WEBVTT 1 00:00:00.120 --> 00:00:03.439 What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. In 2 00:00:03.480 --> 00:00:05.599 this episode, we're going to pick up where we left 3 00:00:05.599 --> 00:00:09.039 off with the state of Utah and the response to 4 00:00:09.119 --> 00:00:14.359 Tyler Robinson. See Many defendant's arguments depend on ignoring some 5 00:00:14.400 --> 00:00:18.800 evidence and improperly viewing the evidentary inferences in his favor. 6 00:00:19.519 --> 00:00:23.160 Defendant's arguments that the evidence does not establish probable cause 7 00:00:23.399 --> 00:00:26.719 to satisfy the great risk of death aggravator are also 8 00:00:26.920 --> 00:00:31.679 unpersuasive because they ignore evidence and improperly view other evidence 9 00:00:31.719 --> 00:00:35.359 as reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to him. 10 00:00:36.320 --> 00:00:39.000 Defendant's argument that he did not have to reassemble his 11 00:00:39.039 --> 00:00:42.479 grandfather's rifle ignores the evidence that the rifle was then 12 00:00:42.520 --> 00:00:45.240 at least two pieces, because he was both walking with 13 00:00:45.320 --> 00:00:47.960 a limp and carrying a backpack as he approached and 14 00:00:48.039 --> 00:00:51.520 climbed onto the roof. It also ignores the fact that 15 00:00:51.600 --> 00:00:54.719 defendant left a screwdriver on the roof near the railing 16 00:00:55.280 --> 00:00:58.920 that he flopped over to access that sniper's perch. Defendant 17 00:00:58.920 --> 00:01:02.320 omits the screwdriver on the roof from his recitation of 18 00:01:02.359 --> 00:01:05.719 the facts, and even if defendant could have concealed the 19 00:01:05.879 --> 00:01:09.000 entire rifle in his pant leg transporting it that way 20 00:01:09.079 --> 00:01:12.040 supports a reasonable inference that the scope would not be 21 00:01:12.079 --> 00:01:14.959 in the same position that it occupied when defendant sighted 22 00:01:15.040 --> 00:01:17.840 in the rifle, assuming that he did so before the shooting. 23 00:01:18.319 --> 00:01:21.680 The targets found in defendant's apartment and the four engraved 24 00:01:21.680 --> 00:01:25.400 cartridges loaded in the rifle likewise support the reasonable inference 25 00:01:25.640 --> 00:01:28.959 that defendant knew he might miss. Defendant's argument that the 26 00:01:28.959 --> 00:01:32.799 target might be completely unrelated to the murder is undermined 27 00:01:32.799 --> 00:01:35.879 by their continued presence in his apartment and the discovery 28 00:01:35.879 --> 00:01:38.959 of a cartridge in his apartment that he had engraved 29 00:01:38.959 --> 00:01:42.760 with the words test shot, and whether those targets are 30 00:01:42.799 --> 00:01:46.000 related to the murder or not. Their presence in defendant's 31 00:01:46.040 --> 00:01:49.959 apartment supports a reasonable inference that they record his shots 32 00:01:50.519 --> 00:01:52.879 the target show that he seldom hit the bullseye and 33 00:01:53.000 --> 00:01:57.079 sometimes missed the target altogether. In some because the evidence 34 00:01:57.120 --> 00:02:00.799 demonstrates probable cause for each other meant of count one 35 00:02:01.159 --> 00:02:04.680 aggravated murder, the court must bind defendant over for trial 36 00:02:05.560 --> 00:02:10.439 on that count. See Utah Criminal Procedure seven b B three. 37 00:02:10.639 --> 00:02:13.840 Defendant's argument that he did not obstruct justice by directing 38 00:02:13.840 --> 00:02:17.240 his roommate not to talk to police improperly draws the 39 00:02:17.280 --> 00:02:22.080 inference in his favor. Contrary to Defendant's assertion, his direction 40 00:02:22.199 --> 00:02:25.000 to mister Twiggs to not talk to police does not 41 00:02:25.439 --> 00:02:29.240 unequivocally demonstrate that defendant meant only to help mister Twiggs 42 00:02:29.639 --> 00:02:34.560 rather than obstruct an investigation. Defendant's argument otherwise and properly 43 00:02:34.639 --> 00:02:38.639 draws the inference in his favor. Moreover, the defendant ignores 44 00:02:38.960 --> 00:02:42.879 that this direction to mister Twiggs about the police came 45 00:02:42.919 --> 00:02:46.159 in the same conversation in which defendant also directed mister 46 00:02:46.199 --> 00:02:51.120 Twiggs to delete their incriminating text messages. The conversation also 47 00:02:51.159 --> 00:02:54.800 included defendant explaining how he concealed his rifle and changed 48 00:02:54.840 --> 00:02:59.280 his clothing. Although defendant claims to contextualize his statement to 49 00:02:59.319 --> 00:03:04.039 mister Twiggs Defense Memorandum at twenty nine, he actually ignores 50 00:03:04.080 --> 00:03:08.280 the full context of his statement. Ignoring incriminating evidence does 51 00:03:08.280 --> 00:03:12.479 not make it go away. State versus McNeil Utah twenty seventeen. 52 00:03:13.319 --> 00:03:17.120 Properly viewed, the evidence supports a reasonable inference that defendant 53 00:03:17.159 --> 00:03:21.840 intended to obstruct an investigation when he instructed mister Twiggs 54 00:03:21.840 --> 00:03:25.120 not to talk to the police. The evidence therefore requires 55 00:03:25.159 --> 00:03:29.759 binding defendant over on count six witness tampering, Part four. 56 00:03:30.159 --> 00:03:33.599 The evidence supports a reasonable inference that defendant knew that 57 00:03:33.680 --> 00:03:35.879 at least one child was present when he shot mister 58 00:03:36.000 --> 00:03:39.039 Kirk and apprend ied. Does not require the state to 59 00:03:39.240 --> 00:03:43.879 establish this aggravating factor or the victim targeting sentencing enhancement 60 00:03:44.159 --> 00:03:47.879 at the prelim hearing ay. The evidence supports a reasonable 61 00:03:47.879 --> 00:03:52.439 inference that defendant knew a child was present. Defendant's argument 62 00:03:52.520 --> 00:03:54.840 that there is no evidence from which this court can 63 00:03:54.919 --> 00:03:58.319 infer a reasonable belief that he knew a child was 64 00:03:58.360 --> 00:04:02.479 present focuses on only the short time that defendant was 65 00:04:02.520 --> 00:04:06.000 on the Loci building. Defendant ignores the evidence that he 66 00:04:06.080 --> 00:04:08.599 was in the Amphitheater area at least twice on the 67 00:04:08.639 --> 00:04:12.680 morning of the shooting, including eating lunch at the Sorenson 68 00:04:12.759 --> 00:04:17.560 Center that borders the Amphitheater. As explained, when all the 69 00:04:17.560 --> 00:04:21.439 evidence is considered, it supports a reasonable inference that defendant 70 00:04:21.480 --> 00:04:24.720 saw the attendees that were gathering for the event, including 71 00:04:24.800 --> 00:04:28.519 children who were present. But if the evidence was limited 72 00:04:28.519 --> 00:04:30.680 to just the time the defendant was on the roof, 73 00:04:30.959 --> 00:04:33.879 he could see the entire crowd from that vantage point, 74 00:04:34.199 --> 00:04:37.519 that evidence alone supports a reasonable inference that he knew 75 00:04:37.519 --> 00:04:41.360 at least one child was present. The evidence therefore requires 76 00:04:41.399 --> 00:04:45.079 binding defendant over on count number seven committing a violent 77 00:04:45.120 --> 00:04:48.920 offense and a child's presence be appreend I does not 78 00:04:48.959 --> 00:04:52.240 require the state to prove this aggravating factor for the 79 00:04:52.319 --> 00:04:55.920 victim targeting enhancement for counts one and two at a preliminaring. 80 00:04:57.920 --> 00:05:01.720 Defendants also misrepresent the whole in apprend Die First, New Jersey, 81 00:05:02.079 --> 00:05:05.279 two thousand, in arguing that the state must establish probable 82 00:05:05.360 --> 00:05:08.519 cause at the prelim hearing to support the violent offense 83 00:05:08.759 --> 00:05:11.759 in a child's presence aggravating factor for counts one and 84 00:05:11.839 --> 00:05:16.199 two and the victim targeting sentencing enhancement for those same 85 00:05:16.319 --> 00:05:20.160 counts defense Memorandum at thirty and thirty one. Contrary to 86 00:05:20.240 --> 00:05:24.199 defendant's representation, apprend I did not hold that any fact 87 00:05:24.240 --> 00:05:28.279 which increases the potential punishment in the case are elements 88 00:05:28.279 --> 00:05:30.720 of the offense which must be proven to a jury 89 00:05:30.920 --> 00:05:34.399 beyond the reasonable doubt. Rather, a prend I held that 90 00:05:34.519 --> 00:05:37.759 any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond 91 00:05:37.759 --> 00:05:41.079 the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury 92 00:05:41.360 --> 00:05:45.360 and proved beyond the reasonable doubt. Neither the violent offense 93 00:05:45.399 --> 00:05:48.879 in a child's presence aggravating factor nor the victim Targeting 94 00:05:48.959 --> 00:05:53.240 Enhancement implicate a prende because neither increases the penalty for 95 00:05:53.279 --> 00:05:58.000 Counts one or two beyond the prescribed statutory maximum. The 96 00:05:58.079 --> 00:06:01.720 violent offense aggravator requires all only that the sentencing judge 97 00:06:01.839 --> 00:06:04.759 or the Board of Pardons and Parole shall consider as 98 00:06:04.800 --> 00:06:09.360 an aggravating factor in their deliberations that the defendant committed 99 00:06:09.360 --> 00:06:12.800 the violent criminal offense in the presence of a child. 100 00:06:13.519 --> 00:06:17.079 It does not increase the statutorily imposed maximum penalty for 101 00:06:17.120 --> 00:06:21.480 aggravated murder beyond death or the penalty for felony discharge 102 00:06:21.480 --> 00:06:24.360 of a firearm beyond five years to life in prison. 103 00:06:25.120 --> 00:06:28.319 So two for the Victim Targeting enhancement, because Counts one 104 00:06:28.319 --> 00:06:31.600 and two charge a capital and first degree felony, respectively, 105 00:06:32.240 --> 00:06:35.560 the Victim Targeting Enhancement does not increase the level of 106 00:06:35.639 --> 00:06:41.000 those offenses or the statutory maximum punishment for those crimes. Rather, 107 00:06:41.199 --> 00:06:45.439 like the violent offense aggravator, the Victim Targeting enhancement requires 108 00:06:45.959 --> 00:06:48.800 only that the sentencing judge or the Board of Pardons 109 00:06:48.800 --> 00:06:52.680 and Parole shall consider the defendant selection of the victim 110 00:06:52.759 --> 00:06:57.480 or a property as an aggravating factor. Because neither aggravating 111 00:06:57.519 --> 00:07:01.759 factor nor the sentencing enhancement implicate Arendai, the State's not 112 00:07:01.800 --> 00:07:05.639 required to prove their elements at this prelimmeearing. Rather, as 113 00:07:05.639 --> 00:07:08.800 explained in the state's opening memorandum, the states are required 114 00:07:08.839 --> 00:07:12.079 to prove the victim targeting enhancement only for count seven 115 00:07:12.720 --> 00:07:15.759 committing a violent offense and a child's presence, because the 116 00:07:15.879 --> 00:07:19.199 enhancement raises that crime from a Class B to Class 117 00:07:19.240 --> 00:07:25.680 A misdemeanor and therefore increases the statutory maximum penalty. Five, 118 00:07:26.000 --> 00:07:29.879 the evidence supports a reasonable inference that defendant targeted mister 119 00:07:30.000 --> 00:07:34.240 Kirk because of his perception of mister Kirk's political expression. 120 00:07:36.279 --> 00:07:39.519 As with several other of his arguments, defendant again ignores 121 00:07:39.560 --> 00:07:43.120 critical evidence, asserting that the state is not established probable 122 00:07:43.199 --> 00:07:46.680 cause to support the victim targeting enhancement is to count seven. 123 00:07:47.319 --> 00:07:50.240 Most importantly, defendant ignores that he engraved one of the 124 00:07:50.279 --> 00:07:54.680 cartridges in his grandfather's rifle with the overt political reference 125 00:07:54.959 --> 00:07:59.199 hey fascist catch. That alone is sufficient to establish a 126 00:07:59.240 --> 00:08:03.480 reasonable believe that defendant targeted mister Kirk because of his 127 00:08:03.600 --> 00:08:09.319 perception of mister Kirk's political expression. Again, ignoring incriminating evidence 128 00:08:09.519 --> 00:08:13.160 does not make it go away. Defendant also ignores the 129 00:08:13.199 --> 00:08:17.639 evidence that at tpsu's leader, mister Kirk avowed purposes including 130 00:08:17.759 --> 00:08:21.560 promoting and debating political issues, and that his events on 131 00:08:21.600 --> 00:08:26.319 college campuses were intended to further political ends. As explained, 132 00:08:26.360 --> 00:08:30.839 mister Kirk's goals including helping people develop the knowledge, skills, values, 133 00:08:31.000 --> 00:08:34.480 and motivation so they can meaningfully engage in their communities 134 00:08:34.720 --> 00:08:40.000 to restore traditional American values like patriotism, respect for life, liberty, family, 135 00:08:40.480 --> 00:08:45.159 and fiscal responsibility. Defendant further ignores the evidence that to 136 00:08:45.200 --> 00:08:48.600 accomplish these aims, mister Kirk would hold events like the 137 00:08:48.639 --> 00:08:53.320 one at UVU to discuss America's founding principles, political doctrines, 138 00:08:53.519 --> 00:08:56.519 and to persuade attendees to follow a mindset rooted in 139 00:08:56.600 --> 00:09:01.360 politically conservative values. All this evidence, allow with what was 140 00:09:01.399 --> 00:09:05.360 discussed in the state's opening memorandum, establishes strong inference that 141 00:09:05.399 --> 00:09:10.039 defendant targeted mister Kirk because of Defendant's perception of mister 142 00:09:10.120 --> 00:09:14.759 Kirk's political expression. This is especially true when the evidence 143 00:09:14.799 --> 00:09:18.080 is considered in light of defendant's admission that he killed 144 00:09:18.080 --> 00:09:21.600 mister Kirk because defendant had enough of mister Kirk's hatred. 145 00:09:22.399 --> 00:09:26.360 The evidence therefore establishes probable cause to support count seven 146 00:09:26.720 --> 00:09:30.080 as an enhanced Class A mis demeanor. And even if 147 00:09:30.080 --> 00:09:33.200 appriend I applied to the victim targeting enhancement as to 148 00:09:33.240 --> 00:09:36.200 counts one and two, which it does not, the evidence 149 00:09:36.279 --> 00:09:41.840 establishes probable cause to support the sentencing enhancement conclusion. For 150 00:09:42.039 --> 00:09:45.440 these reasons and those in the state's opening memorandum, the 151 00:09:45.480 --> 00:09:48.639 court should bind defendant over for trial on all counts 152 00:09:48.720 --> 00:09:53.559 charged in the information. This document was dated August eighteenth, 153 00:09:53.720 --> 00:09:57.440 twenty twenty six, and it was signed by Christopher Ballard. 154 00:09:58.399 --> 00:10:00.799 All the information that goes with the this episode can 155 00:10:00.840 --> 00:10:02.879 be found in the description box.