Judge Graf And The Order To Bind Tyler Robinson Over For Trial On All Counts Charged (Part 3) (9/7/26)

0:00What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. In this episode we're going to get right back to the bindover order filed by Judge Graff in the matter of Tyler Robinson and the murder of Charlie Kirk. Analysis of charges and probable cause determinations. Having resolved defendants threshold constitutional objections the court now turns to account by count review of the evidence admitted at the prelim hearing to determine whether the state has met its burden of establishing probable cause. Count 1 aggravated murder, Capitol felony. A probable cause for count 1 aggravated murder. To bind over Mr. Robinson for trial for count 1 aggravated murder the state must first present sufficient evidence to sustain reasonable belief that he intentionally or knowingly caused the death of Charlie Kirk. C. Utah Code, section 76-5-202-2A. A person engages in conduct intentionally or with the intent or willfully with respect to a result of his conduct when it is

1:02his conscious objective or desire to cause the result. Utah Code, section 76-2-1031. A person acts knowingly or with knowledge with respect to a result of his conduct when he's aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result. Utah Code, section 76-2-1032. To bind defendant over for trial on count 1 aggravated murder the state must establish probable cause that one defendant, two intentionally or knowingly, three caused the death of Charlie Kirk, four under circumstances in which defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to another individual other than Charlie Kirk in the defendant. Utah Code, section 76-5-202-2A3. The state's evidence of identity is substantial combining forensic DNA matching with statement attributed to defendant admitting responsibility for the shooting. First, the DNA profile obtained from the Mauser 30-06 caliber of Bolt Action Rifle,

2:03state example 30, the suspected murder weapon provided forensic evidence connecting defendant to the firearm. Defendant's DNA was identified as the major contributor on multiple key components of the firearm, including the stock, grips, buttplate, the trigger, and trigger guard. This physical evidence is corroborated by the toolmark analysis state example 32, which matches the engraving cutter recovered from the defendant's residence to the cartridge casing and live ammunition found within the Mauser rifle. Furthermore, the FBI DNA analysis state exhibit 31 places defendants DNA on a screwdriver recovered at the scene with a likelihood ratio exceeding 30 quintillion. Second, the surveillance tracking evidence provides additional corroboration, Agent Hall's review of campus surveillance footage tracked the suspect, matching defendant's physical attributes, clothing, shoes, and distinctive gait from the parking structure to the rooftop area on the low-sea building associated with the shooting, and then fleeing the scene

3:04immediately following the shooting. This physical tracking is reinforced by Miss Noble's Ring Doorbell Camera Footage, which captured defendant's vehicle identified by its unique wheels and custom styling, parking near the location shortly after midnight on September 11th, 2025. Third, defendant's own statements provide direct evidence of his alleged responsibility for the shooting. In text messages sent to his roommate Lance Twigs shortly after the shooting, defendant allegedly stated, I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kurt and I took it. He followed with his second text addressing why he acted. Why did I do it? I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out. Those electronic statements are further corroborated by the alleged in-person confirmation to Twigs the following morning, and the subsequent message from defendant's discord account stating, it was me at UVU yesterday. Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, this evidence is sufficient at this stage to support a reasonable belief that the

4:09defendant is the individual who shot and killed Charlie Kirk. Accordingly, the state has demonstrated probable cause as to the identity and homicide elements of Count 1. B. Legal framework, of the Great Risk of Death, aggravating circumstance under state, versus a hertado. The central legal dispute concerns the aggravating circumstances alleged under Utah Code section 76-5-2022A3, which requires probable cause that defendant, knowingly created a risk of death, to another individual other than the deceased individual and defendant, state, versus a hertado 2019 Utah provides the controlling Utah Supreme Court analysis. The court explained that the relevant circumstances are not necessarily confined to the precise act causing death. A risk creating act occurring within a brief span of time may qualify when it forms part of a sufficiently connected series of events surrounding the murder. The court identified several non-exclusive

5:12considerations bearing on the inquiry, including the temporal relationship between the murderous act and conduct endangering a third party, the spatial relationship among the defendant, victim, and third party, and whether, and to what extent the third party was actually threatened. Those considerations guide the statutory inquiry, they do not replace it. The ultimate question remains whether the circumstances support, reasonable belief that defendant, knowingly created a great risk of death to another individual within the relevant zone of danger, one involving a likelihood or high probability rather than merely a possibility. Unlike Sosa Hertado, the state does not allege here that the defendant fired a separate shot at a third party immediately before adjouring the killing. The alleged aggravator therefore depends principally on whether the circumstances of the single shot directed at Mr. Kirk placed at least one other individual within a zone of danger and whether defendant knew of the circumstances creating that risk. That factual distinction does not

6:14make Sosa Hertado in applicable but requires application of its governing principles to the evidence presented here rather than treatment of its particular facts as dispositive. See, application of the Sosa Hertado factors and the statutory standard. Defendant emphasizes that Sosa Hertado involved conduct materially different from the alleged conduct here. There, the defendant fired at a third party shortly before firing the shots that killed the murder victim. Here, by contrast, the state alleges a single shot fired from approximately 415 feet away that struck the intended victim. Defendant argues that because the shot struck Mr. Kirk and an additional shot was fired, the evidence establishes only a theoretical possibility rather than a high probability of death to another person. The distinction is material but not dispositive. Sosa Hertado does not require a separate shot directed at a third party in every case. At the same time, the statute requires

7:17more than the abstract possibility that any discharge of a firearm might injure a bystander. Nord does the court conclude that firing toward a crowded event without more necessarily satisfies section 76-52022A3. The court therefore considers the actual spatial circumstances surrounding the shot, the proximity of other individuals to Mr. Kirk and the evidence bearing on defendant's knowledge of those circumstances. First, the record places several individuals and positions around Mr. Kirk and the canopy when the shot was fired, Mr. Kirk was seated beneath the canopy. One member of his security personnel was sufficiently close that his body was beneath the tent. Another was positioned to the left and front of Mr. Kirk and another to the right and in front. Although the record does not establish their precise distances from them, a participant stood at the microphone east of and in front of Mr. Kirk, although the precise distance between the participant and Mr. Kirk was likewise not established. Though Losi Center

8:21was east of the courtyard and Southwest rooftop area provided a clear line of sight to the canopy where Mr. Kirk was seated. The court relies on those documented positions rather than assuming measurements not established by the record. Second, the physical evidence establishes that the shot was fired from an elevated position of approximately 415 feet from the canopy and 68 feet from above it and that the bullet traveled anatomically from front and back and downward after striking Mr. Kirk. The projectile did not exit his body. The court therefore does not assign a quantitative probability to Ricochet, overpenetration, or hypothetical deviation in aim that the evidence does not itself quantify. Rather, the relevant evidence is that defendant allegedly discharged a 30-odd 6 rifle toward a seated victim while several other individuals occupied positions in and around the canopy area. Viewed favorably to the state, their documented position in relation to the intended target considered together with the elevated location and downward direction of the shot,

9:27permit a reasonable inference at the prelimiting hearing stage that at least one third party was within the relevant zone of danger and that the risk was more than an abstract possibility. Third, the state's presented evidence supporting probable cause as to the defendant's knowledge of those circumstances. Defendant was present in and around the event area before the shooting. Earlier that morning, he walked through the amphitheater area and interacted with Turning Point USA representatives. He later approached the Losis Center rooftop area before returning shortly before the shooting. The evidence therefore supports an inference that defendant had opportunities to observe the event area, its configuration, and the gathering attendees. From the southwest roof area, there was a clear line of sight to Mr. Kirk's canopy. The rifle also contained an optical accessory. Without making findings about the degree of magnification, or precisely what defendant saw through the optic, these circumstances support a reasonable inference that defendant was aware that other

10:31individuals were positioned near Mr. Kirk when he fired. The court distinguishes between the objective circumstances, creating the alleged risk and defendant's knowledge of those circumstances. The state need not establish at this stage that the defendant calculated or particular ballistic probability, it must, however, present evidence permitting or reasonable inference, both. That another person was exposed to the statutorily required degree of risk, and that defendant was aware of the circumstances giving rise to that risk. The evidence described above is sufficient under the prelim hearing standard, as to both inquiries. Defendant's contrary argument is substantial. Unlike Sosa Hurtado, the evidence described here does not include a separate shot directed at the allegedly endangered third party. The court, therefore, does not treat Sosa Hurtado as factually equivalent to this case. The question at this stage, however, is not whether the state has proved the aggravator beyond a reasonable doubt, or whether defendant's competing interpretation

11:34is ultimately more persuasive. It's whether, believable evidence and reasonable inferences, support probable cause, ask each element, under that limited standard, the state is met its burden. The court's determination does not rest on crowdsize alone, or on assume probability of wind, ricochet, overpenetration, or bullet deflection. It rests on the evidence concerning the location in manner of the shot, the documented positions of several individuals in and around the canopy area, defendants' opportunity to observe those circumstances, and the prelim hearing requirement that reasonable inferences be drawn in the state's favor. Whether the state can prove the aggravating circumstances beyond the reasonable doubt remains for trial. Count 1 is bound over for trial. This conclusion is limited to the circumstances reflected in the record, and does not establish a catagorical rule that a shooting committed in a populated location necessarily satisfies

12:34section 76-5-202-a3. All right folks, we're going to wrap up right here, and in the next episode we're going to pick up with D, probable cause supporting the victim targeting enhancement. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.