Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
Speaker 1: this episode, we're going to pick up where we left
Speaker 1: off with the state of Utah and the response to
Speaker 1: Tyler Robinson. See Many defendant's arguments depend on ignoring some
Speaker 1: evidence and improperly viewing the evidentary inferences in his favor.
Speaker 1: Defendant's arguments that the evidence does not establish probable cause
Speaker 1: to satisfy the great risk of death aggravator are also
Speaker 1: unpersuasive because they ignore evidence and improperly view other evidence
Speaker 1: as reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to him.
Speaker 1: Defendant's argument that he did not have to reassemble his
Speaker 1: grandfather's rifle ignores the evidence that the rifle was then
Speaker 1: at least two pieces, because he was both walking with
Speaker 1: a limp and carrying a backpack as he approached and
Speaker 1: climbed onto the roof. It also ignores the fact that
Speaker 1: defendant left a screwdriver on the roof near the railing
Speaker 1: that he flopped over to access that sniper's perch. Defendant
Speaker 1: omits the screwdriver on the roof from his recitation of
Speaker 1: the facts, and even if defendant could have concealed the
Speaker 1: entire rifle in his pant leg transporting it that way
Speaker 1: supports a reasonable inference that the scope would not be
Speaker 1: in the same position that it occupied when defendant sighted
Speaker 1: in the rifle, assuming that he did so before the shooting.
Speaker 1: The targets found in defendant's apartment and the four engraved
Speaker 1: cartridges loaded in the rifle likewise support the reasonable inference
Speaker 1: that defendant knew he might miss. Defendant's argument that the
Speaker 1: target might be completely unrelated to the murder is undermined
Speaker 1: by their continued presence in his apartment and the discovery
Speaker 1: of a cartridge in his apartment that he had engraved
Speaker 1: with the words test shot, and whether those targets are
Speaker 1: related to the murder or not. Their presence in defendant's
Speaker 1: apartment supports a reasonable inference that they record his shots
Speaker 1: the target show that he seldom hit the bullseye and
Speaker 1: sometimes missed the target altogether. In some because the evidence
Speaker 1: demonstrates probable cause for each other meant of count one
Speaker 1: aggravated murder, the court must bind defendant over for trial
Speaker 1: on that count. See Utah Criminal Procedure seven b B three.
Speaker 1: Defendant's argument that he did not obstruct justice by directing
Speaker 1: his roommate not to talk to police improperly draws the
Speaker 1: inference in his favor. Contrary to Defendant's assertion, his direction
Speaker 1: to mister Twiggs to not talk to police does not
Speaker 1: unequivocally demonstrate that defendant meant only to help mister Twiggs
Speaker 1: rather than obstruct an investigation. Defendant's argument otherwise and properly
Speaker 1: draws the inference in his favor. Moreover, the defendant ignores
Speaker 1: that this direction to mister Twiggs about the police came
Speaker 1: in the same conversation in which defendant also directed mister
Speaker 1: Twiggs to delete their incriminating text messages. The conversation also
Speaker 1: included defendant explaining how he concealed his rifle and changed
Speaker 1: his clothing. Although defendant claims to contextualize his statement to
Speaker 1: mister Twiggs Defense Memorandum at twenty nine, he actually ignores
Speaker 1: the full context of his statement. Ignoring incriminating evidence does
Speaker 1: not make it go away. State versus McNeil Utah twenty seventeen.
Speaker 1: Properly viewed, the evidence supports a reasonable inference that defendant
Speaker 1: intended to obstruct an investigation when he instructed mister Twiggs
Speaker 1: not to talk to the police. The evidence therefore requires
Speaker 1: binding defendant over on count six witness tampering, Part four.
Speaker 1: The evidence supports a reasonable inference that defendant knew that
Speaker 1: at least one child was present when he shot mister
Speaker 1: Kirk and apprend ied. Does not require the state to
Speaker 1: establish this aggravating factor or the victim targeting sentencing enhancement
Speaker 1: at the prelim hearing ay. The evidence supports a reasonable
Speaker 1: inference that defendant knew a child was present. Defendant's argument
Speaker 1: that there is no evidence from which this court can
Speaker 1: infer a reasonable belief that he knew a child was
Speaker 1: present focuses on only the short time that defendant was
Speaker 1: on the Loci building. Defendant ignores the evidence that he
Speaker 1: was in the Amphitheater area at least twice on the
Speaker 1: morning of the shooting, including eating lunch at the Sorenson
Speaker 1: Center that borders the Amphitheater. As explained, when all the
Speaker 1: evidence is considered, it supports a reasonable inference that defendant
Speaker 1: saw the attendees that were gathering for the event, including
Speaker 1: children who were present. But if the evidence was limited
Speaker 1: to just the time the defendant was on the roof,
Speaker 1: he could see the entire crowd from that vantage point,
Speaker 1: that evidence alone supports a reasonable inference that he knew
Speaker 1: at least one child was present. The evidence therefore requires
Speaker 1: binding defendant over on count number seven committing a violent
Speaker 1: offense and a child's presence be appreend I does not
Speaker 1: require the state to prove this aggravating factor for the
Speaker 1: victim targeting enhancement for counts one and two at a preliminaring.
Speaker 1: Defendants also misrepresent the whole in apprend Die First, New Jersey,
Speaker 1: two thousand, in arguing that the state must establish probable
Speaker 1: cause at the prelim hearing to support the violent offense
Speaker 1: in a child's presence aggravating factor for counts one and
Speaker 1: two and the victim targeting sentencing enhancement for those same
Speaker 1: counts defense Memorandum at thirty and thirty one. Contrary to
Speaker 1: defendant's representation, apprend I did not hold that any fact
Speaker 1: which increases the potential punishment in the case are elements
Speaker 1: of the offense which must be proven to a jury
Speaker 1: beyond the reasonable doubt. Rather, a prend I held that
Speaker 1: any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond
Speaker 1: the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury
Speaker 1: and proved beyond the reasonable doubt. Neither the violent offense
Speaker 1: in a child's presence aggravating factor nor the victim Targeting
Speaker 1: Enhancement implicate a prende because neither increases the penalty for
Speaker 1: Counts one or two beyond the prescribed statutory maximum. The
Speaker 1: violent offense aggravator requires all only that the sentencing judge
Speaker 1: or the Board of Pardons and Parole shall consider as
Speaker 1: an aggravating factor in their deliberations that the defendant committed
Speaker 1: the violent criminal offense in the presence of a child.
Speaker 1: It does not increase the statutorily imposed maximum penalty for
Speaker 1: aggravated murder beyond death or the penalty for felony discharge
Speaker 1: of a firearm beyond five years to life in prison.
Speaker 1: So two for the Victim Targeting enhancement, because Counts one
Speaker 1: and two charge a capital and first degree felony, respectively,
Speaker 1: the Victim Targeting Enhancement does not increase the level of
Speaker 1: those offenses or the statutory maximum punishment for those crimes. Rather,
Speaker 1: like the violent offense aggravator, the Victim Targeting enhancement requires
Speaker 1: only that the sentencing judge or the Board of Pardons
Speaker 1: and Parole shall consider the defendant selection of the victim
Speaker 1: or a property as an aggravating factor. Because neither aggravating
Speaker 1: factor nor the sentencing enhancement implicate Arendai, the State's not
Speaker 1: required to prove their elements at this prelimmeearing. Rather, as
Speaker 1: explained in the state's opening memorandum, the states are required
Speaker 1: to prove the victim targeting enhancement only for count seven
Speaker 1: committing a violent offense and a child's presence, because the
Speaker 1: enhancement raises that crime from a Class B to Class
Speaker 1: A misdemeanor and therefore increases the statutory maximum penalty. Five,
Speaker 1: the evidence supports a reasonable inference that defendant targeted mister
Speaker 1: Kirk because of his perception of mister Kirk's political expression.
Speaker 1: As with several other of his arguments, defendant again ignores
Speaker 1: critical evidence, asserting that the state is not established probable
Speaker 1: cause to support the victim targeting enhancement is to count seven.
Speaker 1: Most importantly, defendant ignores that he engraved one of the
Speaker 1: cartridges in his grandfather's rifle with the overt political reference
Speaker 1: hey fascist catch. That alone is sufficient to establish a
Speaker 1: reasonable believe that defendant targeted mister Kirk because of his
Speaker 1: perception of mister Kirk's political expression. Again, ignoring incriminating evidence
Speaker 1: does not make it go away. Defendant also ignores the
Speaker 1: evidence that at tpsu's leader, mister Kirk avowed purposes including
Speaker 1: promoting and debating political issues, and that his events on
Speaker 1: college campuses were intended to further political ends. As explained,
Speaker 1: mister Kirk's goals including helping people develop the knowledge, skills, values,
Speaker 1: and motivation so they can meaningfully engage in their communities
Speaker 1: to restore traditional American values like patriotism, respect for life, liberty, family,
Speaker 1: and fiscal responsibility. Defendant further ignores the evidence that to
Speaker 1: accomplish these aims, mister Kirk would hold events like the
Speaker 1: one at UVU to discuss America's founding principles, political doctrines,
Speaker 1: and to persuade attendees to follow a mindset rooted in
Speaker 1: politically conservative values. All this evidence, allow with what was
Speaker 1: discussed in the state's opening memorandum, establishes strong inference that
Speaker 1: defendant targeted mister Kirk because of Defendant's perception of mister
Speaker 1: Kirk's political expression. This is especially true when the evidence
Speaker 1: is considered in light of defendant's admission that he killed
Speaker 1: mister Kirk because defendant had enough of mister Kirk's hatred.
Speaker 1: The evidence therefore establishes probable cause to support count seven
Speaker 1: as an enhanced Class A mis demeanor. And even if
Speaker 1: appriend I applied to the victim targeting enhancement as to
Speaker 1: counts one and two, which it does not, the evidence
Speaker 1: establishes probable cause to support the sentencing enhancement conclusion. For
Speaker 1: these reasons and those in the state's opening memorandum, the
Speaker 1: court should bind defendant over for trial on all counts
Speaker 1: charged in the information. This document was dated August eighteenth,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty six, and it was signed by Christopher Ballard.
Speaker 1: All the information that goes with the this episode can
Speaker 1: be found in the description box.