Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 1 Part 13) (9/9/26)

0:00What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. In this episode we're going to dive right back in today one of the Tyler Robinson pre-limm hearing. Question, all right, I think you related that originally the SBI was directed to come down just to see if you could help. Is that fair to say? Answer, yeah, that was all I knew when I left the office was that go down and see what service is, what we can do to help. Question and I ask you earlier if that role changed and I believe you said it did. Answer, yep. Question, okay, so let's talk about that. How did your role change from what you initially came down to do, whatever it evolved into? Answer, having been on scene for a little while, there were some conversations and discussions that took place and I was informed by my lieutenant that myself and agent Davis would be taking lead on the investigation on behalf of the state bureau of investigations. Questions, so the SBI was going to lead the investigative agency, answer, correct. Question,

1:00and you were going to be the lead case agent, answer, yes sir. Question along with Agent Brown, answer, Agent Davis. Question or Agent Davis? Answer, yep. Question, okay, what does it mean to be the lead investigator or lead case agent? Answer, it depends on the situation but predominantly you're responsible for kind of directing the investigation, coordinating information that's coming in. Typically scenes are fairly chaotic initially so you're trying to process as much information as possible and make as much use of the available resources that you have. Kind of an organizational role would probably be a good way to describe it. Question, okay, so you played an active role in organizing. Answer, in coordination with the administration of all the agencies that were on scene, yeah. We were trying to coordinate efforts to get to pertinent information as quickly as possible. Question, do you recall whether assignments were made at least with the SBI agent that responded with you? Answer, yeah. We have a core group within major crimes that were

2:03assigned specific tasks. Question, okay, and did they include the agents that you mentioned just a minute ago? Answer, yes I believe so. Question, so each one of those agents with SBI were given a specific assignment. Answer, yeah, with the information we had, the agents were assigned to do specific things. Question, and do you remember specifically what assignments and who they were given to? Answer, yeah, Sergeant Falmina was asked to coordinate with the State Crime Lab and the responding crime scene text to manage the process, any identified crime scenes. Sergeant Mark Bricker was put in touch with UVUs, Surveillance and Operations team to start working through any available footage or information that we had been recorded. Sergeant Clark was tasked with the area canvas around the campus area, looking for information or any available information from the immediate area around the campus. Sergeant Ellie Schultz was working with the SIAC and other administration to try and manage the flow of information that had started to occur. Question, okay, you said

3:07initially when you showed up things were a bit chaotic. Answer, yes, question, did that have something to do with all the different agencies that had responded? Answer, yeah, and I think initially there was still some uncertainty as to whether we were working with an active shooter or an active crime scene. The campus is spread over a large area and so getting that deemed to be safe is quite a process and it involved a lot of people. Question gotcha, do you know if the campus was deemed safe eventually? Answer, eventually my understanding is that the campus was locked down and secured and we were able to start getting people in to start processing crime scenes and doing additional things. Question, okay, it sounds like that chaos eventually subsided, you got organized and assignments were made. What was the first thing that you did as lead investigator? Answer, well it kind of became organized chaos, but we did have a plan and our priority was determining whether we had an ability or a way to be able to identify who had been involved in the shooting.

4:10Question, okay, answer, that was our primary focus at the time. Question, okay, did that include collecting information that was becoming available? Answer, yeah, we were getting a large volume of information from the general public, phone tips, people sending videos, analysts were scrolling through social media and social sites as people were posting information onto the internet. So there was a lot of information coming in, a lot of things that needed to be processed through and worked. Question, okay, were videos coming in? Answer, yeah, cell phone videos were coming in. If you imagine there are 3,000 people at the event and everybody has a cell phone, there was a lot of information that people were willing to share with us. Question, right, do you know whether you were someone else at the SBI collected or received a video from an Amanda right? Answer, yeah, I know a cell phone video was collected from Amanda right. Question, and do you know? Hall cuts them off. By Amber right, McBride, I'm sorry, Hall, Amber right.

5:10Question, oh, I'm sorry, Amber, well you tell me Amanda or Amber? Answer, Amber, question, okay, I apologize for that wrong first name. Do you know who or how that video was collected? Answer, yeah, I spoke with Ms. Right directly on the phone to arrange a time to go and collect that video. Unfortunately, she wasn't available that day, but Agent Davis was able to go meter directly and collect the video. Question, and do you recall what date you actually spoke to Ms. Right? Answer, if I can refresh my recollection, I specifically, question, sure, let me ask you this before you do that. Answer, yes, sir, question, so you have in front of you what your police report? Answer, I have some notes and a timeline from my investigation that was part of discovery. Question and referencing that timeline or those notes, will they help you recall the day that you call Ms. Right? Answer, they will, yes, question, okay, why don't you go ahead and refer to that? Don't read from it out loud, just take a minute. Let me know when you've come across that information and once you

6:12refresh your memory. Cathy Nester jumps in, your honor when he's done, may I take a look at the material as well please? Judge Graf, you may. Now back to Mr. Hall. Question, Ms. Right was contacted on April 7th. Question by Mr. McBride, okay, did you want? Cathy Nester, yeah, McBride, okay. Judge Graf, Ms. Nester, if you'd like to come forward, Ms. Nester, may I approach your honor? Mr. Hall, that is my time and dates. Question by Mr. McBride, yep, Judge Graf, Mr. Sturgel, when you go back, if you wouldn't mind shifting the lectern to my right. Question, so you've had a moment to look at your notes, answer yes sir. Question, did that help you remember the date that you contacted Ms. Right? Answer it did, yes. Question, okay, why don't you go ahead and tell us what date you contacted Ms. Right? Answer, I contacted her, I think it was April 6th, specifically, but Agent Davis met with her on April 7th. Question, okay, well that was going to be

7:15my next question, so you actually talked to her or was it on the phone? Answer, it was yes. Question, and did you arrange a time for either you or Agent Davis to go get the video from Ms. Right? Answer, yes. Question, is that how it happened? Answer, yes. Question, and then you didn't go, it was Agent Davis that went, answer, correct. Question, okay, gotcha, and so what if anything has been done with that video and preparation for today? Answer my understanding is that some edits were made by your office in order to protect some of the participants in the video. Question, okay, let me ask you this, did you or Agent Davis visit with Ms. Right again? Answer, yeah, that was in April, and that was where my correction was. The video was originally provided to Agent Mortensen, so I'm a spoke. Question, okay, let's go back and let's make sure this is very clear. Answer, sure. Question, okay, so someone with the SBI collected a video, answer, yes. Question from Amber Right, answer, yes.

8:16Agent Mortensen contacted Ms. Right on October 8th, and a video was provided to him electronically on October 11th. Question, okay, and now we'll ask the next question. What if anything has been done either by you or another Agent with that same video and preparation for today's hearing? Question, we contacted Ms. Right to arrange a meeting so that Ms. Right could review the video, and that we could verify firsthand with her that the video was what she had taken on September 10th at the event at UVU. Question, okay, and who had that follow-up visit with Ms. Right? Answer, that was Agent Davis. I was not able to attend. Question, okay, and you know what happened, because you spoke with Agent Davis. Answer, I spoke to Agent Davis, and he provided me with the written statement that Ms. Right had completed. Question, okay, answer, and 1102. Question, okay, and so you have seen that written statement? Answer, I have, yes. Question, and you've read through it. Answer, I have. Question, do you recall whether the statement was on a form or a piece of scratch

9:21paper? What do you recall? Answer, my recollection was it was on official, I believe, a state bureau 1102 statement, which is a written form that's filled out by a witness that contains the 1102 warning. Question, and by that, do you mean the advisory that the statement that's written on that piece of paper is going to be used at a prelim hearing? Answer, yeah. Question, it includes that advisory, answer, yes. Question, does it also include a warning that if someone provides a false statement, in this case, Ms. Right, that it could be punishable by a class A misdemeanor? Answer, it does, yes. Question, all right. And what do you recall in the essence of that written statement from Ms. Right? I mean, what does it basically say? To this, we have an objection, Cathy Nester, object your honor, at this point, we want to assert our standing objection to the constitutionality of allowing in Ms. Right statement when she is not here to present it in court or be cross-examined. We did include those constitutional arguments in our standing objection. Also, this does fall

10:23under the type of document that should be safeguarded under Rule 4 202-028F, as in Frank, and or should be classified as protected under subsection 50 as in Orange, because the disclosure could jeopardize the life safety or property of the witness. It's also technically a victim's. I mean, if she's present under the current theory, and the information she's technically could be classified as a victim of the event. So it also should be protected under that. So we would object to it being read in public. It would not be admissible at trial in the current format that is due to its hearsay nature. We do think it would negatively impact our clients right to a fair trial, and furthermore, I believe the witness herself has requested that, particularly because a video contains images of minor children, which I know the state has made an effort to redact, but nevertheless, the reference to the minors, I think, would still fall under the protection. And so for all the reasons we want to object to that coming out in public,

11:24and being discussed in the public forum, and being published in any way, and we object to it coming in. Judge Graff? All right, and so, if you wouldn't mind just restating the rule that you're aligning upon so I can fully look at your objection. Nester, it's the UCJA, the Utah-Ogash Code of Judicial Administration. I just blanked the Utah Code of Judicial Administration for rule 4202.028f as in Frank and or 5-0. Judge Graff? All right, thank you. I'm just getting there. I want to review this before I hear from Mr. Sturgial. All right, I've reviewed that. Now the prosecution. Well, judge, let me address, I guess a couple of things, Ms. Nester actually brought up. I think both the 11.02 statement that we intend to produce and sort of refer to the video, so let me address each of those one at a time. With regard to the 11.02 statement that was prepared by Ms. Wright, Judge, it was gathered in compliance with the Utah rules of evidence 11.02. Specifically,

12:26subsection B8. It's a statement that was gathered by an SBIA agent. It was prepared with knowledge of the advisory that was going to be used at the prelim hearing, and it also included the warning that if a false statement's given, it's going to be a class A, Ms. Dominger. Judge, I don't know what additional foundation you'd like. Well, that's kind of where I was going. Judge is, I was trying to lay a little bit more foundation just to introduce that statement alone. I haven't gotten yet to the video, but with regard to the 11.02 statement, it's been collected in compliance with rule 11.02, as I stated, B3 or B8. And as we all know, rule 11.02 allows reliable hearsay, as does the state Constitution article 1 section 12. Judge graph, so what exhibit will this be? I want to look at it, not for the purpose of has the magistrate taken it into evidence, but to see if it comports with rule 11.02 is stated, because I haven't seen it. And I haven't done the analysis to see what the objection is.

13:26Prosecution, judge, it states exhibit 6.1. Cathy Nester, in your honor, just for the record, we just want to make a record too that it's difficult for the court to make a reliability finding when the individual is not here to be tested and cross-examined. And for those same reasons that we list in our standing objection, we just want to reiterate to the court that we think it really hampers you from making that reliability determination. Judge graph, thank you. Anything further, prosecution? Answer, well, just the 11.02 doesn't require that, judge. It doesn't require the witness be here to corroborate the statement that they've already prepared. Judge graph, all right, all right. I've had a chance to review states exhibits 6.1, taking into note what Miss Nester said. You see J.A.4-202.02, in referencing the section she did. Prosecution jumps in and judge, I don't mean to interrupt, but I had not yet addressed the rule. I would simply just add to that the judicial rule, it has nothing to do with

14:28admissibility. It's simply publishing it. I'm sorry, judge graph, okay. So let me just hear your full argument. Answer, I didn't realize you wanted to hear all of it. I thought you were going to rule on 11.02, judge graph, well, I want to focus on the 11.02. I want to keep this clean. All right folks, we're going to wrap up right here and in the next episode we're going to pick up with a prosecution making their case to judge graph. And that will be at 448-32. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.