replied, 5 00:00:15.039 --> 00:00:17.120 So in this episode we're going to start taking a 6 00:00:17.160 --> 00:00:23.399 look at that State of Utah. Plaintiff First, Tyler James Robinson, 7 00:00:23.679 --> 00:00:27.760 the defendant case number two five one, four zero, three, 8 00:00:27.879 --> 00:00:32.359 five seven six reply memorandum in support of prelim hearing 9 00:00:32.399 --> 00:00:37.119 bindover introduction. The defendant does not challenge the substance of 10 00:00:37.159 --> 00:00:40.039 the evidence demonstrating that he was the person who crawled 11 00:00:40.280 --> 00:00:43.039 to the sniper's perch on the low See building rooftop, 12 00:00:43.359 --> 00:00:46.200 fired the fatal shot that killed mister Charlie Kirk, hit 13 00:00:46.280 --> 00:00:48.799 the rifle in a wooded area, got rid of some 14 00:00:48.880 --> 00:00:51.520 of the clothing he was wearing, and told his roommate 15 00:00:51.560 --> 00:00:55.079 to delete the texts about the shooting. Rather, he merely 16 00:00:55.119 --> 00:00:59.600 asserts the repeatedly rejected claim that the overwhelming evidence establishing 17 00:00:59.600 --> 00:01:02.880 some of the facts cannot be introduced as reliable hearsay 18 00:01:03.159 --> 00:01:07.200 at this prelim hearing. Defendant therefore raises no valid challenge 19 00:01:07.319 --> 00:01:10.599 to the evidence supporting count one as at least murder, 20 00:01:10.879 --> 00:01:15.239 count two, felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury, 21 00:01:15.519 --> 00:01:18.599 counts three to four, obstruction of justice, or count five 22 00:01:19.000 --> 00:01:24.079 tampering with a witness. Defendant's challenge to the aggravating circumstances 23 00:01:24.079 --> 00:01:27.239 for count one that he knowingly created a great risk 24 00:01:27.280 --> 00:01:30.640 of death to another is based on his misrepresentation of 25 00:01:30.680 --> 00:01:33.959 both the evidentiary standard at a prelim hearing and the 26 00:01:34.000 --> 00:01:38.640 test for establishing the aggravating circumstance. As for the evidentiary standard, 27 00:01:38.680 --> 00:01:43.519 defendant erroneously asserts that a magistrate engages in speculation when 28 00:01:43.519 --> 00:01:47.400 he chooses between a reasonable inference that supports guilt and 29 00:01:47.439 --> 00:01:51.840 a competing innocence inference. The Utah Supreme Court has rejected 30 00:01:51.840 --> 00:01:54.640 that logic of fact. The Utah Court of Appeals has 31 00:01:54.680 --> 00:02:00.120 repeatedly recognized defendants counsel ignored this controlling case law and 32 00:02:00.239 --> 00:02:03.560 have therefore violated their ethical duty of candor to the court. 33 00:02:04.120 --> 00:02:08.240 Contrary to defendant's argument, these cases established that when a 34 00:02:08.280 --> 00:02:12.240 fact finder chooses between reasonable inferences at a trial, it's 35 00:02:12.280 --> 00:02:16.520 properly fulfilling its fact finding role, not speculating. Thus, even 36 00:02:16.560 --> 00:02:19.280 out of trial, a fact finder is free to choose 37 00:02:19.280 --> 00:02:22.840 between reasonable inferences. This is a prelim hearing where the 38 00:02:22.840 --> 00:02:25.439 court does not sit as a fact finder. Instead, this 39 00:02:25.520 --> 00:02:28.639 court is duty bound to draw all reasonable inferences in 40 00:02:28.680 --> 00:02:32.080 the state's favor. It's therefore even more apparent that this 41 00:02:32.120 --> 00:02:36.599 preceding there is nothing speculative about viewing all reasonable inferences 42 00:02:36.800 --> 00:02:39.479 in the state's favor. As for the great risk of 43 00:02:39.520 --> 00:02:44.360 death aggravating factor, defendant erroneously maintains that the test for 44 00:02:44.479 --> 00:02:48.120 establishing this factor depends on the presence of some minimum 45 00:02:48.240 --> 00:02:52.439 number of factors or circumstances. In fact, the Utah Supreme 46 00:02:52.479 --> 00:02:57.039 Court has expressly disavowed such an analysis. Instead, the governing 47 00:02:57.080 --> 00:03:00.000 test is the one that statue provides whether it deface 48 00:03:00.400 --> 00:03:03.759 knowingly created a great risk of death to another. The 49 00:03:03.800 --> 00:03:07.560 evidence here easily establishes at least probable cause to believe 50 00:03:07.599 --> 00:03:10.879 the defendant did so when he intentionally fired his grandfather's 51 00:03:10.960 --> 00:03:14.120 high powered rifle towards a crowd of thousands, several of 52 00:03:14.159 --> 00:03:16.520 whom were in the line of fire between him and 53 00:03:16.599 --> 00:03:21.479 mister Kirk, while others were in close proximity to mister Kirk. Indeed, 54 00:03:21.479 --> 00:03:24.319 the evidence is more than sufficient to support a finding 55 00:03:24.520 --> 00:03:28.400 beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendants challenges to count six witness 56 00:03:28.479 --> 00:03:31.439 tampering for directing mister Twiggs not to talk to police 57 00:03:31.800 --> 00:03:35.520 and seven violent offenses in a child's presence likewise and 58 00:03:35.560 --> 00:03:39.680 properly draw inferences in defendants favor not the States, while 59 00:03:39.680 --> 00:03:44.599 also ignoring relevant evidence. Defendant challenge the victim targeting enhancement 60 00:03:44.719 --> 00:03:49.199 on count seven similarly ignores the evidence. Finally, the defendant 61 00:03:49.360 --> 00:03:52.360 also misrepresents the holding in a prin die versus New 62 00:03:52.439 --> 00:03:55.719 Jersey five point thirty US for sixty six two thousand 63 00:03:56.120 --> 00:03:59.159 in arguing that the sentencing enhancements for committing a violent 64 00:03:59.199 --> 00:04:02.919 offense in a child's presence and targeting his victim must 65 00:04:02.919 --> 00:04:07.639 be proven Now. Neither enhancement implicates apprendai because neither increases 66 00:04:07.680 --> 00:04:13.639 the maximum statutorily mandated punishment. Argument one, Defendant misrepresents the 67 00:04:13.639 --> 00:04:18.279 governing evidentary standard because he relies on an erroneous distinction 68 00:04:18.560 --> 00:04:22.959 between inferences in speculation that the Utah Supreme Court has rejected. 69 00:04:23.680 --> 00:04:27.920 Defendant misrepresents the evidentary standard that governs this prelim hearing 70 00:04:28.199 --> 00:04:31.800 because he relies on an erroneous distinction between inferences and 71 00:04:31.879 --> 00:04:36.000 speculation from the State versus Crystaball Utah two twenty eight, 72 00:04:36.040 --> 00:04:40.079 twenty ten, and the Utah Supreme Court soundly rejected over 73 00:04:40.120 --> 00:04:44.639 a decade ago. In State versus Ashcroft, Utah twenty fifteen, 74 00:04:45.079 --> 00:04:48.199 the Supreme Court explained to Ashcroft that when a jury 75 00:04:48.319 --> 00:04:52.120 chooses between reasonable inferences to reach its verdict, it does 76 00:04:52.160 --> 00:04:55.959 not engage in speculation. This is even more true at 77 00:04:56.000 --> 00:04:59.199 a prelim hearing, where the magistrate must draw all reasonable 78 00:04:59.199 --> 00:05:03.040 inferences in the state's favor. Because he ignores the case 79 00:05:03.120 --> 00:05:05.920 law that rejects the logic on which his argument depends. 80 00:05:06.160 --> 00:05:10.439 Defendant erroneously labels his speculation many of the State's arguments 81 00:05:10.560 --> 00:05:14.000 about the evidence and the reasonable inferences this Court must 82 00:05:14.079 --> 00:05:20.000 draw from that evidence. Defense Memorandum at. Eleven sixteen nineteen 83 00:05:20.040 --> 00:05:23.160 through twenty two, twenty nine through thirty thirty two through 84 00:05:23.199 --> 00:05:27.519 thirty three, for example, although the evidence demonstrates one that 85 00:05:27.600 --> 00:05:30.680 a clear line of sight existed between defendant sniper Perch 86 00:05:30.759 --> 00:05:34.439 and mister Kirk's seat, and two that others were near 87 00:05:34.480 --> 00:05:38.279 mister Kirk when defendant fired the fatal shot, defendant asserts 88 00:05:38.279 --> 00:05:41.240 that this court would be engaging in speculation to infer 89 00:05:41.560 --> 00:05:45.959 from this evidence that Defendant actually observed security personnel or 90 00:05:46.040 --> 00:05:50.920 others standing near or directly between him and mister Kirk. Similarly, 91 00:05:51.360 --> 00:05:54.240 although the evidence shows that defendant voted his rifle with 92 00:05:54.319 --> 00:05:57.959 four cartridges and had previously done some target practice where 93 00:05:57.959 --> 00:06:00.519 he seldom hit the bullseye and sometimes sames missed the 94 00:06:00.519 --> 00:06:04.519 target completely, defendant asserts that it would be speculative to 95 00:06:04.600 --> 00:06:08.360 infer that he knew he could miss his target. Defendant 96 00:06:08.360 --> 00:06:12.839 relies on state verse crystal Ball twenty ten to justify 97 00:06:12.879 --> 00:06:16.959 his argument at eleven. Quoting crystal Ball, defendant asserts that 98 00:06:17.040 --> 00:06:20.839 when evidence supports more than one possible conclusion, none more 99 00:06:20.959 --> 00:06:23.800 likely than the other, the choice of one possibility over 100 00:06:23.839 --> 00:06:26.920 another can be more than speculation. Excuse me, can be 101 00:06:27.000 --> 00:06:30.920 no more than speculation, quoting crystal Ball, twenty ten, Utah 102 00:06:31.600 --> 00:06:35.480 Appendix two, twenty eight. But the Utah Supreme Court rejected 103 00:06:35.519 --> 00:06:39.680 crystal Ball's logic in Ashcroft twenty fifteen. A fact that 104 00:06:39.720 --> 00:06:43.839 the Utah Court of Appeals has expressly and repeatedly recognized 105 00:06:44.480 --> 00:06:48.680 these cases may clear that choosing between competing reasonable inferences 106 00:06:48.879 --> 00:06:52.199 is not speculation, but rather exactly what a jury must do. 107 00:06:53.160 --> 00:06:56.720 The defendant in Ashcroft argue that the existence of innocent 108 00:06:56.920 --> 00:06:59.800 inferences for his presence in a known drug area late 109 00:06:59.879 --> 00:07:02.600 out at night with a large amount of cash rendered 110 00:07:02.639 --> 00:07:05.439 the evidence insufficient to support a jury verdict that he 111 00:07:05.480 --> 00:07:10.000 constructively possessed drugs, consistent with the Court of Appeals reasoning 112 00:07:10.000 --> 00:07:13.560 in Crystal Ball, Ashcroft asserted that his jury engaged in 113 00:07:13.560 --> 00:07:18.079 speculation when it accredited the inculpatory inferences from the evidence 114 00:07:18.160 --> 00:07:23.879 over the exculpatory ones. The Supreme Court rejected Ashcroft's argument, 115 00:07:24.240 --> 00:07:27.000 explaining that the fact that a court could identify an 116 00:07:27.040 --> 00:07:30.959 equally plausible alternative inference is not nearly enough to set 117 00:07:30.959 --> 00:07:33.879 a verdict aside. This is because the law is well 118 00:07:34.000 --> 00:07:37.160 established that the existence of one or more alternative reasonable 119 00:07:37.240 --> 00:07:41.600 hypothesis does not necessarily prevent the jury from concluding that 120 00:07:41.639 --> 00:07:45.519 a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt state versus 121 00:07:45.519 --> 00:07:51.279 Cardona Wayton twenty twelve, Utah three thirty six. Rather, the 122 00:07:51.360 --> 00:07:54.600 jury's exclusive province is to weigh the computing theories in 123 00:07:54.680 --> 00:07:57.920 case in light of the evidence presented and the reasonable 124 00:07:57.920 --> 00:08:01.560 inferences drawn therefrom and to canclude which one they believe 125 00:08:02.439 --> 00:08:06.639 the Supreme Courts holding in Ashcroft therefore necessarily overruled the 126 00:08:06.759 --> 00:08:10.399 very logic from the Crystal Ball upon which defendant now relies. 127 00:08:11.040 --> 00:08:14.800 The Court of Appeals has so recognized as our Supreme 128 00:08:14.839 --> 00:08:17.920 Court in Ashcroft has since clarified the fact that we 129 00:08:17.959 --> 00:08:22.000 can identify an equally plausible alternative inference is not nearly 130 00:08:22.079 --> 00:08:25.639 enough to set aside the verdict state verse Wall, twenty twenty, 131 00:08:25.759 --> 00:08:29.800 Utah thirty six, and citing Wall, the Court of Appeals 132 00:08:29.800 --> 00:08:33.799 has repeatedly recognized that Ashcroft is a complete repudiation of 133 00:08:33.879 --> 00:08:37.120 crystal Ball. If the existence of an alternative inference is 134 00:08:37.159 --> 00:08:39.600 not enough to justify setting aside a jury verdict of 135 00:08:39.639 --> 00:08:43.840 guilt see Ashcroft twenty fifteen, Utah five, then it certainly 136 00:08:43.879 --> 00:08:46.759 is not enough to justify denying bind over. At a 137 00:08:46.759 --> 00:08:49.639 prelim hearing, a jury is free to pick and choose 138 00:08:49.720 --> 00:08:54.440 reasonable inference in reaching the verdict. A prelim hearing magistrate 139 00:08:54.519 --> 00:08:57.840 is not. The magistrate must view all evidence in light 140 00:08:57.879 --> 00:09:01.399 of most favorable to the prosecution and draw all reasonable 141 00:09:01.440 --> 00:09:06.759 inferences in favor of the prosecution state verse Schmidt, Utah 142 00:09:06.759 --> 00:09:10.240 twenty fifteen. At a prelim hearing, the prosecution is not 143 00:09:10.320 --> 00:09:13.759 required to eliminate alternative inferences that could be drawn from 144 00:09:13.759 --> 00:09:17.120 the evidence in favor of the defense state Verse Ramirez, 145 00:09:17.159 --> 00:09:22.360 twenty twelve, Utah. Thus, viewing all reasonable inferences in the 146 00:09:22.399 --> 00:09:25.799 state's favor at a prelim hearing is not speculation. It's 147 00:09:25.840 --> 00:09:29.519 precisely what the law requires this court to do. Defendant's 148 00:09:29.559 --> 00:09:33.039 argument otherwise is based on overruled case law that he 149 00:09:33.120 --> 00:09:37.039 refuses to acknowledge and bring to this court's attention. See 150 00:09:37.039 --> 00:09:40.600 Defense Memorandum at eleven, twenty to twenty one, quoting Crystaball 151 00:09:41.200 --> 00:09:44.919 twenty ten, Utah Appeals to twenty eight. This blatant omission 152 00:09:45.000 --> 00:09:48.000 violates counsel's duty of candor to the court. See Utah 153 00:09:48.120 --> 00:09:52.519 Rules Professional Conduct, Section three three a two. A lawyer 154 00:09:52.759 --> 00:09:57.000 must not knowingly or recklessly fail to disclose the tribunal 155 00:09:57.159 --> 00:10:00.919 legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction directly adverse to the 156 00:10:00.960 --> 00:10:05.679 position of the client and not disclosed by the opposing council. Moreover, 157 00:10:05.960 --> 00:10:11.279 an inference is reasonable as opposed to speculative when it's 158 00:10:11.279 --> 00:10:14.519 based on evidence. As the Utah Supreme Court is acknowledged, 159 00:10:14.679 --> 00:10:17.879 there is no black line between inference and speculation, but 160 00:10:17.960 --> 00:10:21.080 a reasonable inference exists when there is at least a 161 00:10:21.120 --> 00:10:25.240 foundation in the evidence upon which the ultimate conclusion is based, 162 00:10:26.080 --> 00:10:28.840 while in the case of speculation, there is no underlying 163 00:10:28.879 --> 00:10:33.440 evidence to support the conclusion state verse tran quoting Heslop 164 00:10:33.519 --> 00:10:38.480 vers Bear River, twenty seventeen, Utah. Thus, a reasonable inference 165 00:10:38.639 --> 00:10:42.360 not amounting to speculation is a conclusion reached by considering 166 00:10:42.399 --> 00:10:46.320 other facts in deducing a logical consequence from them, quoting 167 00:10:46.440 --> 00:10:50.360 Salt Lake City first Carrera, twenty fifteen, Utah. As the 168 00:10:50.399 --> 00:10:54.480 state's opening memorandum demonstrated, and as further detailed below, all 169 00:10:54.519 --> 00:10:57.759 inferences the state has identified or grounded in the evidence 170 00:10:58.159 --> 00:11:01.399 they are not speculative, and the support bind over on 171 00:11:01.480 --> 00:11:04.600 all accounts. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up right here, 172 00:11:04.720 --> 00:11:06.519 and in the next episode, we're gonna pick up with 173 00:11:06.600 --> 00:11:10.279 part two. All the information that goes with this episode 174 00:11:10.320 --> 00:11:12.559 can be found in the description box.