Judge Graf And The Order To Bind Tyler Robinson Over For Trial On All Counts Charged (Part 2) (9/5/26)

0:00What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. In this episode we're going to pick up where we left off, with Judge Graf's order, the Bine Tyler Robinson over for trial. At approximately 12.30am on September 11th, 2025, Mr. Robinson had an interaction with Officer Goforth while his vehicle was stopped on campus drive. Next video obtained from a home located on 9.25 Southorum shows the car matching Mr. Robinson's Charger parked out front at approximately 12.30am on September 11th. Day one. On the morning of September 11th, 2025, Mr. Twigs asked Mr. Robinson in person, if what he said the night before was true. State example, number 16. Mr. Robinson responded that it was and that he wished he had not done it. Just before 8pm on September 11th, a message was sent from Mr. Robinson's account to the Discord group stating, hey guys, I have bad news for you all. It was me at UVU yesterday.

1:03I'm sorry for all of this. I'm surrendering through a share of friend in a few minutes. At approximately 8.30pm, a family friend went to pick up Mr. Robinson and take him to the share of his office. He asked Mr. Robinson if he had any property or clothes that he used during the incident. Mr. Robinson responded that he discarded those items. At approximately 9pm, Mr. Robinson arrived at the Washington County share of his office. He was wearing a maroon shirt and jeans. Investigators searched Mr. Robinson's home. They collected a Dremel tool, its bid container, two boxes of 30 odd six ammunition, some 30 odd six cartridge casings, and a burn paper that had markings consistent with the note Mr. Robinson left behind for Mr. Twigs. Investigators also found shooting targets in a closet with perforations in them consistent with bullet holes. The FBI performed DNA testing on the screwdriver, towel, rifle, spend casing, and three on fired cartridges found near the scene. The testing provided support

2:07for inclusion of Mr. Robinson's DNA on each item. At a denture standard at the prelim hearing stage. The primary purpose of the preliminary hearing is the ferriting out of groundless and in provident prosecutions. Before a defendant may be bound over for a trial and district court, the magistrate must find probable cause to believe that the crime charged has been committed and that the defendant has committed it. The prosecution's burden is light and merely requires the state to produce believable evidence of all elements of the crime charged. That's the same standard that applies on review of an arrest warrant. The court must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution. Magistrates may disregard evidence as incredible. Only when it's so contradictory and consistent or unbelievable that it's unreasonable to base belief of an element of the prosecutor's claims

3:08on the evidence. It's not appropriate for a magistrate to weigh credible but conflicting evidence at a prelim hearing, because such a hearing is not on trial on the merits. Rather, a magistrate must leave all the weighing of credible but conflicting evidence to the trial effect. Nevertheless, magistrates are free to decline, bind over where the facts presented by the prosecution provide no more than a basis for speculation as opposed to providing a basis for reasonable belief. To be sure, the line separating speculation from reasonable inference can at times be faint. State vs. Presby and inference is a conclusion reached by considering other facts and deducing a logical consequence from them. On the other hand, speculation is the act or practice of theorizing about matters over which there is no certain knowledge at hand. In short, the difference between an inference and speculation depends on whether the underlying facts support the conclusion. Constitutional and statutory validity of hearsay evidence under Rule 1102,

4:12A. Governing constitutional and rule provisions. Throughout the prelim hearing, defendant Tyler James Robinson raised and maintained a continuing objection to the state's reliance on out-of-court hearsay statements. Specifically, defendant challenges the constitutional and statutory validity of admitting out-of-court witness statements, medical examiner altopsies, and digital communications under Utah Rule of Evidence 1102. Opposition to defense motion at two. Defend in asserts that the state's reliance on such hearsay evidence one violates his rights under the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, two, the privesum, of the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment violates the Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, and four, and fringes upon the separation of power under the Utah Constitution by delegating judicial authority to define admissible evidence, to legislative or rule-based bodies. Opposition to defense motion at two and three. The court addresses each objection in turn.

5:18The admission of reliable hearsay at a criminal prelim examination is governed by the plain text of the Utah Constitution and Rule 1102 of the Utah Rules of Evidence. State V. Timmerman 2009. Nothing in his Constitution shall preclude the use of reliable hearsay evidence as defined by statute or rule and whole or impart at a prelim examination to determine probable cause or at any pre-trial proceeding with respect to release of the defendant. If appropriate discovery is allowed as defined by statute or rule. Pursuant to this explicit constitutional authorization, Utah Rule of Evidence 1102A codifies the reliable hearsay as admissible at criminal prelim examinations. Utah Rules of Evidence 1102 under Rule 1102B. The law defines specific structured categories of out-of-cord assertions that constitute reliable hearsay, including evidence establishing the

6:20foundation for or the authenticity of any exhibit under subsection B3. Medical and autopsy reports and records under subsection 6.5 or B5 excuse me and a declaration statement that is written, recorded or transcribed verbatim and is made under oath or affirmation. Or after notification that a false statement is punishable under subsection B and 8. B. Confrontation Clause. Defend and argues that the state's reliance on testimonial hearsay without an opportunity for cross-examination violates the 6th Amendment. The court recognizes the significance of that protection at trial. Under State V. Timmerman 2009, however, the federal confrontation clause does not apply to a Utah prelim hearing in the same manner because the proceeding determines probable cause rather than guilt. Accordingly, defendant's confrontation clause objection does not provide a basis at this stage to exclude hearsay that otherwise satisfies Rule 1102. Nor does Crawford vs. Washington 541-2004

7:26require a different result. Timmerman explains that Crawford addresses testimonial hearsay at trial and does not extend the trial-level confrontation right to Utah preliminary examinations. C. Assistance the Council and due process. Defendant also argues that admitting out-of-court statements without an opportunity to cross-examine the declarants renders his right to counsel ineffective. Opposition to defense motion at 19. The court is not persuaded with that right to counsel provides a broader right to cross-examine and out-of-court declarant when the confrontation clause itself does not apply at a prelim hearing. Defendant was represented by Council, who challenged the state's probable cause showing the cross-examine the witness who testified. On the record, the court finds no independent violation of defendants right to counsel or rising from consideration of hearsay and otherwise satisfies Rule 1102. Defendants do process argument likewise does not establish a constitutional violation.

8:27The admission of reliable hearsay at this stage does not violate the 14th amendment, due process clause, Gershkyn versus Pew, holds that a full adversarial proceeding, including cross-examination of adverse witnesses, is not constitutionally required for a pre-trial probable cause determination. A Utah prelim hearing likewise determines whether the state has established probable cause. It does not adjudicate guilt. Because defendant retains the full trial-level protection applicable to the education of guilt, consideration of reliable hearsay at this preliminary stage does not independently violate due process, D, separation of power and application to the evidence. Finally, the court considers defendant separation of power, argument, and concludes it does not establish a constitutional violation, Article 1, Section 12. It expressly permits reliable hearsay at a prelim examination when that hearsay is defined by statute of rule. Utah Constitution Article 1, Section 12, Rule 1102,

9:33implements that constitutional authorization. The rule does not displace the magistrates' judicial function. The court remains responsible for determining whether the evidence satisfies the governing evidentiary rule and whether the state has established probable cause under Rule 7B. The court therefore concludes that application of Rule 1102 in this proceeding does not violate the separation of powers. Rule 1102 does not render all hearsay admissible. Agents Davis and Hall Examiner Baker and Examiner Carter testified at the prelim hearings and satisfied the witness requirement of Rule 1102E and Rule 7B D2. The Medical Examiner's report falls within Rule 1102B5 and the evidence establishing foundation or authenticity falls within Subsection B3. The Tweek statement may be considered under Subsection B8 only to the extent the record establishes that Subsection required predicate. Any other hearsay on which the court relies must independently

10:38satisfy Subsection B9, including its reliability requirement. The court relies only on hearsay satisfying these requirements. Right folks, we're going to wrap up right here and in the next episode we're going to pick up with the analysis of charges and probable cause determinations. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.