Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 2 Part 9) (9/23/26)

0:00What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. In this episode we're going to get back to the Tyler Robinson Day 2 transcript from the prelim hearing. And to do that we're picking back up with the state. Prosecution, Your Honor, the evidence is relevant on two points. One is to defend its motive, which is not an element of the offense, but nonetheless, its powerful evidence and persuasive evidence. And two, it's relevant to the victim targeting enhancement, which has been described and appears in the information. The statement clarifies that turning point USA. What Charlie Kirk's business was, I think as you read this statement, it's clear that Charlie Kirk presented both religious and political arguments and positions in his presentations. And that is what the paragraph 3 says. That he engaged others in debate, discussion of traditional family values, orthodox, Christian views on sexuality, marriage, gender, sex, America's founding principles, political doctrines and so forth. He often spoke specifically and attempted to persuade attendees to follow a mindset rooted

1:04in orthodox Christian and politically conservative values. Now the defense jumps in and lodges an objection. Excuse me Your Honor, can I lodge an objection? To a prosecution reading the exhibit, which we are discussing the admissibility of, and I had asked the court to strike its statement and in monashum. Judge Graff, alright, so as it relates to reading from the actual 1102, because it's not admitted into evidence, I will, well before I do that, let me turn to you about the objection to make sure that you were heard as well. Prosecution? Yes, rule 104 requires the court to consider evidence before determining its admissibility. How can you determine whether an exhibit is admissible without knowing what's contained in that exhibit? That's what I'm putting in front of your honor. Is explaining this is why the exhibit is admissible because it contains this language that is relevant and probative. I don't know how I can make an argument, something's relevant and probative, without saying this, is what the exhibit says. Now the defense jumps in, Your Honor,

2:08is not a jury. Your Honor can look at the exhibit and determine for itself whether it's relevant, whether it meets other criteria, for admissibility. It's not necessary for the prosecution to read it aloud, an open court, an exhibit which the court has available to it. I'm not saying that the court shouldn't read it, I'm saying that it's not admissible. I understand that the court has two roles, one under 104 and one as the magistrate, but that doesn't require Mr. McBride to read an open court the exhibit which we are discussing the admissibility of, especially where I have just expressed our concern that the exhibit has a tendency to confuse the issues in the case and create fair trial risk for Mr. Robinson. Judge Graff, all right, thank you. Any final thoughts before I rule on this specific issue about reading from the 1102 by the prosecution? Prosecution, yes, Your Honor, I have to be able to argue here, I have to be able to refer to the exhibits, I can't do my job as an attorney without being able to refer to the exhibits, if the court doesn't want this to be

3:11in public, then we've got to close this proceeding, but I have to be able to argue the exhibits. I don't know how I can make an argument without actually pointing to the language of the exhibit, unless I want to say you know what I mean, we're referring to line 13, it's just so cumbersome to do Your Honor, and I think my job and my duty to my client, which is the state of Utah, and to their right to fairness, requires me to make a good and powerful argument, and that requires me to refer to the exhibit, and I'll submit it with that. Judge Graff, all right, thank you to both of you, and looking at this typically in court when evidence is being taken, until it's admitted, it doesn't come in. For example, a witness on the stand, and one is trying to get a piece of evidence in, that witness cannot read from the document prior to it being admitted into evidence. And so the court applies the same principle here, however the difference is, and noting the defense was drawing points from this specifically, he mentioned Matthew, I believe chapter 19, and talking about certain points in here specifically. There is room for it to be mentioned in

4:13argument, in order for the court to fully consider what's before it. So I'm going to sustain Mr. Novak's objection, and simply say, if you want to talk about it conceptually, talk about the points, you certainly may. But simply reading from it exactly, saying, and I understand, I don't want it to constrain you the party from being able to make their full argument, but quoting from it, an open court, I fear, does risk issues to the constitutional rights of the parties. If the parties prefer to go into a closed evidentiary hearing on this issue, in order to be unrestrained, and it appears Mr. Novak has requested that for a second portion of his argument, we certainly can do so. Because I don't want to put out evidence that is not admitted in open court, until the appropriate time, until the court has gone through it's decision-making process on whether it should be admitted or not. So to the parties, if you feel you can move forward on this first portion of it, I'm happy to entertain that argument. If the parties feel at this point at this juncture that a closed evidentiary hearing is needed, in order to fully explore all the issues, I'll leave

5:14that to the parties. Because I don't know your arguments, and I don't want to say, constrain you from saying, well, I don't know what you're going to say, but I can't read your minds, and the court will stand its lane, to ensure that it's the proper judicial role. So the objection has been sustained. Prosecution in regards to your response or a bottle to the argument, what's your request? Prosecution, yes, Your Honor, I do not believe it's necessary to close the hearing. I would argue against closing the hearing on the admissibility of this exhibit. However, the court needs to rule on that issue before I launch into the fullness of my argument, because I don't want to be admonished for discussing an item that I'm asking to be admitted into evidence in public. So I would ask the court to make a ruling on the closure of the argument about admissibility of this hearing, so that I can make the argument unconstrained. And after that time, if the court rules on that, I will make my full argument. Judge Graff, all right, well, what I'm trying to do is you've heard the reasoning of the court. I don't want to constrain you. If you're saying as you stated,

6:15that you want your best to best represent your client, and every attorney should be doing that, that is your duty. If you feel that closing this hearing to the public is necessary, in order for you to fulfill your duty, the court will entertain that. But I can't have it both ways. If you want me to close the hearing in order for you to be able to argue freely, as you feel you need to, I will entertain that. But I don't want to say, well, I'm not going to close the hearing, and then suddenly the issue is, well, I wasn't able to make a full argument. And so do you need to have a closed hearing to best represent your client? Prosecution, I think defense council is asking to close the hearing so that the argument can be made without the public seeing it. I don't want to close the hearing. I don't believe it's necessary to close the hearing. That's not my motion. I do, however, want to make a full argument that requires me to rely on the evidence in quote the evidence as I've done. That's my position. If I'm not permitted to quote the evidence in my argument, then we need to decide whether or not this hearing should be closed. I oppose

7:17closing it, but I do think it's necessary for me to quote the evidence. Judge graph, all right. Are you able to make your full argument to the best of your ability to best represent your client by simply referring to the paragraphs and to the lines? So it's clear to the court what you're talking about. There's no ambiguity without quoting it verbatim in court. Prosecution, no, I don't think so. Judge, all right. Now we have the lawyer jumping in for the media. Your honor, if you're going to make this closure ruling, I'd like to be heard before you do. Judge graph, all right. I'll hear from you as well. If you'd like to come forward again, Mr. Reiman, just stating your full name for the record, the clarity of the record. Sure, thank you, Your Honor, David Reiman, again for the news media. We've briefed this issue a couple different times so far. Sometimes there is a misconception that I think is running particularly through what the prosecution argued that suppression hearings because the evidence may be suppressed or

8:17excluded or in lemonade hearings need to be closed unless the evidence is deemed admissible. That's the opposite of the law. That's been settled since the United States Supreme Court decided Waller versus Georgia. You can see it in Kern's Tribune, which dealt with a prelim hearing can access to a prelim hearing where, as you know, and we've heard repeatedly today, all kinds of evidence is presented at the prelim hearing that may not be admissible at trial. And so the universe of the public's right to access to proceedings is not limited to what eventually gets admitted at trial, which if there even is a trial. And that's been, we've cited to the court numerous cases on this, and I don't have the brief in front of me and the docket is huge. I can find it for you if you'd like, but I just wanted to correct the misimpression that the public is not entitled to hear argument and to see evidence just because it may not be admissible. Otherwise, we would never have admissibility arguments in public. And I do want to just, I'll just make one other point. Kern's Tribune also speaks to this, and that is that if you do decide,

9:21so let me just make two quick points. To the 403 point, just because evidence is an admissible is not a basis to close the hearing. There may be a 403 argument, I haven't seen the document, I don't know what's in it. Maybe there's something incredibly prejudicial. You would have to make that decision. I'm at a loss, I haven't seen it. I'm happy to take a look at it and give you a substantive argument, but it's the same high constitutional standard that you have to satisfy in order to close it. And then the last thing is just on the scope of any closure, Kern's Tribune speaks, and I know the court is aware of this. If you're going to close it, it needs to be as minimal as possible. And it's my experience, at least, that most of the argument about things in this context can occur, an open court. And if you want to have a closed session, or a sidebar, or however you want to have, also done in chambers, I just ask that it be as limited as possible. Thank you. Judge Graff, thank you, all right. Defense, would you like to respond to that? And then I'll return to the prosecution for any final thoughts and the court will make its ruling.

10:27Defense, well, I just wanted to mention the Utah Supreme Court decision in State versus Archuleta, where the State Supreme Court reminds us that First Amendment right of access is qualified, that what needs to be carefully judged in light of the qualified right of access with respect to prelim hearing exhibits, that was the issue in State versus Archuleta is a defendant's right to a fair trial. So we're slightly in the Twilight Zone situation where a council for the media is saying, even if the court has decided that the exhibits are not going to be made available for copying an inspection, and the court may decide that this exhibit is either not admissible or admissible for the court's eyes only. Council for the media is counseling the court to permit the prosecution to read the exhibit verbatim and open court. And that basically defeats all of those principles. So I don't think that's the correct path. Council for the media is correct that the court's ceiling or closure should be narrowly tailored. And the 403 issue, which we are prepared to discuss because

11:27of the sequencing of things in the case. In this proceeding, we're only prepared to discuss that sidebar has to do with potential future evidence that the court may receive in the hearing, or it may not. So I'm not going to address other 403 issues in open court. If the court wants to defer this entire exhibit and discussion of it later in the proceeding, then it may be that the part of the 403 argument doesn't need to be a sidebar. And I think we're all assuming that sidebar proceedings in this prelim hearing are going to be part of the seal transcript until some later point in time. In other words, it's not sidebar just for the moment. It's because the transcripts going to be sealed. So it very well may be that taking this issue up at later point in time in the proceeding eliminates the need from our perspective for that 403 issue to be discussed at sidebar or what counsel for the media says in a closed proceeding. However, I agree that the court that Mr. Mr. McBride can have his cake and eat it too. If he wants to make his argument and he thinks that

12:28his argument requires that he read an exhibit in court, which we in good faith are saying is not admissible, then we need to have a closed proceeding. I'm not asking for a closed proceeding. I was asking for the court to caution Mr. McBride not to read into evidence exhibits that are not received into evidence because that's the same as Mr. McBride testifying. Judge, all right, thank you. Anything further prosecution? Answer just a note. I have not made my full argument on admissibility. That's all. Judge Graff, all right, all right. I appreciate the arguments by the parties. This is clearly something that's very important to you all and is important for the case as every piece of potential evidence. I note that Mr. Novak indicated that receiving this could create confusion for potential jurors and that he mentioned that it suggests to a potential jury pool that this case is about religion. However, that is what is happening in the prelim hearing as far different than what happens at a jury trial. The magistrate, myself, is a fact finder, and whether something becomes admissible at trial is far different than what is admissible at a

13:30prelim hearing. The purposes are different. The standards are different. And different steps need to be followed. Something could become admissible at a jury trial, but given the nature of a jury trial, more steps are necessary. Under Rule 1102, one of the major differences is that reliable hearsay is allowed in prelim hearings under the Utah Constitution and under the rule of evidence 1102. That is far different than what would happen at a jury trial. Taking this into consideration, I look to the information going to the very beginning, whether this is relevant, and is noted by counsel looking to count one, which is squarely before the court to determine a probable cause at the end of this proceeding. And the court is not weighing in whether it will reach that or not. It's not predetermining anything. But what is before the court under count one aggravated murder, which is a capital offense, victim targeting enhancement, and violation of Utah annotated 76.3 203.142. Tyler James Robinson intentionally selected Charlie Kirk because of

14:34Tyler James Robinson's beliefs or perception regarding Charlie Kirk's political expression. And so if that was not here, this enhancement, and it also goes to count two felony discharge of a firearm, causing serious bodily injury, and I'm just reviewing, and then finally count seven violent offense committed in the presence of a child, where the victim targeted enhancement, also is in play. Because that's part of the information that's squarely before the court. This becomes relevant. Now trying to determine political expression versus religious expression, that goes into different grounds. But at this point, the court finds it relevant for consideration, and for the very least, the argument. What the court is going to rule is that the need for a closed hearing is not been met at this point, because what needs to be shown is prejudice or that the exhibit contains inflammatory information that would prejudice the jury pool. That begins the path where we can consider closing the hearing from the public. However, that's not what's before the court, nor what the court's heard. And so ruling of the court is previously sustained. The objection

15:38and the court will expound upon that. That Mr. McBride's argument cannot be read the entirety of state exhibit 5.1. Can he reference points of it? And specifically certain points of the court rules that he can, just as Mr. Novak pulled from his. And it was broad, but he quoted Matthew, chapter 19. He stated that he came from the Bible. He talked about going from paragraph 1, where he quoted, or at least drew, from about the internal revenue service and the types of business. And so there is grounds for that to occur. In order for the court to consider the argument fully, and making the determination whether it's relevant and should be admissible. Therefore, the court rules that Mr. McBride can continue in his argument in order that the court can make its determination whether state exhibit 5.1 is admissible or not. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right there. And in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick up where we left off. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.